Guitars/Drums in Church?
March 29th, 2006 | by Christopher Gillespie |
Print This Post
One Lutheran…Ablog!™: Guitars in Church?
But this brings up a more fundamental question: Are guitars/drum sets completely irreconcilable with reverent, historic worship?
Pr. Beisel raises an interesting question. We had a discussion over lunch yesterday on this very topic. We discussed all the obvious points like: what is reverent?, can a electrical guitar or drum set escape the connotation of rock and roll?, can the instrument disappear and not distract from the cross, and the like.
Driving to school today I started to consider this on a more philosophical level. All of the traditional liturgical instruments are fundamentally not percussive. To me this is an interesting observation. With the exception of the piano, these instruments (organ, strings, even woodwinds) convey only large scale dynamic differences. Consequently, any musical change to line, tone, or volume happens gradually. In reverberant environments any changes of intensity and tone are blurred even further.
It would seem we are inherently conservative in our musical practice. We don’t change often and if we do, it is slow. We don’t like fast syncopation, overly large tonal steps, dramatic intensity differences. When we do allow a dynamic instrument into our liturgy, their presence is known. This is especially obvious on Easter when congregations add brass (and perhaps timpani.) What makes its presence known is that a percussive instrument always sticks out with congregational singing. You really CAN’t sing along with it. That’s the beauty of drums, horns and such.
Now to Pr. Beisel’s question… I think he has three factors at odds when he considers the appropriateness of drums and electric guitars. First, their dynamic nature makes them inappropriate for congregational singing without significant amounts of amplification. Two, there is the negative connotation which many congregates will associate with their use (rock and roll, hedonism, etc.)
Most interesting to me though, is the electric versus acoustic issue. Electronic instruments were and are inherently about controlling or overcoming the acoustic of the room. There are exceptions but typically they don’t work in reverberant environments (such as a traditional church environment). More fundamental is that almost always electric guitars rely on distortion and other forms of destruction to their acoustic nature in order to create the “tone” or shall we say grunge, edge, or bite.
Perhaps our subconscious is sensitive to the destruction of the natural tone originally created in the string? We know that different keys, progressions, and tone character conveys different emotive senses. For example, we sing minor key hymns in Lent and major key hymns on feast Sundays and holidays. We don’t use tri-tones, minor seconds, parallel voicing, and other musical techniques within our liturgical repertoire because the emotion they convey are not consistent with the language of the liturgy.
I think drums do have a place in worship but used sparingly, especially on high feast days. Don’t make me try to sing along with them. Don’t expect a whole congregation to be able to sing along with them. And they better be good or they will draw attention to themselves.
Electrified guitars might work when they don’t interfere with the congregation’s joining with the saints in song. Volume, intensity and tone must be controlled and held in check. Can it work? Maybe… To do it well is a challenge. It requires a skilled musical ear and someone with real talent.
The problem with Contemporary Worship (CW) is not one of instrumentation. It is one of lack of consideration. The accompanists become the performers, the congregation move from singing to listening, and the content moves from rich confession of theology to over-simplified emotive statements divorced of theology. The music becomes an distinct object from the worship and the participants distinct from the theology and the saints in Heaven.
I think this issue runs deeper than simply theologies of worship. It is one of the fundamental interaction of people and music. This does not come out in most discussions of worship and it is truly a shame. Study your music history!
(p.s. this thought was inspired while listening to a choral piece then switching to nice-wholesome Rage Against the Machine (rock.) The contrast was so startling I couldn’t help but wonder why the choral piece was so boring. :) It is clear it had little dynamic element. Pretty, yes. Theological, yes. Engaging, yes but only on a contemplative way. It did not intrude, force one to listen. A good timpani hit on Easter morning will do that!)
By ghp on Mar 30, 2006
*Very* nice analysis, my good seminarian — very nice, indeed! ;^)
I can’t say that I have any significant disagreements with you, at least after my first reading.
Context is always important, particularly with musical styles/genres. Much as “electric” has a certain contextual connotation these days, thanks to the 60’s & 70’s, so do “acoustic” & “guitar” for me (who did high school & college in he 80’s) — they bring to mind theological laxity of the “Jesus Freak” & “peace, love & harmony” type…
Another (valid, IMO) point to keep in mind, as it dovetails quite nicely with our being “inherently conservative in our musical practice” is that, just because we *can* do something, doesn’t mean that we *should/must* do it. Sometimes the proper exercise of Christian freedom is to limit ourselves for meet, right, & salutary reasons.
-ghp
By Christopher Gillespie on Mar 30, 2006
I still find the idea that there is more theological issues with the musical character than the instrumentation a fascinating one. I wasn’t trying to cause offense but I think it is a genuinely different way of considering what is appropriate for worship.
Everything is permissible but not everything is useful?
By ghp on Mar 30, 2006
You didn’t cause me any offense; quite the opposite — I’m heartened by your thoughtful contemplation, and thankful for your faithfulness.
The one thing, I guess, that I’m not 100% certain about is that musical character & instrumentation are all that easily seperable, theologically speaking. I think some larger cultural & sociological factors come into play, along with musical character & instrumentation, in terms of defining the necessary context.
-ghp
By Christopher Gillespie on Mar 30, 2006
No offense from my lack of offending offense.
Perhaps you are correct. As I have expressed previously CCM music ranting-raving diatribe I think the only thing that allows them to be disconnected from the cultural context is time. What is useful in the church from the worldly culture is probably too old and antiquated to be useful in the world. So we assimilate it, like so-called liturgical dance… Oh, I shouldn’t have brought that up. :)
On the other hand, the beauty of the historic liturgy and hymnody is that is carries no thoughts but that of God. I would argue this is due to the fact that it is:
1) Richly Scriptural
2) Born within the church context
What we don’t have today is a majority of CCM music which can satisfy those two simple criteria. It’s difficult to convey anything with overly simplified and repetitive music. (point 1). I’m skeptical of any music made for commercial gain being appropriate. (point 2) The question remains if music created which satisfies those (and other) criteria is authored, can it work in the church.
Please check out my friend Tim’s music for an example of a Lutheran with theological training writing music with “rock” instrumentation… it might work… Timothy B. Eisman Music
Okay, back to greek readings…
By rupert Buscato on Aug 23, 2007
THE IMPORTANCE OF SINGING IN THE BIBLE
Music speaks a certain message, or better, it creates an atmosphere, it surrounds the listener with an implicit worldview, it stirs up feelings, evokes chains of ideas. By itself it cannot convey a particular message with the finely-chiseled precision of words, but neither is it amorphous and without power to communicate deeply what is in the bones and blood of its maker or, at any rate, what he has the ability to plant within it, even if it is not his feeling. Just as one cannot change meanings of words at random (if one expects to speak to others), so one cannot just invent an altogether new musical language from scratch. A piece of music carries with it and conveys not only what its maker may be thinking and feeling, but in a deeper way, the thoughts and feelings of the context and culture out of which the musical style or its elements emerged. The underlying language, the one that shapes the soul most, is the musical language, not the text. Words are cheap and mostly ephemeral; music is rich, its influence powerful, its resonance in the body long-lasting. The living body reacts to the music more than to the words music affects our judgment more than any other art; we do not become blind to visual beauty as quickly as we become deaf to audible beauty. And this is because music goes more deeply into the soul, into its passions and emotions; it affects us at the intersection of spirit and flesh, it gets “under the skin,” it goes into the very sense appetites and shapes them by motion, by repetition. Just as the habits of virtue or vice are formed in the sense-appetites by repeated action, so too are certain habits formed in the same appetites by repeated sensual stimulation. That means we cannot help being affected morally by long-term exposure to certain kinds of music. The music will make our passions—and through the passions, our souls and our selves—likeitself. Conversely, people gravitate toward music that most reflects or voices their conscious and unconscious preoccupations or expectations.
