Instruments in Worship?

Status
Not open for further replies.
More quotes for consideration:

"The Lords and Commons assembled in Parliament, the better to accomplish the blessed Reformation so happily begun, and to remove all offences and things illegal in the worship of God, do Ordain, That all representations, of any of the persons of the Trinity, or any Angel, or of Saint in or about any Cathedral, Collegiate, or Parish Church, or Chapel, or in any open place within this Kingdom, shall be taken away, defaced, and utterly demolished; And that no such shall hereafter be set up, And that the chancel-ground of every such Church or Chapel raised for any Altar, or Communion-table to stand upon, shall be laid down and leveled; And that no Copes, Surplices, superstitious Vestments, Roods, or Roodlofts, or holy water fonts, shall be, or be any more used in any Church, or Chapel within this Realm; And that no cross, crucifix, picture, or Representation of any of the persons of the Trinity, or of any Angel or Saint, shall be or continue upon any place or other thing used, or to be used in or about the worship of God; And that all Organs, and the frames or cases wherein they stand in all Churches and Chapels aforesaid, shall be taken away, and utterly defaced, and none other hereafter set up in their places; And that all Copes, Surplices, superstitious Vestments, Roods, and fonts aforesaid be likewise utterly defaced: whereunto all persons within this Kingdom whom it may concern, are hereby required at their peril, to yield due obedience." Ordinance of British Parliament for the removal of Superstition and Idolatry from Britain. May 9, 1644.

"...we cannot but admire the good hand of GOD in the great things done here already, particularly; That the Covenant (the Foundation of the whole Work) is taken; Prelacie and the whole train thereof, extirpated; The Service-Book in many places forsaken, plain and powerful preaching set up; Many Colledges in Cambridge provided with such Ministers, as are most zealous of the best Reformation; Altars removed; The Communion in some places given at the Table sitting; The great Organs at Pauls and of Peters in Westminster taken down; Images and many other monuments of Idolatry defaced and abolished." John Maitland, Alexander Henderson, Samuel Rutherfurd, Robert Baillie and George Gillespie. The Letter from the Commissioners at London to the General Assembly. 1644.

"We were greatly refreshed to hear by Letters from our Commissioners there with you... of the great good things the Lord hath wrought among you and for you... many corruptions, as Altars, Images, and other Monuments of Idolatry and Superstition removed...the great Organs at Pauls and Peters taken down." General Assembly of the Church of Scotland. The General Assemblies Answer to the right Reverend the Assembly of Divines in the Kirk of England. 1644.

"It would be nothing but mimicry if we followed David today in singing with cymbals, flutes, tambourines and psalteries. In fact, the papists were seriously deceived in their desire to worship God with their pompous inclusion of organs, trumpets, oboes and similar instruments. That has only served to amuse the people in their vanity, and to turn them away from the true institution which God has ordained.... In a word, the musical instruments were in the same class as sacrifices, candelabra, lamps and similar things.... Those who take this approach are reverting to a sort of Jewishness, as if they wanted to mingle the Law and the Gospel, and thus bury our Lord Jesus Christ." John Calvin. Sermons on Second Samuel. 1562.

"The eleventh fault they finde, is, for that wee use no Organs in our Churches.... commonly we doe therefore not use them: whilest we finde more hindrance to proceed thereof then profit, by the worship of God: and also in this case we desire to remaine by the simplicity of the Apostolicall Churches, which neither had nor used any such things in their congregations." A Full Declaration of the Faith and Ceremonies Professed in the Dominions of the Most Illustrious and Noble Prince Fredericke, V. Prince Elector, Palatine (1614).

"The Rejoynder after some words spent about singing, (about which he bringeth not the least resemblance of that in question, untill the fourth age after Christ) excepteth first, that Organall musicke was gods ordinance in the old Testament, and that not significant, or typicall; and therefore is sinfully called Idol-service. 2. That all men whose hearts are not averse, by distraction, stupidity, or prejudice, feele such musicke to worke much upon their affections. To this I say 1. That his denying of Organall musicke to have beene significant or typicall, is without reason, and against the current of our Divines; taken (as it may seeme) out of Bellarmine (de missa. Lib. 2. Cap. 15.) who useth this evasion against those words of P. Martyr: Musicall organs perteyne to the Jewish Ceremonie, and agree no more to us, than Circumcision. So that we may neglect it, and take him as saying, that nothing which was ordained in the old Testament (no not sacrificing beasts) is now an Idol-service. 2. For that, and the other, both together, it is fit the Rejoynder should be put in minde how many, and what kinde of men, he accuseth of distraction, stupidity or prejudice!" William Ames. A Fresh Suit Against Human Ceremonies in God's Worship. 1633.

