Rock Music in Worship: Why not?

[Puritan Sailor]

I would like to hear some reasoned arguments for why rock music should or should not be used in worship. (By rock, I mean music with a back beat, not just the extremes of heavy metal etc.) Again, I want reasoned logical arguments, not the spattering back and forth of personal musical preferences. The Scriptures command us to sing, but the style of worship is never given, and the old Hebrew music to which the psalms were written has been lost. So, we are left to write our own tunes, as our fathers have done in the past. Why should rock be rejected as appropriate? Can it ever be appropriate to use in worship? Again, give a reasoned argument either way.

*If you're going to post article links, please summarize the argument of the article, since many of us don't have the time to read through tons of articles.


[Edited on 3-28-2006 by puritansailor]

 

[Peter]

I think that some RP congregations with younger members (or was it the camps?) were setting psalms to more 'contemporary' 'tunes'.

My gut reaction would be to say rock is bad for worship as it overwhelms the text and its fast pace and irregular rhythm causes discord, but I'm not adamant.

 

[Pilgrim]

I'm not adamant about it either, but unfortunately the rock music seems to lead inevitably to the "7-11 songs" (i.e. 7 words repeated 11 times). In my humble opinion a big problem today in evangelical (not to mention charismatic) churches is folks going to church looking to get some kind of feeling and thinking they haven't "worshipped" and haven't really gotten close to God unless they have received it. Of course that happens to an extent in more "high church" settings as well, with the "smells and bells", lighting candles, etc. It seems that the Reformed are very nearly alone in having the emphasis on the didactic purpose of singing and not in trying to evoke some kind of religious sentiment with it.

[Edited on 3-28-2006 by Pilgrim]

 

[py3ak]

It is clear from Scripture that music impacts the human personality, without needing words (Elisha and Saul). How does any given kind of music affect us? Obviously there are individual variations, so perhaps hard-and-fast rules for individuals with regard solely to instrumental music (as words are probably a little easier to judge and a little less subjective in their effect) are extremely difficult to come by. For corporate worship, then, we must use the wisdom given us and consider the tendency of any given genre on the mass of people, or what its creators desired to achieve with it.
There are songs which seem designed to produce melancholy, for instance. Such a melody would be inappropriate for singing Psalm 100 to.
Since instrumental music does influence the human personality, then it must not be music which contradicts the words of the Psalms we are singing; and it should not be music which stirs up feelings inappropriate for worship: such as happy-go-lucky 'who cares' kind of stuff.

 

[kceaster]

The argument I would give is that this genre of music is taken from the world. Yeah, I know people say that rock music comes from gospel roots, but one has to ask where these gospel roots came from and how they were influenced.

Music for worship starts in the church, it is not borrowed from the world. If God didn't borrow anything else in His worship, why would He borrow music?

In Christ,

KC

 

[panta dokimazete]

As a classically trained professional musician, a worship leader and raised a rural southerner, but have become a world citizen, I have participated/performed virtually every type/style of music to the glory of God - from sacred orchestral oratorio (Messiah, Elijah, Hodie), acappella eclectica, southern gospel, bluegrass, Celtic, "rock", etc, etc...and my personal reasoned opinion is that music without text and purpose is neutral - it is the content, intent and preference of the performer, participant and listener that determines the efficacy/impact of music (all obviously secondary to the Holy Spirit's influence).

Music is the language of emotion - language communicates content. Language styles change - so do musical styles. I don't speak Aramaic to communicate the Gospel - I use modern language, so why should I not use modern musical styles to communicate worship and praise to the Glory of God?

KJV anyone?

-JD

[Edited on 3-28-2006 by jdlongmire]

 

[BobVigneault]

I used to play in some so-called 'praise bands'.

1. I have not yet met a member of a 'praise band' who is able to check their ego at the door. They all want to be the next Darlene Zsech or Michael W. (I sing through my nose) Smith.

2. I am a head banger and have been for years but theological thought has weight to it. Most music with a back beat cannot carry the weight of the message. Think Handel's Messiah - A near perfect example of music presenting the Gospel and the music in balanced to the weight of the message.

3. Rock music is a compound of many musical elements, ie. instuments, beats, atmosphere, complicated rhythms. Too many elements can become a distraction to the message that is being delivered. I am a songwriter and part-time entertainer. I wrestle with what is the most effective way to deliver the message. When the message is the Gospel or the great truths of scripture I become very aware of how easily myself or the music can become a distraction.

