Dave Miller's 'Richland Hills & Instrumental Music' (Book Review)
I have great respect for Dave Miller and Apologetics Press, and, like Miller, I've always discouraged the use of instruments in worship. However, I have to be honest, this book does not present a convincing case against instruments. I read it with two other young Church of Christ men, and we all agree that it's not very good.
Why does the book fail? All three of us pointed to different things. One said it was the unloving tone, another said the book was incomplete and randomly written, and this review will explain my own problems with it.
Firstly, the book seems rather unedited, and the first third feels especially disorganized. Miller seems to attack different aspects of Atchley's sermons at random and often jumps to logically incoherent conclusions. On page 5, he quotes Atchley: "almost no one reading the Bible sincerely for the first time would ever conclude that instrumental praise is unacceptable to God," and then he asserts that Atchley's claim is: "intolerant, judgmental, arrogant, divisive, and unkind." Why does Miller describe his claim in this way? Why is Atchley's assertion "unkind?" Miller repeatedly claims that if Atchley wants to bring instruments out of the Old Testament then he must also practice every other aspect of Mosaic worship in order to remain logically consistent. How does this make sense? Were the Pilgrims obligated to bring every aspect of England to America because they brought the English language?
Miller spends most of the book discussing two issues: the meaning of the Greek word "psallo" (especially in Ephesians 5:19), and the Principle of Authority.
Miller's lexicon driven dissection of the word "psallo" is so technical and dry it was difficult to finish. He attempts to prove that "psallo" meant "to pluck" or "to play an instrument" when the Old Testament was translated into the Greek Septuagint, but its meaning changed dramatically by the New Testament era when it exclusively meant "to sing." He succeeds in proving that the word evolved, but he doesn't succeed in divorcing acapella singing from instrumental singing. I was left with the impression that the ancients probably just used the same word for both singing and playing an instrument because both activities produced music. Historically speaking, every human civilization has connected singing with instruments.
Miller, however, doesn't recognize this connection. He asserts that singing and playing instruments are entirely different and have little association with each other. Creating music with your voice is categorically different than creating it with an instrument. Because these two things belong to different categories, instruments cannot be introduced into Christian worship because they represent an unauthorized addition to God's pattern.
Miller spends most of the rest of the book explaining the Principle of Authority and how Atchley errs by failing to follow it. I've written before about this principle while referring to it as the "authorization fallacy." The idea is that Christians can't add anything to religion that the Bible doesn't specifically authorize. Miller explains the typical distinction between "additions" and "aids." Additions are sinful because they add to God's will, but aids are okay because they help Christians fulfill their religious obligations. For example, instruments are an addition while PowerPoints are an aid.
I don't know specifically when the Church of Christ began relying on the Principle of Authority to condemn instruments, and it's possible the concept made sense to bygone generations. However, I grew up in the Church of Christ and still don't understand the complex hermeneutical mechanisms that can allegedly discern between additions and aids. The Principle of Authority is never elaborated anywhere in the New Testament, and so it's impossible to gain clarity through exegetical analysis. I've never met a Millennial Christian who can explain this principle clearly, but I've met numerous Boomers who claim it's a clear and commonsense idea. Maybe my IQ is just too low to grasp its genius.
Among the more confusing aspects of the book, from my perspective, is Miller's response to Atchley's claim that Jesus endorsed unauthorized additions to the Old Testament by celebrating the Feast of Lights (Hanukkah) and adding wine to the Passover meal. The Feast of Lights was never authorized anywhere in scripture, and wine was never authorized as part of the Passover meal. Miller's attempt to refute Atchley's Passover wine claim seems to contradict his earlier argument about instruments being sinful because they belong to a different unauthorized category than singing. He writes on pages 98 and 99: "the Israelites were free to exercise their own discretion regarding any drink that accompanied the food - since they already were authorized to consume liquids (as we are) by divine design… Observe that food and drink are not parallel to each other as are singing and playing instruments." Miller seems to be arguing that instruments are sinful because they involve adding a different category to worship, but adding wine to the Passover meal was not sinful because liquid is a different category than food. How is this not a contradiction? It seems to me that adding a beverage to the Passover meal is logically identical to adding instruments to congregational singing. Singing and instruments are associated with each other in the same way food and beverages are associated with each other.
The problem I've always noticed with the Principle of Authority is that its believers always seem to contradict themselves when they apply it, and Miller does not escape this problem.
I can imagine Miller claiming that an unrecorded inspired prophet could have revealed God's authorization of the Feast of Lights or the addition of wine in the Passover meal. However, there were also numerous prophets in the first century Church whose prophesies were never recorded. Perhaps one of them prophesied that a pope should rule the Church.
I think the anti-instrument position needs to be completely reoriented away from inconclusive Greek dissections and obscure hermeneutical complexes. The best arguments against instrumental music come from history and practice.
The Church did not use instruments in worship for roughly a thousand years after its founding. There was still a strong anti-instrument faction in the Catholic Church into the 1500s, and the Protestant Reformers widely rejected instruments. Paul told the Corinthians to keep the traditions he'd passed on to them, and we know that the apostolic worship tradition was non-instrumental. To his day, hundreds of millions of Eastern Orthodox Christians worship without instruments (and have always worshiped without them).
There are, however, objections to an argument from history. Why did the early Christians reject instruments? Was it because the pharisees had established an acapella precedent in the synagogues? Was it because instruments were associated with pagan gatherings? We don't know why they didn't use instruments, and we certainly don't know if they regarded them as sinful. However, we should hesitate before breaking a Church tradition that stood for over a thousand years. The first century Church did not use instruments, and we should also avoid them if we still identify as restorationists.
I've attended numerous worship services across a wide variety of denominations. I can't remember a single instrumental service I've attended at which the singing wasn't drowned out by instruments. Naturally, this situation results in fewer Christians singing. I'm sure there are exceptions to this phenomenon, but I've never witnessed them. I don't see any good reason to introduce something into worship that nullifies the singing of the saints.
In conclusion, Dave Miller's 'Richland Hills & Instrumental Music: A Plea to Reconsider' is not a successful book. Richland Hills Church of Christ is now "The Hills Church," and they've left our fellowship and continue using instruments. Many congregations have followed their example, and the Church of Christ's demographic implosion has accelerated. In my opinion, the restorationist anti-instrumental position needs to be radically reoriented if it hopes to retain any future legitimacy.