"though' instrumental musick were admitted and appointed in the worship of God under the Old Testament, yet we do not find it practised in the synagogue of the Jews, but only in the temple. It thence appears to have been a part of the ceremonial pedagogy, which is now abolished; nor can any say it was a part of moral worship. And whereas the common usage hath now confined instrumental musick to cathedrals, it seems therein too much to Judaize; which to do is a part of the Anti-Christian apostacy, as well as to Paganize." Cotton Mather. Magnalia Christiana Americana. 1702.

"Besides, though we read of the use of music in the temple-service, yet it does not sufficiently appear that it was ever used in the Jewish synagogues; the mode of worship observed in which more resembled that which is at present performed by us in our public assemblies. But what may sufficiently determine this matter, is that we have no precept nor precedent for it in the New Testament, either from the practice of Christ, or his apostles." Thomas Ridgeley. A Body of Divinity: Wherein the Doctrines of the Christian Religion are Explained and Defended, Being the Substance of Several Lectures Upon the Assembly's Larger Catechism. 1732.

"Q. May we not use harps, organs, and other musical instruments in praising God? A. No, for these, though used in the temple services, were not used in the Jewish synagogues, nor in the New-Testament worship..." -John Brown, of Haddington. A Help for the Ignorant; or An Essay, Towards an Easy, Plain, Practical, and Extensive Explication of the Assembly's Shorter Catechism. 1758.
 
Okay, totally off topic...but I just visited my inlaws church last night and I ended up feeling like I was at a concert (please, dad...don't read this!). The lyrics were fine...but the music was loud...you couldn't hear the congregation sing for it or the ensemble on stage. :um: This is where I think instruments can become a problem (but not against their use either)

[Edited on 8-8-2005 by LadyFlynt]
 
Originally posted by LadyFlynt
Okay, totally off topic...but I just visited my inlaws church last night and I ended up filling like I was at a concert (please, dad...don't read this!). The lyrics were fine...but the music was loud...you couldn't hear the congregation sing for it or the ensemble on stage. :um: This is where I think instruments can become a problem (but not against their use either)

This is one of my biggest pet peeves-- the "band" being so loud that you can't hear yourself sing. Not only that, but it encourages people not to sing. Why waste your breath? Add to that that it's a sappy pop ballad like Michael W. Smith's "Above All" (which I had to endure yesterday to my nausea) and you've got a real problem.
 
Originally posted by Rick Larson
Originally posted by LadyFlynt
Okay, totally off topic...but I just visited my inlaws church last night and I ended up filling like I was at a concert (please, dad...don't read this!). The lyrics were fine...but the music was loud...you couldn't hear the congregation sing for it or the ensemble on stage. :um: This is where I think instruments can become a problem (but not against their use either)

This is one of my biggest pet peeves-- the "band" being so loud that you can't hear yourself sing. Not only that, but it encourages people not to sing. Why waste your breath? Add to that that it's a sappy pop ballad like Michael W. Smith's "Above All" (which I had to endure yesterday to my nausea) and you've got a real problem.

This would be an example of a bad circumstance - like lighting that was SO bright that you could not see in the sanctuary.
 
Originally posted by fredtgreco
Originally posted by Rick Larson
Originally posted by poimen
I'm against instruments as an element of worship.

I am for instruments as being a circumstance of worship to aid us in our singing.

I really see no difference between a piano and a pitch pipe.

Can I just ask, why a piano and not a guitar? Or an organ? I'm not trying to be argumentative, but I am honestly trying to work through this myself.

There is no reason why a piano and not a guitar - unless it is not a good aid in singing.

:up:
 
But, who decides what makes a good aid in singing? Some might think a rock band is better. Again, this is not to argue, I'm just trying to imagine all the questions I'm going to be asked if I decide to put in my worship band resignation! :)
 
When the instruments becomes the focal point and and not simply an aid to singing, then you have bad circumstances. Unfortunately a lot of these praise bands become the focal point of the worship service rather than the singing.
 
Roman Catholics would claim that images of Christ are an aid to worship.