However, Churchgoers select a church not according to denomination, location, architecture, or pastor, but according to musical preference; and the result is separate congregations worshiping with separate styles under the same roof. Church’s style of worship and music can be distinguish as either traditional, contemporary, liturgical, praise and worship, charismatic, or blended. We sometimes make use of the word taste in describing or classifying worship and musical styles, meaning a personal preference or liking — and a related shade of meaning indicating that which is aesthetically pleasing, beautiful, excellent, or appropriate. We may say, “My congregation’s taste in music is contemporary praise and worship,” or “I attend a church that is tastefully traditional.” Such phenomenon only proved that Marketing have infiltrated the churches- Customer preferences and needs determine the specification of an activity. Worship has become a marketing tool, designed to attract a specific consumer. There seem to be a rising new tribalism of worship and music
The importance of music in the Bible is indicated by the fact that God’s creative
and redemptive activities are accompanied and celebrated by music. At creation we are
told that “the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy” (Job
38:7).
At the incarnation, the heavenly choir sang: “Glory to God in the highest, and on
earth peace among men with whom he is pleased!” (Luke 2:14).
At the final consummation of redemption, the great multitude of the redeemed will sing: “Hallelujah! For the Lord our God the Almighty reigns. Let us rejoice and exalt and give him glory, for the marriage of the Lamb has come, and his Bride has made herself ready; it was granted her to be clothed with the fine linen, bright and pure” (Rev 19:6-8).
The Singing of Creation.
The response of the natural world to the majestic glory of God’s created works, is often expressed in terms of singing. This clearly shows that singing is something which God welcomes and in which He delights. There are numerous examples in the Bible of all of God’s creation invited to sing praises to God.
“Let the heavens rejoice, let the earth be glad; let the sea resound, and all that is in
it; let the fields be jubilant, and everything in them. Then all the trees of the forest will sing for joy; they will sing before the Lord” (Ps 96:11-12; NIV).
“Let the rivers clap their hands, let the mountains sing together for joy; let them sing before the Lord” (Ps 98:8; NIV).
“Praise the Lord, all his works, everywhere in his dominion” (Ps 103:22; NIV).
We read about the birds singing because God provides them with water (Ps
104:12).
The heavens, the lower parts of the earth, the mountains, the forest, and every
tree breaking forth in singing unto the Lord (Is 44:23).
The wilderness, the cities, and the inhabitants of the rock, sing and give glory to God (Is 42:1-12).
Even the desert shall blossom and “rejoice with joy and singing” (Is 35:2).
All these metaphorical allusions to the animated and inanimate creation singing and
shouting praises to God, tell us that music is something that God ordains and desires. If
these were the only references to music in the Bible, they would be sufficient for us to
know that music, especially singing, has a special place and purpose in God’s universe.
The Human Singing.
More wonderful than all of nature singing is the invitation extended to human beings to sing.
“O Come, let us sing unto the Lord; let us make a joyful noise to the rock of our salvation!” (Ps 95:1).
“Sing praises to the Lord, O you his saints, and give thanks to his holy name” (Ps 30:4).
“Oh that men would praise the Lord for his goodness, and for his wonderful works to the children of men” (Ps 107:8; KJV).
Jesus said that if people would not praise Him “the very stones would cry out (Luke
19:40).
The Bible specifically mentions that singing should be directed to God. Its
purpose is not personal gratification, but God’s glorification.
Moses said to the people: “I will sing unto the Lord, for he has triumphed gloriously” (Ex 15:1).
David declared: “I will extol thee, O Lord, among the nations, and sing praises to thy name” (2 Sam 22:50)
.
Similarly Paul exhorts the believers to sing and make melody “unto the Lord with all your
heart” (Eph 5:19).
God and the praising of His people are so wrapped up together, that God Himself is identified as “my song.” “The Lord is my strength and my song” (Ex 15:2).
Music in the Bible is not only for God, it is also from God. It is God’s gift to the
human family. In praising God for His deliverance,
David says: “He put a new song in my mouth, a hymn of praise to our God” (Ps 40:3).
This text tells us that music can be inspired by God, just as His Holy Word. A telling proof is the fact that the longest book of the Bible is Psalms—the hymn book of God’s people in Bible times. This means that music, is not only a human artistic expression, but can also be a gift from God, sometimes inspired by the Lord Himself. We may differ on the style or types of music, but no Christian can legitimately be opposed to music per se, because music is part of God’s gracious provision for the human family.
Music Essential to the Total Human Well-being.
The first statement that we find in the Bible on any given subject, usually it has a foundational value. This seems to be true also in the case of music. Few generations from Adam and Eve, the Bible tells us that three sons were born to Lamech and his two wives, Adah and Zillah. Each son is introduced as “the founding father” of a basic professions. “Adah bore Jabal; he was the father of those who dwell in tents and have cattle. His brother’s name was Jubal; he was the father of all those who play the lyre and pipe. Zilla bore Tubal-cain; he was the forger of all instruments of bronze and iron” (Gen 4:21-22).
It is evident that these three brothers were the founding fathers of three different professions. The first was a farmer and the third a toolmaker. Both agriculture and industry are essential to human existence. Sandwiched between the two is the musical profession of the middle brother. The implication seems to be that human beings are called, not only to produce and consume food and goods, but also to enjoy artistic beauty, such as music.
The American classical pianist Sam Totman sees in this verse an indication of God’s provision for artistic human needs, besides the physical and material ones. He writes: “Here, within the compass of but a few verses, God reveals that the provision of man’s material needs is not enough; in addition, man must have an outlet for his artistic sensitivities. Even from the beginning music was more than a mere pastime which could be viewed as something pleasant but essentially unnecessary. Simply stated, God has created in man a certain aesthetic need which can be best satisfied in music, and in his love and wisdom he has provided for this need.” From a biblical perspective, music is not merely something potentially enjoyable. It is a gift provided by God to meet the total human needs. The very existence of music should give us reason to praise God for lovingly providing us with a gift through which we can express our gratitude to Him, while experiencing delight within ourselves
The Reason For Singing.
Religious music in the Bible is God-centered, not Self centered. The notion of praising the Lord for entertainment or amusement, is foreign to the Bible. There were no “Jewish” or “Christian” music concerts in Bible times, which were performed by bands or singing artists in the Temple, or synagogue, or Christian churches. Religious music was not conceived as an end to itself, but a means to praise God by chanting His Word. An amazing recent discovery that will be mentioned later, is that the entire Old Testament was originally intended to be chanted (sung). Singing in the Bible is not for personal pleasure or to reach out to the Gentiles with tunes familiar to them, but to praise God by chanting His Word. Pleasure in singing comes not from a rhythmic beat that stimulates people physically, but from the very experience of praising the Lord.
