Lack of Lament?

[George Wallace]

That's quite a stretch, to say the least.

Well, not really a stretch, it just historical fact. That this is what was believed, not necessarily that it’s true. Of course I believe it’s true.

AQUINAS "Our church does not use musical instruments, as harps and psalteries, to praise God withal, that she may not seem to Judaize." (Thomas Aquinas, Bingham's Antiquities, Vol. 3, page 137)

AUGUSTINE "musical instruments were not used. The pipe, tabret, and harp here associate so intimately with the sensual heathen cults, as well as with the wild revelries and shameless performances of the degenerate theater and circus, it is easy to understand the prejudices against their use in the worship." (Augustine 354 A.D., describing the singing at Alexandria under Athanasius)

CHRYSOSTOM "David formerly sang songs, also today we sing hymns. He had a lyre with lifeless strings, the church has a lyre with living strings. Our tongues are the strings of the lyre with a different tone indeed but much more in accordance with piety. Here there is no need for the cithara, or for stretched strings, or for the plectrum, or for art, or for any instrument; but, if you like, you may yourself become a cithara, mortifying the members of the flesh and making a full harmony of mind and body. For when the flesh no longer lusts against the Spirit, but has submitted to its orders and has been led at length into the best and most admirable path, then will you create a spiritual melody." (Chrysostom, 347-407, Exposition of Psalms 41, (381-398 A.D.) Source Readings in Music History, ed. O. Strunk, W. W. Norton and Co.: New York, 1950, pg. 70.)

CLEMENT "Moreover, King David the harpist, whom we mentioned just above, urged us toward the truth and away from idols. So far was he from singing the praises of daemons that they were put to flight by him with the true music; and when Saul was Possessed, David healed him merely by playing the harp. The Lord fashioned man a beautiful, breathing instrument, after His own imaged and assuredly He Himself is an all-harmonious instrument of God, melodious and holy, the wisdom that is above this world, the heavenly Word." … "He who sprang from David and yet was before him, the Word of God, scorned those lifeless instruments of lyre and cithara. By the power of the Holy Spirit He arranged in harmonious order this great world, yes, and the little world of man too, body and soul together; and on this many-voiced instruments of the universe He makes music to God, and sings to the human instrument. "For thou art my harp and my pipe and my temple"(Clement of Alexandria, 185AD, Readings p. 62)

EUSEBIUS "Of old at the time those of the circumcision were worshipping with symbols and types it was not inappropriate to send up hymns to God with the psalterion and cithara and to do this on Sabbath days... We render our hymn with a living psalterion and a living cithara with spiritual songs. The unison voices of Christians would be more acceptable to God than any musical instrument. Accordingly in all the churches of God, united in soul and attitude, with one mind and in agreement of faith and piety we send up a unison melody in the words of the Psalms." (commentary on Psalms 91:2-3)

CLARKE "But were it even evident, which it is not, either from this or any other place in the sacred writings, that instruments of music were prescribed by divine authority under the law, could this be adduced with any semblance of reason, that they ought to be used in Christian worship? No; the whole spirit, soul, and genius of the Christian religion are against this; and those who know the Church of God best, and what constitutes its genuine spiritual state, know that these things have been introduced as a substitute for the life and power of religion; and that where they prevail most, there is least of the power of Christianity. Away with such portentous baubles from the worship of that infinite Spirit who requires His followers to worship Him in spirit and truth, for to no such worship are these instruments friendly." (Adam Clarke (Methodist), Clarke's Commentary, Methodist, Vol. II, pp. 690-691.)

SCHAFF "In the Greek church the organ never came into use. But after the 8th century it became more and more common in the Latin church; not without opposition from the side of the monks." (Schaff-Herzogg Encyclopedia, Vol 10, p. 657-658)
SHAFF (new) "The custom of organ accompaniment did not become general among Protestants until the eighteenth century." (The New Shaff-Herzogg Encyclopedia, 1953, Vol 10, p. 257)

SPURGEON "David appears to have had a peculiarly tender remembrance of the singing of the pilgrims, and assuredly it is the most delightful part of worship and that which comes nearest to the adoration of heaven. What a degradation to supplant the intelligent song of the whole congregation by the theatrical prettiness of a quartet, bellows, and pipes. We might as well pray by machinery as praise by it...'Praise the Lord with harp.' Israel was at school, and used childish things to help her to learn; but in these days when Jesus gives us spiritual food, one can make melody without strings and pipes... We do not need them. That would hinder rather than help our praise. Sing unto him. This is the sweetest and best music. No instrument is like the human voice." (Charles Spurgeon (Baptist), Commentary on Psalm 42.)

WESLEY 'I have no objection to instruments of music in our worship, provided they are neither seen nor heard." (John Wesley, founder of Methodism, quoted in Adam Clarke's Commentary, Vol. 4, p. 685)

CATHOLIC "Although Josephus tells of the wonderful effects produced in the Temple by the use of instruments, the first Christians were of too spiritual a fibre to substitute lifeless instruments for or to use them to accompany the human voice. Clement of Alexandria severely condemns the use of instruments even at Christian banquets. St. Chrysostum sharply contrasts the customs of the Christians when they had full freedom with those of the Jews of the Old Testament." (Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 10, pg. 648-652.)

PRESBYTERIAN "Question 6. Is there any authority for instrumental music in the worship of God under the present dispensation? Answer. Not the least, only the singing of psalms and hymns and spiritual songs was appointed by the apostles; not a syllable is said in the New Testament in favor of instrumental music nor was it ever introduced into the Church until after the eighth century, after the Catholics had corrupted the simplicity of the gospel by their carnal inventions. It was not allowed in the Synagogues, the parish churches of the Jews, but was confined to the Temple service and was abolished with the rites of that dispensation." (Questions on the Confession of Faith and Form of Government of The Presbyterian Church in the United States of America, published by the Presbyterian Board of Publications, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 1842, pg. 55.)

I don’t know specifically how things developed on your side of the pond, but I do know that if we were magically transported to North America as late as the 1820s and entered various houses of evangelical worship, be they Methodist, Baptist, Presbyterian or Congregational, at that time, the probability of us hearing praises sung without instruments was probably about 65-70%.

It is simply a fact that for almost the first 700 years the Church sang without instrumental accompaniment, by conviction. At that time there was 1 organ. Organ accompaniment did not develop to any significant level until 1100-1200. All other instrumentation accompaniment came subsequent to this.

As far as I am aware all Eastern Orthodox Church (The only UnReformed Church) refrain from using instrument to this day.

As for Protestant worship, as Schaff says above instruments weren’t used much at all until the 18th Century and did not gain prevalence until much later. Instruments accompaniment in the public worship of God as the norm, or as the prevailing practice has only about a 150 year history. Those are just the facts at least here in the US.

I don’t know what hymnal you use, but the one I am familiar with from my Naz years is Sing to the Lord. Check all the hymns written by the Wesleys, you note that not one “tune” is attributed to either Wesley brother. Why? Because they were written in Metre, to be sung to various tunes with the human voice, sans instrumental accompaniment, just as most hymns were at that time and even much later.

Here in the US, if I ask ‘what tune is this?’; and start humming a certain tune, virtually everyone over the age of 20, believer or unbeliever is going to answer, ‘Amazing Grace!.’ That answer would be wrong! The tune is New Britian which is a 19th Century American melody, arranged by Edwin O. Excell. Newton published Amazing Grace in 1779!

Here is the Campbellite link from which I culled the few quotes above. You can see there are plenty more.