Really, what do instruments AID in worship? Pitch? Is pitch worship to God? Does it help the understanding? Does it edify?

Microphones, lighting etc. all help people understand what is going on during the service. Instrumentation does not do this, it simply makes the song sound prettier to US. Does the song sound prettier to God?

Just throwing some thoughts out there. I'm not decided on this issue either.
 
Originally posted by Rick Larson
But, who decides what makes a good aid in singing? Some might think a rock band is better. Again, this is not to argue, I'm just trying to imagine all the questions I'm going to be asked if I decide to put in my worship band resignation! :)

The leaders of the church. That is one of the reasons that they are there.
 
Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel
Roman Catholics would claim that images of Christ are an aid to worship.

Really, what do instruments AID in worship? Pitch? Is pitch worship to God? Does it help the understanding? Does it edify?

Microphones, lighting etc. all help people understand what is going on during the service. Instrumentation does not do this, it simply makes the song sound prettier to US. Does the song sound prettier to God?

Just throwing some thoughts out there. I'm not decided on this issue either.

Jeff,

Not to be smart, but if you ask that question, then you have never seen a congregation try and sing acappella without extensive training and some serious musicians in their midst.

99% of congregants (myself included) cannot carry a tune on any but the MOST familiar of songs without accompaniment.
 
Originally posted by wsw201
When the instruments becomes the focal point and and not simply an aid to singing, then you have bad circumstances. Unfortunately a lot of these praise bands become the focal point of the worship service rather than the singing.

If I used this line argumentation to replace our worship band with a single piano I would receive the response, "maybe the band seems to be the focal point to you, but we don't have any problem focusing on God during the worship".

Why is it that I have time and again been reminded by some worship leader "remember gang, it's not about us!" Why should I need this reminder? Does someone have to tell the pastor before he heads to the pulpit, "remember, it's not about you...."?

Sorry, I'm ranting.
 
Originally posted by Rick Larson
Originally posted by wsw201
When the instruments becomes the focal point and and not simply an aid to singing, then you have bad circumstances. Unfortunately a lot of these praise bands become the focal point of the worship service rather than the singing.

If I used this line argumentation to replace our worship band with a single piano I would receive the response, "maybe the band seems to be the focal point to you, but we don't have any problem focusing on God during the worship".

Why is it that I have time and again been reminded by some worship leader "remember gang, it's not about us!" Why should I need this reminder? Does someone have to tell the pastor before he heads to the pulpit, "remember, it's not about you...."?

Sorry, I'm ranting.

Rick,

This is why churches are "more or less pure." The disappointing thing is that many pastors do need to be reminded before they enter the pulpit to preach that it is "not about you." Too much preaching is not centered on God, Christ and the Bible.
 
I'm not getting "there"; once the songs or tunes are learned, it seems to me the only circumstance needed filling is the need for an aid to get the congregation started singing and the precentor to keep the congregation on track. That's how it works with our church. Given the "offense" that much instrumentation is, on which there seems little disagreement, if we are going to argue circumstance, the better choice is to abandon musical instruments altogether and use means less abused and stumbling to the church generally to aid the singing; I mean, the church didn't need musical instruments for 1500 years (and not in Presbyterianism till the mid to late 19th century). Did they lack for something? Musical accompaniement is not necessary to meet the circumstantial need. And besides, in Presbyterianism at least, we didn't get musical instruments in worship based upon circumstancial arguments; we got them because people wanted them, didn't want to lose folks to the Episcopal church, etc. Some might say it would help to understand the sermon if it was illustrated by some drama; now is that an argument from circumstance?;)
 
Originally posted by NaphtaliPress Some might say it would help to understand the sermon if it was illustrated by some drama; now is that an argument from circumstance?;)

Exactly my point with Catholics and images.

Fred,

Some of the arguments you made above were also convincing until I read Matt's post tracing instruments to O.T. ceremonial (commanded) elements. How do you respond to his claims given your position?
 
The disappointing thing is that many pastors do need to be reminded before they enter the pulpit to preach that it is "not about you." Too much preaching is not centered on God, Christ and the Bible.

Very true my brother! :up:
 
Originally posted by fredtgreco
Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel
Roman Catholics would claim that images of Christ are an aid to worship.

Really, what do instruments AID in worship? Pitch? Is pitch worship to God? Does it help the understanding? Does it edify?