“Praise the Lord, for the Lord is good; sing praise to his name, for that is pleasant” (Ps 135:3; NIV).
“How good it is to sing praises to our God, how pleasant and fitting to praise him” (Ps 147:1).
Singing unto the Lord is “good” and “pleasant,” because it enables believers to express to Him their joy and gratitude for the blessings of creation, deliverance, protections, and salvation. Singing is seen in the Bible as an offering of thanksgiving to the Lord for His goodness and blessings. This concept is expressed especially in Psalm69:30-31: “I will praise God’s name in song and glorify him with thanksgiving. This will please the Lord more than an ox, more than a bull with its horns and hoofs.” The notion that singing praises to the God is better than sacrifice, reminds us of a similar concept that obedience is better than sacrifice (1 Sam 15:22). Singing praises to God by chanting His Word, is not only a pleasant experience, but also a means of grace to the believer. Through the singing believers offer to God a worship of praise, which enables them to receive from His enabling grace.
The Manner of Singing.
To fulfill its intended function, singing must express joy, gladness, and thanksgiving.
“Sing to the Lord with thanksgiving” (Ps 147:7).
“I will praise thee with the harp for thy faithfulness, O my God; I will sing praises to thee with the lyre, O Holy One of Israel. My lips will shout for joy, when I sing praises to thee” (Ps 71:22-23).
Note that singing is accompanied by the harp and lyre (often called psaltery—Ps 144:9; 33:2; 33:3), and not with percussion instruments. The reason is that string instruments blend with the human voice, without supplanting it. In numerous places the Bible indicate that our singing should be emotional with joy and gladness. We are told that the Levites “sang praises with gladness, and they bowed down and worshipped” (2 Chron 29:30). Singing should be done not only with gladness, but also with the whole heart. “I will give thanks to the Lord with my whole heart” (Ps 9:1).
If we follow this biblical principle, then our singing of hymns or praise songs in church,
should be joyful and enthusiastic. To sing enthusiastically, it is necessary for the grace of God to be applied to the believer’s heart (Col 3:16). Without divine love and grace in the heart, singing becomes as a sounding brass and a tinkling cymbal (1 Cor 13:1). The person who has experienced the transforming power of God’s grace (Eph 4:24), can testify that the Lord has “put a new song in my mouth, a song of praise to our God” (Ps 40:3). The music of an unconverted, rebellious heart is to God an irritating noise. Because of their disobedience, God says to the children of Israel, “Take away from me the noise of your song” (Am 5:23). This statement is relevant in a day of loud amplification of pop music.
What pleases God is not the volume of the music, but the condition of the heart. “Make a Joyful Noise unto the Lord.” The reference to the volume of the music, reminds us of the admonition to “make a joyful noise unto the Lord,”— a phrase that occurs seven times in the KJV version of the Old Testament (Ps 66:1; 81:1; 95:1-2; 98:4,6; 100:1). These verses are often used to defend the use of loud rock music in the church.
I have gone to many churches where the music of the band was amplified at such level
my eardrums were in pain afterwards. The defense for the use of deafening sound in the church service is that God does not really care about how we sound, as long as we make a joyful noise unto Him. Since rock bands with their electronic equipment are able to produce a powerful, thundering loud noise, it is alleged that God is very happy by such “joyful noise.”
Before examining those Bible texts where the phrases “joyful noise” or “loud noise” appear in some mistaken translations, it is important to remember that in Bible times there was no electronic amplification. This means that what was loud in Bible times, would be very normal today. The volume of the music produced by the human voice or musical instruments without amplification, does not increase in proportion of the number of participants.
Ten trumpets do not make ten times the noise or volume of one trumpet. In his book on the Psychology of Music, Carl Seashore devotes an entire chapter to the subject of volume. He writes: “The addition of one or more tones of the same intensity tends to increase the total intensity in the volume, but only to a slight degree. For example, if we have a piano tone of 50 decibels and we add to that another tone of the same intensity, the combined effect will be about 53 decibels. If we add a third tone, the total intensity is likely to be 55 decibels. Thus the addition to the total intensity decreases with the number of units combined; and in every case the increase is small in comparison with the original intensity of one element.”
What all of this means is that the singers that David appointed “to offer praises to
the Lord with the instruments” (1 Chron 23:5), could produce at most a sound volume of about 70 or 80 decibels, because they had no amplification possibilities. After all the usual choir was rather small, consisting of a minimum of 12 adult male singers, accompanied by a few string instruments. The level of volume depended from the distance between the singers and the congregation. By contrast, today a four-man rock group with the right amplification system can output a sound power in the 130-140 decibel level, which can upstage a jumbo set at takeoff.
The “loud noise” in Bible time was never loud enough to harm people physically. Today the possibility of being hurt by excessive volume, is a constant possibility. “Most ear doctors say that we should not listen to anything above the 90 decibels on the sound scale. Many rock music groups, both secular and Christian, play at 120-125 decibel level! Keep in mind that the SST Concord Supersonic jet hits just over the 130 decibels when it takeoff into the sky. As ‘Your bodies are the temple of the Holy Spirit’ (1 Cor6:19). Certainly that text is applicable to this point. We are to be good stewards of our eardrums, too”
The last great epidemic of musical secularism was the age of opera, lasting through the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, when nearly all church music was dashed off in strict operatic style, a hardly-disguised relative of the tiresome epics and predictable romances played out on the stage night after night, when the audience assembled mainly to hear the gorgeous voices of the lead tenor or soprano, or perhaps to thrill at the unnaturally pure timbre of the castrato.
Does Loud Noise Praise God?
Do those Bible texts that speak about making “a joyful noise” or “a loud noise” unto the Lord, teach us that God is pleased with the excessive amplification of the human voice or musical instruments during the worship service? Hardly so. This conclusion is largely drawn from a mistranslation of the original Hebrew terms commonly translated as “noise.” In his book, The Rise of Music in the Ancient World, Curt Sachs answers this question: “How did ancient Jews sing? Did they actually cry at the top of their voices? Some students have tried to make us believe that such was the case, and they particularly refer to several Psalms that allegedly bear witness of singing in fortissimo. But I suspect them of drawing from translations rather than from the original.” The phrase “make a joyful noise” is a mistranslation of the Hebrew ruwa. The term does not mean to make an indiscriminate loud noise, but to shout for joy. The God of biblical revelation does not delight in loud noise per se, but in joyful melodies. A good example is found in Job 38:7 where the same word ruwa is used to describe the sons of God who “shouted for joy” at creation. The singing of the heavenly beings at creation, can hardly be characterized as “loud noise,” because “noise” presupposes unintelligible sound. The mistranslation of ruwa as “noise” has been caught by the translators of the New International Version (NIV), where the term is consistently translated as “shout for Joy,” rather than “make a joyful noise.” For example, in the KJV Psalm 98:4 reads: “Make a joyful noise unto the Lord, all the earth: make a loud noise, and rejoice, and sing praise.” Note the more rational translation found in the NIV: “Shout for joy to the Lord, all the earth, burst into jubilant song with music” (Ps 98:4). There is a world of difference between “making a loud noise unto the Lord,” and “shouting for joy” or “bursting into jubilant song.” Singing jubilantly with the full volume of the human voice, is not noise making, but an enthusiastic expression of praise.