If you are seriously interested in the History I recommend:

Instrumental Music in the Public Worship of the Church by John Lafayette Girardeau from 1888. This is the classic work on the subject. (I linked to achive.org above but here it is at Google Books if you prefer.)

A great, outstanding even, contemporary treatment can be found in:

Old Light on New Worship: Musical Instruments and the Worship of God, a Theological, Historical and Psychological Study by John Price.

The author is a Baptist from Rochester NY, and is not an exclusive psalmist. It is a very well researched book but quite easy to read for anyone.

Online you can read:

Musical Instruments in the Public Worship of God by Brian Schwertley

This is more of a polemic, and written from the Presbyterian RPW perspective but the research is solid. (It is a bit long in for computer reading IMO. But, you know how to save it as a mobi or a txt for your Kindle )

If you break the Christian Church down by time and preponderance of use when it comes to instruments in worship; in very, very round numbers you get about 1800 years of intentional acappella worship and slightly lest then 200 years of instrumental accompaniment.

You are certainly entitled to you opinion, but there is a significant Historical cloud of witnesses that have a differing opinion.

[Hans Deventer]

Well, not really a stretch, it just historical fact.

I wasn't talking about history, I was talking about exegesis. And that, indeed, is quite a stretch. Now one can argue that considering the lack of proper understanding regarding the place of the OT throughout much of Christian history, this is not surprising. But a reason for mistakes doesn't make a mistake right.

It is quite shameful what stupid exegesis has been used through the ages to justify personal preferences.

Anyway, glad to see all is as it should be. I almost feared we agreed on something, but I see we're back to the regular complete disagreements. One needs some stability in life, after all.

[John Kennedy]

George -

Your attempt at bringing the Wesleys in to support non-instrumental music is illustrative of the truth that 'you don't have to be Jewish to have chutzpah'. My father would, on occasion, remind people that "Even the devil can quote Scripture - in fact he knows more than most Christians."

To attempt to mandate non-instrumental church music on the basis of neither of the Wesley's having written hymn tunes merits a high score on the audacity scale. Both brothers lived and died as priests of the Church of England, which, although it did use some psalm settings liturgically (as it still does), also had an incredibly rich treasury of hymns, that were, most assuredly, sung with organ or harpsichord accompaniment.

The tune names given referred to those already a part of Anglican hymnody and were, in the vast majority of cases, written by church organists. They carried metrical designations to facilitate their use.

As the Methodist movement prospered, became more 'churchlike', and began to move more toward separation from the Anglican church, most of the Wesleyan chapels acquired organs (and this was also a development in American Methodism).

The attempt to rid churches in England of organs was an idea whose time had come and gone. Cromwell and company tried it, but it didn't stick. To attempt to extrapolate a model for corporate worship from Scriptural silence calls for an incredibly high degree of creativity.

My church's worship in song is incredibly enriched by the dedicated artistry of a talented organist - I can see no Scriptural justification whatsoever for abandoning it. I am appreciative of the songs produced by churches that eschew instrumental accompaniment - I note they are, almost always led by a strong singer.

Almost all of the gifted vocal instructors I know tend to think of the human voice as the first instrument. So maybe your preferred mode of singing isn't all that non-instrumental after all.

[George Wallace]

I thought about this last night (couldn't sleep for a while).

If people want to stick to the canon when it comes to the content of our worship, I guess they should also stick to reading the Scriptures and avoid preaching and man made prayers. If, on the other hand, the church believes itself to be able to discern proper theology from bad theology, it becomes possible to have people write and preach new sermons, pray new prayers and write new songs.

I guess it comes down to what we believe about the Holy Spirit and the question how He still wants to work among us. Without opening up the canon to new parts of Scripture (and I agree we should not), we can still recognize that some new sermons, prayers, songs are more inspired by the Holy Spirit than others. If we believe He still works through sermons and prayers and in fact liturgy in general, it seems odd if not downright inconsistent to restrict our singing to the Psalms. We are to sing Him a new song, as the Psalms themselves (!) command us.

It also seems to me we are to test the spirits (1 John 4:1). That goes for preachers, teachers, prophets, worship leaders, songs, and pretty much anything that happens in a church. So you guys worry about error when it comes to almost anything that happens in church, but you're just too scared when it comes to the content of what you sing to even try?
And you reject God's ordained method of worship in the OT? You don't dance in church? The NT says very little about modes of worship, the OT does. If you believe Scripture is more important than tradition, there you go. You cannot just throw that away as meaningless.

Jesus says we are to "worship the Father in the Spirit and in truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks". That seems to be the heart of the matter to God. Which, I would dare to say, is the consistent theme of OT and NT. He simply doesn't care about anything else.

Bottom line, I just see human preference in what you describe. No problem, that's what we all do, but be honest about it.

Tis, NOT human preference at all. Tis, Holy Spirit Conviction and I am being honest about it! (Personally, I believe this is just another of your asinine attempts at goading me into an argument although I am not sure… maybe you just don’t process well when you can’t sleep ). Sorry an argument is not going to happen.

Not sure where you are headed here. I’ve not pushed a polemic, nor made any “You Should…!” style comments whatsoever. I’ve only started the thread, dealing with lament and as things have come up I have engaged and answered questions, appropriately I believe. Am I guilty of TMI (too much info)? Certainly! When have I ever engaged or answered with 5 words when 25 will do?

I’ve already stated that our denominational theologies of worship were derived from different principles, from the start. And that yours does not have a history of exclusive psalmody? So again, not sure where you are going??

What need is there to start finding points of contention or argumentation?

Historically it boils down to these two incompatible statements:

Westminster Confession CHAPTER XXI. Of Religious Worship and the Sabbath-day.
I. The light of nature showeth that there is a God, who hath lordship and sovereignty over all; is good, and doeth good unto all; and is therefore to be feared, loved, praised, called upon, trusted in, and served with all the hearth, and with all the soul, and with all the might. But the acceptable way of worshipping the true God is instituted by himself, and so limited by his own revealed will, that he may not be worshipped according to the imaginations and devices of men, or the suggestions of Satan, under any visible representation or any other way not prescribed in the holy Scripture.

Anglican Articles - XX. Of the Authority of the Church.
The Church hath power to decree Rites or Ceremonies, and authority in Controversies of Faith: and yet it is not lawful for the Church to ordain any thing that is contrary to God's Word written, neither may it so expound one place of Scripture, that it be repugnant to another. Wherefore, although the Church be a witness and a keeper of Holy Writ, yet, as it ought not to decree any thing against the same, so besides the same ought it not to enforce any thing to be believed for necessity of Salvation.

All of your, points of contention are old, tired and have been addressed ad nausium. They are simply either that, or mischaracterizations or misunderstandings of what I/we believe.

I’ll not be goaded into any defense, as I have not put this forward as anything you should do. The closest I’ve come is state that I recommend the Psalms as a way to deal with the unbalanced nature of much of contemporary worship, and you agreed. So for the third time, I don’t know where you are headed…?

The only reason I can discern, is that you have some pathological need to proclaim that I am being dishonest.

Well, recently in another thread folks spoke of doing or showing Sermon on the Mount activities… So in furtherance of that effort; how about I just admit that am “deluded.” See that works for both of us, you can claim I am “deluded.” Meaning that I actually believe what I am saying; and am not being dishonest! How’s that sound? I’d much rather be known as “deluded” than dishonest!

If you really want to try to understand why Christians believe in Exclusive Psalmody I recommend:

Songs of Zion: A Contemporary Case for Exclusive Psalmody, 4th Ed. By Michael Bushell

This is the definitive contemporary work on the subject.

