In the thread on "women helping in the church", Lee Saffold made the following comment in response to a passing comment I had made about women pianists:

"We do not use instruments for the same reason that you do not accept the addition of peanut butter sandwiches on the Lords Table in addition to the bread and the wine."

I wonder, Lee, who told you that I do not accept the addition of peanut butter sandwiches on the "Lord's Table"? In actual fact, I have never recommended it, nor have I ever been in a church that did this, but if a congregation felt they had some reason for doing such a thing, I don't see any good reason to oppose it.

When Jesus instituted the Lord's Supper, he did it as a part of a meal -- the Passover meal, in fact -- which included much more than just the bread and the wine. From what Paul says in I Corinthians, the church at Corinth apparently had the habit of celebrating the Lord's Supper as part of a larger "fellowship meal", and what Paul scolds them for is not for eating other food at the same time but rather for being selfish and not sharing what they had with each other or waiting for each other. From other references in early church writings, it seems as though some such custom was quite common for a time.

I have often wondered if it might not be an interesting experience, once in awhile, to do something of the sort today. I suppose peanut butter sandwiches might seem a little irreverent, but how about fried chicken and a macaroni casserole? -- along with the bread and "wine", of course. It's an interesting thought!

BTW, you used the word "wine". I've heard many people argue that it cannot be actual "wine" (i.e. with alcoholic content), but have also heard the argument that it must be real wine, and I have been in churches that used actual alcoholic wine for the Lord's Supper. What do you think? Does it matter, and, if so, which do you think it should be and why?

Finally -- you don't need to take any of the above seriously if you don't want. Even I like to have fun sometimes (sorry, Dave, for my overly serious reaction in the other thread!), and this was written sort-of "tongue in cheek". But it is a gentle warning not to assume too much about what another person would agree or disagree with. I personally do not see any Biblical reason for prohibiting peanut butter sandwiches "at the Lord's Table" if there was any reason for having them and the instigator was not just being deliberately irreverent.

-- Anonymous, May 11, 2000

Answers

Brother Lee....

I must call you on something.

I quote one of your last statements to Bro. Ben.....

"So you can discuss it with yourself and YOUR BRETHREN (caps mine) until one of you agrees to a formal debate....etc."

Bro. Lee.....how did we go from all being brothers in Christ to now being, in essence, "Bro. Ben's brethren??"

That remark was caustic in nature and I think only further underscores what Bro. Ben has said about the very nature of debate...i.e., the dividing into two camps. (Whether Ben is right or wrong here is irrelevant. What is relevant is....what you said supports his thesis.)

It is somewhat hurtful to me that you have drawn this line in the sand, especially in light of the offer of both myself and the congregation where I serve to accomodate you and your conscience at any time.

I know in anger and/or frustration we can sometimes not think about what we say....been there....done that.

I hope you understand me here not to be in the spirit of "confrontation".....but a reconsideration of your wording which to this point has always been quite gracious.

Warmest regards my brother,

-- Anonymous, June 01, 2000

Bro. Lee.....

Your response is exactly what I expected from one who so demonstrates the spirit of Christ in their words and deeds as you do.

God bless!

-- Anonymous, June 01, 2000

I was once at a small groups (we called them growth groups) leaders appreciation dinner catered by Boston Market (roast chicken, steamed vegatables, and some other stuff) where as part of the evening we washed feet and partoke of the Lord's Supper. In fact, the whole evening was kind of loosely modeled after John's account of the upper room events on the night Jesus was betrayed. (I guess we had chicken instead of lamb because of the price to have someone cater lamb?). Those organizing didn't warn us how the evening would progress, though many of us thought early in the evening that it was interesting that the only bread in the room was unleavened.

It was a fabulously meaningful evening.

-- Anonymous, May 11, 2000

I was always kind of partial to the idea of having Mexican flour tortillas for communion sometime. Too bad salsa isn't made from grapes......:~)

-- Anonymous, May 11, 2000

Brother Ben:

I do have to admit that you have taught me something about the danger of assuming too much with this thread concerning peanut butter sandwiches! Ha! I did assume that my brethren in the Christian Church knew more about the word of God than to seriously argue that such sandwiches should or even could be a part of the Lords supper and the taking of communion wherein we remember our precious Lord and proclaim his death until he comes again. I will not make such assumptions in the future. It does appear, however, that you are saying these things more with tongue in cheek than in all seriousness and therefore I will reserve any serious reply until you make it clear to me that you sincerely believe that we could incorporate a common meal as a serious part of our communion with our Lord. For if you are serious your extremely week arguments to support your position should be considered and dealt with according to their merits. However, I do not want to go to all that trouble only to have you say, I was just kidding with you Lee and you are too sensitive. And since you have said:

Finally -- you don't need to take any of the above seriously if you don't want. Even I like to have fun sometimes (sorry, Dave, for my overly serious reaction in the other thread!), and this was written sort-of "tongue in cheek". But it is a gentle warning not to assume too much about what another person would agree or disagree with. I personally do not see any Biblical reason for prohibiting peanut butter sandwiches "at the Lord's Table" if there was any reason for having them and the instigator was not just being deliberately irreverent.

I will reserve a more serious reply until later especially since I do not have time just now on my job to give a very serious reply during my lunch break.

Therefore, until you get your tongue out of your cheek I will simply give a response that is a little tongue in cheek itself. Is that fair enough?

I suppose that you intend for us to believe that we can use peanut butter sandwiches in our communion with the Lord provided that we ensure that the bread is unleavened and that we include jelly that is grape jelly so that we can say that we have not violated the principle of no leaven in the house as there was no leaven in the meal that our Lord ate when he instituted the supper at the feast of the Passover. I am sure that at such a service you would be certain to tell us just exactly what each item symbolized so that we would not err in failing to discern the Lords body as we communed with Him. For it does seem that this is the reason you have selected peanut butter sandwiches with grape jelly instead of black-eyed peas and cornbread for just what could black-eyed peas possibly have to do with the memory of Christ our Lord and communing with Him? I suppose that you would make sure that we understood that the Bread on the sandwich is unleavened because it represents the pure sinless body of Christ and that the grape Jelly was there since it was a fruit of the vine and that it represents the precious blood of Christ and that the peanut butter was incorporated in order to symbolize the Christian liberty that we have in Christ to do anything that we want to do so long as the Lord has not specifically forbidden it. For you would not want us to even consider the possibility that this peanut butter must be authorized for it is not a part of our hermeneutic to recognize the fact that when God specifies something he thereby excludes anything not so specified. For such a hermeneutic is the ignorant view of our weak and poor brethren of the so-called accapella tradition whom we love and want to fellowship though we cannot bear their persistent insistence on a thus saith the Lord for all that we do in the work and worship of the Lord Jesus Christ. For while such sentiments are indeed sincerely held by them and certainly caused by their determination to be faithful to Christ they have most certainly gone too far and have become fanatics of restriction even to the point of arguing incessantly about such minor matters as this simple peanut butter sandwich which they fail to recognize as being as expressive of the memory and suggestive of the body and blood of Christ as their old traditional manner of simply using bread and fruit of the vine separately from a common meal or feast. You might be sure to remind those who felt a little uncomfortable with this new way that they need not worry or take seriously that Paul clearly told the brethren in Corinth, What, Do you not have houses to eat and drink in? Or despise ye the Church of God? For he was only complaining that they did not have the willingness to share their food with each other and that he had such a lack of confidence in their ability to correct the problem that he decided under such circumstances to just separate the taking of the Lords supper from the eating of a common meal so that this problem would go away even though he knew that it would not truly correct their severe problem with selfishness. Having settled all of everyones concerns you would then begin to pray and sing and pass out the sandwiches for all to reverently take their minds back to the suffering Christ hanging on the cross and remember that he died for us all to redeem us from sin and that he was buried and raised giving us the hope of the resurrection from the dead and boldness to face the judgment of God with our picnic basket filled with peanut butter sandwiches. Having finished the service and recognizing the profound and moving effect it had upon all the worshippers and having received great comments upon the excellent taste of the sandwiches and receiving a few recommendations concerning changes to the flavor of the grape jelly as much as possible without straying from the requirement that it continue to contain its basic connection to being fruit of the vine you meet with the elders to plan more exciting ways to please the palettes of the worshippers. And remembering to be careful to not pay too much attention to the poor old brother that asked the irrelevant question, I wonder if God was as pleased with that service as was I?

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, May 11, 2000

I think the basic point Benjamin was making (correct me if I'm wrong, Benjamin) is that in New Testament times, the "Lord's Supper" was a part of a much larger meal, or "Love Feast" (as indeed it was originally part of the Paschal meal), and to include it in a festive meal does absolutely no damage to its intended remembrance, as long as it is reverently taken; and in fact would be closer to the original New Testament model. The Lords supper should not only be a time of reverence and reflection but also a time of joy for what He has done for us and a time of Love for one's brothers and sisters in Christ. ("For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord [and what is "the body of the Lord" if it is not our brothers and sisters in Christ?] eats and drinks judgment on himself.") A "thou shalt" that we must only take it by itself, from a table in the front of the church (positioned just below the pulpit, and inscribed with crosses and "do this in remembrance of me"), with little gold or silver trays, pre-pressed wafers and Welch's grape juice, and only on Sunday morning between 10 and 11 a.m., is a modern societal convention and not a New Testament practice.

-- Anonymous, May 11, 2000

John Wilson,

Amen!

-- Anonymous, May 11, 2000

and that the peanut butter was incorporated in order to symbolize the Christian liberty that we have in Christ to do anything that we want to do so long as the Lord has not specifically forbidden it. For you would not want us to even consider the possibility that this peanut butter must be authorized for it is not a part of our hermeneutic to recognize the fact that when God specifies something he thereby excludes anything not so specified. For such a hermeneutic is the ignorant view of our weak and poor brethren of the so-called accapella tradition whom we love and want to fellowship though we cannot bear their persistent insistence on a thus saith the Lord for all that we do in the work and worship of the Lord Jesus Christ. For while such sentiments are indeed sincerely held by them and certainly caused by their determination to be faithful to Christ they have most certainly gone too far and have become fanatics of restriction even to the point of arguing incessantly about such minor matters as this simple peanut butter sandwich which they fail to recognize as being as expressive of the memory and suggestive of the body and blood of Christ as their old traditional manner of simply using bread and fruit of the vine separately from a common meal or feast. You might be sure to remind those who felt a little uncomfortable with this new way that they need not worry or take seriously that Paul clearly told the brethren in Corinth, What, Do you not have houses to eat and drink in? Or despise ye the Church of God? For he was only complaining that they did not have the willingness to share their food with each other and that he had such a lack of confidence in their ability to correct the problem that he decided under such circumstances to just separate the taking of the Lords supper from the eating of a common meal so that this problem would go away even though he knew that it would not truly correct their severe problem with selfishness.

E. Lee, I know it is a lot to cut and past, but I want to ask a few questions.

I dont know if you remember or not, but several months ago, I wrote you mentioning the experience I had with a Church of Christ while my husband and I were stationed in Japan. It was a difficult experience. A couple of things you have mentioned came up while we were attending there, and I was not able to clearly understand some of the teachings concerning these matters. Maybe you can help me to understand from your point of view.

I do believe that in Christian liberty we are allowed to do certain things because our Lord has not specifically forbidden it. I also believe our freedom is not to cause others to stumble 1 Cor 10:27-31 If some unbeliever invites you to a meal and you want to go, eat whatever is put before you without raising questions of conscience. But if anyone says to you, "This has been offered in sacrifice," then do not eat it, both for the sake of the man who told you and for conscience' sake-- the other man's conscience, I mean, not yours. For why should my freedom be judged by another's conscience? If I take part in the meal with thankfulness, why am I denounced because of something I thank God for? So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God.

We know we are not to use our freedom in Christ to do evil Gal 5:13 You, my brothers, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the sinful nature; rather, serve one another in love. Again, how do we know something is a sin unless He tells us?

The only reason we know about sin is because God has given us His Word. Would He let us be condemned because of His silence? Rom 5:13 for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law. God says here that sin is not accounted to us if there is no law. If there is no law (He has been silent). How do we know something is a sin unless we are told?

What if having studied all of my life, I find myself judged for something not mentioned in the Word? Isnt it that Word that judges us, or is it also what is not in the Word that judges us? John 12:48 There is a judge for the one who rejects me and does not accept my words; that very word which I spoke will condemn him at the last day. How can I accept His non-words?

You speak of something being authorized, and if that something is not authorized, it must be excluded. Could you explain this further?

As for the Corinthians passage

Why the change then, and not before? Why was it ok to have a meal with the Lords Supper up until that point? Does Paul give any other reason for the change except that they were being selfish, not waiting for one another, and not sharing?

1 Cor 11:20-22 When you come together, it is not the Lord's Supper you eat, for as you eat, each of you goes ahead without waiting for anybody else. One remains hungry, another gets drunk. Don't you have homes to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you for this? Certainly not!

It is not the Lords Supper you eat, because when you eat you are rude and do not wait for everyone. So, one is hungry, others get drunk. Therefore, because of this, eat and drink at home. When you do thisdont wait, are selfish, and rude you despise the Church of God and humiliate the poor.

Isnt this passage speaking of how selfish they were, not treating brothers in Christ with the love of Christ? I see no mention of it being wrong to eat the meal with the Lords Supper, but the way they were acting (un-Christ-like) during that meal.

For such a hermeneutic is the ignorant view of our weak and poor brethren of the so-called accapella tradition whom we love and want to fellowship though we cannot bear their persistent insistence on a thus saith the Lord for all that we do in the work and worship of the Lord Jesus Christ. For while such sentiments are indeed sincerely held by them and certainly caused by their determination to be faithful to Christ they have most certainly gone too far and have become fanatics of restriction even to the point of arguing incessantly

Tongue-in-cheek this may have been, but you know that I love you as my brother in Christ and have the highest respect for you. Besides, my family has said the same things to methey cannot bear my persistent insistence on the fact that baptism is a part of our salvation. She is sincerepoor girlin her determination to be faithful to Christ, but she has just gone too far. Such a fanatic even to the point of arguing, making us furious, causing broken relationships. We used to think this teaching was harmless, but doesnt she see how it has divided us? We cant even have a peaceful family get-together. She pretty much ruins things with this salvation by works stuff.

Hope some of this makes sense, It is late.

Your Sis,

-- Anonymous, May 12, 2000

Amen and amen, John and Benjamin!!

-- Anonymous, May 12, 2000

D. Lee:

I have never seen you write anything that did not make sense and your response to my "tongue in Cheek" post is no exception. I will get into this discussion seriously when everyone agrees that we are in fact being serious. I hope that you can understand my reasons for saying this. It has often been a tactic of others to be tongue in cheek and when some one gives a serious response they then chide them for being "too sensitive" and not realizing that we are all just kidding after all. My purpose for being tongue in cheek was to entice others to stop the "tongue in Cheek" and agree to be serious. Then I would give a more serious response.

However, your excellent response makes me realize that my idea of responding with "tongue in Cheek" was not a good one. It would have been much better for me to stay with my normal procedure of being serious in all of my responses regardless if others are only kidding.

I do not sincerely believe that anyone in this forum would really use "peanut butter" on the Lord's table no matter how much they pretend that they would be so disrespectful of holy and meaningful communion with our Lord.

You are correct in recognizing that there is a principle involved in this as well as many other differences between us. We sincerely believe that God can and does forbid certian things by specifying exactly what he wants and saying nothing about the things that he does not want. For example, In Hebrews 7:14, " For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda of which tribe moses spake nothing concerning the priesthood". Now the reason that no one from any tribe other than the tribe of Levi served as priest under the law of Moses is becasue "Moses specified the tribe of levi and spake nothing" concerning any other tribe serving at the alter. He did not secifically forbid them instead he spoke specifically concerning the tribe of Levi and he spoke nothing concerning the other tribes. By specifying the tribe of Levi and saying nothing about any other he thereby excluded all others. This is the principle that I am talking about. The reason there had to be a change of the Law was because the priesthood had changed. Christ came from the tribe of Juda and therefore he could not be a priest according to the Law of Moses because "moses spake nothing" concerning the tribe of Juda serving at the alter. So even though the tribe of Juda was not spcificcally forbidden to serve as priest they were not authorized to serve as priest because Moses "spake nothing" concerning them. Now this is a priciple that I believe that my good and sincere brethren in the christian church fail to recognize. I say it not to insult them but because I sincerely believe that it should be understood otherwise we will eventually have a religion based upon our own human reasoning rather than the precious will of God.

Now I am aware that Brother Ben was saying that the Lord supper was instituted as a part of a common meal and the first century Christians observed it in conjunction with a common meal. His argument on the surface appears to be a very good and reasonable one. In fact I have never seen brother Ben be anything but reasonable in his arguments and I genuinely appreciate that trait in him. However, I wanted to wait until we are all agreed to be serious before discussng the matter seriously. I do not have much time at the moment but I will only say that I believe that Brother Ben overlooks the fact that the Passover was not a "common meal" (though he does not call it such but rather uses it to support our taking the Lord's Supper as a part of a comon meal) but rather was a meal of great spiritual significance and had a divinely inspired connection to the sacrifice of Christ as the "lamb of God" for our sins and the "passing over" of the Death angel over our house when he sees the blood of Christ "sprinkled on the door-post and lintels" of our souls. And that this connection of the Passover feast was the reason for his instituting the supper at the passover rather than an attempt to teach us to eat the Lord's supper as a part of a common every day meal. I do not have the time to express or explain the details but everything in that passover meal was significant whereas little if anything that we have in our common meals are significantly connected as a memorial to Christ our Lord.

As to the Corintian passage, it is true that the early Christians in Corinth as well as those in Troas (Acts 20:7) were eating the Lord's supper and observing it as a part of a common meal. Though it seems to me that in Troas, where they seemed to have no problems with doing so, that they ate their meal first and observered the Lord's supper afterwards. "And when he was gone up and broken the bread and eaten and had talked with them a long while,even till break of day, he departed" (Acts 20:11) Here it seems that there was the "breaking of the bread", then the eating and finally the discouse of Paul and though each happened in close proximity to each other they were distinctly seperated. Though I admit that this is not at all certian and is at least debatable. However, in Corinth the practice created problems such that Paul by inspiration seprated it from the common meal by reminding them that they have "houses to eat and drink in". I believe that He set a divinely inspired precedent with good reasons of seperating this observance from the common meal. Therefore, it does seem to me that Paul's actions in Troas kept the Lord's supper seperate from the Common meal by observing it before the meal and his directions in Corinth gives us insight into the kind of problems that can arise from observing it as a part of a common meal and that he therefore seperated it and gave us an example to follow. For how can we assume that we would have less problems with such a practice than the brethren at Corinth and why would we not follow admonishion given by Paul that we have "houses to eat and drink in"?

Now even if these arguments are true that such a practice is authorized by the arguments made from the Corintian passage it would only demonstrate that the practice is AUTHORIZED and I therefore selected the wrong practice as an illustration of our doing things that are not authorized. It would have no bearing upon the principle that we must have authorization from the word of God for the things that we practice in the work for and worship of Christ our Lord. Now I do not believe that instrumental music is authorized and when those who practice using it set about to find authorization for it they are thereby admiting that it must be authorized or we cannot practice it's use. But they then begin to argue that we do not need authorization. For this reason we must clearly define that issue before we engage in a serious discussion of it in any place. For if it must be authorized then we must discuss just how it is authorized if we do not need such authorization then the issue is no longer the instrument but the need for authorization. But these two discussions cannot go on simutaneously. One must be decided before the other is considered. We must decide if authorization is required first and then determine if something is authorized. For if we need no authorization from the scriptures for our practices then it would not matter in the least to me that anyone used instruments or did anything else in the worship that did not violate God'd direct commands. If we do need authorization then I reject instruments because I have been unable to find such authorization in the New Testamet for such to be used in the worship.

These are just a few thoughts on this matter. I would like to get into the more intricate details and offer other arguments but I am at work right now and this move for me to Atlanta has me very busy. I just cannot resist this forum. I believe it is good for us all.

D. Lee, You know that I love you for your love for the truth and I would quickly question anything that I have said if you question it because you are sincerely dedicated to our Lord Jesus Christ and you have clearly demonstrated it in this forum. And as you know I have apologize for the experiences that you had with our brethren in Japan and I surely hope that I have demonstrated in this forum that I would not behave in a fashion similar to the way they behaved and I would not treat you as they treated you. I have also told brother Ben that I would not refuse access to our baptistry when he wanted to baptize someone into Christ as he experienced in Hong Kong. While I do not agree with the manner in which those brethren behave I do still believe that they are correct in believing that instruments are not authorized by the New Testament. But it will be meaningless for them to understand that truth if they neglect to love and care for those of our fellow Christians who are in Christ but cannot understand or agree with us in these things. I beleive we should discuss things with each other and love each other and above all be faithful to Christ by dilegently seeking the truth from his word in all that we do and to follow it by loving in "deed and truth". Please understand that the actions of a few of my brethren that were not correct does not mean that the things that we believe as a whole are not correct. I pray fervently that Our Lord will abundantly bless you and your family.

I agree with you that we must work toward harmony among those of us who are a vital part of this movement to restore New Testament Christianity. But we can only do so by working hard to have a "thus saith the Lord" for all that we do in the worship and service to Christ our Lord. For without this we cannot agree as one. There are many good things that we are at liberty to do and we do in fact have liberty in Christ but when God has specified what he want us to do we cannot be obedient to him unless we do according to all that he commanded us. Now I am aware that we all believe this but we do not all understand it. I do not pretend that I alone understand but I do think that I am correct and I am ever willing to be corrected by those who love the Lord and the truth as much as I know that you love Christ and His word. Please forgive my lack of time to go into more details. I have recently been hired by AT&T and the responsibility is great and demanding. But I will continue to try to respond as much as I possibly can.

I love you in Christ because you walk in truth.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, May 12, 2000

Before I begin, please understand that I am being serious, with no tongue-in-cheek intended.

Also, that I read (past tense, meaning this thread) every word of E. Lee's and D. Lee's. All others' words on this thread, as well.

Let me say that I have noticed that many are sincerely trying to evaluate and reevaluate where they stand. I am doing the same, believe it or not.

While I said in an earlier post that I agreed with Benjamin, and in essence do, I am a little more serious when I look at this issue.

What is something to think about is that both E. Lee and Benjamin are naturally VERY serious, but were, in both cases, trying to lighten up a bit, and may have been misunderstood.

We all know that both Benjamin and E. Lee take anything to do with the Lord seriously.

In regard to the Lord's Supper: It does seem to be a separate part of a regular meal. A special part. There are responsibilities involved. We are not to partake 'unworthily'. I have always taken that to mean that if we are not Christians, we should not partake.

When we have taken unbelieving relatives and friends to church with us, in former years I would be VERY concerned that they not partake (without offending them by asking them not to). Th RC church controls that by allowing only baptized MEMBERS of that local congregation who have gone to confession that week to partake. (UnScriptural completely, in my estimation).

We have a problem in this regard, because many students and some people from the community come to our services. Most of them are Christians, of course.

But I don't need to be concerned with that. God holds the individual responsible for that decision.

As for the content of the Lord's Supper: I sort of side with E. Lee on this one. I believe it should be unleavened bread and grape juice or wine. IMHO it is just symbolic of Christ's shed blood and broken body ~ in other words, I do not believe in transubstantiation or consubstantiation. It is a very meaningful symbolism. however.