Another self-evident example of mistranslation, is found in Psalm 33:3 which in the KJV reads: “Sing unto him a new song; play skilfully with a loud noise.” The latter phrase is contradictory, because music skilfully played can hardly be described as “loud noise.” One wonders why the translators of the KJV did not use some common sense. The NIV correctly renders the verse: “Sing to him a new song; play skillfully, and shout for joy” (Ps33:3).
There are two Old Testament references which indicate that sometimes music can degenerate into noise making. The first reference is found in Amos 5:23 where God rebukes the unfaithful Israelites saying: “Take away from me the noise of your songs; to the melody of your harps I will not listen.” A similar warning is found in Ezekiel’s prophecy against Tyre: “And I will cause the noise of thy songs to cease; and the sound of thy harps shall no more be heard” (Ezek 26:13).
In both texts the word “noise” correctly translates the Hebrew hamown, which
occurs eighty time in the Old Testament, and is commonly translated as “noise” or “tumult.” The NIV correctly uses the word “noisy”: “I will put an end to your noisy songs, and the music of your harps will be heard no more.” The reason God views such music as “noise” is because it is produced by a rebellious people.
There is one instance in the New Testament where the word “noise” is used in conjunction with music produced by professional mourners. We read in Matthew 9:23-24:
“And when Jesus came into the ruler’s house, and saw the minstrels and the people making a noise, He said to them, Give place; for the maid is not dead, but sleepeth. And they laughed him to scorn.”
In this case the music and the wailing are correctly characterized as “noise,” because they consisted of incoherent sounds.
On this occasion the Greek verb thorubeo refers the musical wailing and noise making by minstrels and the crowd. The fact that Christ characterizes such music as“noise,” suggests that the Lord does not approve loud musical noise in a worship service. “It was a semitic custom to hire professional mourners to wail, and sing and beat percussion instruments and play mournfully over the dead. . . . Although this verse definitively connects noise making with music in the New Testament, it does not implicate that in the New Testament dispensation we should make noise unto God with our Church music.”
The review of relevant texts indicates that the Bible does not sanction making a joyful noise unto the Lord, or any kind of noise making for that matter. God’s people are invited to break forth in singing with power and joy. God does care about how we sing and play during the worship service. God has always demanded our best, when making an offering to him. As He required the burnt offerings to be “without blemish” (Lev 1:3), so it is reasonable to assume that He expects us to present Him the very best musical offering. There is no biblical basis for believing that the loud noisemaking music or questionable lyrics are acceptable to God.
The Place and Time of Singing
The Bible instructs us to sing, not only in God’s House, but also among unbelievers, in foreign countries, in time of persecution, and among the saints. The writer of Hebrews says: “In the midst of the congregation I will praise thee” (Heb 2:12). The Psalmist admonishes to “Sing to the Lord a new song, his praise in the assembly of the faithful” (Ps 149:1). Paul affirms “I will praise thee among the Gentiles, and sing to thy name” (Rom 15:9). Isaiah exhorts to praise God in the islands (Is 42:11-12). While in jail, Paul and Silas were “praying and singing hymns to God” (Acts 16:25). The frequent references to praising God among the heathens or Gentiles (2 Sam 22:50; Rom 15:9; Ps 108:3), suggest that singing was seen as an effective way to witness for the Lord to unbelievers. However, there are no indications in the Bible that the Jews or the early Christians borrowed secular tunes and songs to evangelize the Gentiles. On the contrary, we shall see below that the entertainment music and percussion instruments common in the pagan temples and society, were conspicuous for their absence in the worship music of the Temple, the synagogue, and early Christian gatherings. Both Jews and early Christians believed that secular music had no place in the house of worship. This point will become clearer as we proceed with this study. Singing in the Bible is not limited to the worship experience, but extends to the totality of one’s existence. Believers who live in peace with God, have a constant song in their hearts, though the singing may not always be vocalized. This is why the Psalmist says: “I will praise the Lord all my life; I will sing praise to my God as long as I live” (Ps146:2; 104:33). In Revelation those who come out of the great tribulation are seen standing before God’s throne, singing with a loud voice a new song which says: “Salvation belongs to our God, who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb” (Rev 7:10). Singing praises to God is an experience that begins in this life and continues in the world to come.
The “New Song” of the Bible.
Nine times the Bible speaks of singing “a new song.” Seven times the phrase occurs in the Old Testament (Ps 33:3; 40:3; 96:1; 98:1; 144:9; 149:1; Is 42:10) and twice in the New Testament (Rev 5:9; 14:2). Some believe that Christians are required to sing new songs and consequently musicians constantly must compose new hymns for the church. There is certainly a continuing need for new hymns to enrich the worship experience of the church today. However, a study of the “new song” in the Bible, reveals that the phrase “new song” refers not to a new composition, but to a new experience that makes it possible to praise God with new meaning. Let us look first at a couple of passages from the Old Testament which help us define the meaning of the “new song.”
The Psalmist says: “He lifted me out of the slimy pit, out of the mud and mire; he set my feet on a rock and gave me a firm place to stand. He put a new song in my mouth, a hymn of praise to our God” (Ps 40:2-3; NIV). In this text the “new song” is defined by the appositional phrase as “a hymn of praise to our God.” What makes the song new, is not the new lyrics or tune, but the new experience. It is the experience of deliverance from the slimy pit and of restoration upon solid ground, that gives reason to David to sing old hymns of praise to God with new meaning. The “new song” in the Bible is associated, not with simpler lyrics or more rhythmic music, but with a unique experience of divine deliverance. For example, David says: “I will sing a new song to you, O God; on the ten-stringed lyre I will make music to you, to the One who gives victory to kings, who delivers his servant David from the deadly sword” (Ps 144:9-10). It is the experience of deliverance and victory that inspires David to sing with a new sense of gratitude the hymns of praises.
The same concept is expressed in the two references to the “new song” found in the New Testament (Rev 5:9; 14:2). The twenty-four elders and the four living creatures sing a “new song” before the Throne of God. The song praises the Lamb “for thou wast slain and by thy blood didst ransom men for God” (Rev 5:9). On a similar note in Revelation 14 the redeemed join the elders and the living creatures in singing “a new song before the throne” (Rev 14:3). We are told that “no one could learn that song” except those “who had been redeemed from the earth” (Rev 14:3). What makes this song new, is not the new words or melody, but the unique experience of the redeemed. We are told that they are the only ones who can sing it, not because the words or melody is difficult to learn, but because of their unique experience. They came out of the great tribulation; thus they can express their praise and gratitude to God in a way no one else can do
.
The Greek word translated “new” is kainos, which means new in quality and not in time. The latter is expressed by the Greek word neos. The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament clearly explains the difference between the two Greek words neos and kainos. “Neos is what is new in time or origin, . . . kainos is what is new in nature, different from the usual, impressive, better than the old.” The “new song” presupposes not a new tune or lyrics, but a new experience. It is only the person who has experienced the transforming power of God’s grace, who can sing the new song. It is noteworthy that Paul’s famous exhortation in Colossians 3:16 to “sing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs,” is preceded by his appeal to “put off the old nature with its practices and have put on the new nature, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of its creator” (Col 3:9-10). The “new song” celebrates the victory over the old life and old songs, while at the same time it expresses gratitude for the new life in Christ experienced by believers.