Since that one is large and contains 317 pages. Here are also a couple of much shorter treatments:

A Brief Examination of Exclusive Psalmody by Brian Schwertley

It's not really all the brief...but its free!

Singing the Songs of Jesus: Revisiting the Psalms by Michael LeFebvre 176 pages.

Sing the Lord's Song: Biblical Psalms in Worship by John W. Keddie only 74 pages!

Finally there is "The Worship of the Church: A Reformed Theology of Worship" which was a paper done by a Committee from our denomination at 26 pages and Free!

Ironically, if anyone holding my position were to engage you specifically they too would use in their argument the command to Worship in “Spirit and Truth.”

[George Wallace]

George -

Your attempt at bringing the Wesleys in to support non-instrumental music is illustrative of the truth that 'you don't have to be Jewish to have chutzpah'. My father would, on occasion, remind people that "Even the devil can quote Scripture - in fact he knows more than most Christians."

To attempt to mandate non-instrumental church music on the basis of neither of the Wesley's having written hymn tunes merits a high score on the audacity scale. Both brothers lived and died as priests of the Church of England, which, although it did use some psalm settings liturgically (as it still does), also had an incredibly rich treasury of hymns, that were, most assuredly, sung with organ or harpsichord accompaniment. [Can you provide some resources here?]

The tune names given referred to those already a part of Anglican hymnody and were, in the vast majority of cases, written by church organists [Can you provide some resources here? As I have a directly contradictory source?]. They carried metrical designations to facilitate their use.

As the Methodist movement prospered, became more 'churchlike', and began to move more toward separation from the Anglican church, most of the Wesleyan chapels acquired organs [Can you provide some resources here?](and this was also a development in American Methodism). [I think we actually agree see my time references above]

The attempt to rid churches in England of organs was an idea whose time had come and gone. Cromwell and company tried it, but it didn't stick. To attempt to extrapolate a model for corporate worship from Scriptural silence calls for an incredibly high degree of creativity.

My church's worship in song is incredibly enriched by the dedicated artistry of a talented organist - I can see no Scriptural justification whatsoever for abandoning it. I am appreciative of the songs produced by churches that eschew instrumental accompaniment - I note they are, almost always led by a strong singer.

Almost all of the gifted vocal instructors I know tend to think of the human voice as the first instrument. So maybe your preferred mode of singing isn't all that non-instrumental after all.

Really John?

Well, I did sorta mis-speak in that area about tunes, they did write tunes, I know this, but that’s not what I communicated, so I am sorry. What I meant was they didn’t compose for instrumentation. That is I don’t believe they had neither harpsichord nor organ in mind, but composed tunes to be sung by human voice. Again, sorry for my lack of precise speech/writing.

I'll acquiesce, seriously, as you are the music guy. But please, address a couple of things for me.

What of these quotes of Adam Clarke:

CLARKE "But were it even evident, which it is not, either from this or any other place in the sacred writings, that instruments of music were prescribed by divine authority under the law, could this be adduced with any semblance of reason, that they ought to be used in Christian worship? No; the whole spirit, soul, and genius of the Christian religion are against this; and those who know the Church of God best, and what constitutes its genuine spiritual state, know that these things have been introduced as a substitute for the life and power of religion; and that where they prevail most, there is least of the power of Christianity. Away with such portentous baubles from the worship of that infinite Spirit who requires His followers to worship Him in spirit and truth, for to no such worship are these instruments friendly." (Adam Clarke (Methodist), Clarke's Commentary, Methodist, Vol. II, pp. 690-691.)

CLARKE "I am an old man, and I here declare that I never knew them to be productive of any good in the worship of God, and have reason to believe that they are productive of much evil. Music as a science I esteem and admire, but instrumental music in the house of God I abominate and abhor. This is the abuse of music, and I here register my protest against all such corruption of the worship of the author of Christianity. The late and venerable and most eminent divine, the Rev. John Wesley, who was a lover of music, and an elegant poet, when asked his opinion of instruments of music being introduced into the chapels of the Methodists, said in his terse and powerful manner, 'I have no objections to instruments of music in our chapels, provided they are neither heard nor seen.' I say the same." (Adam Clark, Methodist)

These quotes are amplified a bit here; The Amazing History of Instrumental Music: Part 4 can you please address this also?

And what about the Clarke quote attributed to Wesley?

WESLEY 'I have no objection to instruments of music in our worship, provided they are neither seen nor heard." (John Wesley, founder of Methodism, quoted in Adam Clarke's Commentary, Vol. 4, p. 685)

So…. I am sitting in the computer lab at my Seminary procrastinating on a paper I need to finish. What better distraction do I need, right?

So I look up a book or two, the one that is supposed to be the bees-knees on this topic is supposed to be:

American Methodist Worship (Religion in America Life) by Karen B. Westerfield Tucker

I check the stacks…. No joy! Amazon’s price is $110, feel free, but not currently in my price range. They do offer a Kindle edition for $19.95

So I just randomly check some of the texts we do have. I checked the index and several volumes of Wesley’s Complete Works and he definitely considered part-harmony or any harmony to be a mockery of God! The idea of people singing anything but simple melody really chapped his hide! But that’s it. With the exception of all the works and instructions he went too to help aide congregational singing, all of which was IMO based upon language are talking about vocal singing and since the context is the bands, classes and societies, well really there is little doubt that it was all sans instruments.

So what else could I check quickly????

The Story of Methodism by Paul Hutchinson , Halford Luccock

Of course we have an older hardback edition, here.

Chapter VII How The Sang a New Day Into Britain -pg 106
Before the Wesleys there had been no singing of hymns, in our modern sense, in the churches. The ancient chants, with metrical versions of the Psalms, had been the only music thought fit to be heard in the house of God.

This seems to directly contradict what you say above about composition for organists, can you please explain this conflict for me?

And:

Methodism in American History by W.W. Sweet

Chapter VIII Crosses the Alleghenies- pg 151
Often religion sang its way into the hearts of the people, just as it had done in England. Methodists sang in their homes, about their work, at their family altars, as well as in their more formal religious meetings. The Discipline (1805) advised that “In every society let them learn to sing, and let them always learn our tunes first.”… “How shall we reform our singing?” the answer was, “Let all our preachers who have any knowledge in the notes improve by learning to sing true themselves, and keep close to Mr. Wesley’s tunes and hymns.”… Frequently, no one in the congregation possessed a hymn book except the preacher, who gave out the verses, two lines at a time, but many of the hymns became so well known to the people that they were able to sing them without the process of lining out.

Certainly, sounds just like the way the old Scot precentors used to line out the Psalms. If the Wesleys were writing for composition to instruments can you tell me why all this emphasis on tune learning and reforming singing occurs? (As it is obvious here that we are dealing with a sans instruments situation.)

This is America circa 1805. Can you please tell me how what I said above, that prompted you to regale me with stories of my own ‘Chutzpah” is in anyway inconsistent with what I just quoted from two histories I selected at random (Well, I picked the two thickest ones)? Cause frankly, I’m not seeing it?????

Of course this is early, 1761 but I’ve not seen anything that Wesley wrote that contradicted this and called for instruments.

John Wesley's Instructions for Singing 1761

I. "Learn these Tunes before you learn any others ....
II. Sing them exactly as they are printed here without altering or mending them at all ...
III. Sing ALL. See that you join with the congregation as frequently as you can ...
IV .Sing lustily and with a good courage. Beware of singing as if you were half dead, or half asleep; but lift up your voice with strength ...
V. Sing modestly. Do not bawl, so as to be heard above or distinct from the rest of the congregation, that you may not destroy the harmony ...
VI. Sing in Time. Whatever time is sung, be sure to keep with it. Do not run before nor stay behind it ... and take care not to sing too slow...
VII. Above all sing spiritually. Have an eye to God in every word you sing. Aim at pleasing Him more than yourself or any other creature."

