The following article was published in The Primitive Baptist of December 17,1912. It was copied from the Messenger of Peace. It is a letter written by Elder Walter Cash, who was then the editor of the Messenger, to a brother in Georgia, and was dated May 3, 1912. It was written especially concerning the question of organs in Old Baptist Churches, but the principles Elder Cash contended for in that letter are just as true and just as good on any matter of scriptural doctrine or practice. We heartily indorsed the sentiment of the letter then--nearly twenty five years ago--and we still indorse it. We recommend that all our readers prayerfully study and consider the contents of the article now. May the Lord bless the same to the good of Zion.  C.H.C

The Article

(The following is a copy of a letter written to a brother in Georgia, who asked us to propose something for the settlement of the trouble there over having organs in the churches. We are not privileged to give his name.) May 3,1912 

Dear brother-----I have been thinking over your letter asking me to suggest something that might help your condition in Georgia, but with my present understanding of the situation, the outlook is anything but bright. I shall not attempt to discuss the matter from a Bible standpoint, except to say, if there is no Bible commandment for it, then to seek to introduce it at the sacrifice of the peace of the church is wrong. There is no passage of Scripture which leads to the conclusion in any direct way that instrumental music was used in any New Testament church. 

Fact 1. Instrumental music can not be introduced among Primitive Baptist churches without making trouble and division. (This fact has been demonstrated.) 

Fact 2. The supposed benefits are superficial and not spiritual, and do not justify making trouble among churches. A church that can sing well with the organ, with the same practice, can sing well without it. The only difference is the sound (noise) of the organ which may serve to drown possible discord. 

Fact 3.  With other denominations the tendency has been to choir singing instead of congregational. What reason is there to suppose that it would be different with us?

I preached in a town where there were few of our people and a choir furnished the music. I said at the close of the sermon. I would like to have the congregation sing the last hymn and I will lead it. I spent the night with a Presbyterian. He asked me: What is the objection of your people to instrumental music in the churches?

I said in reply: Which hymn did you enjoy most tonightthe singing of the choir or the last hymn by the congregation? Oh, said he, there is no comparison; the last by the congregation. I asked: Do you remember when your church first put in an instrument? And what has been the tendency since?

He said in reply: I had not thought of it, but the tendency since has been to replace congregational singing with the choir. There are quartets, and solos, and new pieces, and this part is an advertised feature calculated to draw a crowd, but it is not as much like worship as congregation singing. I said: Really, is not that answer enough to your question? and he agreed with me.

It may be said in reply to this that our people who use the organ still maintain congregational singing. So did others for a while, but the desire to feature the music grows and grows, until a service I attended a short time ago employed a full orchestra, consisting of organ, piano, violins, wind instruments and drum. And why not? If the organ is an improvement, why not the other instruments? 

Fact 4. If there is no Scripture arguments against it, in my mind, and evidently in the minds of a great majority of our people, it would be a blow at spiritual service and congregational singing, and lead in greater or less degree to featuring that for an attendance, rather than to preach Jesus and Him crucified.

In my mind and in the minds of many others, for the above reasons and for reasons based on Scriptural reference as to the nature and character of the church service, and the manner in which it was carried on in the first churches as nearly as can be ascertained, there ought to be a firm, and yet positive, stand taken against the introduction of instrumental music in our churches:

FirstBecause it will tear them up and make division. Second--Because it is in no manner necessary, as the expression by individuals embodies the true sentiment of praise. The praise is in the words, properly, and not in the tune, though harmony in expression is not barred by the Scriptures. ThirdBecause the tendency among other people who have gone into this practice is to please a worldly and sensual congregation rather than to uplift the spiritual element, and to lift up Jesus crucified. It is an open question whether our people could withstand this tendency. And after a trial, if it proved they were not, it would be too late to save them. 

Now as to the present situation. Can we get along and let each church do as it pleases about this matter? I feel that this would be a dangerous attitude indeed. Though we take the stand that the organ is not a matter for a declaration of non-fellowship, the persistence and determination of the minority against the great majority as to the prudence and wisdom of this practice is. A minority of a church might want a fence built around the church house, while a majority thought it not necessary. Fence or no fence is not a matter of fellowship, but this minority might show such contempt for the majority, and such determination to have their ideas prevail that it might become necessary to exclude them. The real situation is likely to be lost sight of in the struggle, and the minority might seek to have it appear that the majority excluded them because they believed in a fencehad non-fellowshipped the fence in fact, when it was not the fence, but the action of those who are for the fence.

What is the situation of our people now as to the organ? I will be real plain with you, Brother ---------- so there will be no misunderstanding. I will not undertake to justify all that has been done by those who have opposed the organ in Georgia, but only speak of the situation as it is right now without regard to how it became so. Our people out here see so much danger, disruption and final division in the introduction of the use of instrumental music in the churches that they are likely to take a stand against all persons who encourage it in any way. There is no use in arguing over how we reached the condition we are now in, but at this time I see no indication that churches using instrumental music can be treated as in good standing. I have studied the matter carefully since receiving your letter, but I can think of nothing to suggest that would have any show of adoption by the churches generally, which would put those churches in favor with our people while they still persisted in a course that our people believe and know will cause trouble and division. To recognize them is a tacit endorsement of their course, if nothing more. Then if one church may be recognized as pursuing a right and proper course for the good of the whole cause that uses instrumental music, no limit can be placed on the number of churches, and so the advocates of instrumental music are free to work and increase. But this condition can never continue (that is the multiplication of churches) and have peace, so there is no use to try to settle on a proposition of that kind. 

All this talk of churches being sovereign in such sense that they may take any kind of course, and other churches may not protest, and show their protest in withdrawal, is the merest drivel. This can never be true in doctrine or practice. No church may control another church, but it may protest against the action of another church, and if there is no amendment may refuse to walk with such church in fellowship. Especially is this true in case if a church took such course as would by its influence affect other churches by leading to division of sentiment among them. 

Frankly I do not know what could be done now to bring about peace, since the introduction of the organ has become a well defined dispute. You say there is no hope that all the churches will abandon instrumental music, and as plainly say that other churches not using instrumental music will stand by those who do and affiliate with them From what I can see of the situation I think that it is as well made out on the other side to show disapproval of the movement by not walking with those who use instrumental music, nor with those who encourage them by walking with them, because the result would be to spread the cause of trouble and draw other churches into the discussion of it, resulting in friction. After studying your letter I see you firmly take a stand that instrumental music in churches is Scriptural and right, which is putting it too high, I think, and I do not see how you could do much against a movement that you really thought Scriptural. 

I have never written as much before upon this subject to anyone. If we have anyone in this state advocating the use of instrumental music in the churches I do not know of them, and I hope there will never be any movement in that direction. If you brethren in Georgia love peace and fellowship with the great majority of Primitive Baptists better than you do instrumental music, I think you will find a way out, but if you think more of  instrumental music, I think you will keep the instruments. I have written very plainly so that you would understand, because when you write me you have right to expect that I will do that, Sincerely yours, Walter Cash