4. Rock music is designed more for entertaining and has the tendency to take the listener to a more passive state than a participatory mode. Mi dos pesos.

 

[Puritan Sailor]

OK. Still heavily weighted with preferences and opinions.... But we've got some things to work with.

Are all effects of rock necessarily bad? For instance, rock can be light and festive and not driving to melancholy. Many of the psalms and hymns are also light and festive. (Many of the psalms are driven by melancholy too btw....).

So, other than the idea that rock "seems" to be inappropriate to our Reformed ears (which I tend to agree with by the way) what other reason could there be to rejecting it? Would such a means of communicating a hymn or psalm "seem" inappropriate to a new convert with no background in the church?

Bob,
I also used to be in the "praise band" rocking away, and I can certainly identify with the Ego factor, both in others and myself. It's one reason I never play in church anymore. But, I do think you have an interesting point there about rock not being able to carry the theological weight of Christian hymns. It is much harder to sing about the doctrines of grace to a backbeat. The ideas require more sophistication to communicate them. But is that a failure of rock? Or a failure of our own creativity? I do think that is why rock can prevail so much in charismatic circles, because the theology is not so weighty. But some have managed to do it. Have you ever listened to anything from Indelible Grace? They are a Reformed group who basically are taking the older hymns and putting them to modern music, occasionally rock. I only bring them up as an example of folks who have perhaps the "good" aspects of rock and put them to older hymns. With some of them, it's like, "yeah right... nice try...", and others it's like "Hmmm... that just might work."

[Edited on 3-28-2006 by puritansailor]

 

[panta dokimazete]

1. I have not yet met a member of a 'praise band' who is able to check their ego at the door. They all want to be the next Darlene Zsech or Michael W. (I sing through my nose) Smith.

As the worship leader, it is my responsibility to gently educate - or if that fails - cull these type folk out.

It is less a music style problem and more of a heart problem. I have seen plenty of egos sing Messiah,etc... thinking they would be the next Luciano Pavarotti or Joan (Big Mama) Sutherland.


Soli Deo Gloria!

-JD

[Edited on 3-28-2006 by jdlongmire]

 

[BobVigneault]

Good point JD, you're right of course.

Patrick, as far as playing rock music to new converts one thing to consider is the 'meat offered to idols' aspect. How many new believers have you known who after conversion would have nothing to do with the music they used to listen to? This doesn't add to the argument one way or the other but it is something that will come up from time to time.

I speak in a lot of different churches and I guess I've conditioned myself to follow a path of least controversy for the sake of the Gospel. I am probably overly cautious.

 

[panta dokimazete]

I posted the song below as an example of what I consider one of the very best of "rock" type songs that truly engage the culture - sitting here editing it with the music playing in my mind - here at a boring Information Technology summit for executive leadership with tears running down my face and chill bumps rising...this is NOT simple emotionalism.

What If
by Nicole Nordeman

What if you're right?

He was just another nice guy.

What if you're right?

What if it's true?

They say the cross will only make a fool of you

What if it's true?

What if he takes His place in history
With all the prophets and the kings
Who taught us love and came in peace

But then the story ends

What then?

But what if you're wrong?

What if there's more?

What if there's hope you never dreamed of hoping for?

What if you jump?

Just close your eyes?

What if the arms that catch you, catch you by surprise?

What if He's more than enough?

What if it's love?

What if you dig?

Way down deeper than your simple-minded friends

What if you dig?

What if you find a thousand more unanswered questions down inside?

That's all you find?

What if you pick apart the logic and begin to poke the holes?
What if the crown of thorns is no more than folklore that must be told and retold

But what if you're wrong?

What if there's more?

What if there's hope you never dreamed of hoping for?

What if you jump?

Just close your eyes?

What if the arms that catch you, catch you by surprise?

What if He's more than enough?

What if it's love?

You've been running as fast as you can
You've been looking for a place you can land for so long

But what if you're wrong?

What if you jump?

Just close your eyes?

What if the arms that catch you, catch you by surprise?

What if he's more than enough?

What if it's love?

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

While I don't have time to write a full length essay on this subject, I would propose several principles which when applied to singing God's praises in public worship would have bearing on whether or not rock music is appropriate in this context.