It's hard to imagine hymns as something new, daring, even mildly subversive, but in the eighteenth century they were not only a novelty, their use in parish churches was strictly speaking illegal. Until about 1700 both Anglican and nonconformist congregations sang almost nothing but metrical psalms in the 'Old Version' of Sternhold and Hopkins, 1562 [emphasis mine], to a limited number of tunes.

The new forms (hymns) were seized on with enthusiasm by John Wesley and his brother Charles who made hymn-singing an important feature of their ministry.

The Wesleys' appeal was largely to the working classes and their hymns were often used in large open-air meetings.

The Methodists soon began to write new tunes for their hymns in an unashamedly secular style which would not have been out of place in the theatre, the pleasure gardens, or even the tavern. It was this which so shocked the Establishment and delayed the introduction of hymns into parish churches. Such was the popularity of hymn-singing however, that by the end of the century it was widespread in nearly all denominations.

Taken from HQL-9848, p. 11,12

Here I see the “old” Sternhold and Hopkins, 1562 again, John can you tell me exactly what roll this played in English Worship and even early American Worship?

Can you tell me why or where this article/website (there used to be more and various links…?) from Yale University Library is wrong?

Also if the Wesley’s were composing for instrumentation, why all the metrical stuff?

Wesley’s Hymns Reconsidered by Bernard Manning -A paper read before the Cambridge University Methodist Society on February 9, 1939.

Take the old hymn–book, A Collection of Hymns for the Use of the People called Methodists. By the Rev. John Wesley, M.A., Sometime Fellow of Lincoln College, Oxford. Get an edition with tunes, and turn to the index of metres. You will gasp with astonishment at the variety. You will be tempted to believe that Charles Wesley alone used as many metres in writing hymns as all other hymn–writers taken together. There are common metre, long metre, short metre, double short metre, 6.8s, 7s, 8s and 6s, 6s and 8s, 7s and 6s, 10S and 11S, 4.6s and 2.8s, 8s, 5s and I IS, 2.6s and 4.7s (to take a few examples) and the large number lumped together, very properly, as peculiar metre.

If they were written for instruments, then why all the detailed Metrical Development?

This time from Duke.
Even more analysis can be found here, Short Hymns on Select Passages of the Holy Scriptures, 2 vols. (1762) METRES AND METRICAL INDEX

You’re the music guy, I’m just a retired jarhead??? Please explain to me why all this metrical stuff was important if the were writing for the harpsichord and organ? I don’t get it?


I am serious here, you're the music guy, if I am that far off I really want to know!!

I ask you to please give me at least the same amount of time an effort I have put in here and please provide me some real resources, besides you and your father, unless of course you fathers quotes were published?

Really, if I am that way off I'd request something a little more substantial that "Ohh, yeah well, John the Music Guy from Beaumont says..."

Thank you,
George

[George Wallace]

I wasn't talking about history, I was talking about exegesis. And that, indeed, is quite a stretch. Now one can argue that considering the lack of proper understanding regarding the place of the OT throughout much of Christian history, this is not surprising. But a reason for mistakes doesn't make a mistake right.

It is quite shameful what stupid exegesis has been used through the ages to justify personal preferences.

Anyway, glad to see all is as it should be. I almost feared we agreed on something, but I see we're back to the regular complete disagreements. One needs some stability in life, after all.

It is funny that you should mention exegesis. Last year I did a significantly large research projection Christian Worship. The interesting thing about your exegesis comment is that I surveyed a number of different pastors from various denominations for my project asking each a series of 10 identical questions. Plus, I analyzed all of their faith statements. Now, even the denominations that were not what you would call inerrantist, usually have something in their faith statements pertaining to either the "authority" or "sufficiency" of Scripture that reads...."...as a rule for faith and life" or "...as the only authority for life and practice" or some similar statement.

So, I asked each Pastor these 10 Questions:

1. How do you define worship?
2. Do you have a Theology of Worship? That is, why do you do what you do?
3. Does John 4:24 inform or direct how you worship and if so, how?
4. How do you (or do you) determine if your worship is pleasing to God?
5. Why do you worship?
6. What is the purpose of worship?
7. How do you (or do you) regulate worship?
8. Are you familiar with the term, Normative Principle of Worship?
9. Are you familiar with the term, Regulative Principle of Worship?
10. What are the elements of worship?

On question number 2 Theology of Worship, if they really stumbled (all but two stumbled badly, I mean really badly!!!! The RPCNA and the Anglican pastors both did well.) I'd ask something to the affect of 'Well, if Scripture is your rule for faith and practice; can you explain how Scripture informs or dictates your Worship?' Or again '....why is it that you do exactly what you do in each worship service?'

Man, it was like staring at a Deer in the headlights!!!!

It was as obvious to me as the nose on my face that these guys had never once thought about the concept of applying "What doth Scripture saith?" when it came to designing what they did for worship. I am sure if I went to them for financial or marital advice, I would have most likely have gotten some answers that were in accordance with Scripture, even been given some Scripture to ponder or meditate on.... But I ask them basically to apply or tell me how they have applied the same principle to their service of worship and what I get is the 1000 yard stare and the oatmeal face ...............Bueller...........Bueller? (Sure it is anecdotal and not scientific but it still tells a story!)

All I can say is that you can disagree with our exegesis (It would be nice if you'd refrain from using term shameful and stupid - but then that just wouldn't be you now would it?!), but at least we have done our exegesis and know and can articulate everyreason for every thing we do and do not do, in a service of Worship!

I interviewed one of my personal best friends. He is a Naz pastor with over 25 years in Ordained Ministry 10 years Un-Ordained Youth Ministry previous to that. This is a man I love and care about deeply. He reaffirmed my wedding vows for me and my wife on our tenth anniversary. But his answer shocked me!

Question 2. Do you have a Theology of Worship? That is, why do you do what you do?
Answer: As for a theology of worship, well, I don’t think about it much – I just do it. But, I believe that in Public worship I must come with reverence and celebration. I come; open my heart and just rock and roll!

There is no possible exegetical warrant for instruments in NT worship! It is just not there. We say, "in absence of a clear command, we don't...." Your principle says "in absence of a clear prohibition, we may (with decency and in good order)"

Sounds like irreconcilable differences to me. And I've said that from the very beginning!

I still don't know why you feel the need to use words like dishonest, shameful stupid...ect?

.....Oh ..oh...wait now I do...duh! It's because it's George's post that's why!

[George Wallace]

To attempt to extrapolate a model for corporate worship from Scriptural silence calls for an incredibly high degree of creativity.

Somehow I overlooked this line. We don't extrapolate from silence, we exegete from Scripture both OT and NT. We believe all OT Ceremony ceased with Christ's Death, Ascension and Resurrection. The ceremonies being types and shadows had no more validity after Christ as they pointed to Him. So all that is left in the NT worship is:

Prayer
The reading of the Scriptures
Preaching, (and conscionable hearing of the Word)
Praise (As we interpret; singing of psalms with grace in the heart)
Due administration and worthy receiving of the sacraments instituted by Christ
*Some or most include Alms, offerings, and tithes (Some as an act of Worship others place a box in the back. Don't know of any arguments about this. Probably are some, we are Presbyterians you know )

There are some other important items like a "Call to Worship" and a "Benediction" but those have more to do with our understanding of pastoral office than with the theology of worship (Some overlap here)

That is all that is required in the assembly for ordinary Corporate Worship, and that is all done under the rubric of Sabbath or Lord's Day keeping.