Microphones, lighting etc. all help people understand what is going on during the service. Instrumentation does not do this, it simply makes the song sound prettier to US. Does the song sound prettier to God?

Just throwing some thoughts out there. I'm not decided on this issue either.

Jeff,

Not to be smart, but if you ask that question, then you have never seen a congregation try and sing acappella without extensive training and some serious musicians in their midst.

99% of congregants (myself included) cannot carry a tune on any but the MOST familiar of songs without accompaniment.

Having been a member or visitor to numerous a cappella congregations (most of which have precentors), I can report that this assumption is incorrect. Talent and skill are desirable when singing a cappella, but anyone can learn how to do it. For those who have great trouble, there is the practice of lining the psalms to help. Talent is not a prerequisite for acceptable congregational a cappella singing. I am all for singing tunefully, but the neccesary aspect of congregational singing is that it be done with grace in the heart. But metrical psalm-singing is specifically designed so that anyone can do it. Again, I speak from personal experience. To obey is better than instruments! :)


[Edited on 8-9-2005 by VirginiaHuguenot]
 
Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot
Originally posted by fredtgreco
Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel
Roman Catholics would claim that images of Christ are an aid to worship.

Really, what do instruments AID in worship? Pitch? Is pitch worship to God? Does it help the understanding? Does it edify?

Microphones, lighting etc. all help people understand what is going on during the service. Instrumentation does not do this, it simply makes the song sound prettier to US. Does the song sound prettier to God?

Just throwing some thoughts out there. I'm not decided on this issue either.

Jeff,

Not to be smart, but if you ask that question, then you have never seen a congregation try and sing acappella without extensive training and some serious musicians in their midst.

99% of congregants (myself included) cannot carry a tune on any but the MOST familiar of songs without accompaniment.

Having been a member or visitor to numerous a cappella congregations (most of which have precentors), I can report that this assumption is incorrect. Talent and skill are desirable when singing a cappella, but anyone can learn how to do it. For those who have great trouble, there is the practice of lining the psalms to help. Talent is not a prerequisite for acceptable congregational a cappella singing. I am all for singing tunefully, but the neccesary aspect of congregational singing is that it be done with grace in the heart. But metrical psalm-singing is specifically designed so that anyone can do it. Again, I speak from personal experience. To obey is better than instruments! :)


[Edited on 8-9-2005 by VirginiaHuguenot]

Andrew,

The heart and skill are two different matters. Of course any congregation could sing heartily without any accompaniment. But that does not mean that any congregation can do this. I would respectfully say that your experience with "acapella congregations" is not the norm. For the most part, such congregations have great experience singing acappella, and have several singers who not only have excellent talent, but have been singing the same metrical psalms for decades. And again, to be honest, such congregation are almost invariably small enough that 3-4 singers can "carry" the entire congregation (i.e. about 100 or less).

It should also not be forgotten that even the "helpful" practice of lining the psalms is so controversial that it has caused fractures in fellowship (both by those who insist that it be done, and by those who say it must not be done) among those who agree on just about everything else (including EP and no-instruments).

My experience at least with congregations (and there are many) that have been unable to procure accompaniment or are without it for the day, is that the singing is half-hearted, weak and bad. That does not mean that it HAS to be that way; I was simply observing what is fact in the overwhelming majority of churches today.
 
Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel
Originally posted by NaphtaliPress Some might say it would help to understand the sermon if it was illustrated by some drama; now is that an argument from circumstance?;)

Exactly my point with Catholics and images.

Fred,

Some of the arguments you made above were also convincing until I read Matt's post tracing instruments to O.T. ceremonial (commanded) elements. How do you respond to his claims given your position?

Jeff,

I'm sorry that I have not had time to do more than fire off a few brief comments. Just a couple for now:

1. Matt's position about David holding the "office" of "sweet psalmist"and how that acts as a command and authorization of elements is very strained. We read nowhere of such an office, there is no parallel to Christ (as with pastor, elder and deacon). There is even (by the EP argument, no other to ever hold he office). I could just as easily say that Daniel held the office of "pious prayer" of Israel, and thus uninspired prayer ceased with his prayers in the book of Daniel.

2. What has been offered regarding instruments is descriptive. Again, the exact same argument could be offered for clothing. There were specific clothes that were prescribed in the temple. Why is clothing not "ceremonial" ? Why is it not done away with?