1) A cappella -- Musical instruments in Christian worship are a violation of the regulative principle of worship. They are part of the ceremonial temple worship that was abolished by Christ. Christian worship is modelled after the synagogue worship which did not include musical instruments but rather exclusive a cappella psalmody. Simple worship in spirit and in truth is what pleases God, and to be praised by the human voice with grace in the heart, rather than by musical instruments (which are in themselves a good thing but in worship are merely "lifeless strings," according to Chrysostom).

"The organ in the worship is the insignia of Baal"¦ The Roman Catholic borrowed it from the Jews." (Martin Luther, Mcclintock & Strong's Encyclopedia Volume VI, page 762)

"Musical instruments in celebrating the praises of God would be no more suitable than the burning of incense, the lighting of lamps, and the restoration of the other shadows of the law. The Papists therefore, have foolishly borrowed, this, as well as many other things, from the Jews. Men who are fond of outward pomp may delight in that noise; but the simplicity which God recommends to us by the apostles is far more pleasing to him. Paul allows us to bless God in the public assembly of the saints, only in a known tongue (I Cor. 14:16) What shall we then say of chanting, which fills the ears with nothing but an empty sound?" (John Calvin, Commentary on Psalms 33)

2) Exclusive psalmody -- The psalms alone are commanded by God to be the matter of our praise to Him. There is no command to compose new matter, the canon of God's "hymn-book," the Psalter, is closed.

3) Congregational song -- Public worship is for all of God's people. Professionally trained choirs and soloists -- which have their place in other contexts -- are not appropriate in public worship, because the ordinance of song is designed for all, young and old, men, women and children, skillful or or not. One implication of this is that tunes must be singable by the average layman.

4) Appropriateness and order -- Tunes must be appropriate to the matter at hand. The melody must be suitable to the lyrics and, as noted, singable by the average layman. Not too fast, not too slow.

Westminster Directory of Publick Worship:

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.

When all is said and done, following these principles, there is no prohibition against a tune because it is contemporary or derived from an unlikely source. Rock music and a cappella song are not incompatible. But the real issue is the joining together of lyrics and tune sung by the human voice in a matter fitting the worship of the Almighty God. If that is accomplished, it matters not whether the composer of the melody is Luther, Bach or John Lennon or Bobby McFerrin.

 

[py3ak]

I agree with Andrew on points 3 & 4 and his closing paragraph. Number 3 is why, though my own preference is classical, I do not think that we should be singing Vivaldi's ravishingly beautiful settings of the Psalms (Beatus Vir Qui Timet Dominus is incredible); they require trained musicians. I will listen to them at home (thus learning a little Latin at the same time), and at church I will rejoice in singing simpler tunes.
Patrick, you are right that some of the Psalms are melancholy --Psalm 137 comes to mind. To sing "Super flumina" to "Oh what a beautiful morning" would be tremendously inadequate. I do not say that melancholy in worship is wrong; but it is not always right. In the same way jubilation in singing the first part of Psalm 51 is not right. However, there are emotions which are never right in worship. Indifference is an emotion; flippancy is an emotion.
I would add that we are supposed to be teaching and exhorting in our singing; therefore the way the songs are sung must be understandable. That is, the words should not be drowned out by the instruments, and the distortion placed upon the words by the stresses of the music should be as small as possible. Furthermore, if teaching is to be line upon line, there is supposed to be coherency and progress. That leads me to conclude that a tune should have a definite beginning and end.

 

[panta dokimazete]

1) A cappella -- Musical instruments in Christian worship are a violation of the regulative principle of worship. They are part of the ceremonial temple worship that was abolished by Christ. Christian worship is modelled after the synagogue worship which did not include musical instruments but rather exclusive a cappella psalmody. Simple worship in spirit and in truth is what pleases God, and to be praised by the human voice with grace in the heart, rather than by musical instruments (which are in themselves a good thing but in worship are merely "lifeless strings," according to Chrysostom).

By this rationale, then we should certainly ban the use of the Bible or creedal documents in worship as they are a good thing, but in worship merely "lifeless paper" and do everything from memory - we would then surely be exhibiting ourselves worthy to worship God in Spirit and Truth...

[Edited on 3-28-2006 by jdlongmire]

 

[panta dokimazete]

3) Congregational song -- Public worship is for all of God's people. Professionally trained choirs and soloists -- which have their place in other contexts -- are not appropriate in public worship, because the ordinance of song is designed for all, young and old, men, women and children, skillful or or not. One implication of this is that tunes must be singable by the average layman.