Pretty much, what (until the recent advances in drama, liturgical dance ect) all Protestant Christian Churches do/did - Even those with a more formal liturgy.

As for silence extrapolation, No. Positive warrant can be found for all of these activities.

As for why not other things? Ask Nadab and Abihu!

Worship Hermeneutics:

[1] We say, "in absence of a clear command, we don't...." Your principle says [2]"in absence of a clear prohibition, we may (with decency and in good order)"

Which principle most closely aligns with with?:

Now Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, took their respective firepans, and after putting fire in them, placed incense on it and offered strange fire before the LORD, which He had not commanded them.

Leviticus 10:1

Shortest possible way I know to explain it. Buy it; don't buy it.... I was never selling it! Just explaining it.

Almost all of the gifted vocal instructors I know tend to think of the human voice as the first instrument. So maybe your preferred mode of singing isn't all that non-instrumental after all.

Look carefully now... Didn't I say something about "the fruit of lips"...?

[Hans Deventer]

I still don't know why you feel the need to use words like dishonest, shameful stupid...ect?

.....Oh ..oh...wait now I do...duh! It's because it's George's post that's why!

No. I use the words because they describe the situation. Ever since the breach between church and synagogue (which is shameful, from both sides) the church has cut itself from its Jewish roots. Which is stupid. Then trying to justify personal preferences by an exegesis that is such a stretch that you can't even see the result from where one is standing, is dishonest. Has nothing to do with you, it's about the history of the church.

To its credit, in the last century or so the awareness of the Jewishness of the Scriptures has been growing. As is the understanding of the awful treatment of the Jews by the church throughout history. So we are moving in the right direction, but searching for proper exegesis on Jewish issues in the past, is like asking the pre-Copernican church for a proper cosmology. It isn't there. So really, don't bother with all the ancient quotes. They had no clue.

But lets sing today with the inspired words of God:

Psalm 150

1 Praise ye the Lord. Praise God in his sanctuary: praise him in the firmament of his power.
2 Praise him for his mighty acts: praise him according to his excellent greatness.
3 Praise him with the sound of the trumpet: praise him with the psaltery and harp.
4 Praise him with the timbrel and dance: praise him with stringed instruments and organs.
5 Praise him upon the loud cymbals: praise him upon the high sounding cymbals.
6 Let every thing that hath breath praise the Lord. Praise ye the Lord.

[Paul DeBaufer]

I'm no expert and I haven't put in as much time researching this as George has, but seems to me that the basis of the exegesis for not having instruments is the doing away with Temple worship. Seems that that's where the religious ceremony was so important, sacrifices and what not. And Jesus does tell us in John 4 that worship is not to be in the Temple or on the mountain. Now, how do we deal with David? David sang, danced, encouraged the playing of instruments. He did this before the Temple, right out in the streets for all to see. Yep right out there he dances naked before the Lord. And by this time Tabernacle worship had disappeared, they had even lost the Ark and found and retrieved it.

Also, if the Psalms were part of Temple worship, which they were, how do we retain those in the talked about exegesis?

[George Wallace]

No. I use the words because they describe the situation. Ever since the breach between church and synagogue (which is shameful, from both sides) the church has cut itself from its Jewish roots. Which is stupid. Then trying to justify personal preferences by an exegesis that is such a stretch that you can't even see the result from where one is standing, is dishonest. Has nothing to do with you, it's about the history of the church.

To its credit, in the last century or so the awareness of the Jewishness of the Scriptures has been growing. As is the understanding of the awful treatment of the Jews by the church throughout history. So we are moving in the right direction, but searching for proper exegesis on Jewish issues in the past, is like asking the pre-Copernican church for a proper cosmology. It isn't there. So really, don't bother with all the ancient quotes. They had no clue.

But lets sing today with the inspired words of God:

Psalm 150

1 Praise ye the Lord. Praise God in his sanctuary: praise him in the firmament of his power.
2 Praise him for his mighty acts: praise him according to his excellent greatness.
3 Praise him with the sound of the trumpet: praise him with the psaltery and harp.
4 Praise him with the timbrel and dance: praise him with stringed instruments and organs.
5 Praise him upon the loud cymbals: praise him upon the high sounding cymbals.
6 Let every thing that hath breath praise the Lord. Praise ye the Lord.

Ahhh, yes I too forgot with whom I was engaging. But, don't worry all is right with the world now. (Circa May, 2010!) I forgot that from your perspective no one had a clue about Christianity before McLaren and Pete Rollins et al came along to save us!

It just seems odd that a postmodern post-traditional like yourself is so absolutely sure and can make such matter-of-fact statements. This is totally in-congruent with the your whole "What is Truth?" worldview. Not to mention, that using, "shameful" "stupid" "a stretch" "dishonest" ect with out even attempting to personalize, with IMO, Seems, appears or I believe ect.. is just, well overtly antagonistic and flat out rude.

It is all nothing but your opinion; and you know that they are like (think 7th planet from the Sun) and they odoriferous - yours more pungent than the rest.

[George Wallace]

I'm no expert and I haven't put in as much time researching this as George has, but seems to me that the basis of the exegesis for not having instruments is the doing away with Temple worship. Seems that that's where the religious ceremony was so important, sacrifices and what not. And Jesus does tell us in John 4 that worship is not to be in the Temple or on the mountain. Now, how do we deal with David? David sang, danced, encouraged the playing of instruments. He did this before the Temple, right out in the streets for all to see. Yep right out there he dances naked before the Lord. And by this time Tabernacle worship had disappeared, they had even lost the Ark and found and retrieved it.

Also, if the Psalms were part of Temple worship, which they were, how do we retain those in the talked about exegesis?

Well, Paul I have no problem answering; but I would like to make note that this tack was not my intention for the direction of this thread (See the OP). But, threads have a life of their own; I don't mind the tangent, it is an area of interest for me. So if people are curious, or would like more info I am happy to oblige.

However, just for clarity sake I would like to point out that I have never said nor implied, that "you guys should do this…" or “you guys need to do this…” or “your guys are all fouled up because you don’t do this…” or any other such thing.

I ain’t selln’ just ‘splainin’ this ain’t Amway, Hebalife, nor the Saturday Morning Jehovah’s Witness knock, knock. I’m not trying to win anyone to my way of thinking, or “my side” (at least no further than a blanket recommendation that I think adding Psalms to worship is a good thing.)

If any anyone wants to know the “whys” or “how comes” of what I believe I’ll be pleased to answer or offer references, but please don’t get ticked because I say “this is what I believe” when that is not what you (collective or plural) believe. That just doesn’t make sense to me!???

If we can agree on that, then I’ll take your questions at face value, in the vain of “Okay I see that but what about this..?” as being derived from curiosity and not from a spirit of antagonism or argument. (Which is what it always seemed to be, but based upon recent activity I had to get this out --- lucky you huh? )

I'll give you a direct answer quickly.

[George Wallace]

Paul,

So, now to answer- first, we need to look at worship, corporate worship, and celebration and their differences/relationship.