3. While there is certainly instruction from synagogue worship, it is interesting that a RPW case can be made for worship which is neither commanded nor set forth in the Bible. The closest synagogue worship makes it is by description in the gospels, and that is slim.

4. There is also a major difference between the other "ceremonial aspects" of worship and instruments. God positively declares the former element of sacrifice (for example) to be done away with. He does so in the Bible. There is no confusion, no conjecture, no "process of reasoning." Like all parts of worship, He gives revelatory command. Not so with instruments. The NT is completely silent.

Hope that helps some,
 
Originally posted by fredtgreco
Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel
Roman Catholics would claim that images of Christ are an aid to worship.

Really, what do instruments AID in worship? Pitch? Is pitch worship to God? Does it help the understanding? Does it edify?

Microphones, lighting etc. all help people understand what is going on during the service. Instrumentation does not do this, it simply makes the song sound prettier to US. Does the song sound prettier to God?

Just throwing some thoughts out there. I'm not decided on this issue either.

Jeff,

Not to be smart, but if you ask that question, then you have never seen a congregation try and sing acappella without extensive training and some serious musicians in their midst.

99% of congregants (myself included) cannot carry a tune on any but the MOST familiar of songs without accompaniment.


Fred,

Coming from the RP's I guess I could be judged as being biased in my response ;) however - we have 3 people in the congregation who can lead in for us, and the congregation joins by the second note or word. Most have not had formal training however we make a habit of singing Psalms whenever we meet (On the Lord's day of course, in family worship, at each bible study and on Psalm singing/fellowship meals which are held once a month). As such I suppose you could argue each generation has had extensive training - by the generation before them.

Many people only sing the melody, but typically some find themselves able to pick out the bass/tenor/alto/harmony parts. Those with the ability to do so usually sit near others who can sing those parts so that they can grow most accostomed to the part each time they sing it.

Of couse, using the right Psalm book also helps :bigsmile:

Cheers,

Matt
 
Originally posted by Matthew Glover
Originally posted by fredtgreco
Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel
Roman Catholics would claim that images of Christ are an aid to worship.

Really, what do instruments AID in worship? Pitch? Is pitch worship to God? Does it help the understanding? Does it edify?

Microphones, lighting etc. all help people understand what is going on during the service. Instrumentation does not do this, it simply makes the song sound prettier to US. Does the song sound prettier to God?

Just throwing some thoughts out there. I'm not decided on this issue either.

Jeff,

Not to be smart, but if you ask that question, then you have never seen a congregation try and sing acappella without extensive training and some serious musicians in their midst.

99% of congregants (myself included) cannot carry a tune on any but the MOST familiar of songs without accompaniment.


Fred,

Coming from the RP's I guess I could be judged as being biased in my response ;) however - we have 3 people in the congregation who can lead in for us, and the congregation joins by the second note or word. Most have not had formal training however we make a habit of singing Psalms whenever we meet (On the Lord's day of course, in family worship, at each bible study and on Psalm singing/fellowship meals which are held once a month). As such I suppose you could argue each generation has had extensive training - by the generation before them.

Many people only sing the melody, but typically some find themselves able to pick out the bass/tenor/alto/harmony parts. Those with the ability to do so usually sit near others who can sing those parts so that they can grow most accostomed to the part each time they sing it.

Of couse, using the right Psalm book also helps :bigsmile:

Cheers,

Matt

Matt,

I do understand that. And hear me - I am not saying that it is a good thing that most congregations are not capable of what you describe. I am just trying to describe what is the reality today. There are whole host of other factors that come into play, many of which we could discuss on their own merits.

For example, are there any 2,000 person worship services in America that are EP without accompaniment? Please note, I am not offering that as proof for the correctness of the non-EP position here. I merely say that it is a very different matter to lead 2,000 in song as opposed to 60 or 80.
 
1. Matt's position about David holding the "office" of "sweet psalmist"and how that acts as a command and authorization of elements is very strained. We read nowhere of such an office, there is no parallel to Christ (as with pastor, elder and deacon). There is even (by the EP argument, no other to ever hold he office). I could just as easily say that Daniel held the office of "pious prayer" of Israel, and thus uninspired prayer ceased with his prayers in the book of Daniel.

Actually, you couldn't since there is no command in this respect for "pious prayerer" as part of temple worship. What will have to happen is that the specific command God gave to David, Gad and Nathan will have to be overthrown by non-instrumentalists, which, we all know, will simply be skirted.

