Music in worship

Of course! Don't they alway refer to Nadab and Abihu and the "strange fire"; and Uzzah and the ark on the cart in the OT?

(Great post!)

 

Adding musical notations to a hymnal is not the same thing as adding instrumental music to worship service.

 

Because adding notes doesn't change the way the hymn is sung or how it sounds. The fundamentals are the same, the sound is the same, the only thing that is changed is someone not familiar with the tune or the hymn can spot read and follow along.

Adding instrumental music brings a fundamental change to the hymn. The sound is different now.

And by the way, your argument only works for hymns with accompanied music. It doesn't work for contemporary music, which is now permeating many Christian bodies.

Whether one agrees with having music or not one ought to agree that there is a fundamental difference created there.

 

Sorry, I disagree. What about 4 part harmony? That definitely changes the sound, doesn't it? So should we all just sing the melody???

Or what about when the accompaniment is voices -- is that still considered acapella?

Depending on the instrumentation, it may or may not create a fundamental change to the song. In fact, 4 part harmony may create more of change.

 

Please indulge me as I express a thought that just keeps coming to my head as you and others ask similar questions of these people:

Why even bother arguing with these people?​

Another thought I have is `Why is this still going on; why is anyone still bothering to argue with these people?' It is clear, based on this thread and others like it, that these people are bound and determined to retain these preposterous ideas. I rarely say that about any church group's precepts, but these ideas are preposterous.

It is clear that what Scripture has to say about the practice itself is in their minds `not to be applied.' It is clear that despite what Scripture actually says about the practice, they see their opinions about the practice as just grounds for a ban against it. Further, it is clear that they will not be consistent with their own objections to it: they adhere to practices which fail their professed `litmus tests' miserably. They are determined to hold and assert their positions on this subject regardless of merit or lack thereof.

Nothing we post will get these people to change their minds. There is no point in trying to argue with these people. The more any of us try to correct them, the more they are going to argue. If we do not indulge them when they solicit stupid arguments like this, maybe they will be more judicious in topics for discussion, and stop wasting so much of people's time. So again,

Why even bother arguing with these people?​

If they post absurdities, and they are disputed, and they persist, why dignify it by any further discussion? Why not just let them be unresponded to?

 

So, if one cannot find scriptural or historical support to refute a position, the next best thing to do is call said position dumb, and belittle those that hold it. Now, I've been very kind and patient throughout this thread, and I do not appreciate being characterised in such a mean manner.

 

They are in regards to the fact that scripture has no admonition on either.

 

"Voluntary"? Really? It seems like I have someone who is whining a lot about me not indulging them in a pointless argument s/he really wants. Who is this person trying to drag me into a pointless argument I have said I do not want to waste time with? Oh, wait a minute, that is you!

I can tell it really irks you that I will not `play with you' on this. You have whined about it several times on threads unrelated to it.

You read my profile and noticed that I attend a Disciples of Christ congregation. Well, you seemed to think, `Hey, there are Disciples of Christ congregations that have women as settled pastors. I want to take shots at whatever church group I can, and this seems like a good lead. Let me see if I can get Darron to argue with me about it.'

JSM17, as I have told you before, I would discuss the teachings of Scripture about the roles of women in the church IF THERE WAS SOMETHING TO BE GAINED BY DOING SO.

There is no point in trying to discuss it with you. As I said, `thou knowest all things.' You have said that are here to "proclaim truth" to us `denominationalists.' In your eyes, we have nothing to offer you. You have shown that there is little to nothing we will propose to you that you will not be dead set on arguing against.

I have this thing called a life. These boards can become a dangerous time drain for someone with a lot of other things to do if s/he is not judicious. I have too many things to do other than argue a relatively complex issue and relatively new insights with someone who thinks s/he knows everything there is to know about it, and just wants to argue and take shots.

Discuss the subject of Scripture's teachings on women's roles in the church with someone else? Maybe. With you? No.

Nice; allege that I called the subject of worship stupid.

Then you act like you wonder why I will not play with you about Scripture's teachings on women's roles in the church. You have whined and whined about it.

I do not have time for the pointless argument in itself, but there would be more than that. I also do not have time for your added flare for `creatively misrepresenting' -- being deceptive about -- your opponents' positions.

Discuss the teachings about Scripture on women's roles in the church with someone who wants a truthful sleaze-free discussion, and even if s/he does not agree, is open to learning something? Yeah. Discuss that with you? No.

Yeah, actually, one of your premises for banning musical instruments in worship would even more be a basis for banning electricity during worship. People wasting their time with you on this are showing that your alleged premise for banning musical instruments is foolish -- so foolish that even you will not follow it consistently.

I know you will never accept that.

 

That's a good point! Because all of that form of singing has to be arranged and coordinated. So when you're singing four part or accompaniment; you're not just focusing on the singing (the actual worship), but rather keeping precise time and tone (moreso than if you were simply singing in unison with the whole congregation, and you wouldn't stand out as much).
Those arrangements are almost like instrumentation, and the same arguments could be used against it; especially regarding the focus or attention.

So I was allways kind of surprised that the CoC's here didn;t denounce four part harmony and the other stuff. I'll bet some churches do. Then, you have Piney Baptist, which condemns all music (including vocal) period! (Using the same arguments about why the OT music was allowed, but not really God's will).

When you see a progression like this, you know it is clearly nothing more than oneupmanship!

 

I agree. If the CoC denomination is going to be consistent, they should take the phrase "making melody in your heart unto the Lord" literally.

But...they sing 4 part harmony, which is not mandated in Scripture.

That, my friends, is inconsistency in action.

 

Written to JSM17

Annsni: JSM17 finally brought it down to the real issue, which is preference.

There is no biblical merit to a universal ban on what Scripture repeatedly shows God's approval of from the oldest books of the Old Testament to Revelation. The real objections to musical instruments are about preference: they do not want to use them.

It is unfortunate, but some people so badly want to push this preference that they will resort to arguments that they themselves would not accept if someone applied them against hymnbooks, pitch pipes, 4-part harmony, church-owned buildings, etc.. They also go to great lengths to essentially try to convince people `Everything the Bible has actually said about the subject does not matter,' which of course is anti-biblical. All that just because the people just do not want to use musical instruments in worship.

As you basically said, people who do not want to use musical instruments in worship need not use them. On the other hand, I never really understood some people's compulsive desire to get everyone else to not do so either.

 

Though the Psalms were sung in synagogue, they were sung unaccompanied.

Instruments were used in the temple, and in many indirect worship events (national festivals, e.g.), but they were not employed in the synagogue.

Singing Psalms does not necessitate the use of instruments.

 

I never said they weren't. I said instruments were shunned in the synagogues.

It would be nice if you would offer some logic and reasoning.

Were the Psalms sung in synagogues? Yes. Were they accompanied with musical instruments? No.

Conclusion, a psalm does not necessitate the accompaniment of musical instruments.

Therefore, the early church singing psalms does not "irrefutably," as you fallaciously asserted, prove the use of musical instruments in the early church.

In fact, all scholarship on the issue concludes that the early church shunned musical instruments.

 

"Bound and loosed"? Well, where are instruments ever bound, and where are the other things ever loosed?