This, I have found, is the biggest stumbling block or “I just don’t get it” issue for Nazarenes (CMA people and others also). (Refer, to my 10 questions above- for example). You-all, especially the younger and more (open, PoMo, Progressive???) Nazarenes, do not seem to have a tightly defined, definition of worship, for most it is quite fluid. ‘All of life is worship…’ ‘Worship is life…’ ‘Sunday, Saturday Friday it matters not…’ I hope you get where I am going here. The idea of the specific act of Corporate Worship on the Lord’s Day, is greeted with; ‘well, yeah and that too… .” If not greeted, with that then it is greeted, with something like ‘I don’t want my people to think that worship is just something they do or check in and out of on Sunday morning!…’ The point is that nowadays the idea or definition of worship seems very fluid or amorphous for many. This makes discussing the very questions you and possibly others have very difficult, at first there is a lot of head scratching, until we define the terms.

So to a degree we certainly believe that all our lives are to be lived submitted to and with a worshipful attitude toward or Loving God and Savior. I mean really our shorter catechism’s first question asks what is your (man’s) chief end (goal/mission)? The answer is to enjoy God and Glorify Him forever! (We focus a whole lot more on holiness than most people think! But I digress.)

So while we really do agree for the most part about worshipful living, we would also say that we have a Special Delightful Duty of the Specific act of Corporate Worship on the Christian Sabbath or the Lord’s Day. (And to totally equate ALL of Life to worship for us really won’t fly. If EVERYTHING is Worship then NOTHING is worship! Sometimes, man, you are just changing spark plugs! Do it, and all you do to the Glory of the Lord, most certainly! But sparkplug changin’ ain’t worship.)

Our understanding of the derivation of Christian worship is two fold. We believe it derives from both Tabernacle/Temple Worship and Synagogue Worship. As you have stated above we, just like most evangelical Christians believe that the temple ceremonies pointed to Christ and would now be considered blasphemous if continued. Would you slaughter a bull in a Christian worship service? No, that was ceremonial and was part of the ceremonial Law. For us and for many, many in the early church and really up to the late middle-ages this was often the case. Musical instruments were either seen as part of the Ceremonial Law and to incorporate them with Christian worship was to Judaize. Others thought them to closely relate to cults, or pagan worship practices. Later they may have been excluded simply because they were considered common or just too vulgar.

For us, it is about being considered, just like animal sacrifice – part of the OT Ceremonial Law. So, Instruments in worship… In the Synagogue there was none; and only Psalms were sung acappella . Why? Well, for one, the OT believer knew that musical instruments were part of Temple worship, part of what God commanded and regulated. And two, they sang Psalms because they were supposed to, what else would they sing in the OT to worship God?!

In the Temple -There was no such thing as Joe Isrealite rolling up to the temple and telling the High Priest he would like to bring “Special Music” next week on his guitar. Or the High Priest saying ‘I really wanta change the order of worship today; were gonna sing a Third-day Song here and…. use a squirrel here, rams and goats are sooo messy!...” Everything associated with Temple Worship was commanded and dictated by God alone, there was zero, ziltch, and nada in the way of human creativity that added to Temple Worship because someone thought God world like whatever it was they came up with.! See Leviticus 10 for starters.

So when I say the Tabernacle/Temple AND the Synagogue inform our worship, I mean that the principle behind God’s worship in the Tabernacle/Temple hasn’t changed:

And Moses said to Aaron, “This is what the Lord spoke, saying:

‘By those who come near Me
I must be regarded as holy;
And before all the people
I must be glorified.’”

And just like the T/T worship there are some similarities “Call to Worship” ect, but the practice stems much more from the Synagogues –Teaching, Psalm singing… . (I listed the elements of NT worship in Post #47.)

So now we come to, the core of your question and others like it. “What about David he danced before the Lord…? “What about Miriam and here song and Timbrel after crossing the Red Seas…?” These and many others like them… Here in lies the distinction that most people miss! Were these times of Worship or Celebration?

To be Corporate Worship these would need to be a gathering of the entire assembly Called for the specific purpose to Worship God (Like the T/T and Synagogue). (Normally associated with the weekly Sabbath, note this is the ordinary, there are exceptions or other times of Called Corporate Worship.)

So here is where you guys usually meltdown. Not in anger of frustration, the meltdown comes from never having looked upon Called Corporate Worship as such, in this way, so this concept or division seems either strange or artificial. It may be strange and seem artificial, but the Israelites and Early Christians sure didn’t seem to have that problem.

There were times like David’s dance and Miriam’s song, that we would (and I believe they the OT saints) deem as Occasional Celebrations, not occasional as we often define it like once-in-a-while, but occasional like something specifically occasioned (happened) that gave them warrant or reason for national of local celebration.

Take note that all of the instances, that come up like these are occasioned by something and not planned and/or Called gathering of the Assembly for Worship sometimes called Stated Worship.

I don’t think Joe Israelite or John Q. 1st Century Christian - would have any trouble distinguishing the two. The Hebrew Bible and Religion was too ingrained to confuse Occasioned Celebration and Called Corporate Worship for each other!

Then the next part of your question deals with; ‘Well, what about David...????.. He instituted Levitical Choirs, and all manner of Instrument!!” True, true, did David do this by his own creative desire? Just an; “I am king and I want to do this and you people deal with it as will God?” Alas, sorry but No:

2 Chronicles

25 And he stationed the Levites in the house of the LORD with cymbals, with stringed instruments, and with harps, according to the commandment of David, of Gad the king’s seer, and of Nathan the prophet; for thus was the commandment of the LORD by His prophets.

Note the all caps LORD in the verse… So who was it that ACTUALLY instituted the instruments and Levitical choirs ect??

How’s that sound?

If you really are intrigued and want to understand this even if you have no inclination toward it, I would recomment the works at the bottom of my Post 44. Plus Schwertly’s work Musical Instruments in the Public Worship of God is moderately detailed and free.

Hope this added light and not heat!

Blessings
George

[Hans Deventer]

Ahhh, yes I too forgot with whom I was engaging. But, don't worry all is right with the world now. (Circa May, 2010!) I forgot that from your perspective no one had a clue about Christianity before McLaren and Pete Rollins et al came along to save us!

I haven't read all they wrote, but for all I know, they did not write about the Jewishness of the Scriptures. I'm reading "Jesus and the Victory of God" by N.T. Wright at the moment, and it seems to me that both men have nothing to do with this issue, it's rather that scholarship as a whole finally became more aware of the problem we've pretty much had ever since we rid ourselves of Jewish Christians.

It just seems odd that a postmodern post-traditional like yourself is so absolutely sure and can make such matter-of-fact statements. This is totally in-congruent with the your whole "What is Truth?" worldview. Not to mention, that using, "shameful" "stupid" "a stretch" "dishonest" ect with out even attempting to personalize, with IMO, Seems, appears or I believe ect.. is just, well overtly antagonistic and flat out rude.

Mr. Wallace, the antagonist is you. Who is the one who is claiming that he worships as God has intended, instead of following merely his own taste? It wasn't me. You are the one who is rejecting all of our worship and arrogantly classifies it as merely people following their own desires, while you supposedly are so pure and holy in your approach. Not seeing how you merely try to justify your very own personal taste.

Now let me repeat, for all I care, you may worship God as you please, but don't tell us that this is the God ordained way, while you obviously and clearly for all to see, reject what actually IS a way God ordained. Get real, man.

It is all nothing but your opinion;

Well, of course. You're kicking in an open door. Everything I wrote here is my opinion. Duh. But YOU seem to lack the honesty to admit the same goes for you. And that, Mr. Wallace, is a shame as well.