The reason I believe that either wine or grape juice are appropriate is because we know Jesus drank wine, but He said 'fruit of the vine' in these passages referring to His Supper.

Therefore, people who think only grape juice should be used (as we do ~ because of a brother's possible weak conscience) are to be allowed this discretion, as are those who believe that wine is acceptable.

We use an unleavened cracker-type bread broken in pieces, but I believe that it is the reason we do it which is important ~ it is done in remembrance of Him ~ and all that He has done for us.

Disagreements among people ~ especially among Christians ~ can be painful, as I think I detect in several responses here. But we can learn from these. If we are not trying to destroy people and are scrupulously certain we are not bearing false witness against a brother/sister, we just need to ask God for wisdom and understanding. And forgiveness, mercy and love, to mention a few.

We need to put a watch on our lips ~ when I say 'our', I am including myself. I love humor, but I see where things that I intended in humor have been misunderstood. Even in things I did not intend in humor. And I am sure I have misunderstood some of the posts of others, for which I am sorry and sincerely apologize.

I was interested in Mark Winstead's account of a meal where they washed each others' feet, as at the Last Supper, because I have asked and wondered about that for a long time, but no one ever responds to my questions about it.

It seems to be something we should do, but when I first became a Christian over 40 years ago and asked about it (in a Conservative Baptist Church, which had several unScriptural stances) I was told it was a cultural practice because of the fact that people wore sandals in those days and it was a real serving of one another to wash each others' feet. Also, as I've mentioned on another thread, i was the only one who wore a hat for three years after becoming a Christian, to honor my husband, when I looked around and discovered I was the only one, including the minister's wife.

This was during the same period when I was discovering all that God wanted of me in respect to submitting to the authorities God has proscribed in the churches and in governments. Also what His desire was for us to be baptized (in my husband's case, he had been sprinkled and in my case I had been immersed at 11 or 12, as was the custom in the church of my mother, which we occasionally (but rarely) attended.

I am still praying for you all and for myself as well.

And I've been wanting to share with you, E. Lee, that I have a friend who has several CoC friends and has been in their churches in Tennessee, and she says that in the 'a capella' services the music is extremely beautiful. As an ertwhile member of my high school 'a capella' choir, I can appreciate what she means.

Prayerfully and respectfully submitted,

-- Anonymous, May 12, 2000

Typo, 2nd large paragraph above: 'prescribed', not 'proscribed' which means prevented.

-- Anonymous, May 12, 2000

Connie,

You said,"When we have taken unbelieving relatives and friends to church with us, in former years I would be VERY concerned that they not partake (without offending them by asking them not to). Th RC church controls that by allowing only baptized MEMBERS of that local congregation who have gone to confession that week to partake. (UnScriptural completely, in my estimation)"

Were you referring to the Restoration Movement Churches when you said "RC" churches?

If so, you have not understood our stance at all. The restriction of communion to the "common man" was one of the driving forces in Alexander Campbell's move to Restore the Church to its 1st Century beginnings. In no Christian/COC I have ever been in, have I seen communion withheld from a person because they were an unbeliever or held to a different doctrine.

We believe the taking of communion is solely up to the individual. We ALL take the chance of "eating & drinking condemnation unto ourselves" if we partake in an unworthy manner, so each person must partake or abstain based on their own conscience. All the church does is offer the opportunity, on every first day of the week, to all who wish to partake.

Oh, I think by "RC" you mean the Catholic Church. If so, you are right, as most all Liturgical-type churches do restrict communion - they see themselves as protecting a "totally depraved" person from "eating & drinking condemnation unto themselves". This, of course, is horribly wrong - which is why Alex Campbell was so adamant about restoring the Church.

-- Anonymous, May 12, 2000

'Erstwhile', not 'ertwhile'.

-- Anonymous, May 12, 2000

Roman Catholic, yes.

I use RM for the Restoration Movement.

-- Anonymous, May 12, 2000

Connie:

I appreciate your kind words to mrn in your most recent post in response to this thread. I noticed that you say you had wanted to share with me that your friend enjoyed the music in the a capella services as follows:

And I've been wanting to share with you, E. Lee, that I have a friend who has several CoC friends and has been in their churches in Tennessee, and she says that in the 'a capella' services the music is extremely beautiful. As an ertwhile member of my high school 'a capella' choir, I can appreciate what she means.

I want to thank you for sharing that with us. I am happy to hear that your friend and that you as well can recognize the beauty of singing praises to God with the accompaniment of Gods chosen instrument- which is the melodious tones played upon the strings of a joyful, thankful, adoring and loving heart toward God that is filled with gratitude for his manifold mercy, grace and love toward us. I sincerely hope that you have had, and if not you will avail yourself of the opportunity, to experience firsthand this genuinely spiritual worship which is surely done in spirit and in truth (John 4:24) and in harmony with the will of God.

I also want to recognize the fact that our brethren, who intend the use of this designation to be more respectful than the term nons, often call us a capella. While I sincerely appreciate their efforts to be respectful to us and I prefer it surely over the term non-instrumental I must tell you that we do not call ourselves a capella for we are genuinely determined to be Christians only without any designations or distinctions that would separate us from others of like precious faith. We do not use instruments but that does not make us a different brand of Christians. If we are in error concerning this matter we are still only Christians that have some learning and growing to do but we are still Christians only and not a capella Christians. In fact we may not even be the only Christians that do not use instruments in the worship. However, I know that you do not mean any disrespect in the use of this designation but are using what is a common reference to us in this forum as well as throughout the Christian church. One interesting note concerning this designation however is the meaning of the word a capella. It means, as in the church which had reference to the fact the early church had become so well known for the fact that they did not use instruments in their worship that the word "a capella" was used to describe singing, as they did in the church, without the use of mechanical instruments. If it were not for the reputation the early church established of not using instruments in the worship we would not even have the word a capella in our language. So when my brethren use this word in reference to us not only are they being respectful they are using a word that is very much evidence of the fact that the early church did not use instruments in their worship to God. Does it not make sense that we should worship as the early church did when it was being guided directly by the Holy Spirit? Is that not an indication that since God guided the early church to sing and make music in their hearts to the Lord- and they did this by refraining from the use of any instrument other than the heart to the point that they were so distinguished for such behavior that the word "a capella" can into being to describe this distinction between instrumental and non- instrumental music- that we should follow their inspired example?

Now I am simply suggesting here that those of us who do not use the instruments in the worship of God are standing upon the same ground that the early church stood when the Holy Spirit in their work and worship was guiding them. (Eph. 5:19; Col 3:16). The early church could not have developed this reputation that is reflected in the origin of the very word a capella if they were known, as are many churches today, for their use of instruments in their worship. I offer this merely as simple food for thought instead of an argument intended to be conclusive or persuasive. I believe it does deserve some contemplation.

I know that you were not trying to argue about this in your words to me. My purpose was to thank you for noticing the fact that worshipping without instruments can be and is often very beautiful to the worshippers themselves but what is most important is that such spiritual endeavors are always beautiful and pleasing to God our father, our Lord Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit. For all such sincere attempts to worship God in spirit and in truth pleases God, which should be our primary purpose in worship.

A Christian only,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, May 13, 2000

Thank you, Lee, for such a a kind post. i hope my misunderstanding was not hurtful to you.

I always thought that 'a capella' was Latin for 'without accompaniment'. Our teacher in high school told us that, long before I heard the term here.

Catholic chants are 'a capella' also. And also very beautiful. (When I was a child, most of my friends were Catholic and I've been in their churches for weddings).

I just found out that my son attended a CoC church for 18 months in Jackson, Michigan, when he was working there on a temporary job with his firm.

Also that his best friend before the friend moved east was a CoC pastor in Owosso, Michigan. They hunted together. (Yes, I have a son who hunts ~ actually two sons who hunt ~ of four sons).

How would you like it acknowledged that your services are conducted with only the human voice? ~ because that is kind of interesting to the average person. Or would you prefer for it not to be mentioned at all?

I know the Lord is giving you strength for your new job, and I admire you for caring for your mother-in-law.

In Christ,

-- Anonymous, May 14, 2000

Connie:

I thank you for your kind response. I do believe that we could do better to refer to each other without distinctions but it does not offend me when my brethren call my "a capella". I was merely stating that we seek to be Christians only without being distinguised and seperated from other Christians by any doctrine or practice. You did not offend me in the least. I do appreciate your concern to refer to me in a fashion that is not ofensive. My name is good enough for that purpose. Ha!

It is true that the latin phrase "a capella" means "without instruments" as your teacher told you but the "literal" translation is "as in the church" which is why it is used to mean without instuments because they did not use them in the early church when they sang in worship to God.

I just want to wish you a Happy mother's day! I see that you have four sons and two of then "hunt"! I am glad to know that you have raise four sons and I know that they love you and are greatful for your being their mother and preparing them for this life and I have no doubt that you have done a great job. The greatest responsibility that God has given to women is to be good mothers. I am certian that you are just that and I thank God this day for all good mothers especially my own who lives eternally with Christ and in my heart. I am also thankful for my "mother-in-law" she has been really a second mother to me. In fact, I call her "mama".

I am sure that your house is already filled with cards and flowers but it does not hurt to add one more prayer for your happiness. I do sincerely pray for your happiness.

A Christian,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, May 14, 2000

Goodness, Lee, you will have me crying in a minute.

Yes, I received many cards and flowers and the children who were here cooked everything and one even scrubbed our carpeting on Thursday and another and his wife came over and did extra cleaning and brought dinner the day BEFORE Mother's Day! These are great kids. (Ages 36 to 45, this fall). I also have an adult daughter who teaches at Lansing Christian.

My husband and I often say how thankful we are that our children escaped most of the problems of their generation (but not all).

They never used drugs or alcohol or disobeyed laws, as far as I know, ~ I take that back ~ there have been a couple of traffic tickets received.

I WAS kind of a professional mom, and loved interacting with my children.

I am thankful that you honor your wife, mother and your 'mama'.

My mother died a year ago March 21 and would have been 98 on May 8th.

Even though she wasn't a Christian, which I prayed for from the time I became a Christian, she was a wonderful mother who loved us. In her final 4 years, she was in Wichita, Kansas near my youngest sister, so she might have become a Christian then. She was brought up in a Christian home, so she had heard the Gospel many times.

For the last two years she wasn't really communicating with anyone. At 92 she was still in her own home and driving her car.

She earned her college degree at age 55 after my father died. She'd had a teaching certificate (two year degree) from Georgia State College for Women at Milledgeville before she married my dad.

Well, mothers are wonderful and Godly mothers are especially to be praised.

In Him,

-- Anonymous, May 15, 2000

Lee,

Your surmise that some of us have been referring to you and others who share your views as "a-capella" churches out of politeness is correct with regard to me, or at least partly so. My other reason is that it is also more specific and therefore more accurate than the term I grew up hearing, which was "anti". That really only says you are against something, but doesn't say what. In fact, I have heard that some "a-capella" churches even refer to other "a-capella" churches as "antis" when the latter are against something else that the former approve, e.g. Bible schools, lesson quarterlies, hymnbooks, or whatever.

It doesn't seem very polite, however, for you to take my/our use of "a-capella" out of politeness toward you, to try to prove a point against what I believe the Bible teaches about the matter.

You said, "It is true that the latin phrase 'a capella' means 'without instruments' as your teacher told you but the 'literal' translation is 'as in the church' which is why it is used to mean without instuments because they did not use them in the early church when they sang in worship to God."

All the literal translation of the phrase "proves" is that the custom was to use unaccompanied singing AT THE TIME THAT THIS PHRASE BEGAN TO BE USED WITH THAT MEANING. My understanding was that this originally referred to "Gregorian Chant", which was popularised by Pope Gregory I, who became pope in A.D. 590 -- roughly half a millennium after the church was founded.

In order to use the literal meaning of this phrase to "prove" or even to "strongly suggest" anything about the practice of the "early church", you would need to prove, first, that the phrase itself was used, with that meaning, at an early period, and, second, that there was an unbroken tradition of NOT using instruments in Christian worship from Pentecost until the time that the phrase acquired that meaning.

I have seen "evidence" from your side purporting to show that instruments were not used, and equally convincing (or equally unconvincing, depending on your point of view) "evidence" that instruments were used at quite early times (certainly before the time of Gregory when the music was [again? still? for the first time?] without an instrument). Mostly, there seems to be little real evidence on either side regarding this question.

If you think the literal meaning of "a-capella" is significant evidence supporting your side, and want to continue to use it in that way, it's your choice. But I think I would then have to consider changing to some other term for referring to you and the churches that have this point of view -- even if it is a more confrontational term.

-- Anonymous, May 15, 2000

Brother Ben:

I agree with all that you have said about the term "a capella" and did not really intend to imply that this term was originated with the first century church in mind though it seems quite clear that my words would imply just that. I do believe that the evidence from the new testament is quite convincing that the first century church did not use instruments in their worship. You are absolutely correct and I agree completely with you that the word "acapella" has no direct connection to the first century church in its origin. I apologise for the implications that I appear to have been making in regard to this word. Nevertheless, I believe that you would have a very difficult time to find one single passge in the entire new testament that shows us any conclusive example of the church worshipping God in song with use of a mecanical instrument of music. Nevertheless, as I told you before, if you wish to engage in a discussion of this matter I will do so only if we agree to a formal debate on the subject. If you wish to make your case without such a debate that is fine. I will not engage in anything other than a formal debate of the issue for the many good reasons that I have already stated many times. It is important that we have such a discussion but it is surely more difficult than many seem to think. The first issue that must be settled is whether or not we must have authority for all that we do in our worship and service of God and then we can discuss whether instrumental music is authorized. For it is useless to discuss whether it is authorized only to learn that many beleive that they do not need any authorization in the first place. There is therefore a good reason for my request for a formal organized discussion that is fair and reasonable. The last time the subject came up some brethren argued that instruments were authorized and others argued that it was nothing more than an expedient and their was a large numer of responses to me which I could not possibly answer simultaneously. Since I am the only one in this forum that does not use instruments in my worship to God it is my right to request a formal debate so that my arguments can receive a fair and just hearing. Not that I doubt your sense of fairness, for I am impressed with the fact that you are iminetly fair and reasonable. But you would not be the only one responding to me and though all would attempt to be fair I have seen how difficult it is to respond to numerous arguments based upon diametrically opposed positions that must be dealt with seperately and individually. Therefore I have determined to agree to discuss this formally with one person and allow all others to make as many commets as they like since I would be responsible for responding only to one person at a time. I will formally discuss it with every person in this forum but not everyone at once. I will agree to discuss it with one person directly at a time. Now I consider that to be more than fair. A freewheeling discussion may be adventageous to a person with whom the majority in this forum already agree but to the one and only person that holds the opposite view it is an extreme disadvantage that I do not want to allow.

It is your choice whether you wish to refer to me and my brethren in a kind way or you would prefer more "confrontational" language. I accept it either way for I do not intend to complain of such. My point was that we should not be secatarian in our references to one another. I do not call you "instrumental brethren" I have consistantly called you my brethren. I do not distinguish you as a certian brand of brethren. If we discuss a difference between us and I need to mention that difference I do just that. I have no need or desire to "denomonate you because of the difference between us. For it is my view that you are my brethren regardless f whether you ever agree with me that we should not use instruments in the worship. But if you feel the need to denominate me because we differ then that is between you and God. I will not do that to you because I believe that we are christians only and therefore we are not different "brands" of christians. I cannot see that the practice of denominationalism and sectarian ism is necessary to resolve or even discuss this issue. So if you must refer to me in confrontational terms then do so and God will judge between us in that matter.

Yes, you are correct that some of my brethren refer to others among us as "anti" for some other issues between us but I am not one of them because I an diametrically opposed to sectarianism in the church of our Lord. I refer to them as my brethren also. I do not call them "anti orphan home brethren" or "anti bible school" brethren". I simply call them my brethren and when we discuss either of those issues I denominate or identify the issue between us but I refuse to denominate my brethren or section myself off from my brethren in Christ by using a any special designation that identifies them in relation to our differences, I prefer to identify them in reference to our common relationship to Christ our Lord. I have and I will continue to refer to you in this context. And you can chose to be sectarian in either a confrontational or kind way as you see fit but I will refuse to be sectarian in any way. I was not complaining about anything other than this need we often seem to have to identify each other by our diffences instead of our common communion with Christ our Lord. It is my sincere hope that you can understand what I mean.

You said that you were, as you good father also attempted to do, seeking ways to bring harmony between us. I have just suggested one good step that we could take that would help and you appear to be frustrated by it. So what can I do further? All that I can do is to continue to refer to you only as a brother in Christ instead of an "instrumental brother" and it would help if you did the same. Everyone in this forum knows that I do not use instruments in my worship and they do not need to call me thier "a capella" brother to make that any more clear than it is already. Brother in Christ is enough is it not? I feel no need whatsoever to identify you by our differnces when that which we have in Common, which is our hope in Christ our Lord, is a far more significant and importand identifier than our differences between each other. Those differences in the judgement we may find were not as important as we both thought they were but the common fellowship that we have with Christ our Lord we both know is surely going to be the most important in that day. God is not going to call us up according to our self designated sectarian distinctions and judge us. He is going to judge us one by one. He will not say "now, I am going to judge the "a cappella" brethren for their pettiness" and then turn to say "now I wil judge the "instrumental brethren for their laxity" nor the "anti brethren for their selfrightouesness". We will be judged according to the word of God without distinction and if we are to be condemned it may be for our sectarian spirit that caused us to be divided because we found that our "differences" were more important than our common faith in Christ such that we allowed those distinctions to divide us and keep us from being one in Christ and thereby hindered the conversion of many in the world and gave them just cause to doubt that God sent Christ to save us from our sins.

Now Brother Ben, you seemed to be angry with me about this subject and I want to tell you that I did not intend to open any old wounds concerning this matter. I simply was trying to make a point concerning this process of identifying our brethren according to our differences when such is nothing more than sectarian in spirit. I did not intend to reject the kindness of the term with which you practice sectarianism. The kindness is truly appreciated though the sectarianism is not. I cannot tell if you will understand what I am trying to say but I pray that you will know that this issue does not define or properly distinguish or identiy either of us. I am frustrated that it does nothing more than divide us when it should not do so. And I do not lay blame for this division sole at your door either. But we have been commanded, I beseech ye also brethren that ye all speak the same thing and that there be NO divisions among you but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and the same judgment." 1 Cor. 1:10.

So if you wish to discuss the issue of the use of instruments in the worship we can arrange a formal discussion if you will change your mind and agree that such would be profitable and we can agree to a suitable time to engage in it. I know that you are busy and with my new job I am also but I am sure that we could at least write out the propositions that we both agree to affirm and deny and set some acceptable guidlines for the discussion and then set a date when we both would have time to engage in the discussion with a time frame for it to be completed. Even if it were thre months awy or even longer we could at least work to find a way to agree with one another concerning this matter. Doing this would assure that we both discuss this when we have time to apply ourselves to it fully and thus be reasonable and fair toward one another which I am certian appeals to your normal manner of approach in these matters.

But I will not participate in a "freewheeling discussion because I am greatly out numbered and I do not think that my arguments can be given fair and equal consideration under those circumstances. Not that my brethren ae\re diliberately unfair but that they are equally anxious as am I to have thir arguments heard. So as I have said before and I will not change my mind, I will discuss this formally with any and everyone in this forum but only one at a time in a formal discussion that allowas for a fair hearing of both sides.

Again I want to be clear that I agree with what you have said about the word "a capella". It is not directly connected to the New Testament Church even though they set the precedent of singing "a cappela" that continued and influenced the church for many years after the New Testament era and hence the term does describe correctly their worship according to the New Testament for there is no command, example or even a necessary inference of any group of Christians in the New Testament worshipping God with the use of instruments. But this term does not correctly identify them as Christians. For they had no such seperate distinctions until Corinth began to identify each other with the one who baptized them ( 1 Cor. 1:10-12). Some said "I am of Paul, I of Appolos, and I of cephas, and in reaction to this some even said "I am of Christ" yet all of them were being sectarian. This was clearly condemed by the inspired apostle Paul! Is it therefore better that we distinguish one another these days by our different practices and favorite opionions and not after Christ? I think not and therefore I will not accept such as being right in the sight of God.

Therefore Brother Ben, you are my brother in Christ. You are not my "instrumental brother" in Christ. I am your brother in Christ but I am not your "a cappella brother" in Christ. If you wish to be sectarian and call me such that is your business and if I chose to dislike this practice, because it is sectarian in nature, then that is my business and God will judge us both. I sincerely pray that he will forgive you for it does appear to me that you "know not what you are doing" in this matter.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Safold

-- Anonymous, May 15, 2000

Connie:

I am very happy that you had a happy mopther's day. It does seem that one such as yourself who has earned such love and respect from her children is without doubt described accuratetly, as you pointed out in another thread from Proverbs as one who's price is "far above rubies". I am touched by the way your family honored you as a mother and do not doubt because of it that you more than deserved to be so honored. It also seems that your mother was one worthy of similar honor as well. I am sorry to hear of your loss of your mother. I can truly understand the loss. I miss my mom very much but God has been gracious to give me a good wife and a "mama" to help me on life's journey. I can see that He has also blessed you with a good husband and wonderful children, whom you have trained very well, and they will keep you from suffering too much from the loss of your mom. I do not think that the fact that one is over ninety years old mitigates the loss in any way whatsoever. If anything it might make it more difficult but I pray in either case that you have found peace in the mist of such a loss. If not I pray that you will find it.

Your children have said much more about you than anything you have written in this forum and I highly respect you for your love for them and the sacrifices that you have apparently made for your children. In fact, even your husband is honored by such and I must tell you that I will hold you and your family in high regard because of my incidental knowledge of your being such an honorable mom.

I have no doubt that you and I will continue to disagree vehemently on many things but I will do my best to keep in mind that you are an HONORABLE mother and therefore deserving of my very best efforts to be respectful in my words toward you even when I disagree strongly with what you say. I promise that I will keep this in mind henceforth when you and I must disagree as you know that we do. I cannot pretend that we are in harmony but I feel very much that I must speak with high regard to a loving and honorable mother. Now you know that my personality is often considered "harsh" and that there will be times when I find it difficult to avoid strong language but if you will remind me of my promise that I have made here I will be brought easily back in line! Ha!

Seriously, I do honor you for your distinction as a great mom and I will keep that fact always before me when I feel that I must disagree with anything that you say. It may be said that I could have done better if I assumed such and acted accordingly but I would not agree. My harsh word's are designed to confront error and not to insult the person that I believe to be in error though it is often impossible to seperate the two. I do sincerely hope that you can understand what I mean. I mean to say that I am extremely happy to find such a good reason to hold you in high esteem. I am sure that you have many others but this one is the one of which I am aware and can see is without doubt a true honor that you deserve.

I do pray that you will be happy and that you will be honored throughout the rest of your life for your motherhood.

In honor of your greatness as a mother,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, May 15, 2000

E. Lee:

I understand.

-- Anonymous, May 16, 2000

Lee,

Thank you for your kind words of encouragement. There are several things you have said that I would like to respond to, but I only have time for one of them now.

My feelings about a "debate" about the use of instrumental music in church meetings remain the same as they were when I addressed this question on May 11 in the "Women Helping in the Church" thread. In case you or anyone else missed those comments, I have copied them over to here. I will follow that with one additional remark addressing an additional point you brought up recently here.

