By Eusebio Tanicala
A Baptist author directs his diatribe againstpreachers who believe that it is wrong to have instrumental music in Christian congregational worship. He calls our position as “Instrumental Insanity.”
Many instrumental music practioners in congregational worship argue that the term “sing” in its modern meaning automatically calls for an instrumental accompaniment or at least the instrumental accompaniment is not prohibited. It is argued that “where there’s no expressed prohibition a thing or action is allowed.”
The above axiom is a dangerous guide in interpreting the Bible. It opens the gate to virtually any kind of faith and practice in the. I suggest that we confront this axiom with this illustration.
Step number one: Let’s tell the mechanical instrument user: “Let’s follow your line of argument. You appeal that the modern meaning of ‘sing’ calls for an instrumental accompaniment and anything that’s not expressly prohibited is allowed. Since instrumental accompaniment is not expressly prohibited, there’s freedom to use it.”
Step number two: “Churches believe in celebrating the chicken tinola soup, lechon kawali, chopsuey, sinigang na bangus, a glass of water, and softdrinks. These are not expressly prohibited in the , do you grant freedom to some who believe that the Lord’s Supper may include these food items? May I know your categorical answer please. #. The modern meaning of ‘Supper’ in the Philippines includes serving a plate of rice for each individual, and participants in the Pinoy supper may be served