[John Kennedy]

George -

It's really too bad what's happening here. The thread started off with an agreement that corporate worship should be 'real-life' enough to contain some elements that speak to those who participate in it who may be carrying heavy loads and may not be in a 'Victory....all the time....', 'I'm so happy ......happy, happy, happy, happy.....' frame of mind.

People come through the doors incredibly burdened and are faced with a forced gaiety that probably wouldn't allow for the honestly expressed emotions of the Psalmist, himself. The confession/acknowledgement of those very real human emotions can provide a release for those who are fortunate enough to worship in a body whose liturgy reflects real life.

I share your dismay about churches and their leaders who don't seem to have a cogent/coherent theology or philosophy of worship. I've been around my share of them - I made my escape as soon as I was able. I've related the frustration of working with a pastor who who rejected wonderfully insightful hymns because they didn't have enough 'torque' - people to whom a song's content had no significance - the only criteria was bright and bouncy. "It don't mean a thing if it ain't got that swing....!'

I've stated on here, long before you started this thread, that a church could do FAR worse than base its hymnody on the Psalms - that, indeed, many had.

I think we have a fundamental disagreement about the attitude of the Wesley brothers toward church music - you seem to see their inclusion of metrical cues as indicating their desire for Methodists to sing a capella. I obviously don't agree. To a great extent that disagreement is irrelevant.

The only tune composed by a Wesley that I've ever seen in any hymnal (and I've got a fair sized collection from many traditions) is the tune 'Aurelia' to which we sing the hymn, 'The Church's one foundation....'. It was composed by Charles W's son or grandson, Samuel S. Wesley. You're welcome to whatever conclusions you may care to draw on this subject.

I don't think the 'music guy from Beaumont' is very likely to convert the 'retired jarhead' - nor is the opposite likely to happen. Guess you'll just have to go to your church and I'll go to mine.

I am very happy that you are a part of a body that worships in song in a way that is meaningful to you. I am equally happy that I am a part of a body that worships in song in a way that is meaningful to me.

I believe that the God we both worship accepts with joy our respective offerings of praise - yours a capella and mine accompanied by an instrument that reflects high craftsmanship by its builder and God-gifted artistry by the player.

I believe that the God of the universe has chosen to speak musically with incredible breadth. Yesterday our congregation, choir, and organist offered Him praise and adoration through a magnificent tune adapted from Beethoven's Ninth Symphony (Joyful, joyful we adore Thee). As the offering was received we retold the wonderful story of of a man's encounter with God, 'Go down Moses...let my people go' - a telling that was incredibly enhanced by a masterful piano accompaniment (Mark Hayes has the gift of putting down on paper the kind of arrangements that will stir you up long after he's gone - and he sure knows how to tear up a piano). I think God recieved both with joy.

I think the most fundamental difference we may have, however, is not really musical. It is in our view of Scripture. Even though I am no longer Nazarene, I find myself in complete agreement with the church's official view of the authority of the Scriptures.

The belief in which I was raised, and I hold this in common with Christians through the ages, is that if the Bible proscribes, we MUST NOT do it. If the Bible prescribes, we MUST do it, and if there is neither we must be directed by the Spirit. This Congregationalist has no problem saying a hearty Amen to the Wesleyan Quadrilateral.

I think what I'm trying to say is best summed up in the words of a hymn we sing from time to time:

When in our music God is glorified, and adoration leaves no room for pride,
It is as though the whole creation cried: Alleluiia!

How often making music we have found a new dimension in the world of sound,
As worship moved us to a more profound Alleluia!

So has the Church, in liturgy and song, in faith and love through centuries of wrong,
Borne witness to the truth in evry tongue: Alleluia!

And did not Jesus sing a psalm that night when utmost evil strove against the light?
Then let us sing, for whom he won the fight: Alleluia!

Let every instrument be tuned for praise! Let all rejoice who have a voice to raise!
And may God give us faith to sing always: Alleluia!

(Hope my Latin hasn't completely forsaken me - SOLI DEI GLORIA!)

[George Wallace]

George -

It's really too bad what's happening here. The thread started off with an agreement that corporate worship should be 'real-life' enough to contain some elements that speak to those who participate in it who may be carrying heavy loads and may not be in a 'Victory....all the time....', 'I'm so happy ......happy, happy, happy, happy.....' frame of mind.

Agreed

People come through the doors incredibly burdened and are faced with a forced gaiety that probably wouldn't allow for the honestly expressed emotions of the Psalmist, himself. The confession/acknowledgement of those very real human emotions can provide a release for those who are fortunate enough to worship in a body whose liturgy reflects real life.

True, agreed and heart wrenching! That is why I added the third question to my OP, “If not my way… what recommendations do folks have?” Most here as you say, have, or started in agreement, yet recommendations of what to do have been mighty thin.

I share your dismay about churches and their leaders who don't seem to have a cogent/coherent theology or philosophy of worship. I've been around my share of them - I made my escape as soon as I was able. I've related the frustration of working with a pastor who who rejected wonderfully insightful hymns because they didn't have enough 'torque' - people to whom a song's content had no significance - the only criteria was bright and bouncy. "It don't mean a thing if it ain't got that swing....!'

What an I opener for me in my studies! Doesn’t it just somehow seem so wrong, out of place, to know that if a person would ask a Pastor for help on a life problem that most ‘good’ Pastors would turn to the Word for a way forward; yet, it never seems to even enter the mind many ‘good’ Pastors, often the same Pastors, to look toward the Word, to solve Worship problems? How many threads have we had dealing with “Worship Wars’ or Worship Dissatisfaction or Worship Tension? It is certainly an understatement, based upon my experience here with you guys, to say that this problem isn’t “critical.’

This problem too has other serious ramifications, mostly ecclesiological. People silently seething in the pews, if their form of music or desired style is not well represented making snide remarks, sowing division even if ever so slightly. – People leaving, or becoming perpetual church hoppers over this issue. - Effectively, separating or dividing what should be a unified congregation into, sub-groups or sub-congregations, “we attend the Saturday night ‘torque it up’ service;… we attend the 8AM Traditional Service,… we attend the 10:30 Blended Service,… we attend the 12;45 Contemporary Service…

John, I’m truly not trying for a ‘holier than thou’ posture or approach, but isn’t this sort of division ridiculous? I can only speak from my perspective, that’s all I have, but I have to ask, who are we attempting to please in our worship? Man or God? From my perspective this type of multi-service, smorgasbord of programming speaks volumes. To me it really says that people are trying, scrambling earnestly - to please man, not God.

Really, when one breaks the worship wars down to the core isn’t it always, about a “ME”!?

I find that truly sad.

I know I provided a plethora of links, but I encourage you to take a look at paragraphs 1, 1.1 and 1.2 on pages 4-5 in "The Worship of the Church: A Reformed Theology of Worship” One may disagree per se about a “reformed theology of worship” but certainly the point is well made about contemporary worship by-and-large not really having any theology of worship. Honestly, I do believe the authors of the paper hit a big-problem nail right on the head in paragraph 1.1. Contemporary worship often doesn’t know what its purpose is! It is kinda stuck between 19th Century Evangelistic tent meeting and the Worship of God. You should have seen the answers in my study, to the questions of; “What is the Purpose of Worship?’ and ‘How do you know your worship pleases God?”

What is the purpose of gathering on Sunday morning for “worship” ?

I think we have a fundamental disagreement about the attitude of the Wesley brothers toward church music - you seem to see their inclusion of metrical cues as indicating their desire for Methodists to sing a capella. I obviously don't agree. To a great extent that disagreement is irrelevant.

True again. But I really don’t think it is that irrelevant. Certainly it is off topic a bit or severely tangential to my OP, but I already admitted that.