"I agree with you that this thread on "women helping in the church" is NOT the place for a prolonged discussion of the question of the use of instrumental music in the church. This matter does interest me, and I would be happy to discuss it further. But I would like to make some suggestions about HOW it is to be done. Someone started a thread on instrumental music some time ago, and quite a lively discussion started, but it ground abruptly to a complete halt because of your insistence that you would not participate any further unless it was done in the form of a formal debate. (The same thing has happened since then in a couple of other threads that you were involved in.)

"I would be interested in a free-wheeling 'conversation' or 'discussion' of the matter, where numerous people are free to join in and say as little or as much as they wish, adding new points when they think of them and have time to write, etc.

"I am NOT interested in a formal 'debate' on the matter, for several reasons. First, a debate requires taking sides. I'm obviously much more on one side of the fence than the other, but I don't think 'my' side has always been absolutely faultless in the way they have handled things either. I'd like to be free to comment on the arguments of either side. Second, a debate is intended to 'win the argument'. I don't think this particular issue is worth that kind of treatment, since I see it as a matter of opinion. I'd like to just present 'things to think about' on either/both sides. I would like to discuss (not debate) the implications of the different points of view and of the differing approaches to hermeneutics that lead to these opposing views. I would also ESPECIALLY like to discuss the the question of how to improve fellowship in spite of this kind of difference. A debate about which side is right and which side is wrong would seem to me to work in the OPPOSITE direction of that last wish of mine. ....

"So, regarding the use of instruments in worship -- my vote would be for a DISCUSSION but NOT a debate, and definitely in another place."

With regard to what you brought up in this thread -- your fear that since you are the only "a-capella" or "non-instrumental" advocate who participates in this forum (or at least think you are), we may all "gang up" on you -- I can understand the feeling, but I think that fear is misplaced. I don't think there is enough interest in the issue for very many people to want to participate. I also don't think there are enough arguments -- ON EITHER SIDE -- to sustain a very long or complicated discussion unless it becomes an actual "debate" that one or both sides feel obligated to "win."

-- Anonymous, May 17, 2000

Brother Ben:

You have said:

With regard to what you brought up in this thread -- your fear that since you are the only "a-capella" or "non-instrumental" advocate who participates in this forum (or at least think you are), we may all "gang up" on you -- I can understand the feeling, but I think that fear is misplaced I also don't think there are enough arguments - - ON EITHER SIDE -- to sustain a very long or complicated discussion unless it becomes an actual "debate" that one or both sides feel obligated to "win."

You misunderstand me brother Ben if you think that I have any fear of these free wheeling discussions in this forum on any subject including instrumental music. I have participated for months now in such discussions and in many of those discussions I was either the only one holding the view that I defended or among the extreme minority that held such a view. If you will look at the last time the subject of instruments came up you will find and be able to see clearly the reason I have been asking for a formal debate on this subject. A discussion that is completely without order often creates misunderstanding and hinders the ability to reach some level of resolution, even if it is nothing more than better understanding.

I have no fear of anyone ganging up on me. In fact anyone who has read much of this forum over the last several months can witness to the fact that such ganging up does not work very well because I am more than willing to stand for the truth in such circumstances. I am also among the few that has not thought of leaving the forum because I am not pleased with the way I have been treated! I have no complaints if you prefer to gang up on me concerning any issue. I will simply do my best to stand for the truth even in such circumstances as I have done often in the past in this forum. But I assumed that you and others would want to have a reasonable discussion that has the chance of producing some good results.

Your ideas that a debate is designed so that one side can win and the other side lose are not accurate. I have seldom seen or read or heard a debate wherein both sides did not feel that they had won the debate. In fact I have seen debates that leave one convinced that one side is teaching the truth until they hear the other side and have the same feeling. I have, however read many where an objective and honest person could reach his or her own conclusions and find the truth because fairness and order and the requirement to affirm a clearly defined position and defend it with evidence produced genuine arguments that were very effective and powerful. Now it does appear, though I have not accused you of this, that you fear just such a situation. It is difficult to be placed in a position where one must PROVE with evidence all that he affirms. In freewheeling discussions all that we often hear is assertions without proof. These mere assertions do not help us derive the truth. Then we have those who make assertions that are not true and then when their position is examined they simply run away and take up the matter in another place before you can find them and answer they run to yet another. Then we have also seen some that go away for several months when they are hard pressed on their false doctrine and have nothing to lose by doing so and then when all have sufficiently forgotten the discussion and the tread wherein it occurred is stored away in the archives for a long period of time they return to take up the issue again and repeat the performance only this time the defender of truth must start all over again. If we had debates that required all to discuss a matter for a specified period of time, with well defined guidelines, and propositions clearly stated and the discussion has a clear beginning and a complete, in context, body of discussion with affirmations, denial, rebuttals, and certain conclusion and such in its completeness were left in the archives it would be a simple matter to refer everyone to that debate when the subject comes up again. If anyone felt that the debate was not sufficient they could arrange a debate of their own concerning the matter.

The problem, Ben, is that many are not willing to do the work a debate would require nor are they willing to face the risk that they hold certain views and make assertions that cannot be supported by sufficient evidence. So I do not think that the problem here is that I fear that you and others will gang up on me in a freewheeling discussion but it could just as easily be rather that you and others fear that you may not be able to prove your position is true if you are required to follow guidelines that force you to make one affirmation at a time and prove it to be true and have it examined thoroughly before you move on to another assertion. Now I do not charge you with being afraid to participate in a formal debate only that it is possible that you acuse me of fear in order to hide from the appearance that you fear a formal debate. Therefore, in this response I have no choice but to remove the possiblility that I am afraid of "being ganged up on" in a free wheeling discussion since you have made such necessary by your false assertion that I "fear" such. I will also leave it to you to prove to us that you are not afraid of a formal debate. For you are most certianly avoiding it, aren't you?

I cannot see why you would object to a formal debate that has every possibility of avoiding confusion and actually producing results. You will also notice that I have not reserved my calls for formal debates to the subject of instrumental music. In fact my first call for a debate was the very first month I was writing in this forum wherein I called for a debate on the subject of the Authenticity of the last twelve verses of the book of Mark which I believe I can prove conclusively belong in the text. I have called for a debate with our agnostic friend who came into this forum asserting without feeling the need or requirement to prove that God is dead and we have killed Him. I have been portrayed unjustly by others that I am willing to debate at the drop of a hat and by you that I fear that my brethren in the Christian church who support instruments will gang up on me but no one has been willing to engage me in a fair, honorable, reasonable debate of these issues. It does seem to me that I could, with far more justification; claim that those who refuse to debate me are doing so because they are afraid. But I have not made that charge and do not make it now. But you come in here and charge that I want to debate because I fear the freewheeling discussion. Now that is completely ridiculous, brother Ben, for anyone who is willing to have his arguments intensely scrutinized in a formal debate would have nothing whatsoever to fear from a freewheeling discussion where he can use hit and run tactics to avoid a clear presentation of his position and easily be able to charge others with misrepresentation and hide behind the smokescreen of ambiguity and indefiniteness that is so easily created, maintained, and leveraged in such freewheeling discussions. Though I do not charge you with such fear because I cannot prove it, I do wonder if it is not possible that you feel more comfortable with the freewheeling arrangement because you are not at risk of being charged with losing or I have no means of claiming that I have been victorious ECT. A formal debate does not have any guidelines wherein one of the opponents is declared a winner in the end and you know that to be true. The debate was designed to allow for a reasonable discussion of opposing views by requiring definiteness and removing ambiguities and demanding evidence that can be scrutinized. The fear of debate in this forum is truly hard for me to understand, especially among those who descend from the debating leaders of the restoration movement. However, I believe that you are refusing to debate because you do not have time to engage in it. I understand that much for I have little time these days myself. But we could arrange our time so that we schedule a debate for a time when we know we will have the time apply ourselves fully to the discussion. This prevents us from suddenly having to write and answer to some argument when we do not have the time to do so.

Nevertheless, Brother Ben, I admire you and am always happy to discuss matters with you for you are genuinely fair and reasonable. I know that you would handle yourself and defend your position with great competence and with Christian demeanor and good judgment. I have been given good reasons by you to reconsider some of my positions and am doing just that. Therefore I do not seek any kind of victory and you know that I have not said anything to indicate that I do. But you still claim that I want a debate so that I can claim that my side won. No one who understands debating would ever say that either side won the debate. They may, and have often. said that it appeared to them that one side carried the preponderance of the evidence to support their propositions. I have seen and heard what you are talking about. I have heard others say, Brother so and so won that debate. I have also seen statements in the newspaper to the same effect. But the abuse of a thing does not militate against its proper use. Debates were never designed or intended to announce or declare anyone other than TRUTH as the winner. I do want to have the truth shine forth as bright as the sun even if it illuminates and magnifies my flaws and inconsistencies and it is my view if we were all willing to submit our views to severe honest and fair scrutiny we would always be closer to the truth.

So your efforts to paint me as one seeking a victory for myself in the form of a debate is just not reasonable. It assumes in the first place that I would win such a conflict and it assumes that debates are for the purpose of declaring winners and losers, and it assumes that there is nothing good that can be accomplished by an organized debate that requires clarity and demands evidence and make it absolutely obvious when either proponent is failing to do either of these things. It further assumes that it is impossible for one side of the discussion to accept the proposition of the other side as truth because his examination of the evidence has convinced him of it. If this happened in a debate, and I have seen it happen, then the only winner is the truth. If such does not happen the truth is still the winner because someone can use such a debate to gain insight into the truth.

Then you say:

. I don't think there is enough interest in the issue for very many people to want to participate.

In a debate, brother Ben, there are only three direct participants, the Affirmative, the negative and the audience that judges between the two and attempts to derive the truth to their benefit. A formal debate does not have hundreds of participants making unfounded assertions that are often not even related to the discussion at hand with little possibility that anything other than confusion can rule. Though it is possible for everyone to glean some benefit or some useful bit of information occasionally, it is not likely that, though there is great interest, there would be much good achieved. A freewheeling discussion allows only one true benefit, which is that all are able to make comments and be heard. For that reason I have no objections whatsoever to everyone reading our debate and making as many comments as they like concerning what both of us have said so long as the only person that I am expected to respond to is my opponent in the debate. This would allow for the advantages of a freewheeling discussion and the order and direction and definite conclusion of a formal debate. In other words I am advocating that we have a formal debate between the two of us that everyone is allowed to discuss in a freewheeling manner following each speech. In other words, we would have the affirmative in one thread to which all can respond as they see fit. Then we would have the negative response in another thread to which all could respond with a free wheeling manner. Then we would have a formal rebuttal in another thread to which all can respond as they wish and then a formal rejoinder in another thread to which all can respond. Then in like manner we would take up another affirmative until the debate was complete and all have had their say and the debate will have its impact for generations to come. Now I believe that such a suggestion is eminently fair for it provides the much needed structure of a formal debate and the flexibility and freedom of the need for the audience to have a freewheeling response of give and take with each other and the two debaters have the obligation of responding only to each other though they are free to participate in accordance with whatever their time allows in the freewheeling discussion as well. Now, Brother Ben, I do not think a more reasonable and fair suggestion could be made by anyone in this matter. Why must the formal debate always be ruled out?

I think that you would be surprised concerning the amount of interest in this forum concerning this issue. It comes up often and I am not the one who brings it up. I am the one who argues against instruments in the worship but I am rarely the one who begins the discussion. In fact the last time the matter came it was those who believe instrumental music is acceptable that brought it up and even started a thread addressed specifically to me with the intention of straightening me out on this issue. There was ample interest until I offered to formally debate any and everyone one concerning the issue one at a time. I offered to formally debate it with brother Nate Graham, who is a good friend and able opponent in any discussion, because he was the one who started the thread and set out to straighten me out on the issue. I was willing, as I am now to be straitened out because it is my utmost desire to walk uprightly and follow the truth and be obedient to the Lord. But when the request for a formal discussion with guidelines was made the discussion came, as you have said, to a screeching halt. So the interest did not wane until the request for a formal debate was issued. One must wonder if that interest could have waned because of fear of formal debate on the issue. Now I do not think so. In fact, at the time there were more significant issues and false doctrines being presented in the forum that really required us to join forces and resist them together. I do not believe that any of my Brethren were afraid of a debate and I prefer to think that you also have no such fear but since you have decided to accuse me of being afraid of a free wheeling discussion I must wonder if it is not possible that you fear a formal debate. I will be willing to engage in a free wheeling discussion after we agree and set a date for a formal debate. I will engage in such a discussion in this forum until the debate itself begins. Now you can see that I have no fear of free wheeling discussion on this issue. I do not think my brethren would gang up on me and have never accused them of doing such. Therefore, if you will agree to a formal debate on the subject and we set a date for it to be conducted I will agree to a free wheeling discussion in a thread started by you for that purpose to continue until the debate itself takes place and at the end of the formal debate we will be finished with the matter. Now, I am demonstrating by my offer that I have no fear of being ganged up on by my brethren in a freewheeling discussion by agreeing to participate in such. Now, will you demonstrate that you have no fear of a formal debate by agreeing to discuss the issue of instrumental music in a formal debate? We wait to see. Now, I know that your refusing to agree to a formal debate does not mean you fear it but it does leave clear doubt about the matter doesnt it? Are you afraid of the possibility that a formal debate just might show that the use of instruments in the worship is sinful? It could you know because that just might be the truth. I have no fear that such would prove that the New Testament authorizes instrumental music in worship to God in the church because there is no evidence whatsoever to support such an idea from the New Testament. However, I also do not fear that there may be such evidence. I would be just as happy to find it for then I would accept it as the truth. Are you equally willing to accept the possibility that you could be wrong in using instruments in worship, as I am to accept that I could be wrong in condemning it?

SO now we can wait to see just who is afraid of what and I remind you Brother Ben that you are the one that brought up this matter of fear. The truth is that I doubt very much that you fear a formal debate. And you can rest assured that I do not fear being ganged up on. But being ganged up on does not help our readers learn and understand the issue concerning instrumental music. It only gives them the impression that one arrogant soul thinks he knows more than everyone else and actually opposes what the majority accepts. They do not get to focus upon the arguments themselves. This was my concern. In a formal debate the arguments are put in the forefront and we could all learn a great deal about these matters.

Now these things are just as time consuming to me as they are to everyone else. I am working very hard in a new job with lots of responsibility and constant training and some out of town trips. I have no more time for these things than you or anyone else in this forum. But the truth is important to me and I am willing to make time and schedule these efforts so that I can participate in a meaningful way even though I am working very hard. Formal scheduled debates would help me to participate in a way that is fruitful, meaningful, and allows me to work it into my schedule rather than being called upon to answer something at a time when cannot do so an thereby appearing to be unconcerned or rude to the person that responded to me.

If you cannot really understand these reasons maybe a debate is not the thing for you. But I have said before and I repeat it again that I will discuss this issue with anyone who is willing to do the work of engaging in a formal debate concerning it. Otherwise I will just do as the rest of you do and make a few comments along the way against the use of instruments in the worship with the hope of doing nothing more than encouraging others to be interested enough to contact me via e-mail and discuss the matter further.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, May 20, 2000

Lee Saffold,

I apologise (sincerely) if you feel "fear" was too strong a word to use about your reluctance to discuss the question of musical instruments in worship except in the context of a formal debate. I would like to say, though, in defence of my choice of words, that "fear" is a word with a broad range of meanings. I didn't mean any of the more extreme forms of fear, but something more along the line of "uneasiness" (Funk & Wagnall) or even "reasoned caution" (Webster's Third New International). And what I said was based on what you yourself had said, as follows:

"But I will not participate in a 'freewheeling discussion' because I am greatly out numbered and I do not think that my arguments can be given fair and equal consideration under those circumstances. Not that my brethren ae\re diliberately unfair but that they are equally anxious as am I to have thir arguments heard. So as I have said before and I will not change my mind, I will discuss this formally with any and everyone in this forum but only one at a time in a formal discussion that allowas for a fair hearing of both sides."

In your latest posting, you say, "Now it does appear, though I have not accused you of this, that you fear just such a situation" [a situation where one is required "to affirm a clearly defined position and defend it with evidence produced genuine arguments that were very effective and powerful"]. "It is difficult to be placed in a position where one must PROVE with evidence all that he affirms."

I thank you for not "accusing" me of "fear" of such a situation. You do, however, challenge me several times to prove that I am NOT afraid by engaging you in debate over this issue.

I am not "afraid" (in any sense of the word) of debate as such. I am certainly not afraid of having to back up (or "prove") any of my beliefs with evidence and reason. I think my record in this forum should demonstrate that! I have abandoned one or two discussions without giving all the arguments that I could have, simply because I thought the issue wasn't important enought to warrant all the time it was taking. But I think I have offered some evidence for every position I have taken, and considerable evidence and reason for those that I thought were worth the effort. I am also not afraid of "losing", especially on this issue, because I believe my position is clearly the strongest and most Biblical, and besides, as you said, in many debates both sides feel they have won because they had a chance to make a fair defence of their point of view.

My reluctance to "debate" this issue -- no, my absolute determination not to -- could be termed "fear", in the broader sense of "uneasiness" or "reasoned caution", but it comes from a different source than any of those you have suggested.

You have said, if I've understood you correctly, that you prefer not to be called "non-instrumental", "a-capella" or "anti", and do not, yourself, refer to us as "instrumental brethren" (or "brethren in error", as I've heard some say), because you think the use of such terms is denominational and divisive. I applaud you for your practice. I agree with it, in general terms, and only, myself, use such terms when the differences are relevant to the discussion -- in much the same way as the N.T. refers to the "Hebrew" Christians and "Greek" Christians when it is relevant.

The reason I am against a "debate" on the issue of the instrument is very similar. Debates polarise. They force people (perhaps not the audience, but at least the individuals or teams who are doing the debating) to take sides and consistently defend their side and attack the opposing side. The rhetoric is aimed at convincing the audience that your side is the winner.

I would rather approach this more like we did with the issue of deaconesses. "Here are some bits of evidence regarding this aspect of the question." "Here is a question." "That was a good point, but how about this ...?" Open discussions lend themselves to that kind of approach. Debates, in my experience, do not. Open discussions CAN be divisive too, but debates ARE divisive by their very nature.

The things that seriously divide us already are things about which we ought to be seeking ways to restore unity. We should NOT be promoting further division by defending one "side" against another.

-- Anonymous, May 22, 2000

Brother Ben:

Because I seek a fair hearing of the arguments against the use of instruments of music in the worship does not mean that I have any fear whether it is a "reasoned caution" or a light "uneasiness". I am not in the least bit uneasy nor am I even being cautious. I am simply calling for a discussion that would require that both sides be heard equally and in a fair and reasonable manner that prevents confusion and enhances understanding.

I do not agree with you that debates must necessarily polarize both sides. I beleive that you are the one that brought up the subject of fear, which was a polorizing assertion made in a freewheeling discussion, and it does not apply to me in even the sligetst sense and when I suggest that it may apply to you, quickly you insist that it does not apply to you in any sense. Therefore this discussion of fear was futile, wasn't it? It certianly could have been "polorizing" couldn't it? So a "freewheeling discussion" is no prevention of "polorization" now is it?

The fact is that we are divided over this issue and having a debate that requires that we clearly define our propositions and offer evidence to support them with guidelines and moderators to keep us from straying from the subject and treating one another unfairly could not be divisive. I have seen debates when the issues were decided before they began. Such a debate is as useless as is a freewheeling discussion that is conducted with the same attitude. But I have also seen that debates have done a great deal of Good when conducted by men of faith who are simply seeking the truth. Those who seek the truth have nothing to fear from debate.

If your arguments for instrumental music are so strong and scriptural they will stand up in a debate as well as any other place and they will not be any more divisive because they are presented in the format of a formal debate than if they are presented in a freewheeling discussion. For you see, brother Ben, we are already divided over this matter and the format of our discussion cannot cause that which has already occurred. But the arguments may change it if they are presented in a format that allows both sides equal time and a fair and reasonable hearing without the confusion of side issues that are not related to the discussion at hand.

But, suit yourself. I will not spend hours arguing with you about whether we should debate the matter or not. I have offered to debate it with anyone willing to do so. You have made it clear that you are not willing to do so. So we wait until someone is willing. For it is my opinion that much good could come from such a debate. You disagree and I understand your reasons. But I believe that I have equally good reason to insist upon a formal debate and I believe that I have made it clear that fear is not one of them. So this is where it always stands.

I guess that the restoration movement has been convinced that debates can no longer do any good. I suppose that we must conclude that the hundreds of debates that converted many to Christ in the our past was just a fluke! Those great men of God did not know that they were doing nothing more than being divisive! I do strongly disagree that debates are divisive. False doctrine and misunderstandings are divisive and debates are an opportunity to put those doctrines that divide men from each other under the spotlight for a careful examination.

My experience with debates has been far different from yours brother Ben. I have seen men come to Christ immediately following a debate with sectarian preachers. I have seen it numerous times. Too many times to be convinced that debates are always divisive.

I hope that all in this forum will think about why it is that none are willing to place their "powerful" arguments in favor of the use of instruments in the worship to the test of intense scrutiny that a debate can bring to bear. We have your answer, Brother Ben, you think it would be divisive to put them to such a test. But the people in this forum can make up their own minds about that. I do not think that divisiveness is what is being avoided. That is an accomplished fact already. We are already divided over this issue so no debate could make matters any worse in that regard. Therefore I do not believe that we are trying to avoid what has already occurred in our brotherhood over this issue. Whether we have a debate or discussion that is a fact that will be in either case. At least with a debate we can have both sides heard in an equitable way and bring arguments from both sides under intense scrutiny and examination in the light of God's eternal word so that we just might be able to change our thinking and come to agreement. It is possible.

AS far as your contention that your arguments are scriptural in support of the use of instruments in the worship of God I can only say that we do not know that to be true because we have not had the opportunity to submit them to the kind of intense scrutiny that a formal debate can bring to bear upon them. Since you are adamantly opposed to submitting them to such scrutiny we shall never know if they would stand that test, now shall we? If they are the same arguments that I have so often heard I am quite convinced that they would not stand up to such scrutiny.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, May 23, 2000

If the word "fear" continues to offend you, forget it! I have explained what I meant -- and will do so one more time, right now. You are intelligent enough that if you could shake off your emotional reaction to the word and concentrate on my actual meaning, I'm sure you could find some other word that would cover my meaning and be less offensive to you.

You yourself said (*quoted again below) that one reason you did not want to discuss the matter of musical instruments in any other context than that of a formal debate was that you are out-numbered in this forum. I addressed that "reluctance" (or whatever you prefer to call it) by saying that I doubted if enough people in this forum were sufficiently interested in the topic to sustain a very prolonged discussion if we just had an "open" discussion. Oh yes, there were several submissions to the previous thread that was started on musical instruments, and I think if you were willing to "discuss" rather than formally debate, there would be an initial flurry of interest as a half dozen or so people each put in their "2 cents' worth" but I think it would soon peter out because most of "our" side is not as indoctrinated with all kinds of arguments as "yours" is. Also, most of "our" side is not as interested in the issue as "yours" is. Finally -- partly because "your" side, and apparently you in particular, is/are so well indoctrinated, I am sure you could hold your own no matter how many participants there were. You wouldn't convince many (if any), but I doubt if "we" are likely to convince you either, so why not simply "discuss" the matter rather than "debate" it?