Then certainly all sermons should be constructed to eschew any complexity above the comprehension of the average layman or child...only milk preaching, no rich meat in the worship service...

 

[py3ak]

JD, if I can reply for Andrew to your post, about congregational song being for all of God's people, I think you are neglecting the fact in your reply that we are commanded to grow in grace and knowledge --to be able to give an answer concerning the hope that lies in us. But we are not commanded to develop the voice of Rolando Villazón.

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

Thanks, Reuben. That's right. The command to sing applies to all, not to a professionally trained elite group of singers only. We are all to sing praises to God, not just those who have exceptional abilities.

As for the sermon, the minister's duty is to preach according to the needs and abilities of his congregation. He is speaking to all, young and old, learned and unlearned, and must take that into account.

Congregational singing and the minister's preaching are all based on the principle of edification, which Calvin alluded to in the quote I cited, and is in view in Col. 3.16 and elsewhere.

 

[py3ak]

That all things should be done decently and in order and unto edification are indeed principles which should govern all of our worship.
The difficult thing is working that out into actual practice.

 

[panta dokimazete]

Thank you for your graceful reply Ruben, but I am really only pointing out that loving the Lord with all our mind, heart, soul and strength includes giving Him the best of our talent in worship, as well...it would be sacreledge for me not to present the fruit of my training, skill and talent as an offering of praise to the Lord - to the edification of the body and His Glory.

To wit: Mallot's - The Lord's Prayer - this song is a prayer and very demanding vocally - should it be excluded from the worship of God? or only sung acapella and congregationally?

[Edited on 3-28-2006 by jdlongmire]

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

Originally posted by jdlongmire

1) A cappella -- Musical instruments in Christian worship are a violation of the regulative principle of worship. They are part of the ceremonial temple worship that was abolished by Christ. Christian worship is modelled after the synagogue worship which did not include musical instruments but rather exclusive a cappella psalmody. Simple worship in spirit and in truth is what pleases God, and to be praised by the human voice with grace in the heart, rather than by musical instruments (which are in themselves a good thing but in worship are merely "lifeless strings," according to Chrysostom).

By this rationale, then we should certainly ban the use of the Bible or creedal documents in worship as they are a good thing, but in worship merely "lifeless paper" and do everything from memory - we would then surely be exhibiting ourselves worthy to worship God in Spirit and Truth...

[Edited on 3-28-2006 by jdlongmire]

The Bible itself commands that the Word of God be read, sung and preached in worship. The Word of God is a necessary element of worship. While memorization is a good thing, and it has come in handy for the saints under persecution who lack Bibles in times past and present, the Bible is a good thing in worship and -- consistent with the Biblical principle of sola scriptura -- whereas musical instruments are part of the ceremonial worship abolished by God's Word.

 

[kceaster]

JD...

You wrote: "My personal reasoned opinion is that music without text and purpose is neutral."

Who gave you your reason and what makes you think anything He's given you is 'neutral'?

The Scriptures are pretty plain about neutrality. All things bring glory to God, but its clear that they proceed from either things exalted against His mind, or in concert with His mind. There is nothing neutral. If there is one neutral thing in the universe that it matters not whether it serves God's good purpose, or stands against that good purpose, then there is a possiblity that everything is neutral and therefore, God is not God.

Nothing existed before God. Everything that exists was created by Him to do His will. Therefore, nothing is neutral.

In Christ,

KC



[Edited on 3-28-2006 by kceaster]

 

[panta dokimazete]

KC,

"without text and purpose" is the key to that statement - neutral in the sense that water is neutral without context and purpose (ie: baptism)

[Edited on 3-28-2006 by jdlongmire]

 

[panta dokimazete]

Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot

Originally posted by jdlongmire

1) A cappella -- Musical instruments in Christian worship are a violation of the regulative principle of worship. They are part of the ceremonial temple worship that was abolished by Christ. Christian worship is modelled after the synagogue worship which did not include musical instruments but rather exclusive a cappella psalmody. Simple worship in spirit and in truth is what pleases God, and to be praised by the human voice with grace in the heart, rather than by musical instruments (which are in themselves a good thing but in worship are merely "lifeless strings," according to Chrysostom).