Part 2
THE MINISTRY OF MUSIC IN THE BIBLE
In discussing the importance of music in the Bible, we have focused so far on the role of singing in the personal spiritual experience. Very little has been said of the ministry of music conducted first in the Temple, and then in the synagogue, and finally in the early church. A brief examination of the public ministry of music during Bible times, offers significant lessons for church music today.
(1) The Music Ministry in the Temple
Many of those involved in contemporary music ministry, appeal to the different styles of music of the Old Testament for “doing their own thing.” They believe that music produced by percussion instruments and accompanied by dancing was common in religious services. Consequently, they maintain that some styles of rock music and dancing are appropriate for church today
.
A careful study of the function of music in the Old Testament reveals otherwise. For example, in the Temple musicians belonged to the professional clergy, played only on limited and special occasions, and used only few specific music instruments. There was no possibility to turn the Temple service into music festival where any Jewish band could play the pop music of the time. Music was rigidly controlled in the Temple. What is true of the Temple was later true also of the synagogue and the early church. This survey will help us to see that in music, like in all other areas of life, God does not give us the license to “do our own thing.”
The Institution of the Music Ministry.
The transition from the unsettled, nomadic life in the desert, to a permanent life-style in Palestine under the monarchy, afforded the opportunity for developing a music ministry that would meet the needs of the worshipping congregation at the Temple. Prior to this time the references to music are primarily in conjunction with women singing and dancing to celebrate special events. Miriam led a group of women in singing and dancing to celebrate the overthrow of the Egyptians (Ex 15:1-21). Women played and danced for the conquering David (1 Sam 18:6-7). Jephthat’s daughter met her father with timbrels and dance upon his return from battle (Judg 11:34). With the establishment by David of a professional music ministry of Levites, music making was restricted to men. Why women were excluded from serving as musicians in the Temple, is an important question that has baffled scholars. We shall comment upon it shortly. Women did continue making music in the social life of the people. The book of Chronicles describes with considerable details how David organized the music ministry of the Levites. An insightful analysis of how David accomplished this organization, is provided by the doctoral dissertation of John Kleinig, published under the tile, The Lord’s Song: The Basis, Function and Significance of Choral Music in Chronicles.
For the purpose of our study we limit ourselves to a brief summary of those features that
are relevant for the ministry of music today. According to the first book of Chronicles, David organized the music ministry in three stages.
In the first stage, he ordered the heads of the Levitical families to appoint an orchestra and a choir to accompany the transportation of the ark to its tent at Jerusalem (1 Chron 15:16-24). The second stage occurred after the ark had been safely placed in its tent in his palace (2 Chron 8:11). David arranged for the regular performance of choral music at the time of the daily burn offerings with choirs if two different places (1 Chron 16:4-6, 37-42). One choir performed under the leadership of Asaph before the ark in Jerusalem (1 Chron 16:37), and the other under the leadership of Herman and Jeduthun before the altar in Gibeon (1 Chron 16:39-42). The third stage in David’s organization of the ministry of music occurred at the end of David’s reign when the king planned for the more elaborate music service that would be conducted at the temple that Solomon was to build (1 Chron 23:2 to 26:32). David established a pool of 4000 Levites as potential performers (1 Chron 15:16; 23:5). They accounted for more than ten per cent of the 38,000 Levites. “Some kind of examination was probably necessary for the process of selection, since musical ability is not always inherited.”
David himself was involved together with his officials in the appointment of 24 leaders of the watches, each of which had 12 musicians for a total of 288 musicians (1 Chron 25:1-7). These in turn were responsible for the rest of the selection of the musicians.
The Ministry of the Musicians.
To ensure that there would be no confusion or conflict between the sacrificial ministry of the priests and the music ministry of the Levites, David carefully delineated the position, rank, and the scope of the ministry of the musicians (1 Chron 23:25-31). The performance of the ministry of music they were subordinate to the priests (1 Chron 23:28).
The nature of the ministry of the musicians is graphically described: “They shall stand every morning, thanking and praising the Lord, and likewise at evening, and whenever burn offerings are offered to the Lord on Sabbath, new moons and feast days, according to the number required of them, continually before the Lord” (1 Chron 23:30-31). The context suggests that the musicians stood somewhere in front of the altar, since their music performance coincided with the presentation of the burnt offering. The purpose of their ministry was to thank and praise the Lord. They announced the Lord’s presence to His assembled people (1 Chron 16:4), reassuring them of His favorable disposition toward them. In 1 Chronicles 16:8-34 we find a remarkable hymn of praise that was sang by the Temple choir. “This song consists of portions of Psalms 105, 96 and 106, which were reworked and recombined to produce this remarkable liturgical text. The song itself begins and ends with a call to thanksgiving. A concluding petition and doxology are appended in 1 Chronicles 16:35-36. We thus have in 1 Chronicles 16:8-34 a carefully crafted composition which has been placed there to demonstrate the basic pattern of
thanksgiving which David instituted for performance by the singers in Jerusalem.”9
Successful Music Ministry.
The music ministry at the Temple was successful for several reasons which are relevant for our church music today.
First, the Levite musicians were mature and musically trained. We read in 1 Chronicles 15:22 that “Kenaniah the head Levite was in charge of the singing; that was his responsibility because he was skillful at it” (NIV). He became directory of music because he was an accomplished musician able to instruct others. The concept of musical skill is mentioned several times in the Bible (1 Sam 16:18; 1 Chron 25:7; 2 Chron 34:12; Ps 137:5). Paul also alludes to it when he says: “I will sing with my spirit, but I will also sing with my mind” (1 Cor 14:15; NIV). The choir consisted of a minimum of twelve adult male singers who served between the ages of thirty and fifty (1 Chron 23:3-5). Rabbinical sources report that the musical training of a Levitical singer took at least five years of intensive preparation. The biblical principle is that music leaders must be mature with an understanding of music, especially today as we live in a highly educated society.
Second, the music ministry at the Temple was successful because its musicians were prepared spiritually. They were set aside and ordained for their ministry like the rest of the priests. Speaking to the leaders of the Levites musicians, David said: “Sanctify yourselves, you and your brethren . . . So the priests and the Levites sanctified themselves” (1 Chron 15:12, 14). The Levites musicians were given a sacred trust to
minister continually before the Lord (1 Chron 16:37).
Third, the Levite musicians were full-time workers. 1 Chronicles 9:33 states: “Now these are the singers, the heads of father’s houses of Levites, dwelling in the chambers of the temple free from other service, for they were on duty day and night.” Apparently the Levites’ ministry of music entailed considerable preparation, because we read that “David Left Asaph and his brethren there before the ark of the covenant of the Lord to minister continually before the ark as each day required” (1 Chron 16:37). The biblical lesson is that ministers of music must be willing to work diligently in preparing the music need for the worship service.