*("But I will not participate in a 'freewheeling discussion' because I am greatly out numbered and I do not think that my arguments can be given fair and equal consideration under those circumstances. Not that my brethren ae\re diliberately unfair but that they are equally anxious as am I to have thir arguments heard. So as I have said before and I will not change my mind, I will discuss this formally with any and everyone in this forum but only one at a time in a formal discussion that allows for a fair hearing of both sides.")

In your latest posting, you said, "As far as your contention that your arguments are scriptural in support of the use of instruments in the worship of God I can only say that we do not know that to be true because we have not had the opportunity to submit them to the kind of intense scrutiny that a formal debate can bring to bear upon them. Since you are adamantly opposed to submitting them to such scrutiny we shall never know if they would stand that test, now shall we? If they are the same arguments that I have so often heard I am quite convinced that they would not stand up to such scrutiny."

That is unnecessarily argumentative, belligerant, and contentious! It is also demonstrably untrue. I have always been willing to submit my views on the matter. I DID submit one argument on the issue to the previous thread on musical instruments. You responded that my argument was easy to answer, and you would give an answer to it -- but not until people agreed to the debate format. I'm still waiting! I doubt if you have a good answer. As for being "adamantly opposed to submitting them to such scrutiny" -- by submitting them to a forum like this (no matter how I do it), I have submitted them to the scrutiny of the other participants in the forum, including you. How much scrutiny they receive -- how rigorous this is -- doesn't depend on some arbitrary matter of "format", but on YOU. If you will agree to DISCUSS without requiring a DEBATE format, I'm quite willing to present my views (and the reasons for them) on various aspects of the question. And you can then do what you like with them. But if, as before, you won't answer unless the "format" is to your liking, then it's useless for me to even mention them. But then you are the obstacle to seeing if they "stand the test", not I.

Besides the fact that I think debates are divisive by nature, there is another reason why you and I differ on what is the most appropriate format is appropriate for this discussion. You (or at least "your side" in general) believe that not having instruments in worship is a matter of "faith", i.e. something we MUST do in a certain way. I believe (and most here, I think) believe that it is a matter of opinion. You therefore would like to convince me to give up the instrument. I don't care if you use it or not, just as long as you don't impose your opinion on me. Therefore, although it would probably aid the cause of Christian unity if you came around to my point of view, it is less important to me whether you do or not than it probably is for you that I come around to yours.

"Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgement on disputable matters. One man's faith allows him to eat everything, but another man, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. The man who eats everything must not look down on him who does not, and THE MAN WHO DOES NOT EAT EVERYTHING MUST NOT CONDEMN THE MAN WHO DOES, for God has accepted him. Who are you to judge someone else's servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.

"One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. EACH ONE SHOULD BE FULLY CONVINCED IN HIS OWN MIND. He who regards one day as special, does so to the Lord. He who eats meat, eats to the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who abstains, does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God. For none of us lives to himself and none of us dies to himself alone. If we live, we live to the Lord; and if we die, we die to the Lord. So, whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord." (Romans 14:1-8, NIV)

-- Anonymous, May 24, 2000

Bro. Lee,

Here, copied from the previous thread, is the submission I made back in February. You were welcome to give it "intense scrutiny" at that time but chose not to. Would you like to now?

--------

First, a little personal background, since it's somewhat relevant. I am a second-generation missionary of the "Centrist" Church of Christ / Christian Church tradition. My father believes strongly in promoting unity between different branches of the Restoration Movement, especially the a-capella and "Centrist" camps. (I won't say "Christian Church", because I personally prefer "Church of Christ".) Wherever he served as a missionary he usually made a point of attending Bible studies or midweek services of the a-capella churches, if there were any. When I was in high school, I used to go with him. Also when I was in high school our family and the missionaries here in H.K. from two branches of the a-capella churches (A-mil and Pre-mil) used to have a monthly "sing" -- without instruments, of course -- which I greatly enjoyed. When I was in Bible college in the States I occasionally attended one of the a-capella churches in the town where I was studying. I probably would have more often except that I didn't have a car then and I was the only student in the Bible college wanting to go to that church, which was about 2 miles away from the campus. So, most often when I went there I walked at least one way. When my kids were ready for college, we were very happy to have the a-capella universities as an alternative to sending them to a Bible college (when my son is particularly gifted in science), Milligan (too far away from any relatives), or a secular university. We ended up sending first him, then his sister, to Harding. My son was a member of an a-capella church for the whole of his time at Harding. My daughter attended the same church for awhile, but found their attitude about what women could do and not do somewhat stifling, so is now attending a "Christian Church" when she can get a ride to go there.

Anyway, on with the point I wanted to make ....

Although I have heard all (or certainly most) of the arguments used against using musical instruments in worship, and can understand what they are saying, and sympathise with their right to make that choice, I have never been able to accept them myself. One of the main reasons is that they rely on using language in a way that is not normal.

One rule of hermeneutics that most people accept today is that the words used should normally be understood to mean what they usually mean in normal usage, without needing special explanations or special definitions, unless these are required by the text itself.

Now think about the word "sing". I have a brochure in front of my from the Hong Kong Arts Festival, which is going on right now. One of the performers this year was to have been Greek singer Nana Mouskouri. My wife and I planned to go to her performance, but it was cancelled because Ms. Mouskouri suffered an injury recently (broke an ankle, I think). The article about Ms. Mouskouri talks about her singing career, her background as a singer, the type of songs she sings, etc. Not once in the article is any mention made of accompaniment. But I also have a record and a tape of her singing, and most or all of the songs do have instrumental accompaniment. Throughout my whole life, in all kinds of settings, religious and secular, and in various churches and denominations, when I have heard people talk about "singing", I almost never hear anyone specify, "with a piano", "with a guitar", or whatever. Yet almost the only settings when instruments are NOT used are in places where no instrument is available (e.g. out of doors) -- or in a-capella Churches of Christ.

I realise that the New Testament was not written in English, but in Koine Greek, and that the culture in the Mediterranean world in New Testament times was probably quite different from today's culture. But I have studied several languages, and know people from a wide variety of cultures, and they all use this word the same way. "Sing" in normal usage in any culture I've encountered today and in all the languages I have studied, is normally taken as non-specific, i.e. unless there is something else to specify whether or not there is an instrument, it can be taken either way.

Are we to believe that things were so different in New Testament times and in Koine Greek that of ALL the words used in Ephesians for different songs, EVERY ONE of them specifically EXCLUDED the instrument? Not only that, but that one word (PSALLO), which originally meant an accompanied song, had changed so much in its usage that the only way it could include the use of an instrument was for this to be specified? Come on ....! That's NOT normal use of language, and I don't see anything in the passage to REQUIRE an unusual definition of all those words.

(With regard to PSALLO, I recognise that words CAN come to mean even the opposite of what they originally meant. But I think the burden of proof is on the a-capella camp to prove that PSALMOI not only no longer required musical accompaniment, but that it had changed so much in usage that it -- and all the other words used -- specifically excluded it.)

Last night I was sorting through a number of tracts that I have accumulated from a lot of different sources. Quite a number were from a-capella church writers. Of those that discussed worship, and what was acceptable worship, I noticed that they found it necessary to be very specific -- to not only say that Christians should "sing" in their worship, but that it should be without the "mechanical instrument". Why specify in this way unless the writers themselves recognise that the word "sing" by itself is ambiguous and might be (mis?)understood to include accompanied singing?

If a-capella churches want to continue to use strictly a-capella singing in their worship for reasons of culture and tradition, they certainly have that right. But when leaders in these churches refuse to let me and the congregation I work with use their baptistery (since they have one, while we meet in the YMCA and don't), just because we use an instrument (in our own worship, but wouldn't in their place), I feel hurt, and I think the cause of Christ is hindered.

Yours for the sake of Christian unity, Benjamin Rees, Hong Kong

-- Anonymous, May 24, 2000

Brother Ben:

If you wish to state a formal proposition that clearly affirms your proposition in a formal debate format and agree to some basic guidelines for our discussion and offer these arguments from your last post in a formal debate in defense of a clearly stated proposition concerning your exact position concerning instrumental music I will be happy to give them the intense scrutiny that you pretend to desire.

In fact your arguments that you have made here are extremely weak and it is tempting to engage in a discussion of them but I have said before and I say it again that I will discuss this subject with any person willing to formally state their position in a formal debate and that will agree to a series of propositions to be taken up in a logical order that will prevent confusion. For I have made it clear often that we must first discuss the issue of authority and the requirement of having such for all that we do in the worship and service of God and then we must discuss whether instrumental music is so authorized. It is your intent with this response to force me into a freewheeling discussion of a matter that I firmly believe needs to be discussed in a fair and resonable debate with a series of clearly stated propositions taken up in their logical order.

Now I have not attempted to force you into a debate. I have merely requested that either you or anyone else do so. It does appear that you desire to discuss this issue. In my last post I told you that I do not believe your arguments will stand the test of the kind of intense scrutiny that one must face in a FORMAL DEBATE where all arguments are to be tied to a clearly stated and well defined proposition that each disputant has determined to defend. These arguments that you have made will not stand that kind of scrutiny. Now if you wish to prove that they will with stand such then let's meet via e-mail and agree upon propositions and their wording and the order in which they should be discussed and the time when both of us will mutually be able to devote ourselves to such a debate and then we will be able see if these arguments, when tied to a clearly stated proposition that you are willing to defend, are substantial.

You made these arguments before and others have as well and I have made it clear that I will discuss these matters in a formal debate with anyone including you. I did not avoid answering them I simply refused to discuss this matter in any format other than a formal debate. I explained that to everyone and you knew that to be the case and you made these arguments knowing that I would not discuss them outside of a formal debate. So your arguments are safe for as long as you keep them out of a formal debate but once you submit them to that scrutiny they are in grave danger indeed and you appear to be very much aware of this danger. Now if you are not willing to defend your position in a fair and open debate that is fine but do not pretend that they are so powerful when you are reluctant to discuss them in a fair debate.

Therefore, I will discuss these matters with you if you really want to discuss them in a formal debate wherein you are required to have a proposition that these arguments are intended to prove and we can judge them in the light of God's word and your clearly stated position. If you are unwilling to do this then I am unwilling to scrutinize them when you have clearly given yourself a way out by not clearly stating your position nor defining it.

If you wish to discuss the matter with me then agree to a formal debate and we will discuss it. As I have said before, we just will never know if your arguments would withstand the intense scrutiny of a formal debate until you are willing to submit them to such a test. All you have done in this response is submit them with the hope that they will be given the soft treatment that a freewheeling discussion allows. You are avoiding tying yourself to a clear propositional statement of your position and a set of guidelines that ensures fairness throughout to both sides. Why, between you and I, we have shown that we could not settle any matter until we agree upon which text we will use as the final arbiter for our discussion for you have shown that if the text that you are using does not support your position you will shift to one that you think does. If you want to discuss this issue with me then get with me and agree to a formal discussion with clear propositions and a single standard of authority to which we both will appeal to as the final arbiter. We both agree that the New Testament is the final arbiter in these matters but it is appearent that we do not agree upon which text of the New Testament we will both accept. This is just two of the many reasons that I am insisting upon a formal debate of this subject if I am to discuss it with anyone in this forum. I thought that I made that clear to you and everyone else brother Ben. It is obvious that none in this forum have been willing to engage in a formal debate of this subject, or any other subject for that matter, which would require them to be tied to a clearly stated proposition that their arguments must be related to and that they must prove and agree upon standard authority by which all arguments on both sides can be judged.

I know that you hope to avoid a formal debate by making arguments that you think I cannot resist responding to and by such means you will force your "freewheeling discussion" upon me and thereby avoid the intense scrutiny of a formal debate while at the same time appearing that you were willing to discuss the matter. I know that you are willing to discuss it but you are not willing to debate it. From the arguments that you have presented I can see why you avoid a formal debate. Those arguments would not stand such scrutiny. If you wish to submit then to such scrutiny then agree to debate them and we will all see if they are strong arguments or not. If you do not wish to debate them then we will all just have to never know if they were worthy to be presented in a formal debate.

Now I told you that I would enter a freewheeling discussion of these matters if you would agree to debate them. So if you really want me to join this freewheeling discussion all you have to do is agree to join with me in a formal debate of the matter at a time that is convienient to both of us and I will begin by answering your simple arguments that you have made in this post and continue the freewheeling discussion with you until the time of our formal debate. So long as all of you refuse my challenge to debate this matter formally I will refrain from engaging in a freewheeling discussion of the issue.

Now everyone in this forum knows that I have engaged in a great number of your freewheeling discussions and when I ask for a formal debate no one is willing to defend their position in such a format. I hope that others who are not decided conserning instruments will take notice of this reluctance of my brethren to defend their position on this matter in a debate that requires a higher standard of proof and clarity than is found in a freewheeling discussion that has absolutely NO standards at all of proof or authority or clarity. If your position cannot be defended in a public and formal debate it is a weak position indeed.

So, Brother Ben, if you agree to a formal debate I will agree to engage in your "freewheeling" discussion. Now that is a fair offer. If you are unwilling to be fair about the matter I have no choice but to wait for someone who is willing to debate the subject formally.

It does appear that you are without doubt unwilling to submit your arguments to the intense scrutiny of a formal debate. While I am willing to engage in a freewheeling discussion provided that we can also have a formal debate. It is possible that there are those in this forum who have never seen, heard or even read a formal debate and they should have that experience so that they can judge its value for themselves.

But they are being denied that opportunity because my brethren in this forum, in general, have decided that debates are not good for them, especially if we are talking about instrumental music in the worship! Debates are good and if we allowed for them to happen in this forum we could all benefit.

So, I still wait for someone who is willing to submit their arguments to the intense scrutiny of a formal debate. You have certianly made it clear that you are unwilling to do so. That is fine with me but my request for a formal debate of this subject still stands for any who are interested.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, May 24, 2000

Lee:

Your answer here is a "non-answer." You pretend that serious discussion cannot happen outside the forms of a "formal debate". Sir, if you want to be serious about a subject, you don't need the form of a debate to do so. We have worked through a myriad of topics, and gone into a great many of them very deeply and very seriously without the artificial structure of a "debate". If your arguments are strong enough for a "debate", then they are strong enough for any form of discussion we carry on here.

-- Anonymous, May 24, 2000

Brother Lee,

Horse feathers!!

What kind of scrutiny my arguments get depends on what kind of scrutiny you give them, not on something as arbitrary as the "format" of the discussion.

I continue to maintain that this particular issue is NOT one that we should actually debate.

As for authority, as you said, we both accept the authority of the New Testament.

The matter of which particular "text" of the New Testament is used is a red herring. I don't recall that there is any serious discrepancy on the passages relevant to the question(s) under discussion. But if there is, I'm willing to accept either of the two standard texts, either the Textus Receptus or the UBS text. It is just easier for me to use the UBS text because that's the Greek New Testament I happen to have. I would suggest though, that if I accept the Textus Receptus for your sake, you might express a parallel willingness to accept significant textual variations (if there are any that are relevant to this discussion) as significant evidence, even if not as conclusive proof.

The argument about music that I submitted is, I admit, a somewhat superficial one (though NOT, in my opinion, a "weak" one). I submitted it for two related reasons. (1) You said I was afraid to submit my arguments to serious scrutiny; this is one I had submitted previously and you had not even answered it. (2) You said it was easy to answer, but had not yet done so -- and still have not. So much for serious scrutiny by you!

If we were to discuss this more seriously, I would go back to the issue that started this thread -- what constitutes Biblical "authorisation" -- or "permission" -- to do something? Why not have peanut butter sandwiches -- or, if not peanut butter sandwiches, at least other food of some kind -- when we have the Lord's Supper? It is certainly not required, but is it prohibited? and, if so, on what grounds?

If we discuss these matters, I will take them seriously and offer just as much evidence and reasoned argument as if it was in the context of a formal debate, and I am willing for you to give them the most intensive scrutiny you may wish to. As far as I'm concerned, you can treat it, from your side, as if it were a debate. But I will not agree to a debate as such. Not on this issue!!! I believe it is absolutely inappropriate to have a debate (with formal propositions, and each side committed to support and defend or to rebut those formal propositions) ON THIS ISSUE!!

It is not just stubbornness, and it is certainly not fear, that makes me take this position. I do not think it would be right! It would violate my conscience to do so!

"The faith which thou hast, have thou to thyself before God. Happy is he that judgeth not himself in that which he approveth. But he that doubteth is condemned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith; and whatsoever is not of faith is sin." (Romans 14:22-23, ASV)

-- Anonymous, May 24, 2000

As far as I can tell, the Bible is silent on the subject of whether or not instruments should be used in worship. S*I*L*E*N*T. Which to me would say it neither condemns it nor does it condone it.

-- Anonymous, May 25, 2000

Brother Ben, you have said:

The argument about music that I submitted is, I admit, a somewhat superficial one (though NOT, in my opinion, a "weak" one). I submitted it for two related reasons. (1) You said I was afraid to submit my arguments to serious scrutiny; this is one I had submitted previously and you had not even answered it. (2) You said it was easy to answer, but had not yet done so -- and still have not. So much for serious scrutiny by you!

Now, Brother Ben, you knew when you wrote these words that I have deliberately avoided answering anyones arguments, not just yours alone, concerning this issue unless they will agree to a formal debate with me on this issue and bring those arguments into it and submit them to that scrutiny. You are now, arrogantly claiming that because I have not answered your arguments that it demonstrates that I am unable to give them serious scrutiny. Now you know better than that, Brother Ben. You knew when you first made the argument and you know now, that I had already told everyone that I would answer them if they would engage in a formal debate. You are unwilling to bring this superficial argument into a debate to be examined, so much for your confidence in the value and strength of your argument.

If you really wanted to see this argument receive serious scrutiny by me you would bring it into a debate where I have promised to give it such scrutiny. But you do not really want it to receive such scrutiny now do you? I have consistently insisted upon a formal debate of this issue and you are unwilling to submit that argument to the scrutiny that it would receive in a formal debate. You are refusing to engage in a debate but complaining that I have not answer your arguments. Ha!

Brother Ben, you know just where to go to get your arguments to receive proper attention from me. I will answer them in a formal debate. If you wish to avoid such and deceive yourself and others into thinking that they have gone unanswered because they are unanswerable that is your right. But those interested in the truth will not deceive themselves into believing that you have made arguments that can stand the test of a fair debate when you consistently refuse to submit them to such a test.

Brother Ben, what I said was that you were unwilling to submit your arguments to the intense scrutiny of a formal debate. I did not say that you were unwilling to submit your arguments to serious scrutiny at all. You admit that this argument is a superficial one and I agree with you that it is and for that reason you most likely would not submit such to a formal debate because superficial arguments do not stand very well in such a format. This is simply an illustration of my point. A formal debate only brings forth arguments that are considered to have significant substance. It is my desire to engage in a debate of the substantive arguments on a variety of issues not merely the question of instrumental music. You act as if the only subject that I have sought to debate is the instrumental music issue. This is not true, as all who read this forum know.

Then you say:

If we were to discuss this more seriously, I would go back to the issue that started this thread -- what constitutes Biblical "authorisation" -- or "permission" -- to do something?

Now this is also just my point about a formal debate. You admit that our current discussion of peanut butter sandwiches is not even serious! Yet you want me to agree to a serious discussion of this subject that is very important me in a freewheeling discussion in an admittedly less than serious thread? Think of what you are saying and you will see why I avoid such.

Disputants generally agree with one another before a debate concerning these issues of the actual points of genuine disagreement and the most logical beginning point and a reasonable progression of successive propositions that will be taken up in a manner that will facilitate a true understanding of the actual difference between them with the purpose of avoiding unnecessary side issues that would detract from understanding. The purpose of a debate is to facilitate understanding and remove all non- essential obstacles to reaching agreement. The very purpose of debate is to ultimately reach agreement. Debate does not have victory of one side over the other as its purpose. I know that it has often been misused and abused but that does not change its genuine and original purpose for which it is very well suited of bringing about greater understanding of an issue and, if at all possible, facilitating an ultimate and reasonable agreement between two opposing parties. If a formal debate cannot accomplish these things then a free wheeling and completely unorganized discussion that allows constant injection of unrelated issues and side discussions most certainly will not result in a better understanding and will seldom if ever provide a basis for even the slightest hope of agreement between two parties. This is especially true when the two parties have such a strong and deeply entrenched and diametrically opposed positions. This is the reason that I have asked for a debate of this issue instead of a free wheeling discussion.

I agree with you that this issue should begin with our discussion of what constitutes scriptural authority and whether such is required of us for all that we do in the worship and service of God in the church. For this reason a formal debate would greatly facilitate such a discussion. For we would, in a formal debate, agree to a set of propositions that clearly define our positions on this matter and the true difference between us would be obvious to all at the very beginning. Then once that issue was resolved we could then begin to discuss propositions related to whether instrumental is authorized by the New Testament or not. We may have other things that should be discussed before we discuss the actual issue of the instrument such as the difference in our hermeneutics. But as all can see, a free wheeling discussion does not have any agreements or guidelines for a reasonable progression before it begins and there is nothing to prevent our being sidetracked into the discussion of numerous superficial and often completely unrelated matters during the discussion. You are doing nothing more with these statements, brother Ben, than showing the good reasons why a formal discussion of this issue is necessary and at the same time you are trying to avoid such a debate.

Then you want to talk of Red Herrings:

The matter of which particular "text" of the New Testament is used is a red herring. I don't recall that there is any serious discrepancy on the passages relevant to the question(s) under discussion. But if there is, I'm willing to accept either of the two standard texts, either the Textus Receptus or the UBS text. It is just easier for me to use the UBS text because that's the Greek New Testament I happen to have. I would suggest though, that if I accept the Textus Receptus for your sake, you might express a parallel willingness to accept significant textual variations (if there are any that are relevant to this discussion) as significant evidence, even if not as conclusive proof.

Now this is further prove that a debate is useful. For in a feewheeling discussion we just jump in without agreeing to these important matters first. I appreciate your agreement concerning the text that we would accept as the final arbiter to which we would appeal as evidence to support our arguments. If we were not discussing a formal debate we would have simply jumped in and began our discussion without an agreement on this important matter. I agree with you that there is probably no difference between us on this matter that might be affected by the differences in the text but I cannot know that for sure and it is therefore important to agree on that matter in advance of discussing the issue. Therefore it was far from being what you call a red herring! It was important and you even thought that it was important that you agree that you will accept the Textus Receptus for my sake. I think it would be better to say that you will accept it for the sake of the discussion rather than just for my sake. A formal debate would prevent such useless comments unrelated to the issue. We would have agreed with each other on an acceptable standard of authority before the discussion began and the fact that you agreed to it for my sake would never have needed to be mentioned and we could have avoided at least one prejudicial statement, a statement that implies that I am the only one who has a problem accepting the USB text, which is far from being certain. It would have avoided the implication that none should give my arguments a fair hearing because I am too ignorant to perceive that the scholars have determined that the USB is a better and more reliable text than the Textus Receptus. While this may be true, it has nothing whatsoever to do with the issue at hand. But such things are allowed in a free wheeling discussion but severely frowned upon in a formal debate. Now you seem to think that I used this as a Red Herring. It does seem however that you can see that this Red Herring accomplished its purpose of soliciting an agreement from you to accept a mutual agreement concerning the text we would use as the standard of authority to which we both would appeal. Nevertheless, I did not use this as a Red Herring because it is wise before engaging in any discussion or debate to agree in advance concerning exactly what the standard of authority should be otherwise you run the risk of having a discussion that ultimately is a complete waste of time. So, it is obvious to any fair-minded person that this matter was not a Red Herring even in your own estimation.