By this rationale, then we should certainly ban the use of the Bible or creedal documents in worship as they are a good thing, but in worship merely "lifeless paper" and do everything from memory - we would then surely be exhibiting ourselves worthy to worship God in Spirit and Truth...

[Edited on 3-28-2006 by jdlongmire]

The Bible itself commands that the Word of God be read, sung and preached in worship. The Word of God is a necessary element of worship. While memorization is a good thing, and it has come in handy for the saints under persecution who lack Bibles in times past and present, the Bible is a good thing in worship and -- consistent with the Biblical principle of sola scriptura -- whereas musical instruments are part of the ceremonial worship abolished by God's Word.

Where does Scripture specifically abolish musical instruments?

Food for thought:

Ephesians 5:19
addressing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody to the Lord with all your heart,

making melody is not just singing - otherwise there would be no need to differentiate...

1 Corinthians 14:6-8

6Now, brothers,if I come to you speaking in tongues, how will I benefit you unless I bring you some revelation or knowledge or prophecy or teaching? 7If even lifeless instruments, such as the flute or the harp, do not give distinct notes, how will anyone know what is played? 8And if the bugle gives an indistinct sound, who will get ready for battle?

Revelation 5:8
And when he had taken the scroll, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, each holding a harp, and golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints.

Revelation 15:2
And I saw what appeared to be a sea of glass mingled with fire--and also those who had conquered the beast and its image and the number of its name, standing beside the sea of glass with harps of God in their hands.

........................................


And do you agree with the abolishment of creedal documents and statements, since they are not directly Scripture?



[Edited on 3-28-2006 by jdlongmire]

 

[jfschultz]

I would ask "Why"? (Am I repeating myself?)

Too often this sort of decision is based on looking at what is attractive to the world. This is rationalized with the idea that God is glorified by the number of bodies in the pews.

The question must go back to the purpose of worship. Isn't it God's glory?

The answer might be right, but it must be suspect if the wrong question was being asked.

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

Originally posted by jdlongmire

Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot

Originally posted by jdlongmire

1) A cappella -- Musical instruments in Christian worship are a violation of the regulative principle of worship. They are part of the ceremonial temple worship that was abolished by Christ. Christian worship is modelled after the synagogue worship which did not include musical instruments but rather exclusive a cappella psalmody. Simple worship in spirit and in truth is what pleases God, and to be praised by the human voice with grace in the heart, rather than by musical instruments (which are in themselves a good thing but in worship are merely "lifeless strings," according to Chrysostom).

By this rationale, then we should certainly ban the use of the Bible or creedal documents in worship as they are a good thing, but in worship merely "lifeless paper" and do everything from memory - we would then surely be exhibiting ourselves worthy to worship God in Spirit and Truth...

[Edited on 3-28-2006 by jdlongmire]

The Bible itself commands that the Word of God be read, sung and preached in worship. The Word of God is a necessary element of worship. While memorization is a good thing, and it has come in handy for the saints under persecution who lack Bibles in times past and present, the Bible is a good thing in worship and -- consistent with the Biblical principle of sola scriptura -- whereas musical instruments are part of the ceremonial worship abolished by God's Word.

Where does Scripture specifically abolish musical instruments?

Food for thought:

Ephesians 5:19
addressing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody to the Lord with all your heart,

making melody is not just singing - otherwise there would be no need to differentiate...

1 Corinthians 14:6-8

6Now, brothers,if I come to you speaking in tongues, how will I benefit you unless I bring you some revelation or knowledge or prophecy or teaching? 7If even lifeless instruments, such as the flute or the harp, do not give distinct notes, how will anyone know what is played? 8And if the bugle gives an indistinct sound, who will get ready for battle?

Revelation 5:8
And when he had taken the scroll, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, each holding a harp, and golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints.

Revelation 15:2
And I saw what appeared to be a sea of glass mingled with fire--and also those who had conquered the beast and its image and the number of its name, standing beside the sea of glass with harps of God in their hands.

........................................


And do you agree with the abolishment of creedal documents and statements, since they are not directly Scripture?



[Edited on 3-28-2006 by jdlongmire]

Creedal documents and statements are inherent in the duty to confess our faith. To the extent they are vows, they are lawful in worship, and they may be referenced in sermons when appropriate. It is Biblical to confess what the Scriptures teach in a church constitution as well.

