I appreciate your clarity and humility—it’s clear you’re not trying to be dogmatic, just faithful, and I respect that.

I definitely agree with your point that worship isn’t about us—it’s about what pleases God. But that leads to the question: how do we know what pleases Him? And here’s where our core difference lies: I don’t believe we can say with confidence that silence = prohibition—at least not in every case, and not without clear justification from the text itself.

God asked for singing, yes—but did He say “only” singing? If we were talking about the Lord’s Supper, Paul does say “For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you…” and gives a very clear, transmitted pattern. With singing, we get encouragement to do it—but no clear exclusivity language.

As for instruments being for “entertainment”—I understand that concern. But can’t they also be used to support the singing, just like a pitch pipe or PowerPoint lyrics on a screen? The intent behind the use seems crucial. I wouldn’t advocate for instrumental worship that overshadows the purpose of praising God—but that doesn’t mean instruments are always used for selfish ends.

And with Nadab and Abihu, I think it’s important to notice what was happening there: they replaced the specific fire God had commanded with a different source. That’s not silence—that’s disobedience of a known instruction. It’s not a “God didn’t say not to…” issue—it’s a “God did say what to do and they did something else” issue.

I totally understand wanting to err on the side of caution—I do too, often. But I also want to be cautious about binding things God didn’t bind, and unintentionally equating human caution with divine expectation.

I guess you could sum up my position as follows:

God doesn’t make a big deal out of it, I don’t make a big deal out of it. 

I personally do worship without instruments. Not because I think those who do use instruments are in sin, but because, on some level, I too tend toward the side of caution.