Then you say:

It is not just stubbornness, and it is certainly not fear, that makes me take this position. I do not think it would be right! It would violate my conscience to do so!

I will have to take your word for it that fear is not the reason you avoid debate. I remind you that you and you alone are responsible for bringing up the word fear in relation to this subject. I did not. But once again we are talking about something completely unrelated and unimportant to the subject at hand. This is the result of free wheeling! I have not said anything about your being stubborn and cannot imagine why you bring this Red Herring into this matter. I suppose you wish to leave the impression that I have accused you of stubbornness or at least that I am implying that you are stubborn. I want all to know that I have not accused you of any such thing and I do not consider you to be stubborn in the least concerning this matter.

Now I know that I will debate this issue with you, Brother Ben. For the one thing that I will not do to you or any other brother in Christ is urge or encourage him to do anything that violates his conscience. Since you have said that debating violates your conscience I will not seek it from you anymore. So if you and I discuss this matter at all I have no choice but to follow your wishes and accept your freewheeling discussion, for to persuade you to do otherwise would be a violation of your conscience. I will not do that under any circumstance. I know what it feels like to have someone show no respect for your conscience. Therefore you and I will not be able to have a free wheeling discussion of this matter until some one actually agrees to debate this subject formally with me. Then I will engage with you in your freewheeling discussion until the debate is finished and after the debate. But if there is no formal debate with me concerning this subject there will be no freewheeling discussion with me on this issue either.

If you wish to think that because I have deliberately chosen to not answer your admittedly superficial arguments that you have made thus far means that I cannot answer them you are welcome to self- deception in that matter. But I will not be forced to discuss this matter in a fashion that allows for little more than confusion and the exchange of mutual insults with my brethren. I am seeking a serious discussion of this matter that allows us to come to, at the very least, understand one anothers position and has at least the slightest glimmer of hope that we can reach agreement with one another. A free wheeling discussion without any direction or hope of reasonable resolution will not accomplish that purpose.

I have good and sufficient reasons to call for a formal debate on this issue and I also have a right to request some guidelines that will facilitate our understanding and help us to resolve our differences. A formal debate is what I am asking for in this matter.

And for the moment I only ask that those who are undecided concerning this issue keep asking yourself the question why those who are more than willing to engage in a free wheeling discussion which has no design or purpose and no agreed upon standard of authority and no logical order of progression with no hope of accomplishing any stated purpose are unwilling to engage in a formal discussion that sets out with the purpose of resolving clearly stated propositions which will be discussed in a predetermined and agreed upon order designed to prevent any digression or diversion from the subject at hand and is fair to both parties and appeals to an acceptable and agreed upon standard of authority.

Just think about it! There is a reason and the true one has not been given by anyone yet! I will not give it because I am not the one refusing to engage in a debate. I have good reasons for avoiding this free wheeling discussion and I have stated them. And I will state again that such a free wheeling discussion leads toward no greater objective than idle talk when compared with A debate which has a stated purpose and well-defined propositions that one must prove to be true and it provides a format that makes it very clear and obvious when one has failed to prove their propositions. It is a format wherein the truth can shine as bright as the sun. Freewheeling discussions allow for many clouds to just drift in and hide the light of the truth from our eyes.

If all could see the difference between a formal debate and a free wheeling discussion and compare them they would see the value of debates and wonder why we cannot arrange for more of them.

But regardless, I have not answered Brother Bens arguments and I have not answered Brother Wilsons, or Brother Winsted, or Brother Nate Graham or anyone else. Their arguments are opposed to each other and I will not argue different positions with everyone at the same time. I stated this before numerous times. Brother Ben knows this and he knew that I will continue to consistently refuse a free wheeling discussion of this matter and If I could answer his argument without engaging in a free wheeling discussion against my will I would. But I will not do so because I insist upon a formal discussion of this issue and I urge all who read this forum and have not decided upon this issue to ask yourself why these men are so unwilling to engage in a FAIR discussion of this issue. Free Wheeling discussions can be fair and they can be unfair but because they are freewheeling, like a roulette wheel, no one can determine just which one they will be. Important issues should not be subjected to a free turning of a wheel or a rolling of the dice. They should be discussed with clear purpose and conscious intent toward resolution rather than idle chatter with no end in sight and no results sought.

Brother Ben, you can think that horses have feathers if you like and that Herrings are red but I insist on evidence that can be fairly presented, clearly understood, and reasonably examined if we are going to discuss this issue. You have said no to that request and I accept your rejection of the request on the grounds that it would violate your conscience to participate in such a debate. That is the end of the matter between you and I. My request for a formal debate is still out there for anyone in the forum that would like to honor that request.

If there is no one willing to submit their arguments in support of instrumental music to a formal debate then I accept it and and admit that I have done nothing more than demonstrate that none are willing to do so and our readers can make of that whatever they will.

Your Brother In Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, May 27, 2000

Brother Sam:

You have said:

Your answer here is a "non-answer." You pretend that serious discussion cannot happen outside the forms of a "formal debate". Sir, if you want to be serious about a subject, you don't need the form of a debate to do so. We have worked through a myriad of topics, and gone into a great many of them very deeply and very seriously without the artificial structure of a "debate". If your arguments are strong enough for a "debate", then they are strong enough for any form of discussion we carry on here.

You are correct in your statement that this is a non-answer. For it was not intended to be an answer. I do think that you misunderstand when you state that I pretend that serious discussion cannot happen outside of the forms of a formal debate. I make no such pretense, Brother Sam. I admit that much serious discussion has and does often take place outside of a formal debate and I have not said anything that indicates that I believe that serious discussion occurs ONLY in a formal debate. I have only tried to point out that the type of scrutiny that arguments receive in a formal debate is far more intense and demanding because the arguments must be tied to a previously agreed upon and clearly stated and defined proposition which prevents an argument from straying from the point to be proven and is ever connected to the proposition that is under discussion. If one makes an argument under those circumstances he is under far greater pressure to be accurate and avoid frivolity and making superficial statements. Anyone involved in a debate knows that he cannot as easily assert things without proof as he can in the free wheeling format. This is what I mean when I talk of the intense scrutiny of a formal debate. I did not mean that there is no such thing as intense scrutiny outside of a formal debate. For you a surely correct that such does exist outside of that format as both of us have demonstrated in other discussions in the past in this forum.

Then you say:

Sir, if you want to be serious about a subject, you don't need the form of a debate to do so.

Now Brother Sam, I appreciate your kindness in calling me sir but I have not often been referred to in that fashion since I was an officer in the Navy. It is not necessary to call me sir. Brother is sufficient if you consider me to be your brother in Christ. I agree with you that one can be serious about a subject without engaging in the form of a debate and have said nothing to indicate otherwise. I think you would not doubt that I am very serious about this subject and I have good reasons to insist that it be discussed in a debate format and you have given no good reasons why it should not be discussed in that format. I am not asking for a debate because I want everyone to be serious. I am seeking a debate in the interest of order, clarity, understanding and working toward some ultimate resolution of these differences between us. I am also seeking fairness and avoiding superficial comments and the taking up of one proposition at a time in a reasonable and logical order that facilitates understanding of the true difference between us and with the hope that we could at least begin to understand so that we could have some slight hope that we could resolve this matter in a way that promotes harmony and unity among us. The idea that one cannot accomplish these things in the context of a debate format is far from true. In fact, it is less likely that the above objectives can be accomplished as well outside of a formal debate or at least some formal guidelines that ensures fairness.

For example, when one person argues that instrumental music is only an expedient and we can have or not have it and then in the very next post someone else argues that Eph. 5:19 commands it. Then we have to very different situations. One makes it a requirement that we all use it or violate the command of Eph. 5:19. The other is arguing that it is a matter of expediency only and that we can have them or not as we choose. Now I cannot discuss this with those two simultaneously without risking the possibility of being completely misunderstood by both of them. In a formal debate with the one who argues that instrumental music is commanded he would state a clear proposition to that effect and attempt to prove it. I would not have to be concerned about the other position for it is not under consideration. Then if he wanted to take the position that it is an expedient he would state a proposition to that effect and we would take it up in its proper order. There are good reasons to debate certain issues and this is one of them that should be debated because of the various and opposing reasons that are given in support of the practice.

But I am not going to spent the rest of my life arguing with everyone about whether a debate is acceptable or not. I will discuss this matter, with anyone who is willing to engage in a formal debate concerning it. If there are none in this form willing to do so then we just will not have a discussion, now will we? Now you and others can discuss all that you like but it will not be a discussion with me. That is the one that everyone is avoiding. A debate is a discussion, you know. It is one that requires good order, clear statements, and fairness to all involved. That is how I will discuss this matter in this forum and that is final. If no one is willing to engage in such then no one will discuss it with me. That is my choice and my right. I have affirmed that instrumental music is sinful because it is not authorized in the New Testament and anyone who wishes to challenge me concerning my position on that matter can agree to a formal discussion of it and I will engage in that discussion.

You have said:

We have worked through a myriad of topics, and gone into a great many of them very deeply and very seriously without the artificial structure of a "debate". If your arguments are strong enough for a "debate", then they are strong enough for any form of discussion we carry on here.

I agree with you that we have worked through a myriad of topics, and gone into a great many of them very deeply and seriously without the structure of debate. I do not agree with you that the debate structure is artificial but that it has a good purpose and if we had used this structure in many of these discussions that you mention I believe that we would have had far better results. I am tired of discussions that go no where in particular and that people can just easily use hit and run tactics and make you have to repeat arguments over and over again because they ignore them completely as if you did not make them and they continue to spout their doctrines many of which were patently false to the core.

You have said:

If your arguments are strong enough for a "debate", then they are strong enough for any form of discussion we carry on here.

Yes. Brother Sam, it is true that my arguments are strong enough for debate and therefore they are strong enough for any form of discussion we carry on in this forum. But that is not the issue at all. The issue is for the discussion to follow a reasonable course that prevents my opponent from escaping the responsibility to deal with those strong arguments. In free wheeling discussions it is all too easy for even your best arguments to be completely ignored while you pay close attention to all of your opponents arguments because there is no structure that requires the opponent to face the arguments that have been made. A formal debate makes this far less likely and certainly makes it far more difficult for one to do. I want the arguments to be heard and faced squarely and either answered or admit that one does not have a good answer or try their best shot at answering but I am tired of excellent arguments being completely ignored. This happens in non-structured discussions too often. So, while you are correct in what you have said you completely miss the point concerning my request for structure in this discussion.

Now there is nothing wrong with a debate, brother Sam. In fact the only difference between a debate and a discussion wherein two parties disagree is that the debate provides a structure that has the purpose of providing the best means of resolving differences or at least ensuring that all who hear it are able to comprehend and understand clearly the position of both sides. Now you seem to be claiming that there is never a time when one can engage in a debate. I deny that. I believe that there are good times to do it and this is one of them for me.

Your brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, May 27, 2000

The other difference between a discussion and a debate is that in a debate, each side starts out by assuming that their position is correct and the other position is false, and strives from there to prove their premise and disprove their opponent's. It is necessarily adversarial and close-minded from the outset.

-- Anonymous, May 27, 2000

Brother John:

You have said:

The other difference between a discussion and a debate is that in a debate, each side starts out by assuming that their position is correct and the other position is false, and strives from there to prove their premise and disprove their opponent's. It is necessarily adversarial and close-minded from the outset.

The assumption that any discussion, formal or otherwise, begins without the preconceived notion that each side holds their position to be correct and their opponents position to be false is far from the truth. Anytime that one begins a discussion with someone else whether in a formal debate or a freewheeling discussion there is the perception ,at least ,among all parties that their position is correct and the other is false. There is therefore no difference between a freewheeling discussion and a formal debate in this regard.

It is also true that everyone in a freewheeling discussion strives to prove his or her premise and disprove his or her opponents premise. Thus there is no difference between freewheeling discussions and formal debates in this matter either.

Now your statement that debates are necessarily adversarial and closed minded from the outset is not correct. All discussions wherein people differ with each other are necessarily adversarial in their nature including freewheeling discussions. The formal debate merely recognizes this natural and unavoidable component of difference between people and has rules and guidelines to prevent this natural adversarial aspect of a conflict of positions between honest persons from hindering the possibility of a reasonable resolution of this natural and unavoidable conflict that has risen between them. A freewheeling discussion begins with just as much natural adversity as does the formal debate only the freewheeling discussion does not provide for any possibility of striving toward a reasonable resolution nor does it provide any guidelines to allow for a clear discussion by preventing the natural adversarial nature of conflict from hindering a fair and objective look at the facts in the case.

Now your assumption that a debate must be close-minded any more than a freewheeling discussion is far from true. Whether any discussion will be close-minded depends more upon the participants and their attitudes and willingness to resolve differences than upon the format of the discussion. It is just as possible in a formal debate for anyone to be open-minded and fair and willing to accept arguments that are true from the opposing side. In fact, those who do this in formal debates are far more persuasive than those who do not. But it is not the debate format that causes the close- mindedness that you have spoken about, and I assume you may have witnessed. Instead it was the feeling on the part of the debaters that since they were representing the position of others, who held similar views as theirs, that they must not yield any point to their opponent. They failed to realize that the purpose of a debate is to look closely and objectively at the facts and to reach a RESOLUTION for ALL sides. This attitude that debates must be closed minded is wrong and is most likely the primary reason we have not made much progress in the resolution of our many differences. It is also the attitude of debaters who have felt the need to defend their position at all cost, even if it is false, that has caused this situation. In a debate or a discussion it is best for all participants to agree to work hard toward a reasonable resolution rather than feeling the need to hold strongly to a position when the facts are contrary to it.

I can assure you brother Wilson, that should anyone debate this issue with me I will demonstrate that one can accept good arguments from the other side if the other side produces any. In fact, my procedure has always been to examine the opponents arguments with the highest hope that I can agree rather than seeking to find every possible way to show that he is in error. I would do this in a debate just as well as in a freewheeling discussion. In fact, if a debate demonstrated sufficient evidence that I am wrong about the subject of instrumental music then I would heartily accept my opponents proposition and the matter would be resolved between us. I would hope, though I cannot guarantee that anyone would, that my opponent would demonstrate a similar desire to resolve the issue. Debate propositions usually begin with the words Be it resolved that  for a reason. The reason is that both parties are supposed to be working toward a RESOLUTION of the matter rather merely a defense of one side. This would mean that they would present only the very best and well reasoned arguments from their side for their opponent to consider and accept if true or give good reason for rejecting the arguments for the consideration of the person who made it and vise versa. But it is resolution that a debate seeks and not stubborn defense of propositions on either side. A debate is designed to work toward a resolution and only a close minded person can abuse the debate format as they often take advantage of the freewheeling format because they are close minded. But your idea that there is absolutely no chance that a debate can include an open minded desire to hear all evidence presented and actually reach a fair and reasonable resolution of natural conflicts between good and honorable persons fails completely to comprehend the genuine purpose and deliberate design of a debate. The purpose is RESOLUTION and the design is fair and equitable to both sides for nothing prevents resolution more than unfairness and inequity in discussion. These things are not provided for in a freewheeling discussion. Now a discussion with a dishonest person whether it is a debate or a freewheeling discussion will not produce a resolution but this fact does not militate against either form of discussion as if they were the cause of failure. It is therefore unreasonable for you to leave the impression that debate is necessarily close-minded. While it recognizes the unavoidable fact of adversity and conflict it is not necessarily close minded in fact it is designed to work best with those who are willing to seriously investigate the cause of the conflict and find a reasonable resolution of it.

I seek a debate with the sincere desire to resolve this issue that divides us. I cannot see anything wrong with that hope.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, May 28, 2000

Hello, All,

Ah, it's wonderful to have beautiful, smart, helpful, but mainly Godly grandchildren, who are willing to help their old grandma and grandpa get their yard trimmed, de-grubbed (therefore de-moled) and planted for the summer. That generation in between is pretty great, too!

Concerning debate versus discussion: My brother-in-law taught debate and forensics at the U. of Illinois, (Champaign-Urbana) The U. of Texas (Austin), the U. of California (Fresno) and Wichita State. He took a year's sabbatical about 15 years ago, to start writng books (on debate and forensics) and never went back to teaching. He now also publishes his own books and my sister's books.

Debate is like a contest or competition. Points are scored. There are winners and losers. Teams of debaters travel around having debates, with observers evaluting their 'performances'. Their methods are the reason particularly gifted debaters get to be lawyers who get guilty people off. It is an art.

The series my B-I-L authors and publishes are the 'Squirrel-Killer' books. More law students than debate-forensics students buy them. (That is because more students are studying to be lawyers than are studying to be debate coaches or professors.)

Even so, if done in the right spirit, debates are informative and educational.

En Garde!

-- Anonymous, May 28, 2000

Thank you, John, for putting it so succinctly. What you said is how I see the matter, which is why it would violate my conscience to have or to encourage an actual debate ON THE ISSUE OF USING MUSICAL INSTRUMENTS IN WORSHIP, although I would enjoy the opportunity to put forward some "food for thought" (possibly even on both sides of the issue) in a discussion.

-- Anonymous, May 29, 2000

Lee,

You said,

"I seek a debate with the sincere desire to resolve this issue that divides us. I cannot see anything wrong with that hope."

If that really is your hope, there is certainly nothing wrong with it, but I am afraid I have serious doubts about the truth of the statement. I'm not accusing you of lying, as such. It is a matter of words. I think you do have a sincere desire to resolve the issue -- PROVIDED THAT the result is to get the rest of us to agree with your position. But I really doubt your willingness to see the issue resolved in any other direction.

If you really were that anxious to see the issue "resolved", no matter which side "came out on top", I think you would be willing to discuss it whenever and however it came up. You would not be so hung up on procedure that you would refuse to discuss it unless you could set all the rules.

I guess you could turn that around and accuse me of the same -- of not being serious about resolving the issue because I won't agree to debate it, as you wish. But I think there is a difference. For me, I am not refusing out of "fear" that since I am out-numbered the rest might "gang up on" me or give me with more arguments than I can handle at once or make statements without being willing to back them up logically, or anything like that. I am refusing out of conscience, because I believe that debates are adversarial by nature and tend to polarise much more than "mere" discussions*, and I think we are already much too polarised on this issue. Therefore I will "discuss" various individual aspects of the situation, with anyone at any place and any time that I am able to, but I will NOT debate the matter. (*I say this, that debates are adversarial and polarise, both because of how debates are run and because of my own experiences with formal debates.)

-- Anonymous, May 29, 2000

Brother Ben:

You said:

"If you really were that anxious to see the issue "resolved", no matter which side "came out on top", I think you would be willing to discuss it whenever and however it came up. You would not be so hung up on procedure that you would refuse to discuss it unless you could set all the rules."

It is not true to say that one interested in resolving an issue is willing to discuss it whenever and however it came up. We have all seen situations in life when we wanted sincerely to resolve something and we realized that we would have to plan a reasonable approach that would work toward and contribute to the resolution of the matter and we would therefore choose the appropriate time and place to discuss it. I do sincerely seek a resolution regardless of what the truth turns out to be. I am sincerely willing to accept the truth even if it turns out that the use of instrumental music is authorized by the New Testament. I would hope that one such as yourself, who is the only one talking about "sides" and "winning and losing" and "coming out on top" could refrain from such "polarizing" thinking and language long enough to focus upon the objective of seeking the truth concerning this subject. Now you have tried to leave the impression that I am not seeking the truth. But I can only say that I am seeking it. I am convinced that instrumental music in the worship is wrong because it is not authorized by the New Testament. Now because I am presently convinced that such is the truth does not mean that I could not be convinced otherwise. It only means that one will have to offer evidence to the contrary in a situation that allows a fair representation of all evidence in the case to make me accept it. A formal debate gives them the opportunity to do so and it also gives me the opportunity to respond to one person at a time and to stick to the subject at hand and offer evidence in favor of my present position. Now you may have your mind "made up" and are therefore only willing to engage in a freewheeling discussion that allows all side issues and unreated matters to cloud the thinking of all who might not accept you position if they were not so distracted.

I am interested in resolving this issue that divides us and that is the reason that I have asked for a formal debate. I am convinced that debates do not necessarily "polorize" any more than a "freewheeling discussion". In fact debates provide the best means of having a discussion in an orderly and clear manner.

Now when you imply that I want to "set all the rules" before having a discussion you are being rediculous and if you have the experience that you claim to have in debate you know that in a formal debate neither side is allowed to set all the rules but rather they discuss and agree upon them before the debate begins. At present I have only sought to persuade you to agree to debate this subject. I have not sought to set any rules. If you were to agree to debate this subject I would then work with you to reach agreement upon the rules that we both would follow in the discussion. SO your assertion that I want to set ALL the rules is absurd and you know it.

People poloarize, Brother Ben, Formats do not. If you would be amiable in a freewheeling discussion you would be so in a formal debate. But you have insisted that debates offend your conscience. Now that is the end of this matter between us. You cannot debate this subject for to do so would violate your conscience. I have said before that I respect your conscience and will not seek a debate from you any longer. But you want to continue to argue with me about it. If you are going to debate me without any rules about how wrong debates are then I cannot see why it would be so adverse to your conscience to debate the subject of instrumental music with some agreed upon rules or guidelines. A debate is nothing more than a discussion that follows some predetermined and agreed upon guidelines for the discussion.

Now just because YOU have had a bad experience with debates does not mean that everyone has had similar experiences. And just because you do not want to accept any rules or guidelines for the discussion of this subject does not mean that any one wanting some guidelines is out to set ALL the rules himself.

We have already accepted the fact that you are unwilling to debate this subject with me or anyone else. Now it is time for YOU to accept it. I am waiting for someone else who might be interested in debating the subject because it will not go away in this forum. Every time I make even the slightest comment concerning singing in the church or my disagreement with the "entertainment" approach to worship that appears to be prevalent in many churches I must then engage everyone in a discussion of this subject. Now a formal debate is what I am willing to and it is what you are completely unwilling to do. So I wait for someone who is willing to engage in a debate which is not wrong or sinful for anyone to do. You are not disagreeing with the idea of debate, Brother Reese, you are avoiding the "rules" of debate that require that all sides be fair and reasonable with one another. But that is your right to avoid such if it truly violates your conscience. But I see debate as an excellent way to resolve differences. I have seen it be far more effective than "freewheeling discussions".

Now Brother Ben. You can contiue to debate about how debating violates your conscience if you must but I will wait now for someone who is willing to debate the issue of instrumental music in the worship.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, May 29, 2000

I think we (mainly Lee and I, I'm afraid) have WASTED an enormous amount of time on a totally UNNECESSARY discussion of procedural matters.

While writing my last posting to this thread, above, I started musing about how this whole discussion got started. So I did some checking to make sure my memory was accurate. It was.

This did NOT start with someone trying to provoke Lee Saffold into getting involved in a discussion that he was reluctant to be a part of or reluctant to participate in unless it was a formal debate. In the thread on "Women helping in the church", I listed a number of jobs that are commonly done by women in most churches I have had experience with. One was playing the piano. But I took note, in passing, that there was at least one of our number that would object to this, not because of the gender of the pianist but because of the instrument itself.

Lee took umbrage at what I said, accusing me of being insincere and hypocritical because I had included the "just kidding" words, "Sorry, Lee!", in what I said.

He continued by defending his position on instruments at considerable length, saying -- several times, with many words and some supporting arguments -- that he believes that the use of musical instruments in worship is forbidden, that it is forbidden because it is not specifically authorised, that this principle (that unless something is specifically authorised it is forbidden) is widely recognised, even by "our" side, since even we would not have "peanut butter sandwiches" at the Lord's Table, etc.