First to a degree, I really don’t think we really disagree all that much. If you take what you are saying and what I am saying and lay the timeline of actual events over them; we really don’t disagree too much. (That is what I said in while quoting you bold in my # 45)

As the Methodist movement prospered, became more 'churchlike', and began to move more toward separation from the Anglican church, most of the Wesleyan chapels acquired organs [Can you provide some resources here?](and this was also a development in American Methodism). [I think we actually agree see my time references above]

But here is my issue per se, if it is really an issue, and why I asked you to site some sources, because if I am truly wrong I do want to know.

…that were, most assuredly, sung with organ or harpsichord accompaniment. [Can you provide some resources here?]

and were, in the vast majority of cases, written by church organists [Can you provide some resources here? As I have a directly contradictory source?].

Now as the “Music guy From Beaumont” I think I can safely presume that to some degree or another you have studied music, “duh’. Right?

John, have you ever studied the absence of music? Honestly? I have.

I may be wrong and am open for correction certainly, but this is what I see. For at least 150 years instrumental musical accompaniment in most Christian worship has held sway and most of that time this is true for the evangelicals also (Eastern Orthodox excluded). What of the time before this? Much like the proverbial frog in the boiling pot, it is difficult for people to think of worship without music, because that is all they have known. (Wanta have your mind blown?... The same concept applies to cultures that predate written language! Try understanding the thinking process of the pre-literate, the making of a simple list in those cultures doesn’t even make sense. Orality and Literacy )

People make presumptions that just seem natural to them, people often unintentionally are anachronistic with these assumptions. (Did you know that there was no standard “look’ for Santa Claus until the 1940s, his “standard” attire comes from a Coca-Cola ad?)

In this case that we are discussing or in debate over, people dramatically underestimate the Puritan and Reformation influence on the Church of England and make anachronistic presumptions based upon later events or later changes in standard (or Conversely they superimpose the pre-Puritan and Reformation influences of the “Roman Catholicism w/o the Roman Pope” of the early separatist Henry VIII.) All of this is quite understandable, given that most of what we know of the CofE today comes from the Post-Tractarian/Oxford movement period of time.

But does that make it true?

You alluded to the Cromwellian thing in an earlier post, but dismissed it as “it didn’t take.” True and very true; - for a period of time. But what of Psalmody and a cappella worship in that time, later, and its influence in the Wesley’s time?

Had you ever heard of the Sternhold and Hopkins Psalter, before I brought it up?

For a brief trace of history; we start out with Edwardian England (Briskly Protestant Evangelical!) Followed by Mary (militantly Anti-Evangelical!) with a mass exodus of evangelicals to Geneva, Strasbourg and the like; Followed by Elizabeth I (Protestant Evangelical- but Practical in her efforts to salvage a defacto divided Kingdom and remain on the thrown)

As the Protestants returned under Elizabeth, much changed in the Church. Did you know that the BCP was often bound together with the Sternhold and Hopkins Psalter!? That in Elizabethan England that it was the “hymnbook” of worship? The Puritan and returning Continental Protestant influence on the Church is actually much greater than most people today suppose! (Did you know Knox and Bucer contributed to the BCP?)
Hence my previous quote:

Chapter VII How The Sang a New Day Into Britain -pg 106
Before the Wesleys there had been no singing of hymns, in our modern sense, in the churches. The ancient chants, with metrical versions of the Psalms, had been the only music thought fit to be heard in the house of God.

And my link to Yale Library

(Man, it’s Yale!?… and just a random Methodist history I grabbed off of the Library shelf. It’s not like I am cherry picking reformed sources or something.)

This and much more speaks to the evangelical character that held sway in the CofE during the Wesley’s Day. Have you seen paintings, or depictions of the Wesleys and Whitefield? How many of them showed them wearing a Stole, Surplice, or Tippet? How many of the likenesses show them in a Geneva robe or something akin to it? (Don’t misunderstand me; the Surplice and Tippet were in use by some, maybe many, even Evangelicals, but the staunchest of evangelicals did not wear it)

Wiki

During the English Reformation, the stole, along with all other sacramental vestments were removed from the Church of England. The Oxford Movement began an interest in pre-Reformation worship, and eventually the stole (along with other vestments) were revived among Anglo-Catholic clergy. Though today, it is not uncommon for a Low Church priest to wear a stole with choir dress, stricter ones may still object to its use, and wear the tippet instead. This re-introduction of the stole continued to cause concern even in the 20th century.

All of that to say this; I think you drastically underestimate the Post-Cromwellian, Puritan, Genevan (Continental) a cappella, Psalmody, influence upon the CofE and its remaining legacy in Wesley’s England which certainly influenced how they wrote and how they sang in worship.

If I am correct, and the sources I have are correct, then at the time of the Wesleys hymn writing, virtually all (Probably not absolutely all –I am willing to concede) singing in the CofE was done a cappella. And here John if you want me to concede further or if I am indeed wrong and you know it (I am serous about being teachable here!), then I need you to provide some sources.

Because, what I am getting (understanding) from you is that basically at that time, organ and harpsichord music was pretty much the norm in the CofE. That, a cappela singing was incidental to the unique development of Methodism, the bands, classes, and societies ect.


I think it comes down to discerning the Wesleys primary intent or “desire” as you have used. Did they primarily intend or “desire’ to write hymns to be sung with musical accompaniment? Or did they primarily intend or “desire” for their hymns to be sung by voice? (**Or were they indifferent?)

John,
I think you know which theory I think is correct. (and this has the added benefit of making sense of the Clarke and Wesley comments I’ve asked you to address)

I am truly willing to “come around;” but every source I have looked at seems to point to a Wesleyan England that that primarily sang in its Churches without musical accompaniment; that this was indeed the norm.

And you are asking me (Well maybe you aren’t asking me, but are proclaiming differently…) to accept that out of this set of environs the Wesleys “intended” or “desired” to write for accompanied singing. John, to me it just doesn’t make sense.

Honestly, I wouldn’t expect one who has studied music to know this, because it isn’t really music.

I mean who studies the absence of music anyway?
(Only and obstinate a cappella-psalm singing, retired jarhead!)

More later The Lord willing…..

Soli Deo Gloria

[George Wallace]

Sorry I couldn't help myself!

[Benjamin Burch]

What do you mean by this, George?

As far as I am aware all Eastern Orthodox Church (The only UnReformed Church) refrain from using instrument to this day.

What does that mean, "only UnReformed Church"?

[George Wallace]

What do you mean by this, George?



What does that mean, "only UnReformed Church"?

It means that that Church has never undergone a "reformation." The others have.

[Benjamin Burch]

It means that that Church has never undergone a "reformation." The others have.

I thought so but your use of capitalization was confusing.

[Nate Pruitt]

Sorry I couldn't help myself!

Do you, per chance, follow Lecrae? He's who I saw post this yesterday. Just curious.

[George Wallace]

Do you, per chance, follow Lecrae? He's who I saw post this yesterday. Just curious.

Heard of, yes. Heard, a few times, yes. Never, really "followed" rap, but I guess you could say I "quit" "following" rap after the Sugar Hill Gang...

"I said a hip, a hop, the hippie, the hippie
To the hip hip hop, a you dont stop
The rock it to the bang bang boogie say up jumped the boogie
To the rhythm of the boogie, the beat...!"

Somewhere around 1981-82

[George Wallace]

Here is 45 min. well spent if anyone wants to understand the theology behind a cappella worship

http://www.sermonaudio.com/playpopup...ID=82012020228