Lastly, the Levites musicians were not singing artist invited to entertain the people at the Temple. They were ministers of music. “These are the men whom David put in charge of the service of song in the house of the Lord, after the ark rested there. They ministered with song before the tabernacle of the tent of meeting” (1 Chron 6:31-32). Through their musical service the Levites “ministered” to the people. They are five other instances in the Old Testament were the Levites are said to minister to the people through their music (1 Chron 16:4, 37; 2 Chron 8:14; 23:6; 31:2). The ministry of the Levites musicians is well defines in 1 Chronicles 16:4: “Moreover he appointed certain of the Levites as ministers before the ark of the Lord, to invoke, to thank, and to praise the Lord, the God of Israel.” The three verbs used in this text, “to invoke, to thank, and to praise,” suggest that the music ministry was a vital part of the worship experience of God’s people.
An indication of the importance of the music ministry can be seen in the fact that the Levites musicians were paid out of the same tithes given for the support of the priesthood (Num 18:24-26; Neh 12:44-47; 13:5, 10-12). The biblical principle is that the work of a minister of music should not be “a labor of love,” but a ministry supported by the tithe income of the church. It stands to reason that if a lay person volunteers to help in the music program of the church, such service does not need to be remunerated. Summing up, the music ministry at the Temple was conducted by experienced and mature Levites who were trained musically, prepared spiritually, supported financially, and served pastorally. As Kenneth Osbeck observes: “To minister musically in the Old Testament was a great privilege and a most responsible service. This is still true of a church music-ministry today. In a very real sense we are New Testament Levites. Therefore these principles established by God for the Levitical priesthood should be noted as valid guidelines for music leaders in a New Testament church.”12
The Levitical Choir and the Sacrificial Ritual.
The book of Chronicles presents the musical ministry of the Levites as part of the presentation of the daily offering at the Temple. The ritual consisted of two parts. First came the blood ritual which was designed to atone for the sins of the people through the transference of the blood of the sacrifice to the Holy Place (2 Chron 29:21-24). This service created the ritual purity necessary for God’s acceptance of His people and the manifestation of His blessing upon the congregation. During this ritual no songs were sung. Once the rite of atonement was completed, the burn offering was presented upon the altar. This ritual signaled God’s acceptance of His people and the manifestation of His presence. John Kleinig explains that “As the sacrifices were being burnt upon the altar, the trumpets, which announced the Lord’s presence, called for the prostration of the congregation in His presence, and the song of the Lord was sung by the musicians [2 Chron 29:25-30].. Thus the choral service came after the rite of atonement had been completed. It did not attempt to secure a favorable response from the Lord but presupposed such a response as something already given. The musicians proclaimed the Lord’s name during the presentation of the sacrifices, so that he would come to His people and bless them, as He had promised in Exodus 20:24 and demonstrated in 2 Chronicles 7:1-3.”13
The function of the music during the sacrificial ritual was not to overshadow or replace the sacrifice itself, but to enlist the involvement of the congregation at certain designated moments during the service. In other words, the Israelites did not go to the Temple to hear the Levite bands performing in sacred concert. Instead, they went to the Temple to witness and experience God’s atonement for their sins. The music that accompanied the atoning sacrifice invited them to accept and celebrate God’s gracious provision of salvation. At a time when many Christians choose their churches in accordance with the musical style of worship, we need to remember that in the Bible the music was never an end to itself. In the Temple the music served enhanced the sacrificial service by enlisting the participation of the congregation at certain specific moments. In the synagogue and the early church, music reinforced the teaching and proclamation of the Word of God. This means that to be true to the biblical witness, our church music must support the teaching and preaching of God’s Word.
The Musical Instruments of the Temple.
David instituted not only the times, place, and words for the performance of the Levitical choir, but he also “made” the musical instruments to be used for their ministry (1 Chron 23:5; 2 Chron 7:6). This is why they are called “the instruments of David” (2 Chron 29:26-27). To the trumpets which the Lord had ordained through Moses, David added the cymbals, lyres, and harp (1 Chron 15:16; 16:5-6). The importance of this combination as divinely ordained, is indicated by the fact it was respected for many centuries until the destruction of the Temple. For example, in 715 B. C., king Hezekiah “stationed the Levites in the house of the Lord with cymbals, harps, and lyres, according to commandment of David and of Gad the king’s seer and of Nathan the prophet; for the commandment was from the Lord through his prophets” (2 Chron 29:25). The trumpets were played by the priests and their number ranged from two in the daily worship (1 Chron 16:6; Num 10:2), to seven or more on special occasions (1 Chron 15:24; Neh 12:33-35; 2 Chron 5:12). “In worship at the Temple the trumpets gave the signal for the prostration of the congregation during the presentation of the burn offering and the performance of the choral service (2 Chron 29:27-28). . . . While the Levitical musicians faced the altar, the trumpeters stood facing them in front of the altar (2 Chron 5:12; 7:6).” This arrangement highlighted the responsibility of the trumpeters to give the signal for the congregation to prostrate and for the choir to sing. The cymbals consisted of two metal plates with reflexed rims about 10-15 inches wide. When struck together vertically, they produced a ringing, tinkling sound. Some appeal to the use of cymbals to argue that Temple music had a rhythmic beat like rock music today, consequently the Bible does not forbid percussion instruments and rock music in the church today. Such an argument ignores, as Kleinig explains, that “the cymbals were not used by the precantor to conduct the singing by beating out the rhythm of the song, but rather to announce the beginning of the song or a stanza in the song. Since they were used to introduce the song, they were wielded by the head of choir on ordinary occasions (1 Chron 16:5) or by the three heads of the guilds on extraordinary occasions (1 Chron 15:19). . . . Since the trumpets and the cymbals were played together to announce the beginning of the song, the players of both are called the ‘sounders’ in 1 Chronicles 16:42).”
In his book Jewish Music in its Historical Development, A. Z. Idelsohn notes that in the worship of the Temple only one pair of cymbals were used and that by the leader himself. “The percussive instruments were reduced to one cymbals, which was not employed in the music proper, but merely to mark pauses and intermissions.” The term “Selah” which occurs in some Psalms to mark the end of a stanza, may indicate the place where the cymbals were struck.
The third group of musical instruments were two string instruments, the lyres and the harps, which were called “the instruments of song” (2 Chron 5:13) or “the instruments of God’s song” (1 Chron 16:42). As indicated by their descriptive name, their function was to accompany the songs of praise and thanksgiving to the Lord (1 Chron 23:5; 2 Chron 5:13). The musicians who played the harps and the lyres would themselves sing the song to their own accompaniment (1 Chron 9:33; 15:16, 19, 27; 2 Chron 5:12-13; 20:21).
In his book The Music of the Bible in Christian Perspective, Garen Wolf explains that “String instruments were used extensively to accompany singing since they would not cover up the voice or the ‘Word of Jehovah’ which was being sung.” Great care was taken to ensure that the vocal praise of the Levitical choir would not be overshadowed by the sound of the instruments.
Restriction on Musical Instruments.