I think this particular debate about instruments (although I think the question of a cappella or instrumental music is relevant to the rock music question) is drifting away from the intent of Patrick's thread. I am not interested in debating this issue with someone who is "90% disillusioned with Puritanism," frankly. I would refer you to this previous thread and some of the sources cited therein for further study.

http://www.reformed.com/pub/music.htm

 

[py3ak]

Amen, KC. Does anyone have any information on when people first began to think of music as neutral? I know Plato thought otherwise.

 

[VictorBravo]

"The organ in the worship is the insignia of Baal"¦ The Roman Catholic borrowed it from the Jews." (Martin Luther, Mcclintock & Strong's Encyclopedia Volume VI, page 762)

Andrew, I'm intrigued. I had no idea that Luther thought that. I was aware of Calvin's view. I always assumed Luther liked the organ because, less than 100 years after him, there was a substantial body of liturgical organ literature in the Lutheran church.

I'm a former church organist (in my heathen days), and I actually agree with Luther and you on this one. I was part of a cadre of church organists who considered ourselves "professionals" and did not have to listen to sermons or otherwise participate in church worship. Most of us were outright pagans. We'd get together and make fun of our churches and the poor benighted people who paid our salaries. I'd practice like crazy because I wanted to put on a good performance. We revered Bach, but didn't quite go along with his "Soli Deo Gloria" stuff.

I prefer a cappella and an assembly (Exclusive Bretheren) I attended a number of years ago refused any kind of intruments. They sang off-key but earnestly. One of the old members there asked me what brought me to worship with them. It told him, in seriousness, "the music".

I first learned about the Regulative Principle from them, even though they didn't call it that. Sadly, they were too dispensational for me, even though the old timers preached like Calvinists. I'm happy now to be a member of a good reformed church that has no musical "performances".

Vic

 

[panta dokimazete]

I am not interested in debating this issue with someone who is "90% disillusioned with Puritanism,"

Thus my disillusionment. Please feel free to discuss only with those who will heartily pat your back in concerted legalism and disregard the rest of your kindred that understand the meaning of the yoke being easy and the burden light.

Grace and peace,

JD

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

Originally posted by jdlongmire

I am not interested in debating this issue with someone who is "90% disillusioned with Puritanism,"

Thus my disillusionment. Please feel free to discuss only with those who will heartily pat your back in concerted legalism and disregard the rest of your kindred that understand the meaning of the yoke being easy and the burden light.

Grace and peace,

JD

If your disillusionment with Puritanism is based on the fact that someone doesn't want to debate an issue that has been much, much debated in the past, and does not want to sidetrack a thread, then it seems to me that you are objecting to Puritanism on the wrong grounds. Also, referring to Puritan worship as legalism does not serve to edify the brethren on the Puritan Board. I'm not sure what kind of church you attend since there is no church mentioned in your signature line in contravention of the board rules, but I am not ashamed of Puritan religion, and I would encourage you to rethink your opposition to Puritanism with charity and humility, and respecting another's desire to refrain from wearisome debating of issues already well addressed in times past.

I wish you well, by God's grace.

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

Originally posted by victorbravo

"The organ in the worship is the insignia of Baal"¦ The Roman Catholic borrowed it from the Jews." (Martin Luther, Mcclintock & Strong's Encyclopedia Volume VI, page 762)

Andrew, I'm intrigued. I had no idea that Luther thought that. I was aware of Calvin's view. I always assumed Luther liked the organ because, less than 100 years after him, there was a substantial body of liturgical organ literature in the Lutheran church.

I'm a former church organist (in my heathen days), and I actually agree with Luther and you on this one. I was part of a cadre of church organists who considered ourselves "professionals" and did not have to listen to sermons or otherwise participate in church worship. Most of us were outright pagans. We'd get together and make fun of our churches and the poor benighted people who paid our salaries. I'd practice like crazy because I wanted to put on a good performance. We revered Bach, but didn't quite go along with his "Soli Deo Gloria" stuff.

I prefer a cappella and an assembly (Exclusive Bretheren) I attended a number of years ago refused any kind of intruments. They sang off-key but earnestly. One of the old members there asked me what brought me to worship with them. It told him, in seriousness, "the music".

I first learned about the Regulative Principle from them, even though they didn't call it that. Sadly, they were too dispensational for me, even though the old timers preached like Calvinists. I'm happy now to be a member of a good reformed church that has no musical "performances".