After I started this new thread, challenging him, albeit "tongue in cheek", on the assumption that anything that is not specifically "authorised" is forbidden, he argued that point further, again in some detail, and also accused "us" of inconsistency since some will argue that specific authorisation is not necessary, while others will argue that musical instruments are in fact authorised. (When I first read that last argument, I thought he had a valid point, but after thinking it over, I think it is another "straw man.")

Since he himself* brought up all these points in the context of open discussion, I think it is "fair game" for anyone in this forum to respond to any or all of them -- similarly in open discussion. And I propose to do so, as I have time, rather than wasting more time on discussing "debate" versus "discussion." I think it is also fair to expect a response from him -- also in open discussion since he himself brought up all these arguments in the context of open discussion.

If he doesn't like that, maybe he will not be so free in future to put forward controversial views unless he is prepared to defend them in the same context.

It is one thing if someone else brings up views they know him to have and asks him to defend them, if he wants to decline to do it unless he can have some say in how the discussion is structured -- as happened in the previous thread specifically on musical instruments. It is quite another for him to bring them up and then refuse to go any further when others want to respond to what he has already said.

(*Lest anyone say that it is really I that started all this, because his first "salvo" was in response to something I said, I deny that because I did not attack his views, nor did I even offer any argument on the issue at all. All I did, initially, was to take note that I knew that one person would disagree with one of my illustrations, but for a reason totally unrelated to the point I was trying to make.)

So, Lee, if you choose to continue to decline to respond to the point I made above and in the musical instruments thread about what it means to "sing", that's fine. But the question of what constitutes "authorisation" is much more basic anyway. You made your points about that in the context of an open discussion. I will respond in the context of an open discussion (maybe here, maybe in a new thread since this one is getting long) and I think I have a right to expect that you will respond in the context of an open discussion.

You have been quite scathing about people who make "unfounded statements" when the discussion is open (you seemed to mean those who make statements without being willing to back them up with evidence and logic), and about those who are unwilling to open up their arguments to "intense scrutiny". If you, having made the statements I have pulled together here (which you have!), are unwilling to have them challenged, and/or are unwilling to answer the challenges made -- in the same sort of context or format in which you made them -- are you any better than the ones you criticise?

-- Anonymous, May 29, 2000

Nice try Brother Ben but this will not work either:

"If you, having made the statements I have pulled together here (which you have!), are unwilling to have them challenged, and/or are unwilling to answer the challenges made -- in the same sort of context or format in which you made them -- are you any better than the ones you criticise?"

Brother Ben, I am not any better than any of my brethren in this forum, even the ones that I critisize. I will leave it to others to decide whether I acknowledge all arguments made against my position and whether I even attemp to answer them or not. In fact I believe that it is quite obvious that I have responded to far more arguments than I have received reponses to mine. I have deliberately chosen to discuss in detail the instrumental music issue only in the context of a formal debate and will not change my mine concerning that matter no matter what that makes you and others think. I would think that those who are undecided about this matter are truly worndering about now just why none have shown a willingness to debate this matter. I intended to make this point clear and have succeeded in showing that many are willing to claim much about instrumental music that are completely unwilling to debate it in a fair and reasonable debate wherein all parties are given fair treatment. You just do not want to be in a situation that demands a level playing field, now do you?

I have made the statements that you mention above and do not deny them and I am willing to back them up but I refuse to be dragged by any one into a freewheeling discussion just because we began discussing something in an off the cuff remark made by me in response to something calculated by you, which I did not realize at the time, to engage me on the subject of instrumental music in an indepth discussion. You said that women could play the instruments in the worship and you singled me out in reference to it and I responded to what you said. You then chose to follow with a more detailed discussion which was not very serious in nature and I decided that this was not a good point or appropriate manner for me to engage in a subject that I had prviously told everyone in this forum that I would not do. So I have kept my promise to engage in this discussion only in the format of a formal debate. Just because I resond to those who single me out concerning this subject does not mean that I would break my promise to discuss it at length only in the context of a formal debate. Now you do not like this, brother Ben, but that is just too bad. I made a promise and though I have been tempted often, as was the case with your comment to which I responded I remain committed to keeping my promise to discuss this matter only in a formal debate. I am as human as anyone else and when I am singled out because of my beliefs am just as tempted to respond as anyone else. I have a right to respond without agreeing to further discussion in a format that I do not think is acceptable for a complete discussion. Any of those whom I have critisized for failing to respond could have said they would debate me or discuss it in another format as I have done and I would not object. Instead they refuse to respond at all in any format whatsoever. Now I have offered to respond to you in a formal debate. You do not want to engage in such that is your business. But the implication by you that I must respond in the same format that you made the arguments is not required by any rule or of common sense. I know that this subject is more complex than to allow it to be discussed in detail in any format that does not allow for clarity, understanding, and requires all to face the arguments. Now you have no stomach for a formal discussion of this subject. That is your right and I have no desire to fully engage the matter in a freewheeling discussion and that is my right. I have spent a lot of time answering arguments in this forum made by you and others that have simply been ignored because their is no requirement in a freewheeling discussion for them to be answered. The first time I use this tactic against you you do not like it. Well, at least I have not refused to answer your argument and I have not completely ignored it and if you will read this tread more closely you will see that I have responded to the arguments that you have made and you will also notice that the argument that you have resently asked me to respond to was made in another place under circumstances wherein I was being called upon to defend my position. That argument was not made in the "women's thread" or the "peanutbutter sandwiches" thread but rather in the very place where I was being attacted concerning this subject and called upon to discuss it with numerous people at the same time from several different perspectives and I told you then and I tell you again that I will debate this matter with you or anyone else but I will only discuss it in the format of a formal debate that allows me to respond to one proposition at a time through one person at a time in a format that requires both sides to give appropriate attention to all arguments that are made. You were told that when you first made this argument in the thread that was written to specifically challenge me concerning this issue and I repeat it to you again that I will answer you and all of the others who made arguments one by one in a formal debate. Now if you cannot deal with your unwillingness to meet me in formal debate that is your problem. I will answer you there as I promised I would if you are willing to take that argument to a formal debate. If you are unwilling to do so then I have no obligation to pay your flemsy and self admitted "superficial" argument brought over from another thread into a less than serious one any particular special attention while I have ignore the arguments of others for the same reason.

If you are unwilling to debate the subject Brother Ben that is fine. I will not be forced by ridicule or any other type of absurd prodding into a freewheeling discussion of this matter. If you think that such means that I am not consistant then so be it. But everyone can see that I have suggested this debate on this subject for some time now and that you are trying your best to circumvent my intentions to have a completely well organized discussion of this subject that allows fairness to all. If you do not want that then you can just sit back and watch as I discuss it with someone more willing to engage in fair honorable and reasonable debate. If you want them to make your argument for you you are welcome to pass it to them and I will give attention to it. It is hardly worth your trouble and you know it but if you want to see me deal with it I will do so, as I have consistantly stated in the format of a formal debate. I will not be detered from my purpose in this just because I yeilded to the temptation to respond to your singling me out with your "sorry, Lee" comment in what I perceived to be a "snide comment" on your part and failing to realize that you were attempting to "goad" me into a freewheeling discussion of the subject that you knew full well that I had previously made clear to everyone that I would discuss only in the context of a formal debate.

I want to be clear that I have not ignored your argument that was made at the same time and place that brothers Winstead, John Wilson, and Nate Graham, made theirs which was the very place that you originally made this argument that you now ask me to answer. I told everyone that I have read their arguments and acknowledged their existance and that I would answer them only in a formal debate for anyone willing to do that much work. I have admitted that I have made no attempt to answer your argument and explained that I would do so in a formal debate. I have said that to John Wilson, Mark Winstead, and Nate Graham at the very same time that I said it to you and now you bring it into this thread and pretend that you did not make this argument at a time when I was being called upon by others to defend my position against all of them simutaneously concerning instrumental music. Now Brother Ben you know that such is the truth. You did not make this argument at the time that you and I began talking about "peanut Butter sandwiches" but rather at the same time everyone was attempting to "straiten me out" on instrumental music and what I said to all of you then was that I would answer you in a formal debate and I will not change my mind just for you, Brother Ben. Now if you are not willing to submit that argument to a formal debate you will just have to save it for someone else to discuss with you. I am under no obligation in this form to respond as you would prefer that I respond nor am I obligated to respond in a fromat suitable to you.

You are unwilling to debate this issue for it "violates your conscience". Therefore I will not violate your conscience in the matter and you can delude yourself and others if you must that such is a sufficient response and settles the instrumental music issue for you but those seeking the truth can see through such self deception.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, May 29, 2000

One other thing Brother Ben:

I have agreed to engage in your freewheeling discussion when and if you or someone else accepts to engage in a formal debate of the subject for then I will be satisfied that I will have the opportunity to present a clear and fair defense of the truth to which all can refer when they think of this subject. I have already told you that now several times. So your implication that I will not engage in your freewheeling discussion is not true. I will not do so until someone also agrees to a fromal debate on the matter. Now you, on the other hand are the one who is insisting solely on a freewheeling discussion and nothing else. I am telling you now that such is not going to happen and you can make of it wahtever you think you can make of it. And in return I will make of your refusal to enter a fromal debate on this subject just exactly what I wish as well.

So you can take this nonsense as far as you want to and God will be the judge of such matters for he knows the real reason you refuse to engage in a formal debate of this subject and I doubt very seriously that it is solely because you are adverse to all debates!

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, May 29, 2000

I totally withdraw what I said about the argument I offered (about the meaning of the word "sing") being a "superficial" argument. I did not mean "superficial" in the sense you (Lee) are using it. It is a valid argument. It is one that will stand up to scrutiny. I have never yet met anyone from the "a-capella" camp who had a good answer for it. In fact, I've never yet met anyone from the "a-capella" camp who even attempted an answer. (I mean the first part of my argument, about the fact that when people use the word "sing" in common speech they are more likely to specify when instruments are NOT used than to specify when they are, rather than the latter part about PSALLO, which they do attempt to deal with, though the answers I have heard seem rather unsatisfactory.)

The ONLY thing I meant by saying the argument was superficial was that it deals with the symptom (the question of instrumental music) rather than the root cause, which is an unnatural and un-Scriptural approach to hermeneutics.

-- Anonymous, May 30, 2000

Brother Lee,

You said,

"So you can take this nonsense as far as you want to and God will be the judge of such matters for he knows the real reason you refuse to engage in a formal debate of this subject and I doubt very seriously that it is solely because you are adverse to all debates!"

I never said I was averse (I think that's the word you meant, not "adverse") to ALL debates. I have said repeatedly and with emphasis that I feel that a debate ON THIS SUBJECT is inappropriate, and I have repeatedly explained why. Who is guilty of nonsense when you keep accusing me of -- even attacking me for -- things I have not said, positions I do not hold and things I have not done?

-- Anonymous, May 30, 2000

Brother Lee,

You said,

"I want to be clear that I have not ignored your argument that was made at the same time and place that brothers Winstead, John Wilson, and Nate Graham, made theirs which was the very place that you originally made this argument that you now ask me to answer. I told everyone that I have read their arguments and acknowledged their existance and that I would answer them only in a formal debate for anyone willing to do that much work. I have admitted that I have made no attempt to answer your argument and explained that I would do so in a formal debate. I have said that to John Wilson, Mark Winstead, and Nate Graham at the very same time that I said it to you and now you bring it into this thread and pretend that you did not make this argument at a time when I was being called upon by others to defend my position against all of them simutaneously concerning instrumental music. Now Brother Ben you know that such is the truth. You did not make this argument at the time that you and I began talking about 'peanut Butter sandwiches' but rather at the same time everyone was attempting to 'straiten me out' on instrumental music and what I said to all of you then was that I would answer you in a formal debate and I will not change my mind just for you, Brother Ben. Now if you are not willing to submit that argument to a formal debate you will just have to save it for someone else to discuss with you. I am under no obligation in this form to respond as you would prefer that I respond nor am I obligated to respond in a fromat suitable to you."

I have already quite specifically acknowledged the substance of that, and said that in view of this fact I would not call on you at this time to answer that specific argument. But I do expect you to respond to my responses (as soon as I make them) to the arguments (about "authorisation", etc.) that you yourself put forward, in the context of an open discussion, in the threads on "Women Helping in the Church" and in this ("Peanut Butter Sandwiches") thread. I think that's only fair in view of how they came up and that you yourself brought them up in open discussion.

-- Anonymous, May 30, 2000

Brother Ben:

You have said:

I have already quite specifically acknowledged the substance of that, and said that in view of this fact I would not call on you at this time to answer that specific argument. But I do expect you to respond to my responses (as soon as I make them) to the arguments (about "authorisation", etc.) that you yourself put forward, in the context of an open discussion, in the threads on "Women Helping in the Church" and in this ("Peanut Butter Sandwiches") thread. I think that's only fair in view of how they came up and that you yourself brought them up in open discussion.

It did not appear to me that you had quite specifically acknowledged the substance of that which you had quoted from me in you last post. However, I could have misunderstood you. Therefore I accept this post as an acknowledgement of the substance of those things and appreciate your doing so.

I also acknowledge again, as I have before, that I will engage you in a freewheeling discussion of these matters after someone has agreed to a formal debate of this instrumental music question. Therefore I will not necessarily respond, for I am not obligated by any means to do so, to your responses as soon as you make them. For if you want prompt responses to your arguments, Brother Ben, you should respond promptly in making them. If you wait until I am involved in this debate with Brother Jack Prentice you will not receive a response to your responses as soon as you make them (concerning authorization etc.).

But I did promise you that I would participate in your freewheeling discussion if some one agreed to a formal debate. It appears that Brother Jack Prentice is seriously considering participating in such a debate concerning instrumental music and since he and I are currently working out the details of such, and we most likely will be involved in this matter, I can only respond to you after I have finished that endeavor. But when that is finished you are welcome to start a freewheeling discussion of the subject of authorization and whatever else concerns you about our brief exchange and I will be more than happy to join in on that freewheeling discussion. But do not expect me to do so while I am engaged with Brother Jack Prentice in arranging for and participating in a debate on the issue of instrumental music. For during that time I will not respond to anything else so that I can focus my attention, with the limited time I have available, to that important task.

I sincerely hope that you can understand and accept what I have just said but whether you do so or not I will focus my attention on that debate and when I am finished with that I will join in on any freewheeling discussion that you start concerning these subjects that concerned you in our brief exchange and I will heartily join in on any others that I deem important in which I desire to express what I believe to be the truth of Gods word. Especially if I find what I consider to be error or if I see an opportunity to join with you in defense of the faith once delivered to the saints or in the furtherance of the gospel of Christ our Lord.

But you need not expect me to ever respond on your time frame. I am not obligated, in any freewheeling discussion to do anything at all. It is a freewheeling discussion with no rules or expectations whatsoever. So do not try to be EXPECTING anything from a freewheeling discussion for that is the flaw in such discussions. They are freewheeling and no one can EXPECT anything of anyone who is participating in them. If you do not like that situation, Brother Ben, you can always reconsider your disdain for a formal debate wherein certain matters are decided in advance and both parties agree to certain guidelines and they are therefore justified in EXPECTING the things which they have agreed upon in the outset of the debate. But those who enjoy the freewheeling discussion because there are no rules or guidelines cannot reasonably or justifiably have any EXPECTATIONS concerning those who participate in them at all. If this is not to your liking, Brother Ben, then I sincerely hope it will be a lesson well learned in the reason that freewheeling discussions are very poor formats in which to discuss subjects of great importance wherein you will have any EXPECTATIONS concerning when and how others will respond to you, if they respond at all.

I do pray for us all, Brother Ben, that we can have more debates wherein we can possibly give subjects the treatment they deserve and wherein we can EXPECT certain things and obtain at least some measure or understanding and significant results toward resolution of our differences. I hope that we can do these things until our differences are resolved in the light of GOd's word and we are in perfect harmony and we can reserve the ptolemic platform for the enemies of Christ our Lord to meet us and reason with us so that they can be persuaded to be come christians all of them. Then, and only then can we say that we are finished.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, May 30, 2000

Thank you, Brother Lee, for the much friendlier tone of your latest posting.

If you would like to know exactly what I said and when I said it in the past, I can go back and pull out the relevant pieces, but if what I said in my last posting is enough for you, then let's let it rest, except for one more thing which I'll say in a moment.

I'm sorry if what I said about "as soon as I say it" seemed unrealistic and too demanding. I didn't really mean "instantly", even though I realise, in retrospect, that that is probably the way it comes across. What I meant was something more along the lines of "as soon as reasonably possible", as opposed to waiting on some arbitrary circumstance in the future which may or may not actually happen. You had said you would agree to a "free-wheeling discussion" AFTER the debate had taken place. But the debate hasn't taken place yet, and may yet not actually materialise. I didn't think it was fair to insist on waiting for that, which MIGHT not ever happen, before responding to the things I said in specific response to specific points you yourself had raised in the open forum.

It also seems a little arbitrary to me for you to use the argument that one reason a formal debate is needed is because you can't have "expectations" that people should respond to your arguments in an open discussion in the way that you could in a debate, if you yourself are the main one refusing to respond in open discussion. It's kind of like saying that if you don't have ushers in a public meeting, people will become rowdy, and then "proving" that true by yourself being the main one to become rowdy.

The following (after the row of asterisks) is something I wrote overnight -- before I read your more friendly posting above. If I were writing it now I'd probably say things in a less confrontative manner, but I don't have time for a full re-write. I could just forget it and not send it, but it does explain WHY I went ahead and posted that one argument even in spite of knowing that you had already declined to answer it and knowing why you had declined. So please read it for the explanation and ignore anything that may strike you as unfriendly or confrontative.

My submitting that argument was certainly NOT part of some sneaky and underhanded ploy to force you to "discuss" something that you were reluctant to. (In fact, NONE of what I've said has been so, and the original "off-hand", "just kidding" remark in the "Women Helping in the Church" thread, far from being the calculated ploy that you have suggested it was, was intended as a gesture of friendship.)

*******************

P.S. to my last previous posting, above:

The reason I submitted the particular argument I did, despite knowing that you, Lee, had refused to answer it previously and the reasons you had refused to answer it previously, was precisely that I had submitted it previously.

You were at that time accusing me of cowardice (and/or of knowing my arguments were weak) for refusing to submit my arguments to your "intense scrutiny" by agreeing to a formal debate. I made the point that how much scrutiny an argument receives NEVER depends on something as arbitrary as the format of the "debate" or "discussion" but entirely on the one doing the scrutinising -- on how seriously they take their scrutiny. By way of evidence of that fact, I submitted an argument THAT I HAD ALREADY PRESENTED TO YOU PREVIOUSLY. I challenged you to give it the intense scrutiny you accused me of being too afraid to face. I challenged you, to put it in the vernacular, to "put up or shut up."

Not only have you continued to refuse to give it your "intense scrutiny", but you have continued to accuse me of cowardice for not submitting my arguments to your "intense scrutiny"!! You can't have it both ways! I have said already that in view of the fact that I first brought this argument up in a thread where you had already declared your unwillingness to discuss the issue except in the debate format, I would withdraw this particular argument from the table for now. It would be nice if you would reciprocate by withdrawing your unfounded (and proven to be unfounded) accusations of cowardice on my part.

-- Anonymous, May 31, 2000

A FURTHER CORRECTION/CLARIFICATION

Brother Lee, I was too focussed on and too influenced by what you said about what I said, i.e. my saying "as soon as I make them". Not only did you misinterpret what I said, but I even "misinterpreted" it myself when explaining it. I have read what I said again in full and in context and remember now what I REALLY meant when I said it.

A better way to have said it might have been "AFTER I make them." What I meant was that I obviously could not expect you to respond to arguments I had not yet put forward, but I would expect that you would respond to them when I had. Thank you for the assurance (if I understood you correctly) that you will do so, albeit "as time permits" (which was always a "given" as far as I was concerned).

-- Anonymous, May 31, 2000

Brother Ben:

You have said:

I totally withdraw what I said about the argument I offered (about the meaning of the word "sing") being a "superficial" argument. I did not mean "superficial" in the sense you (Lee) are using it. It is a valid argument. It is one that will stand up to scrutiny. I have never yet met anyone from the "a-capella" camp who had a good answer for it. In fact, I've never yet met anyone from the "a-capella" camp who even attempted an answer. (I mean the first part of my argument, about the fact that when people use the word "sing" in common speech they are more likely to specify when instruments are NOT used than to specify when they are, rather than the latter part about PSALLO, which they do attempt to deal with, though the answers I have heard seem rather unsatisfactory.) The ONLY thing I meant by saying the argument was superficial was that it deals with the symptom (the question of instrumental music) rather than the root cause, which is an unnatural and un-Scriptural approach to hermeneutics.

Now, Brother Ben, in order to be clear on exactly what you have said in relation to this argument (about the meaning of the word sing) an just how you apparently used the word superficial in context I no quote your exact words as follows:

The argument about music that I submitted is, I admit, a somewhat superficial one (though NOT, in my opinion, a "weak" one).

Ben, you have now gone from admitting that your argument (about the meaning of the English word sing) being a superficial argument to claiming that it is an irrefutable one. For you now claim that it is unanswerable. Now for the life of me I cannot comprehend just how you could have used the word superficial in reference to an argument that you now reveal you were convinced was in fact unanswerable since no one holding the opposite view from yours has ever been able to answer it. I therefore cannot see just how you could be telling us the truth in both places. Either you were pretending when you said it was superficial while you knew all along that you were convinced that no one could answer it because no one had yet done so. Or you are now pretending that it is irrefutable in your excessive attempts to force me into a freewheeling discussion of a subject that you are completely unwilling to debate formally.

You say now that you did not mean to use the word superficial in the sense in which I used it. You most certainly did not mean to imply that the argument was a weak one and I can understand that from what you have said but you clearly did not use this word to indicate that you felt that the argument was unanswerable as you now seem to be claiming. If you knew when you wrote this that no one in the acapella camp, as you put it, has had a good answer for it then you were not being truthful when you pretended to admit that it is a superficial argument. Everyone knows that superficial does not mean weak (though I believe that your argument is both superficial and extremely weak) but it most certainly does not mean unanswerable.