Some scholars argue that instruments like drums, timbrel (which was a tambourine), flutes, and dulcimers were kept out of the Temple because they were associated with pagan worship and culture, or because they were customarily played by women for entertainment. This could well be the case, but it only goes to show that there was a distinction between the sacred music played inside the Temple, and the secular music played outside. God limited the musical instruments which were appropriate for worship, prohibiting a number of instruments which were allowed outside the Temple for national festivities and social pleasure. A restriction was placed on the musical instruments and art expression to be used in the House of God. The reason is not that certain percussion instruments were evil per se. The sounds produced by any musical instrument are neutral like the letter of the alphabet. Rather, the reason is that these instruments were commonly used to produce entertainment type of music which was inappropriate for worship in God’s House. By prohibiting instruments and music styles, like dancing, associated with secular entertainment, the Lord taught His people the sacred nature of the worship at His holy Temple. The restriction on the use of instruments was meant to be a binding rule for future generations because when King Hezekiah revived the Temple worship in 715 B. C., he meticulously followed the instructions given by David. We read that the king “stationed the Levites in the house of the Lord with cymbals, harps, and lyres, according to the commandment of David . . . for the commandment was from the Lord through his prophets” (2 Chron 29:25).
Two and a half centuries later when the Temple was rebuilt under Ezra and Nehemiah, the same restriction was applied again. No percussion instruments were allowed to accompany the Levitical choir or to play as an orchestra at the Temple (Ezra3:10; Neh 12:27, 36). This confirms that the rule was clear and binding over many centuries. The singing and the instrumental music of the Temple was to be different from the ones used in the social life of the people.
Lessons from the Temple Music.
What lessons can we learn from the music of the Temple? A first lesson is taught us by the absence of percussion musical instruments and of dancing bands in the music of the Temple. This fact indicates, as noted earlier, that a distinction must be made between the secular music used for social entertainment and the sacred music performed for the worship service in God’s House. There were no “Jewish Rock Bands” at the Temple to entertain the people with loud rhythmic music, because the Temple was a place of worship and not of entertainment. Percussion instruments like drums, tambourines, timbrels or tabrets, which were commonly used for making entertainment music, were absent in the Temple music. Only the cymbals were used, but in a limited way. They marked the end of a stanza and the cessation of the singing.
The lesson for us today is evident. Church music should be different from secular music, because the church, like the ancient Temple, is God’s House in which we gather to worship the Lord, and not to be entertained. Percussion instruments which stimulate people physically through a loud and relentless beat, are inappropriate for church music today as they were for the Temple music of ancient Israel.
A second lesson from the Temple music is that the musical instruments used to accompany the choir or the singing of the congregation, should not cover up the voice. Like the string instruments used in the Temple, musical instruments used in the church today should support the singing. Musical instruments should serve as a hand-maiden to the Word of God which is sung and proclaimed. This means, for example, that an organist should not pull out all the stops and cause the organ music to drown the voice of the congregation
On numerous occasions I have been in churches equipped with powerful electronic organs that are played so loud that the voice of the congregation cannot not be heard. In such cases the organist needs to learn the biblical principle that the function of the organ music is to support the singing of the congregation, and not to cover it up. This principle applies not only to the organ, but to any other instrument or orchestra that accompanies a choir or a singing congregation.
Some would argue that if we are to follow the example of the Temple, then we would need to eliminate in the church such instruments like the piano, the organ, because they are not string instruments. The problem with such an argument is the failure to distinguish between a biblical principle and its cultural application. The biblical principle is that instrumental music that accompanies the singing, should aid the vocal response to God and not drown it. In Bible times this was best accomplished by the use of string instruments. Note that trumpets and cymbals were used in the Temple, but not to accompany the Levitical choir. There was nothing wrong with these instruments. They simply were not seen as suitable to accompany the singing, presumably because they do not blend well with the human voice, besides supplanting it
.
Another point to note is that instruments like the organ or the piano were unknown in Bible times. Were we to exclude from our life today all what the Bible does not explicitly mention, then we should not eat pizza, apple pie, or ice cream, since they are not mentioned in the Bible.
The important biblical principle to remember is that in God’s House, music, both
instrumental and vocal, must respect and reflect the sacredness of the place of worship. When instruments are used to accompany the singing, they should support the human voice, without supplanting it.
(2) The Music Ministry in the Synagogue
The function of music in the synagogue differed from that of the Temple, primarily because the two institutions had different purposes. The Temple was primarily the place where the sacrifices were offered on behalf of the whole nation and of individual believers. The synagogue, on the other hand, emerged most likely during the Babylonian exile as the place where prayers were offered and the Scripture was read and taught. While there was only one Temple for the whole nation, according to the Talmud there were 394 synagogues in Jerusalem alone in Jesus’ time.
The Difference Between the Temple and Synagogue.
The difference in function between the Temple and the synagogue is reflected in the different role that music played in these two institutions. While the music of the Temple was predominantly vocal, with string instruments aiding the singing, the music of the synagogue was exclusively vocal, without any instrument. The only exception was the shofar—the ram-horn that served as a signal instrument. In the Temple the ministry of music was in the hands of professional musicians. Their choral music was an accessory to the sacrificial ritual. We might say that the music was “sacrifice-centered.” The participation of the congregation was limited to affirmative responses as “Amen,” or “Hallelujah.” By contrast, in the synagogue all the service, including the music, was in the hands of lay persons and their music was, as Curt Sachs call it, “logenic,”that is, “Word-centered.” There is little evidence to suggest that musical instruments were ever used in the synagogue service. We know for sure that after the A. D. 70 destruction of the Temple, the only instrument used in the synagogue service was the shofar. The reason, as Eric Werner explains, was “partly because of the hostility of the Pharisees to instrumental music, and partly because of the deep mourning for the Temple and the land, and the disappearance of the Levitical functions, including the provision of music for the sanctuary. . . . The exclusion of instruments from Jewish worship remained in force generally for many centuries; only at the loss of political power by the rabbis in the nineteenth century Emancipation, did instrumental music once again appear in the (liberal) synagogue, and the exclusion still remains in force where, as in modern Israel, orthodox rabbis retain some power.”
Blurring of Music and Speech.
The distinction between music and public speech was blurred in the synagogue, because the word-centered worship migrated back and forth between speech and song. The musical ambiguity of the synagogue service was caused by the fact that much of the service consisted of prayers and the public reading of Scripture, which often took the form of chanting, known as “cantillation.” “The concept that the entire Old Testament was originally intended to be chanted (sung) is a new concept to church musicians and pastors, but it is a long established fact among scholars of Bible music. The reason that it is such a well-kept secret is that we tend to ignore what we do not understand.” “The intonations or cantillations, mentioned as far back as the first century, were cast into a system of modes or formulae, one for each of the books of the Bible intended to be publicly read. . . . Little is known about when the transition from declamatory to musical reading was first evidenced, except that the Psalms were sung in temple worship. Idelsohon and Werner both believe that the chanting of Scripture, in one form or another, went back perhaps as far back as Ezra (fifth century B. C.), and that its eventual complexity and organization was the result of hundreds of years of crystallization.” One of the surprising discoveries of recent years is that the biblical accents of the Masoretic Hebrew Text are musical notations. This made it possible for Suzanne Haik- Vantoura to decipher the ancient music of the Bible, which was found to consists of a seven note diatonic scale, strikingly similar to our modern diatonic scale.
Relevance of Synagogue Music for Today.