2. What has been offered regarding instruments is descriptive.

Actually, it was a specific command of God. It was AS descriptive as Moses' instruction FOR the specific clothing that the priest wore.

Again, the exact same argument could be offered for clothing. There were specific clothes that were prescribed in the temple. Why is clothing not "ceremonial" ? Why is it not done away with?

Specific temple clothing (Ephod, headband, etc.) is done away with. No one in the synagogues, at any time, wore those "clothes" for synagogue worship. Only those specific instances where God instructed Moses about what they should wear and how they should wear it was associated with t he Tabernacle and the Temple.

3. While there is certainly instruction from synagogue worship, it is interesting that a RPW case can be made for worship which is neither commanded nor set forth in the Bible. The closest synagogue worship makes it is by description in the gospels, and that is slim.

This is simply a matter of taking the RPW and believing it or not. Either 1) we do what God commands. Or 2) we do what we want. I've already given specific verses that demonstrate Temple worship as typical elements, and how they differed from what would have happened int he synagogue, those having generic elements. What MUST happen is for the NT to demonstrate OTHERWISE, which, as you said, it makes no mention of at all. Sounds like the same necessary inferences that we use for infant baptism! But I'm guessing you won't hedge on that bet. ;)

4. There is also a major difference between the other "ceremonial aspects" of worship and instruments.

This would only be the case if it was inferred and not commanded. As we have seen, its commanded for TEMPLE worship which means it has the same value as the other ceremonies, and was done away with progressively when t he Temple was destroyed by God.

God positively declares the former element of sacrifice (for example) to be done away with. He does so in the Bible. There is no confusion, no conjecture, no "process of reasoning." Like all parts of worship, He gives revelatory command. Not so with instruments. The NT is completely silent.

If ceremonial law is abrogated, then instruments, being ceremonial, (which has yet to be proven otherwise) are as well.

Hope that helps some

Not really. :P But I love ya nonetheless....
 
For example, are there any 2,000 person worship services in America that are EP without accompaniment? Please note, I am not offering that as proof for the correctness of the non-EP position here. I merely say that it is a very different matter to lead 2,000 in song as opposed to 60 or 80.

It is indeed different, but I suppose that given my background in the RP's I still don't see it as being an issue. Here is a link to a picture of 1500 people at the RP International Conference 2004 singing unaccompanied Psalms exclusively :cool:

I understand what you are saying though if you were to consider a 2000 member congregation giving up their instruments and trying to sing unaccompanied. It would require some co-ordination. Of course, many of the modern worship songs don't lend themselves to being sung unaccompanied and so they would have to transition to Psalms only at the same time :)

Matt

PS. I forgot the link - here 'tis - http://www.reformedpresbyterian.org/act_conferences_international.html

[Edited on 8-9-2005 by Matthew Glover]

[Edited on 8-9-2005 by Matthew Glover]
 
When we worship, the invisible church that is, we are transported in the Spirit to the heavenly temple not made with hands.

Acts 17:24-25
24 God, who made the world and everything in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands. 25 Nor is He worshiped with men´s hands, as though He needed anything, since He gives to all life, breath, and all things.

When we assemble we are in the company of angels and all the other saints wherever they may be. That is why we need only our voice to join with theirs. We need nothing but what God has given us. It is so simple. All of this nitpicking seems to me to be a lot of fist clenching and foot stomping to get what we want in the service because we think it would be too dull otherwise.

Hebrews 12:22-24
22 But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, to an innumerable company of angels, 23 to the general assembly and church of the firstborn who are registered in heaven, to God the Judge of all, to the spirits of just men made perfect, 24 to Jesus the Mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling that speaks better things than that of Abel.

Again the worship service which included all of the elements is for God's glory not ours. What we want does not matter. If it sounds bad to our ears that means nothing. God doesn't care about the actual sound, he is pleased by our obedience and self-sacrifice. That we would do something out of obedience with no thought to self but love for Him and love for his commandments and precepts.
 
Two questions:

1. What is "lining the psalms"???

2. (Specific to the instrument-tolerant side) What about instrumental music (without singing) accompany the collection of the tithe/offering or the distribution of the Lord's Supper? Can any argue that such is circumstance in the same manner as lights and microphones? If it is not aiding in the singing of psalms and hymns, is it lawful?
 