Now which statement are we to believe is the truth, Brother Ben, the one wherein you admit that this argument is superficial or this latest one wherein you seek to leave the impression that it is unanswerable? In your first statement you are cautious to not claim too much for the argument and in the other you are bold to claim invincibility. If you think it is so powerful, maybe you could explain how you could have admitted that this argument was superficial when all along you have really believed that no one has ever offered a satisfactory answer to it. If you think that this argument has so much merit you may like to submit it to Brother Prentice so that he can use this incredibly POWERFUL argument in the debate. As I have told you before, I will answer your argument as well as the arguments of others on this subject in a formal debate. The answer to this argument is very simple and if you would like to see it answered you are welcome to submit it to the debate and if Brother Jack finds any merit in it he can make the argument and I will deal with summarily. If I answer this argument or any other argument concerning this issue outside of a formal debate I will not be keeping my commitment to all of the others whose arguments I have acknowledged and promised to answer only in a formal debate. I made that promise for a good reason and I will keep it simply because I made it. Nothing in this world will cause me to be diverted from my intention to keep that promise to everyone. If there is no formal debate their will be no freewheeling discussion with me on the subject. If a formal debate is arranged wherein I will have a fair and equitable opportunity to present the case for vocal music only in worship to God then and only then will I agree to as many freewheeling discussions that you or anyone else wish to have me to participate concerning this matter. But this will not happen until I am completely satisfied that the case for vocal music has had a fair and just hearing by everyone reading this forum in the format of a formal debate which consider to be the most fair forum for me to make that case. If I am not given that opportunity then I will not participate in any freewheeling discussion at length on the issue. My rethren, in this forum, are not shy about taking e.very opportunity make comments in support of entertainment in their worship services in the form of musical groups designed to please all who attend And they feel no obligation to engage in a formal debate of the issue just because they have made such comments. Therefore neither shall I stop making comments, when opportunity arises, to critisize the use of instrumental music in the worship of God as well as the attitude of entertainment of the saints prevalent among those using instruments in their worship. And I will always encourage instead the directing our with worship toward God to honor and adore and praise him with our voices accompanied only by Gods chosen and favorite instrument of a humble and contrite heart filled with love, thankfulness and grace. I have this right , to speak of the merits of vocal music in the church without expecting that every time I do so I must necessarily engage in a lengthy freewheeling discussion of the matter. My making such comments as I choose to make in any freewheeling discussion does not obligate me to commit myself to any further discussion of the matter in that format.

I do not know just how many times I must tell you that I will engage in your freewheeling discussion only if I AM ALLOWED TO DEBATE THIS SUBJECT FORMALLY FIRST. Your argument was brought up in a thread wherein I had been openly challenged concerning this subject and several including yourself offered their arguments without even considering whether I WANTED TO DISCUSS IT OR NOT. I stated plainly that I would discuss it with each of you one at a time in a formal debate and that I would not discuss it any other way. No one, including you was willing to engage in a formal debate. This is the reason that I said that you were unwilling to submit that argument to the intense scrutiny OF A FORMAL DEBATE. I did not say you were unwilling to submit it to intense scrutiny at all but only to the scrutiny of a debate wherein your argument is connected to and required to support a clearly stated proposition.

Now that is final and no amount of prodding or intimidation or arrogant claims of the strength of arguments or accusations of fear (which I remind you was something that YOU brought up to which I responded in kind) will divert me from my purpose to debate this matter formally before I engage in any lengthy freewheeling discussion of this subject. So you can just discuss it with yourself and your brethren until one of you agrees to a formal debate of the matter with me. Only after I have received a fair hearing in such a format will I engage in any other type discussions of the matter.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, June 01, 2000

Brother Danny:

I apologize to you for refering to my brethren in that way. It was sectatarian in nature and I had not even tought of it in that light. I meant to say that he would be discussing that issue with himself and those who agree with him, which is realtively easy to do, but he would not be discussing the matter with me. I do sincerely apologize for I do not concieve of you and others who agree with brother Ben on instrumental music as "Ben's" brethren and not mine also. As I have always said, Brother Danny, when you question me I listen and I hope that you will note that I have treated all who are members of the body of Christ in this forum as my brethren regardless of how much they disagree with me.

I thank you for the correction and I promise to choose my word's in relation to this matter more carefully in the future. I am working very hard these days and only have a short time to write and I do not always make the best chice of words but you can be sure that I see all Christians as my brethren regardless of whether they use instruments in the worship or not.

Please forgive the impression that I unintentionally left. For I have every desire to avoid sectarianism in my heart as well as in my words and deeds.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, June 01, 2000

Brother Lee,

I have told you EXACTLY what I meant by calling my earlier argument about the meaning of the word sing "superficial". I said, "The ONLY thing I meant by saying the argument was superficial was that it deals with the symptom (the question of instrumental music) rather than the root cause, which is an unnatural and un-Scriptural approach to hermeneutics."

That is what I meant when I first called it superficial. It is all I have ever meant in using this word concerning this argument, and all I ever will mean in this regard.

I brought the argument up in the earlier thread, not necessarily for you to answer, since you had said you wouldn't, but as a statement of one of the reasons why I myself am on the "side" I am with regard to using instruments in worship. (Surely I am entitled to do that!?! Or don't I have as much "right" to say why I think instrumental music is permitted as you do "to speak of the merits of vocal music in the church" -- as you put it in a recent posting?)

I have recently explained (in one of my May 31 postings) why I copied it from there into this thread. I won't bother to repeat it again now. Read the above if you want to see it.

On at least two occasions I have said that in view of the context of the earlier posting and your stated intention at that time not to "discuss" the matter unless it was in a formal debate, I would withdraw that particular argument for now.

You seem, however, to continue to want to dance around the outside of the argument, trying to make capital out of the fact that I once called this argument "superficial" (though I did not mean by that what you are trying to imply that I did), and arguing about whether it is easy or difficult to answer. All I have done is to try, a couple of times, relatively briefly, to clarify what I meant.

The only way to see whether it is easy or difficult to answer, or whether it is "superficial" only in the sense I meant or also in the sense you want it to mean, is for you to answer the argument itself -- not to continue to argue around the periphery.

If you want to answer the argument, Lee, then do so. If not, then quit all this nonsense of arguing about whether it is "superficial", "easy to answer", "simple", "irrefutable", "unanswerable", etc.

**********

P.S.

You said,

"Now for the life of me I cannot comprehend just how you could have used the word superficial in reference to an argument that you now reveal you were convinced was in fact unanswerable since no one holding the opposite view from yours has ever been able to answer it. I therefore cannot see just how you could be telling us the truth in both places."

That's very easy to explain. I gave part of the answer in my explanation of what I meant by saying it was a "superficial" argument. If that's not enough, I can explain more, but this would get deeper into the differences between your position and mine over the instrument. If I do, will you discuss them with me? Here and now without waiting for the formal debate? If not, then quit asking questions or making statements that can only be properly answered by getting into the matters that you *SAY* you don't want to "discuss".

-- Anonymous, June 02, 2000

Brother Ben:

I have offered to debate the subject of instrumental music with anyone in this forum. You keep writting to insist that I get involved in a freewheeling discussion instead of a debate. You do this because you refuse to debate the subject. Now I have told you that I would only discuss the matter in a fromal debate and have given my reasons. Now you can either agree to a formal debate or stop writing to complain that I will not accept your freewheeling discussion.

If you refuse A formal debate then I refuse your freewheeling discussion. Now, as it stands you will not debate the matter and therefore I will not discuss it in a freewheling discussion. You are the one making great claims for an argument that you are unwilling to submit to a formal debate wherein you must tie that argument to a clear statement of your position on the instrumental music issue. If you are unwilling to debate the matter then stop claiming so much for arguments that you are not confident enough to bring into a fair and honorable debate.

I have offered to answer your arguments in that forum and if you really want to discuss them with me that is where I will meet you. If not then I accept the fact that you have no confidence in your arguments to withstand being tied to a clear proposition that you have agreed to prove.

Now, as far as I am concerned we have wasted enough time on this matter. If Brother Jack agrees to debate this subject we will have a debate and you can watch it and submit your arguments to Brother Jack and see if he has more confidence in them that you. If he does not agree to debate the issue then we will all just have to accept the fact that none who support instrumental music in the worship are willing to engage in a fair and honorable debate of the subect wherein all pertinent arguments on both sides can be given fair and equitable hearing. If that is the case then I will have to just discuss the matter with those who have shown an interest through their e-mails to me directly. And I can assure you that there is sufficent interest. It has been my intent to allow both sides a fair hearing for I have been asked to talk about it privately by a few interested individuals in this forum. I thought that a debate would be a great way for me to state my position in full without being diverted into other matters and required to respond to more than one person and taking the discussion into an orderly arrangement and at the same time allowing the opposite side to present their arguments themselves in a fair format of formal debate. I thought that this was fair to both sides and would give everyone the opportunity and the information to decide the issue for themselves.

Now you clearly do not want this to occur, for you have said so plainly. You have made it clear that you are not agoainst debate but only against debating this subject. You are willing, therefore to give both sides a fair hearing in a formal debate on other subjects but you are not willing to give both sides a fair hearing in a formal debate of THIS PARTICULAR SUBJECT. I will leave it to the readers of this forum to decide for themselves why you do not want to see this subject debated. You originally said it was because you were against debating because it is "polorizing" and "adversarial" in nature. This caused us to think that you were against debates in general. But now we learn from your previous post that you do not object to all debates ONLY debating THIS subject.

Now either debate this subject or talk with yourself and those who agree with you and console yourself that you have stood firm for your position by successfully avoiding a fair and honorable debate of this issue which would allow both sides to obtain a fair hearing.

I now turn my energies toward those who appear to be willing to debate the matter. If, as you predict, Brother Jack will not ultimately agree to debate the subject then we will all know that none who believe in using it are willing to give both sides a fair and equitable hearing on this matter and I will leave it to the readers to decide just what is the cause of such an attitude among those who CLAIM to have the truth.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, June 02, 2000

Lee:

In your latest posting to Benjamin, almost everything you said in a negative voice to him can be spoken straight back at you, from the opposite perspective. Let me show you how:

I have offered to debate the subject of instrumental music with anyone in this forum. You keep writting to insist that I get involved in a freewheeling discussion instead of a debate. You do this because you refuse to debate the subject. Now I have told you that I would only discuss the matter in a fromal debate and have given my reasons. Now you can either agree to a formal debate or stop writing to complain that I will not accept your freewheeling discussion.

Let's turn the perspective around, using the same sentences but comeing from the opposite direction with the changes marked by brackets:

"I have [Benjamin has] offered to debate [discuss] the subject of instrumental music with [you] anyone in this forum. You keep writting to insist that I get involved in a freewheeling discussion [debate] instead of a debate [freewheeling discussion]. You do this because you refuse to debate {discuss] the subject. Now I have told you that I would only discuss the matter in a formal debate [in a freewheeling discussion] and have given my reasons. Now you can either agree to a formal debate [freewheeling discussion] or stop writing to complain that I will not accept your freewheeling discussion [debate]."

The rest of the posting easily fits the same pattern. You accuse him of refusing to debate because he knows his arguments are weak. He can just as well accuse you of refusing to "freewheelingly" discuss because YOUR arguments are weak. Nothing is accomplished with this.

Let me give you another example. You say to Benjamin, If you are unwilling to debate the matter then stop claiming so much for arguments that you are not confident enough to bring into a fair and honorable debate. One could just as validly say to you, "If you are unwilling to discuss the matter then stop claiming so much for arguments that you are not confident enough to bring into a fair and honorable discussion."

Or is it that you see "debate" as "fair and honorable", and discussion something less? You have participated in a great many discussions on these boards -- I wouldn't dare to say that you were not being "fair and honorable" when you did.

here's another: I have offered to answer your arguments in that forum and if you really want to discuss them with me that is where I will meet you. If not then I accept the fact that you have no confidence in your arguments to withstand being tied to a clear proposition that you have agreed to prove.

Once again, it turns against you. One can easily, and in the same spirit, say that Benjamin has offered to answer your arguments in a discussion forum, and that if you really want to discuss them then you will meet him there. And if you do not, then one can say that you have no confidence in your arguments.

I thought that a debate would be a great way for me to state my position in full without being diverted into other matters and required to respond to more than one person and taking the discussion into an orderly arrangement and at the same time allowing the opposite side to present their arguments themselves in a fair format of formal debate. I thought that this was fair to both sides and would give everyone the opportunity and the information to decide the issue for themselves.

This certainly IS fair for bith sides, and if you will do it, then, by all means, have at it. But do not dare to say that such conditions cannot and do not exist in the discussion format most common to this site. A look at any number of threads will show clearly that, if you intend to do so, you can focus your attention and arguments on one line or one person, no matter who pops in with comments or arguments. It has been often done. It can, and will, be done again.

I guess what's frosting my shorts is that you are very directly saying that only formal, organized, affirm-the-prop-deny-the-prop debate can an issue be fully and clearly argued, and that such cannot happen in a more "freewheeling discussion". I see this as a cop-out on your part, as if you were saying, "If we don't do it my way by my rules and with my ball and bat, then I'm going home."

You can do better than that. Why not try?

If you don't want to discuss outside a debate, then fine, don't discuss outside of a debate. It's your prerogative. But don't tell us that discussions are inferior ways of getting at truth.

And don't accuse Benjamin of not believing his own arguments simply because he won't agree to your rules of the game. As shown above, the statements work both ways.

-- Anonymous, June 02, 2000

Brother Sam:

I understand what you mean in you last post. The only thing it overlooks is the fact that I have agreed to engage in Ben's Freewheeling discussion after I have had the opportunity to have a fair and reasonable debate on the matter. In fact there is a major difference in a debate and a freewheeling discussion. You see once I enter that realm, which I have agreed to do, I will no only be debating with Ben, I will be debating with everyone simultaneously as has happened once before in this forum concerning this subject. I would never get all of my points accross and fairly heard and if I engage in such there would be little motivation on anyone's part to grant a debate wherein all of my points can be made fairly and the discussion would be connected to clearly defined propositions which would not be in a freewheeling discussion.

I would think that you could understand this if you were to put yourself in the position of being in a forum wherein the majority of those having "freewheeling discussions with you" are already holding the opposite view from you and have demonstrated that they are all eager to discuss it with you in a freewheeling discussion wherein you are the only one speaking for your position. Just think about it a little and you will be able to comprehend why I seek a fair hearing of all arguments first in a formal debate. After that I will have no problem with a freewheeling discussion because I have been granted a fair opportunity to express my arguments in an organized format and all will have had the opportunity to hear them. Then it would not bother me if everyone came at me at once and I would just be content to respond to the one's that I have the time to respond to. You see a freewheeling discussion will not be a discussion with brother Ben only. It will be a discussion with everyone almost simultaneously as happened once before and I had to offer a formal debate to get everyone to consider giving me a fair chance to make the case for vocal music in the church.

Now I am saying that I will play ball with Ben and others after I get a chance to try out for "little league" so to speak. I am focused on that objective first. After that I will be happy to play "scrubb ball" with all of the rest of the kids on the block. I cannot see that such is unfair to anyone.

You are right Brother Ben and I are wasting our time for all that he says to me can be said with equal force to him and vice versa. But that does not change my intention to debate this matter first. And I must tell you that I have been participating in nothing but freewheeling discussions in this forum for months and I have a right to reqest that we discuss at least one subject in a way that I believe is better than a freewheeling discussion. If none wish to grant that request then I will just have to go along and discuss the matter in a freewheeling discussion or never express an oppinion on the matter at all.

So it can be said with equal force that the other side is trying to have it "their way" as well.

I do not see just why the freewheeling discussion cannot be put on hold until after the formal debate. The issue will not go away and the difference between Ben and I will most likely be the same. His words and mine are will be in the archives and we can bring them right back and start right where we left off. There is just no good reason why anyone would refuse to formally debate this subject and there is no good reason that I cannot be allowed to leave a "freewheeling" discussion to egage in such a debate and retun to take up the matter later.

I hope you can understand what I have said but even if you do not I will not be detered from my course and my intent to debate this subject formally before I engage in any prolonged freewheeling discussion in this forum on this issue.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, June 02, 2000

Lee:

I understand entirely. And agree with your privilege to work thru the debate format.

My main points were (1)that accusations or assertions about Benjamin's motives and opinions of his own arguments are, first, fruitless and, second, impossible for you to determine anyway, unless you have that special blessing of the Spirit that Earnest Angley used to claim ("God has granted it to me to look on a man's spirit and know whether or not he will be saved."); and (2)that you have shown plenty of ability in past to narrowly focus on one "opponent" and mostly ignore others, and can certainly do it again; and (3)that open discussion can be as intense and thorough a learning experience as a good, proper debate.

I appreciate your willingness to approach the subject.

-- Anonymous, June 02, 2000

Brother Sam:

You "frosted shorts" concerning debates is a concern for you as you say in your following words:

"I guess what's frosting my shorts is that you are very directly saying that only formal, organized, affirm-the-prop-deny-the-prop debate can an issue be fully and clearly argued, and that such cannot happen in a more "freewheeling discussion". I see this as a cop-out on your part, as if you were saying, "If we don't do it my way by my rules and with my ball and bat, then I'm going home."

Now I have not said that a debate is the ONLY way that an issue can be fully and clearly argued. Nor have I said that such cannot happen in a more freewheeling discussion. But what I have experienced in this forum concerning this issue is that without some guidelines to follow I have not been able to get a fair hearing for my case. Now you may be correct in thinking that the weakness is with me and not the format of a freewheeling discussion. But in either case I want to ensure that the arguments against instrumental music in the worship are given a fair hearing in this forum and a formal debate is the ONLY way that I can do it. Now I am sure that one with your talents and abilities as well as one with brother Ben's talents and abilities could accomplish this within that framework. But I am not you nor am I Ben but I am the one speaking for the use of vocal music only in the worship and I have to use my meager talents and abilities in the most effective means possible for is speaking for what I consider to be the truth. If there is anyone out there with greater talents that can get a fair hearing of their arguments in a freewheeling discussion of this topic in this forum I would be happy to let them do so. But for now, I am the one who is speaking for the use of vocal music only in our worship and I have determined that a formal debate is the best format for me to do the very best job that I can for what I sincerely believe to be the truth. Now that is a simple fact and I will continue to insist upon it because I have already seen that I cannot get a fair hearing in this forum for this particular subject in a freewheeling discussion. Now others with greater talents such as you and Ben, could do it I have no doubt. But you are not the ones called upon to speak for Vocal Music only in the worship of God in the church of Christ. I am the only one speaking for that position and I will do it the best way that I know how. And, whether you think that is ignorance or weakness on my part is very much beside the point. I must do what I sincerely believe is the best that I can do. If that does not please you and Brother Ben then so be it. For I seek only to please the Lord and I believe what I am doing with my feeble talents in insisting upon a formal debate is pleasing to Him. He is the one that I serve and I will not alter my course in the least concerning this matter.

I do not mean or intend to "frosten you shorts" or frustrate you in any way I am only trying to defend what I believe to be the truth in the best way that I know how.

After I have had the opportunity to have my say in full in a formal debate and to have my arguments intensely examined by my good brother Jack Prentice I will be happy to engage in any "freewheeling discussion of this subject that I am called upon to join but not until then. For I intend to ensure that all of the arguments for the use of vocal music only in the worship of God are clearly expressed and put into the archeives so that when I do not have time to finish a discussion or completely respond to arguments that I disagree with I know that there is a full statement of what I believe to be the truth in the archeives to which I can refer all whom I do not have the time to discuss that matter.

I do not see anything unreasonable about this at all. Now I have made it just about as clear as I know how that this is what I WILL do and that I will not follow any other course of action in relation to this matter.

Then you try to depict me as a "spoiled little child" with these words:

"I see this as a cop-out on your part, as if you were saying, "If we don't do it my way by my rules and with my ball and bat, then I'm going home."

Now Brother Sam, I understand that your "shorts are frosted" and that such is very uncomfortable but it is no reason for you to accuse me of copping out when not only am I agreeing to a formal debate of this subject but I have also agreed to join the freewheeling discussion afterwards. I am doing both brother Sam, though I am not doing them in the order that you and Brother Ben would prefer. You speak of me as one who is saying that if we do not play by my "rules" I will take my ball and go home. Brother Sam, I am not GOING anywhere. I will be here for a formal debate and afterward for a "freewheeling discussion". I am not insisting upon my "rules" I am asking us all to agree to "play ball" by some rules that we all agree upon. Brother Jack is considering agreeing to some rules and guidelines for debate and I have agreed to follow the "play" this game with Brother Ben without any "rules" at all after I engage in a formal debate with rules that have been mutually agreed upon, not my own rules. I am even agreeing that the sole moderator for this debate be one who holds a viewpoint opossite of mine. While this is more because of my complete confidence and great respect for his demonstrated honesty and good character it remains true that I have not insisted totally upon my own way.

I hope that your "shorts will thaw" before the debate and that you will not take vengence upon me in the "freewheeling discussion" that will follow the formal debate.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

Then you say:

"If you don't want to discuss outside a debate, then fine, don't discuss outside of a debate. It's your prerogative. But don't tell us that discussions are inferior ways of getting at truth."

Now just why can't I tell you that discussions are infferior ways of getting at the truth if that is what I believe? For That is exactly what I believe to be the truth about this matter. I believe that formal debates are far superior to freewheeling discussion. If that is what is sincerely believe just why can I not tell you. Do I not have the freedom to speak exactly what I believe to be true in this forum?

-- Anonymous, June 02, 2000

Brother Sam:

It appears that you and I were typing at the same time for I did not see your response that I now quote until I had already posted my last post. If I had read your words which I now quote I probably would not have posted my last one. Ha!

Your kind words that follow are appreciated:

"I understand entirely. And agree with your privilege to work thru the debate format.

My main points were (1)that accusations or assertions about Benjamin's motives and opinions of his own arguments are, first, fruitless and, second, impossible for you to determine anyway, unless you have that special blessing of the Spirit that Earnest Angley used to claim ("God has granted it to me to look on a man's spirit and know whether or not he will be saved."); and (2)that you have shown plenty of ability in past to narrowly focus on one "opponent" and mostly ignore others, and can certainly do it again; and (3)that open discussion can be as intense and thorough a learning experience as a good, proper debate.

I appreciate your willingness to approach the subject."

You are right, I do not have the special "gifts" that Mr. Angley claimed for himself and I cannot know just how confident Brother Ben is concerning his arguments. I can only go by what he claimed in two places. In one place he claimed the following:

"The argument about music that I submitted is, I admit, a somewhat superficial one (though NOT, in my opinion, a "weak" one).

Which did not sound very confident to me and then he later claimed the following:

"It is a valid argument. It is one that will stand up to scrutiny. I have never yet met anyone from the "a-capella" camp who had a good answer for it. In fact, I've never yet met anyone from the "a- capella" camp who even attempted an answer."

Which sounded exceedingly confident. So I must agree with you that we just cannot tell really if he has some reasonable confidence in his argument that caused him to initially be cautious in using it or he has entirely too much confidence. But it does appear that he had this excessive confidence at the same time that he "admitted" that his argument was "superficial". But I must agree with you we just cannot know without special divine powers granted from the almighty just exactly what he thinks of his own argument in this case. I have to therefore withdraw my statements that he has no confidence in his argument and I hereby do just that and I thank you for the correction.

I also admit that with most subjects I am able to narrowly focus my attention on one person and ignore the rest but I am not convinced that I could do so with this discussion but I will give it a try when the debate is finished and I again enter the freewheeling discussion of this matter as I promised that I would. I think that my having the opportunity to have my full say in the debate will make it easier for me to do as you have sugessted.

I sincerely appreciate your understanding and agreement with my right to work through this subject in the debate format and I also very much appreciate your comments concerning my willingness to approach this subject. I really feel that it is important and your saying these things makes it feel beeter to take up this task. It is never easy to disagree with everyone on a subject as I am sure that you have had to do such a thing yourself as a preacher of the gospel.

I do hold you in very high regard Brother Sam and I hope that my insistence upon a formal debate does not severely hinder our friendship. I have often appreciated your keen insights and I appreciate them even now when we are on opposing sides of an important issue. I would not ask or expect you to do or say anything other than what you have said thus far. I do sincerely appreciate and understand the points that you have made and in general I accept them as correct though I do still sincerely believe that the debate format is superior to the "freewheeling discussion" but that is only a matter of opinion and I would not expect you to agree concerning it in any way.