What lessons can we learn from the ministry of music at the synagogue? Are we required to chant the Scripture today as the Jews have historically done in the synagogue? No, there is nothing in the Bible that command us to sing the Scriptures. This does not exclude the possibility of learning the Scripture by means of “Scripture-song” and “Psalm-singing.” In fact, considerable efforts have been done in recent times to set to music numerous Psalms and Bible passages. The most striking lesson that we can learn from the music of the synagogue is that church music should be “Word-centered.” We have seen that the ministry of music at the synagogue was largely a ministry of the Word. The Jews came together to the synagogue in a rather informal setting to pray, read and sing the Scripture. For them music was not an end to itself, but a means to praise the Lord by chanting His Word and thus learning His revealed will. At a time when much of CCM is deficient in Scriptural content, and Christian singing artist soften draw the attention of the people to their singing abilities, rather than to the teachings of God’s Word, it is good to remember that the music of the synagogue, which Jesus Himself sang, was “Word-centered”—it was designed to teach and proclaim the great truths of Scripture.
The question we need to ask is: Does our church music help us to hear the Word of God clearly? Remember that “faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word of Christ” (Rom 10:17; NIV). Church music should help us hear the Word of God though its sound, the character of the composition, and its lyrics.
(3) The Music Ministry in the New Testament
To speak about a music ministry in the New Testament may seem completely out of place. First, because the New Testament is silent about any “musical” office in the church. Second, because outside the book of Revelation, in which music is part of a rich eschatological drama, there are only a dozen of passage that refer to music. None of the music passages, however, gives us a clear picture of the role that music played in church services during New Testament times. This is not surprising, because New Testament believers did not see their worship gatherings as being much different from those of the synagogue. Both were conducted in an informal setting, with lay people leading out in the prayer, reading, singing and exhortation. This means that the New Testament references to worship gatherings, reflect to a large extent the worship service of the synagogue, as scholarly studies have established. The fundamental difference between the two was the messianic proclamation, which was present in the Christian worship but absent in that of the synagogue. Of the twelve references to music in the New Testament, five of them refer to it metaphorically (Matt 6:2; 11:17; Luke 7:32; 1 Cor 13:1; 14:7-8) and consequently they are not relevant to our study. The remaining seven shed important light, especially when they are seen within the broader context of the synagogue worship, which was known and practiced by the Christians. Four references to music are found in the Gospels. Two mention instrumental music and dancing in conjunction with the mourning for the death of a girl (Matt 9:23) and the celebration upon the return of the Prodigal Son (Luke 15:25). Two passages are parallel and mention Christ singing a hymn with His disciples at the conclusion of the Last Supper (Matt 26:30; Mark 14:26). Most likely this was the second portion of the Jewish Hallel sang at the completion of the Passover meal. It consisted of Psalms 113 to 118. One text refers to Paul and Silas singing while in jail (Acts 16:25). We have no way to know whether they sang psalms or newly composed Christian hymns. The above examples tell us that music accompanied various activities in the social and religious life of the people, but they do not inform us about the role of music in the church.
Instructions Regarding Music.
Few instructions regarding church music are found in the Epistles. James states that if a person is cheerful “Let him sing praise” (James 5:13). The implication is that singing should springs from a cheerful heart. Presumably the singing of praises occurred not only privately at home, but also publicly in the church. Other texts suggest that the singing of hymns of praise was a feature of the church service. More specific information comes to us from Paul who provides us with some insights into the role of music in the New Testament worship services. In the context of his admonitions regarding ecstatic manifestations at the Corinthian church, Paul calls for a balance in music making by urging that singing be done with the mind as well as the spirit: “I will sing with the spirit and I will sing with the mind also” (1 Cor 14:15). Apparently some sung ecstatically without engaging their mind. Senseless singing is like senseless speech. Both dishonor God, because, as Paul says: “God is not a God of confusion but of peace” (1 Cor 14:33). Paul’s admonition to sing with the mind or with understanding, is relevant for us today, when the singing done in some charismatic churches consists of emotional outburst of ecstatic shouting which no one can understand. Our singing must be with understanding because God expects from His intelligent creatures “a rational worship” (Rom 12:2—logike, that is, “logical” in the Greek). The purpose of singing should be for spiritual edification and not for physical stimulation. Paul says: “When you come together, each one has a hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation. Let all things be done for edification” (1 Cor 14:26). This text suggests that the church service was rather informal like that of the synagogue. Each one contributed something to the worship experience.
Some members contributed a hymn to the service. Most likely a hymn was a newly composed song of praise directed to Christ. Bible scholars have identified several Christ-centered hymns in the New Testament. The important point to observe here is that the singing, like all the parts of the church service, was to edify the congregation. The biblical principle then is that church music should contribute to the spiritual edification
of the believers.
Psalms, Hymns, and Spiritual Songs.
The two remaining Pauline texts (Eph5:19; Col 3:16) are the most informative about music in the New Testament. Paul encourages the Ephesians to “be filled with the Spirit, addressing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody to the Lord with all your heart” (Eph 5:18-19). On a similar vein the apostle admonishes the Colossians saying: “Let the word of God dwell in you richly, teach and admonish one another in all wisdom, and sing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs with thankfulness in your hearts to God” (Col 3:16).
Both passages provide the earliest indication of how the apostolic church differentiated between the various types of songs: “psalms and hymns and spiritual songs.” It is hard to draw hard-and-fast distinctions between these terms. Most scholars agree that the three terms loosely refer to the various forms of musical compositions used in the worship service. The Psalms most likely are those of the Old Testament, though there could have been some Christian additions. The Hymns would be newly composed songs of praise directed to Christ. There is some evidence for specimen of these Christ-centered hymns in the New Testament itself (Eph 5:14; 1 Tim 3:16; Phil 2:6-11; Col 1:15-20; Heb 1:3). The Spiritual songs probably refers to spontaneous praise songs which the inspiring Spirit placed on the lips of the enraptured worshipper (1 Cor 14:15). The phrase “addressing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs,” suggests that the singing was interactive. Presumably some of the singing was responsorial, with the congregation responding to the song leader. The singing was to be done with “thankfulness” and “with all your heart.” Through their singing Christians expressed their wholehearted gratitude “to the Lord,” for His marvelous provision of salvation.
Christ-Centered Hymns.
While in the synagogue the singing was “word centered,” that is, designed to praise God by chanting His Word, in the New Testament church the singing was “Christ-centered,” that is, designed to extol Christ’s redemptive accomplishments. A good example of a “Christ-centered” hymn is found in 1 Timothy 3:16, which consists of an introductory sentence (“Great indeed, we confess, is the mystery of our religion”), which is followed by six lines: “He was manifested in the flesh, Vindicated in the Spirit , Seen by angels, Preached among the nations, Believed in the world, Taken up in glory. This hymn embodies in a cryptic way the fundamental truths of the Gospel message. As Ralph Martin explains, “By a series of antithetical couplets in which a second line complements the thought of the first line, the Gospel message . . . is set forth. It treats of the two world orders, the divine and human; and shows how Christ has brought together the two spheres by His coming from the glory of the Father’s presence into this world (‘revealed in the flesh’: cf. John 1:14; Rom 8:3) and by His lifting up of humanity back again into the divine realm. Thus heaven and earth are joined, and God and man reconciled.” The celebration of Christ’s redemption is the basic th
By Christopher Gillespie on Aug 24, 2007
Rupert,
What is your source for this document and where can I find the complete version? Thanks!
By rupert Buscato on Aug 25, 2007
I acquired such information from various sources. I read several materials and come up with a a single argument.