Originally posted by fredtgreco
Andrew,

The heart and skill are two different matters. Of course any congregation could sing heartily without any accompaniment. But that does not mean that any congregation can do this. I would respectfully say that your experience with "acapella congregations" is not the norm. For the most part, such congregations have great experience singing acappella, and have several singers who not only have excellent talent, but have been singing the same metrical psalms for decades. And again, to be honest, such congregation are almost invariably small enough that 3-4 singers can "carry" the entire congregation (i.e. about 100 or less).

I think my experience with a cappella congregations is fairly extensive, and I would again assert that a cappella singing is not difficult. On the contrary, it is the simplest form of singing that there is and, frankly, the most beautiful. The human voice, it has been said, is the greatest musical instrument ever "invented." Even when I hear bad vocal sounds (as I do in fact whenever I myself sing) I am not in the least moved to consider the expedient of instrumental accompaniment. The technical quality of a cappella song is not the chief goal in worship. Whether the group is small or large (I have heard a cappella psalm-singing in both contexts) and whether the talent/skill level is high or low, who cannot be inspired when they hear the words indited by God's Holy Spirit sung to his praise? All a cappella psalm-singers aim to sing God's praise joyfully and tunefully, in that order.

There are lawful aids to a cappella singing, including a precentor, a pitch pipe (which we never use), notes from the tunes found in the psalter, the sounds of others in the congregation singing along as best as they can, personal training and experience. If children can do it, there is simply no reason why the average adult can't sing a cappella.

It should also not be forgotten that even the "helpful" practice of lining the psalms is so controversial that it has caused fractures in fellowship (both by those who insist that it be done, and by those who say it must not be done) among those who agree on just about everything else (including EP and no-instruments).

I grant that we Presbyterians have a tendency to divide over the smallest of matters. Lining the psalms is a practice that started to help the uneducated laity. It should be a matter of circumstantial discretion and adiaphora. Human nature, being what it is, a matter of adiaphora can and has been abused, which is much to be lamented.

My experience at least with congregations (and there are many) that have been unable to procure accompaniment or are without it for the day, is that the singing is half-hearted, weak and bad. That does not mean that it HAS to be that way; I was simply observing what is fact in the overwhelming majority of churches today.

Half-hearted, weak and bad are also to lamented. But it seems that you are speaking of congregations that are in the state of temporarily lacking accompaniment rather than affirmatively trying to sing a cappella in principle. What I would gather that they are really lacking is the desire to sing tunefully. It is easy to become dependent upon a crutch, which is really what instruments are in worship. Good singing though is simply not dependent upon muscial instruments.

Moreover, as an argument in favor of instruments, this line of reasoning is purely pragmatic. If reformation is needed in worship or musical training, there is work to be done. As I have mentioned though, the Scriptural criteria for good praise in song is that it be done with grace in the heart and regulated by God's Word, not that it be done to meet the standards of a recital or concert performance. A cappella psalmody puts the emphasis of song on the two elements that Scripture commands and emphasizes for pure spiritual worship: 1) the word of God 2) sung with grace in the heart. Uninspired hymnody and instruments detract from both of these aspects of worship, apart from the fact that they are not commanded for Christian worship.

[Edited on 8-9-2005 by VirginiaHuguenot]
 
Originally posted by Dan....
1. What is "lining the psalms"???

It is a practice specified in the Westminster Directory of Publick Worship whereby a line from the psalm is read first by a precentor or some other appropriate person before the congregation sings the line. The practice arose because of the fact that some persons were illiterate, as to the written word or the word sung, hence, it was a help for the uneducated.

WDPW:

Of Singing of Psalms.

IT is the duty of Christians to praise God publickly, by singing of psalms together in the congregation, and also privately in the family.

In singing of psalms, the voice is to be tunably and gravely ordered; but the chief care must be to sing with understanding, and with grace in the heart, making melody unto the Lord.

That the whole congregation may join herein, every one that can read is to have a psalm book; and all others, not disabled by age or otherwise, are to be exhorted to learn to read. But for the present, where many in the congregation cannot read, it is convenient that the minister, or some other fit person appointed by him and the other ruling officers, do read the psalm, line by line, before the singing thereof.
 
Thanks Andrew. I've heard the concept before, I just didn't know the tecnical name.

So do you end each line with a whole note to make the flow sound better (i.e., while the congregation is holding the last note for a full measure, the leader recites the next line), or do all voices stop while the leader recites the next line???


[Edited on 8-9-2005 by Dan....]
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top