Your Brother In Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, June 02, 2000

Lee Saffold,

In an earlier posting on June 2, you said the following,

"You keep writting to insist that I get involved in a freewheeling discussion instead of a debate. You do this because you refuse to debate the subject. Now I have told you that I would only discuss the matter in a fromal debate and have given my reasons. Now you can either agree to a formal debate or stop writing to complain that I will not accept your freewheeling discussion.

".... If you are unwilling to debate the matter then stop claiming so much for arguments that you are not confident enough to bring into a fair and honorable debate.

".... If not then I accept the fact that you have no confidence in your arguments to withstand being tied to a clear proposition that you have agreed to prove.

".... Now either debate this subject or talk with yourself and those who agree with you and console yourself that you have stood firm for your position by successfully avoiding a fair and honorable debate of this issue which would allow both sides to obtain a fair hearing."

That is unnecessarily quarrelsome. I think it definitely qualifies as an "ad hominem" approach. It also completely misses the point of my last posting. Instead, you have used it as yet another springboard to attack me for not being willing to "debate" you, and to attack my arguments indirectly (by implying that I myself have no confidence in them) without answering them directly.

To repeat, in condensed form -- If you will not answer my arguments in the context of the open forum (now -- without waiting for a debate that may or may not take place), STOP attacking them and me indirectly by talking about how weak they are, how I myself have said one argument is superficial (I didn't mean by that what you would like me to have meant!), how I have "no confidence in [my] arguments", how cowardly I am not to face you in a "fair" and structured debate (assuming that an open discussion would not be "fair"), etc., etc.

In fact, let me restate that, lest you misconstrue it as as yet another sneaky attempt to try to pressure you into the "free-wheeling" discussion you profess to despise. SINCE YOU REFUSE to answer my arguments in the context of the open forum, STOP attacking them and me indirectly by talking about how weak they are, how I myself have said one argument is superficial (I didn't mean by that what you would like me to have meant!), how I have "no confidence in [my] arguments", how cowardly I am not to face you in a "fair" and structured debate (assuming that an open discussion would not be "fair"), etc.

Play fair, Lee Saffold! Since you refuse to give a direct answer to my arguments in the open forum, quit attacking them indirectly by saying how weak they are, how easy to answer, how superficial I myself have admitted they were (I did not -- not in the sense you mean), how I have no confidence in them myself, etc. The few things I have said about how "strong" and "unanswerable" the arguments were (the latter was actually your description of what I said, not my actual words), have come entirely or almost entirely in response to your attacks on them, and in particular to your willful misinterpretation of what I said about the one argument being only superficial. (And I repeat again, I did not mean by that what you would like to think it implies!) You are the one who keeps wanting to discuss (attack) the arguments indirectly without answering them directly. Play fair!

Are you willing to quit making negative comments about my arguments until you are willing to answer them directly, and to state publicly, for the record, that you will do that? If so, this strand of argument is closed. If not, you are the one keeping it going.

-- Anonymous, June 02, 2000

Brother Ben:

You have said:

"Play fair, Lee Saffold!"

I am not playing at all at the moment Brother Ben. If I choose to play this "freewheeling discussion" game with you, which I have promised to do after I have the opportunity to debate this subject I will play fair if you will indicate just what it is that you would consider to be fair so that we will always be able to determine if I have lived up to your standard of fairness and there will be no doubt that I have been fair to you.

Second, on the matter of "cowardice". You are the one who brought up the subject of fear in response to my unwillingness to engage in a "freewheeling discussion" until I have had a formal debate on this matter. I responded in kind to your accusations of "fear". If you do not like to be called a "coward" by implication then do not call others such by implication yourself. It is difficult to resist responding in kind to such things. You cannot show where I have directly "called" you a coward and your implication that I have done so is just not true. I have, however expressed that you fear a formal debate only in response to your initial suggestion that I fear the "freewheeling discussion". I meant to use the word "fear" in those statements in exactly the same way you meant to use them when you first directed them toward me.

You ask me to "play fair" when I am not playing at the moment at all and I have asked you to "play" in the format of a formal debate. You refuse to do so which indicates to me that you are not interested in "fair play" at all for nothing can be more fair than a formal debate of an issue. When I asked you to formally debate this subject fairness for both sides is exactly what I was seeking. You were not interested in fairness then, now were you? But now that I have pointed to what appears to be inconsistencies in some of the things you have said you cry "Lee Saffold Play fair"!

Once again I offer to meet you in a formal "debate" when we can have guidelines designed to ensure "fairness" to both sides and you will have a moderator to make sure that I "play fair" as you have requested.

If you are really interested in "fair Play" you would be more than willing to engage in a format that is designed to ensure the very thing that you seek. So if you want fair play I have offered it to you numerous times now and you continue to reject it.

I have a right to express my opinion of your arguments without being required to answer them until I want to answer them. I do not want to answer them now because I am seeking to engage in a formal debate of the issue before I engage in a freewheeling discussion which would divert me from my purpose. I do not care if you do not like this, Brother Ben, that is how I have decided to do it and your efforts at ridicule and false accusations that I am not willing to play fair will not change my mind. I have my opinion of why you avoid a formal debate of this matter and I do not think it is because you object to the "adversarial nature of debates". I believe that you are unwilling to be restricted to a clear statement of your position in the form of a formal proposition that you must either prove to be true or not. But as I have already agreed with brother Sam that I cannot know the real reason unless I am specially gifted from God to do so and I know that I do not have such gifts I will not assign a motive to your unwillingness to debate and will apologize to you for my comments expessing my opinion that you fear it. But I am not required to believe the reasons that you have given thus far for avoiding a debate and I tell you that I do not believe them because they are self contradictory. But it does not matter in the first place for you will not debate the subject and I will not engage in your freewheeling discussion until I have a debate on the matter and I could care less whether you agree with my decision to take this course of action or not. That is what I will do and there is just nothing that you can say or do that will change my detemination to have a formal debate on this subject. Now no one knows why you refuse to engage in such yourself for debates are eminently fair and you want me to be "fair". I will be fair when I decide to play in your freewheeling discussion which is after I am allowed to engage in a formal debate of the subject or you can agree to a formal debate and we will agree to some rules and guidelines for that debate and we will have a moderator and you can be assured of the "fairness" that you pretend to be seeking. But if you are unwilling to engage in a debate that ensures fairness to all then stop crying that I am "unfair" to you. Your discussion is a freewheeling one with no rules and no requirement that anyone be "fair" yet you whine becuse you feel that someone in your "freewheeling" discussion that has no guidelines and no standard upon which fairness can be judged has been "unfair" to you. Brother Ben, if you want fairness I promise that when I return to your freewheeling discussion after the debate I will be fair if you will set some guidlines so that all will know just what is considered fair in the first place. But if you have no standards and no structure and no agreed upon set of guidelines by which fairness is to be determined and judged you cannot expect anyone to follow what YOU deem to be fair when no one but You knows just what that might be. I have not therefore been unfair to you in any way except as you perceive it to be unfair. You have nothing by which to judge whether I have been unfair to you are not. You have yourself called your discussion a "freewheeling" one therefore I am free to "wheel" in and I am free to "wheel" out as I please and you have no one to blame for that except yourself for it is you that wanted the discussion to be "free wheeling". It does indeed appear that you wanted the discussion to be freewheeling for everyone except me. For you accuse me of being unfair when I take advantage of the fact that the discussion is freewheeling and I chose freely to come in and out as I freely want to do. I can do this as much as I like and there is nothing anyone can do about it because it is designed to be "freewheeling". There is not any requirement in such discussions that I do anything that I do not want to do. There is no requirement that I answer you in any length of time or at all for that matter. There is nothing to prevent me from freewheeling around the peremiter and casting a stone here and there and avoiding engagement as I please. No one has made a rule that I must stay and that I must answer. It was you that wanted this discussion to be freewheeling and you are feeling mistreated because your own favorite format allows one the freedom to respond or not respond as it suits him and to make full arguments or just throw small stones at the opponent without mounting a full scale attack or providing a set defense. You do not like that now do you brother Ben? I do not like it either and that is the reason that I insist upon a formal debate of this matter so that I can ensure that what I believe to be the truth will receive a fair hearing. I have already experienced similar treatment in this forum that you complain about in me now. Now I am insisting upon a formal debate on this subject and if we do not have one as you keep suggesting we may not(as if you think brother Jack will back out) then this subject will not be discussed at length by me ever in this forum. But I will continue to use the "hit and run tactics" that have been used against me in this forum because it is a freewheeling forum. I can do that as much as I like. You do not like it when it is done to you but you do not have a problem with others doing such to me in this forum and you cry for fairness! Ha! If your really want fairness then bring your arguments to a debate where not only will I be fair to you but you will also be required to be fair to me as well. For there will be a clear mutually agreed upon standard of "fair play" with which we can compare our behavior and determine if we have actually been unfair and a moderator to do something about it. If you are unwilling to agree to guidelines and rules for the duiscussion then stop crying because you think I have been unfair to you. For no one can be unfair in such a discussion because you have already agreed that all is fair by making it a freewheeling discussion with no rules of engagement whatsoever.

Now I do not agree that I have been unfair to you but it does not matter because your freewheeling discussion does not have any standards of fairness whereby you or anyone else could judge who has been fair and who has not. It is perfectly fair for me to ask for a formal debate and it is my right to withhold all further detailed discussion until I have a formal debate and it is perfectly fair for me to respond to your statements directed toward me and it is fair for me to make any statement that I like concerning the strength of your arguments without directly answering them because you do not want me to answer them since you will not bring them into a formal debate where I have agreed to give them my utmost attention. Now if you really think that it is important that I respond to your arguments and you sincerely want to discuss the matter with me then agree to a formal debate and I will be happy to do so. But if you are unwilling to do that do not pretend that I have refused to meet your arguments. I have simply refused to meet them on YOUR terms. I insist upon meeting them in a fair debate with rules upon which we both have agreed upon. Which means that I insist that all arguments be met on mutually agreed upon terms. Now that is fair. But you insist upon having no terms at all and then complain that I have been unfair to you. If you want fairness then come and get it. It is waiting for you in a formal debate wherein we would discuss this matter with mutually agreed upon terms that would ensure fairness to both of us. But if you refuse to enter a format that ensures "fair Play" by both of us then stop your "crying" that Lee Saffold is not "playing fair" . Or you can just sit out there and cry all you want and gain as much sympathy as you feel you need from others but you will get no sympathy from me!

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, June 03, 2000

Brother Lee,

In response to your response to my call to you to "play fair" --

I think I am finally beginning to understand why you are so insistent on ONLY discussing certain subjects within the framework of a formal debate with a protective fence of rules and regulations: you assume that most others will behave in the way you choose to do yourself.

I started with a different expection (or at least "hope") -- that a Christian, especially when addressing another Christian, and especially in the context of a Christian discussion forum, would TRY, to the best of his/her ability, to follow the Golden Rule, i.e. to do to others as you would have others do to you. Not as you may think others have treated you, but AS YOU WOULD PREFER for them to treat you. Perhaps I was too naove in hoping this.

-- Anonymous, June 04, 2000

Brother Ben:

You have said:

In response to your response to my call to you to "play fair" -- I think I am finally beginning to understand why you are so insistent on ONLY discussing certain subjects within the framework of a formal debate with a protective fence of rules and regulations: you assume that most others will behave in the way you choose to do yourself.

Brother Ben, I do not assume that anyone will behave in any fashion. I have already experienced and seen exactly how evryone has already behaved when this subject last came up in a "freewheeling discussion" when the brethren dedicated an entire thread solely to me with the stated purpose of "straightening me out" on this subject and came at me fast and from may different directions and different points which I was writting frantically to respond but could not do so effectively and the chance for me to get my position clearly stated was proven top be not possible under those circumstances. So I do not "assume" I know exactly how those who hold the view opposite to mine on this issue can and will behave in relation to this matter. It was so obvious that even Brother Danny had to remind everyone that I had requested some guidelines for the discussion and that they were being ignored. In fact he was the only one that agreed that I had a right to request such from them. And you know that I do not want to repeat that experience for it was frutless for all concerned. So you are completely wrong about your assumption that I assume anything about how my brethren can and have behaved in relation to this subject. Now you are no different from them because you were one of them. Now I have a right to request some guidelines and even a formal debate. I have done so and that is the way it will be whether you like it our not!

THen you tell us, in quite a sanctomonious tones that you have more concern for the golden rule than I have and that I am not willing to follow that rule in this matter while leaving the impression that you are with these words:

"I started with a different expection (or at least "hope") -- that a Christian, especially when addressing another Christian, and especially in the context of a Christian discussion forum, would TRY, to the best of his/her ability, to follow the Golden Rule, i.e. to do to others as you would have others do to you. Not as you may think others have treated you, but AS YOU WOULD PREFER for them to treat you. Perhaps I was too naove in hoping this.

Your above words apply as much to yourself as they could apply to me. So this statement does nothing to help anyone in this matter. It only points to your unwillingness to engage in a fair and honorable debate, which is your choice. But your sanctimonious implication that you have more concern for the golden rule that I have is absurd at best. I have offered fair play to you in a format that is designed for that very purpose and you reject it and then cry that you are being treated unfairly. This is too common among those who do not want their positions to be fairly comprehended and examined.

I have been fair toward you and I will continue to be fair. I have done nothing that can even remotely be considered as unfair. Now you either want to discuss instrumental music in a fair and honorable debate or you do not. If you do not then that is the end of the matter. If you do then stop crying and lets begin. But just because I do not live up to your view of what is fair in this case does not mean that I have been unfair. For I cannot know in advance unless you tell me just what it is that you would consider to be fair and we agree in advance to some clear understanding of just what that is. You tell me that it is the golden rule. Well I have followed the golden rule in this case for I would expect to have the assurance of fairness before engaging in discussion of an important issue. With that in mind I have asked for a formal debate that ensues fairness for you as much as it does for me. I have done that in the interest of treating you the way I would want to be treated. But you have not followed the golden rule in this matter at all. For you have shown that you would like to have fairness and have not done anything whatsoever to work toward assuring me genuine fairness in this discussion at all. You only want to ensure that things work TO PREVENT ME FROM RECEIVING AN UNITERUPTED FAIR HEARING OF MY CASE. You have shown no interest in my concerns about the constant distractions of a freewheeling discussion preventing me from receiving a fair hearing. You have shown no desire that I be allowed to respond directly to one person at a time each of whom have clearly stated their position that they are trying prove. You have not shown any desire to arrange for any guidelines whatsoever to ensure that the position opposite to yours is allowed to have the opportunity to give a full and complete statement of the entire case. You are meticulously avoiding a clear statement of your position and defining it so that we can hold you to the proving of that position. As things stand, you can easily make slight and not easily noticed variations in your position and that could make a very big difference in the perception of what your are trying to establish or at the least create confusion. You reluctantly agreed upon a standard of authority but only with the statement that anyone wanting such was ignorant because they could not perceive that it was not essential to the discussion. So your self righteous pretense that you have more concern for the golden rule than I is nothing more than a sanctimonious smoke screen designed to hide the fact that you know that you have no chance of establishing your case for instrumental music in a fair and honorable debate.

You pretend that I am seeking a protective fence of rules and regulations. I could just as easily make the case that you are maintaining a convenient escape route by avoiding the restrictions of being required to clearly state your position and defend it with evidence. I could just as easily say that you seek the protection of a freewheeling discussion wherein you have the majority who can easily provide numerous distractions from the real issue that you can hide behind if you need to do so. Otherwise you would not refuse a debate that is designed to be fair to all. I was following the golden rule in seeking a format, such as a formal debate to ensure fairness for both of us not just for me. SO your comments are fruitless. Your continued crying that you are not being treated fairly is only a smoke screen for the truth that you are avoiding a formal debate without any perceivable good reason. You are merely trying to compensate for your unwillingness to engage in a format that ensures fairness for all concerned while at the same time you complain that I have been unfair to you. I hereby offer, again, to you the format of fairness. That format is a formal debate. If you really want fairness, as you pretend to seek, you can get it in the format of a formal debate. But you are wasting your time trying to force me into a freewheeling discussion. For I have made it abundantly clear to all that I will not engage in such until I have the opportunity for a complete and fair hearing of my position in the fair and reasonable format of a formal debate. If you practiced the golden rule you would engage in such a debate for if you requested such you would want someone to agree with you to participate. So we shall see if you practice the golden rule, now wont we. If you  do unto others as you would have them do unto you you would accept a debate. Because if you requested such a debate you would want someone to accept it otherwise you would not request it. I have requested a debate, now if you treat me the way you would like to be treated if you sought such you would agree to a debate because you would want someone to grant your request, now wouldnt you? I can tell everyone right now that we shall soon see if you follow the golden rule in this matter. Watch and see if he will grant a debate. You will find that he will not because he is not really concerned about fair play or the golden rule. He is only interested in discussing this matter in a format that does not allow or arrange for a fair hearing of all facts in the case without unnecessary interruptions and distractions all from those who agree with his position and work to his advantage. If Brother Ben really wants fairness he can get it in a formal debate. If he practices the golden rule he would agree to such a debate. His unwillingness to do so is only proof of his complete lack of concern for either fair play or the golden rule.

For those who are yet undecided on this issue, especially those of you who have written me stating that you look forward to this debate because you are interested in knowing more about this subject, I want to you do something. Please, ask yourself why so many in this forum have no aversion to debates of other subjects but they STRONGLY resist debating this one! It is a good question to ask, isnt it? I have no subject that I am unwilling to discuss in a formal debate with anyone. My participation in this forum has shown that I am not unwilling to discuss that subject in either a formal debate or a freewheeling discussion. For I have agreed to do both. In this case I am isisting upon the formal debate first so that all of my arguments can be presented in a format that avoids distraction and frivolity and the necessity of responding to more than one person simultaneously. I have the right to request this and I have done so. I will return to Brother Bens freewheeling discussion after I have completed an uninterrupted, undistracted hearing of what I believe to be the truth on the matter. Then I will not mind all of the distractions and interruptions. For I can ignore most of them with the knowledge that I have had my say in a format that allows for me to cover all of the pertinent points and allows the opposing position the same exact opportunity and a uninterrupted examination of all that I have to say. Now there is simply nothing unfair about this in the least. If Brother Bens arguments are good ones they will still be good when I finish this debate and I will discuss those good arguments with him in his freewheeling discussion at that time. So the idea that I am completely avoiding his freewheeling discussion is not true at all, now is it? I have acknowledged his arguments existence and I have promised to deal with it either in the debate, if brother Jack makes use of it, or after the debate if brother Jack does not. It is not unfair to ask that I be allowed to have a complete and fair hearing of this matter in a formal debate. I have every right to do this before a freewheeling discussion that may even end up actually preventing a debate from ever occurring. Because everyone would soon tire of the subject and show no interest in a debate and my arguments would eventually receive no fair hearing at all. This is what Brother Ben seeks to arrange but I will not allow it. It is that simple. Regardless of what anyone says, does or thinks about this matter I will debate this subject before I have anything else to say about it. That is as final as one can be about the matter. Brother Ben's futile attempts to make this appear to be unfair and contrary to the golden rule is nothing more than a smokescreen to prevent others from realizing and wondering what it is that Brother Ben is trying to avoid in a formal debate of THIS SUBJECT. For he has already told us that he is not against ALL debates just debates concerning THIS PARTICULAR SUBJECT but he has not told us why he is against it for THIS PARTICULAR SUBJECT.

What IS it about THIS PARTICULAR SUBJECT that cases him to so strenuously resist a formal debate of it? Now you can figure that one out for yourself since Brother Ben has not sought to enlighten us on that matter. I have my own opinion but I will hold it to myself. But those of you seeking the truth on this subject simply must be wondering why these brethren so strongly resist a fair debate and a fair hearing of Brother Lees proposition considering this particular subject and would not resist a debate on other subjects. Beware of those who are willing to debate most of their doctrines that they believe, teach, and practice but are unwilling to debate others! There is usually a perceived difficulty in proving those positions that they refuse to debate to be the truth. They just may be all too aware that they do not have evidence from the word of God to sustain and support their position.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, June 05, 2000

Lee,

1) Let me see if I have this straight. My refusal to have a formal debate with you on this particular subject shows that I am not following the Golden Rule (never mind that it would violate my conscience to do so, for reasons I have explained several times), but your refusal to discuss it with me in the open forum (even to answer responses to comments you yourself made IN THE OPEN FORUM) *IS* following the Golden Rule? And your persistence in INDIRECTLY attacking, in the open forum, the one argument I have brought up so far, while refusing to answer it DIRECTLY in the open forum, is another example of you carefully following the Golden Rule? Or is it that you feel this situation is exempt from the Golden Rule for some reason? I'm confused!

2) I have already explained SEVERAL TIMES, what makes this particular debate different, to my mind, than debates in general. If you refuse to read or understand what I have already written, then it would be a waste of my time (and probably everyone else's) to try to explain yet again!

3) As I said at the beginning of my last posting, referring to the Golden Rule, that was primarily written in response to your last posting before that, in which you emphatically denied ANY OBLIGATION AT ALL TO BE FAIR in your responses to me, since I would not agree to negotiate specific rules for a formal debate. That, in turn, was in response to my call to you to "play fair", which in its turn was in response to patterns in your behaviour which included your making gross distortions of things I'd said (and tried to clarify more than once), and also your own calls to us to quit criticising or even offering arguments against your position unless we were willing to actually debate it with you -- while you at the same time were criticising INDIRECTLY the one argument I had made, without giving any DIRECT answer to it.

4) Contrary to what you would like people to think (so you can play the embattled martyr?), I LONG AGO QUIT trying to persuade you to participate in a "discussion" rather than a formal debate. (And my original "off-hand" reference to musical instruments in the "Women Helping in the Church" thread was NOT intended as some sneaky way to "goad" you into discussing something you had said you were only willing to "debate"; rather it was INTENDED as merely a FRIENDLY acknowledgement that this was an area on which I knew you held a different opinion.) ALL OF MY RECENT ARGUMENTS have merely been attempts to correct gross distortions you were making of things I had said and done, and to get you to quit dancing around the periphery, talking about how weak my arguments are, how I lack confidence in them myself, etc., when you are not willing to answer the arguments directly in the same forum where you are attacking them indirectly. (To make sure everyone understands: that last sentence is NOT a sneaky attempt to "goad" Lee Saffold into a "freewheeling discussion" when he will only "debate" this issue; it is intended simply to say that SINCE he will not "discuss" the arguments DIRECTLY in the open forum, he should "lay off" attacking these arguments INDIRECTLY in the open forum.)

5) You would do far better to spend less time writing reams of words attacking people for things they have not said and do not mean (perhaps things that your prejudices make you want to THINK they have said, even though they haven't), and more time reading and trying to understand what people really are saying. MOST of what you keep saying about me and my positions and what I am supposed to have said is grossly distorted. Even when you have quoted my own words, you have "proof texted", selecting bits that SEEM to say what you want to portray me as saying, and leaving out other parts that would explain what I really meant. (See your June 2 answer to Sam Loveall for an example.) On a few occasions when I have said something that actually was ambiguous (e.g. in using the word "fear"), I have later explained myself, but you ignore the explanations. I would like to believe that the distortions are unintentional and not deliberate, which is why I have kept trying, so many times, to explain myself. If that's the case -- that you really are having such great difficulty understanding my real meaning -- then you need to take time to read more carefully before making a response (and go back and slowly and CAREFULLY re-read what I have already said, because it is a waste of time to repeat myself too many times). If the distortions are NOT merely careless misunderstandings, but deliberate ...........

-- Anonymous, June 06, 2000