Vic

Yes, Luther did see instrumental music as ceremonial in nature, and was not a fan of it (I believe he wrote against instruments in his commentary on Romans 14-15), but I don't want to overstate his opposition either.

This comes from a non-Christian site on the subject, which might be helpful:

During Luther's time, congregational chorales or hymns were most commonly sung in the service without instrumental accompaniment. They were sung with the choir in unison, and occasionally the congregation would sing the melody while the choir sang a simple polyphonic harmonization. However, the pipe organ was never used to accompany chorales. The general view of Luther toward the organ was not at all enthusiastic because of its "primitive" nature (mean-tone tuning). The pipe organ was used to preludize and to give the initial pitch to the priest and choir, and it was used with chorales in alternation with the choir, one verse played by the organ and the next sung by the choir and congregation. However, Luther encouraged the use of wind instruments in performances of chorale motets in the large Churches which had trained choirs. And as previously pointed out, he worked closely with Johann Walther to create works in this new genre.

Source

Opposition to instrumental music was widespread in the Reformation and Puritan era and even up to the 19th century:

Theodore Beza: "If the apostle justly prohibits the use of unknown tongues in the church, much less would he have tolerated these artificial musical performances which are addressed to the ear alone, and seldom strike the understanding even of the performers themselves." (Theodore Beza, scholar of Geneva, Girardeau's Instrumental Music, p. 166)

Charles Spurgeon: "Praise the Lord with the harp. Israel was at school, and used childish things to help her learn; but in these days, when Jesus gives us spiritual food, one can make melody without strings and pipes... We do not need them. they would hinder rather than help our praise. Sing unto him. This is the sweetest and best music. No instrument like the human voice."

"Staunch old Baptists in former times would as soon tolerated the Pope of Rome in their pulpits as an organ in their galleries, and yet the instrument has gradually found its way among them.... How far this modern organ fever will extend among our people, and whether it will on the whole work a RE- formation or DE- formation in their singing service, time will more fully develop." (Benedict, Baptist historian, Fifty Years Among Baptist, page 204-207)

John Wesley: "I have no objection to the instruments being in our chapels, provided they are neither seen nor heard."

Thomas Aquinas, Catholic Theologian; 13th century: "Our church does not use musical instruments, as harps and psalteries, to praise God withal, that she may not seem to Judaize." Bingham's Antiquities, Vol. 2, p.483, London

SCHAFF "The use of organs in churches is ascribed to Pope Vitalian (657-672). Constantine Copronymos sent an organ with other presents to King Pepin of France in 767. Charlemagne received one as a present from the Caliph Haroun al Rashid, and had it put up in the cathedral of Aixia-Chapelle... The attitude of the churches toward the organ varies. It shared, to some extent, the fate of images, except that it never was an object of worship... The Greek church disapproved the use of organs. The Latin church introduced it pretty generally, but not without the protest of eminent men, so that even in the Council of Trent a motion was made, though not carried, to prohibit the organ at least in the mass." (Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Vol. 4, pg. 439.)

SCHAFF "The first organ certainly known to exist and be used in a church was put in the cathedral at Aix-la-chapel by the German emperor, Charlemange, who came to the throne in 768AD. It met with great opposition among the Romanists, especially among the monks, and that it made its was but slowly into common use. So great was the opposition even as late as the 16th century that it would have been abolished by the council of Trent but for the influence of the Emperor Ferdinand"¦. In the Greek church the organ never came into use... The Reform church discarded it; and though the church of Basel very early introduced it, it was in other places admitted only sparingly and after long hesitation." (Shaff-Herzog Encyclopedia, Vol 2, p. 1702)

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

CATHOLIC "For almost a thousand years Gregorian chant, without any instrumental or harmonic addition was the only music used in connection with the liturgy. The organ, in its primitive and rude form, was the first, and for a long time the sole, instrument used to accompany the chant"¦. The church has never encouraged and at most only tolerated the use of instruments. She enjoins in the 'Caeremonials Episcoporum', - that permission for their use should first be obtained from the ordinary. She holds up as her ideal the unaccompanied chant, and polyphonic, a-capella style. The Sistene Chapel has not even an organ."" (Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 10, pg. 657-688.)

[Edited on 3-28-2006 by VirginiaHuguenot]