Using Instruments in Worship

[TylerRay]

Much of this seems rather close to an etymological fallacy. The context determines the meaning of the term from its semantic range, not the etymology of the term itself. To assume that psallo has reference to instrument-accompanied singing in these passages is begging the question.

Exactly! I wish I could click Like four or five times on this. It's a classic example of the etymological fallacy.

Just imagine if someone tried to prove that Americans eat warm canines from a similar argument applied to the term hotdog!

Come on, Tim, we all know that The term came to refer to the lyrical composition itself!

 

[BG]

Whatever side of this argument we fall on I think we can all agree on this: 1.) If God has commanded the use of instruments in worship then we must use them or we are in sin 2.)If God has commanded that we use trumpets and harps we must use them or we are in sin. We don't have the option of picking and choosing what is pleasing to God, that means no guitars or pianos they would be strange fire.

 

[timfost]

Much of this seems rather close to an etymological fallacy.

The word Psalms (ψαλμός) as used in Eph. 5:19 and Col. 3:16 has an etymological basis in instruments as well. Though I cannot prove that the language hasn't changed, it would also be a drastic change to take a word that people had been using for over one and a half millennia and insist that it changed within a few decades between the ushering in of the new covenant and when Paul wrote about it, and top it off by barring them from praise. The burden of proof is on you.

Concerning the context: the context seems favorable to your position if praise was something only external, or at least first external. Biblical praise wells from within and manifests from without. Those who make instruments unlawful, in my opinion, first make praise external, then internal. Such order seems contrary to NT worship and moves the emphasis away from worship from the heart.

Whether or not some can sing with clarity without instruments is irrelevant. Musical instruments are an aid to clarity. That's all I'm saying.

 

[TylerRay]

Let me reiterate, we can praise God with or without instruments.

With that said, let me try to answer your question:

1. "Is anyone among you suffering? Let him pray. Is anyone cheerful? Let him sing psalms." (James 5:13) "Sing psalms" in Greek is ψάλλω. Strongs defines as such: "properly, pluck a musical instrument (like a harp); used of "singing along with instruments"; "to make music," or simply sing." From an etymological standpoint, the word in its very definition has to do with playing an instrument.

2. When musical instruments are used as an aid to singing, they assist in the congregation singing the words of praise together. This aid to singing in unison also is an aid to singing words with clarity. When words have clarity, they are more easily understood (think of children who cannot yet read but can speak, and therefore cannot follow the text). Paul says "I will sing [ψάλλω] with the spirit, and I will also sing [ψάλλω] with the understanding." (1 Cor. 14:15) Therefore if instruments can aid in understanding, why not use them?

3. Praise is something that we do physically, but it comes from within, then from without. Paul says again we are to be "speaking to one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody [ψάλλω] in your heart to the Lord." Our singing, if not done with understanding (yes, our uninspired understanding), wells up in us-- from the whole person overjoyed by the work of God in our lives-- and the manifestation of this joy is in physical praise. Our praise doesn't always come out in the same tunes, or the same words, or with the same instruments, but it always comes from the same place-- the heart, sung with understanding. Because of this, I want to be careful not to focus too much on the external manifestation of our praise, but from the place from which it comes.

Tim,

Since your argument hinges on the verb psallo, and not on the noun psalmos, I can see that your post warrants a fuller answer than simply to point out that you're using an etymological fallacy. I'll answer each of your points in order.

1. What is James saying here? Let's try to apply each of the definitions you have provided.

"Is anyone cheerful? Let him pluck an instrument."
"Is anyone cheerful? Let him sing along with instruments."
"Is anyone cheerful? Let him make music."
"Is anyone cheerful? Let him sing."

Beforehand, I think that it's important to point out that James is speaking of private expression of joy--it's impossible to understand the verse in any other way.

"Let him pluck an instrument"--Do you think that everyone to whom James was writing could play instruments? I think it's doubtful. Was he recommending that they all learn to play instruments so that they can express their joy? Again, it's very doubtful. Further, what relationship does plucking an instrument have to prayer, which is given as a parallel activity in this verse? It is clear that he is referring to singing. So, option #1 is out.

"Let him sing along with instruments"--Do you think he was recommending that they find someone to accompany their singing when they want to express their joy? I hope you will agree that such an idea is ridiculous.

"Let him make music"--This translation is so vague as to allow for any kind of music. I've already refuted the idea that it refers to plucking instruments or singing with accompaniment in this context.

"Is anyone cheerful? Let him sing." Clearly, this is closer to what James is getting at. But what are they to sing? "Zip a Dee Doo Dah?" It's best to understand him as referring to the songs of the church, that is, the Psalms.

2. I frankly don't understand how instruments aid in the clarity of singing. I'm able to understand the Psalms in our congregation, and we don't use instruments. How does having instrumental music make words more intelligible?

I think my treatment of the passage in James is sufficient to show that Paul need not be understood to refer to plucking instruments.

3. This doesn't seem to be an argument for using instruments. Instead, it seems like an argument to disregard particulars in worship. I'll only answer that if the heart is in the right place, diligence will be given to see that the outward things are ordered properly.

 

[TylerRay]

The word Psalms (ψαλμός) as used in Eph. 5:19 and Col. 3:16 has an etymological basis in instruments as well. Though I cannot prove that the language hasn't changed, it would also be a drastic change to take a word that people had been using for over one and a half millennia and insist that it changed within a few decades between the ushering in of the new covenant and when Paul wrote about it, and top it off by barring them from praise. The burden of proof is on you.

Tim,

Your reference to Strong proved that the term Psallo could be used to mean sing, simpliciter.

Strong defines Psalmos in this way: "a set piece of music, i.e. a sacred ode (accompanied with the voice, harp or other instrument; a "psalm"); collectively, the book of the Psalms."

 

[Gforce9]

I only wish to address the issue of the "heart" as it relates to regulated worship since it has come up several times. The RPW is designed to protect God's worship from our "hearts". Even when my "heart is right", it is not right and I fail to worship Him as is good, proper, and perfect. My own assessment of my "heart" at any particular time is, at best, an exercise of the fox guarding the hen-house rather than His perfect assessment. That is why God has taken that subjectivism from our hands and has given the RPW. I think that is the bare minimum on what we must agree. What goes on in pop-evangelicalism is the prosecutorial "exhibit A" against what happens when we follow our "hearts".....

 

[Parakaleo]

I only wish to address the issue of the "heart" as it relates to regulated worship since it has come up several times. The RPW is designed to protect God's worship from our "hearts". Even when my "heart is right", it is not right and I fail to worship Him as is good, proper, and perfect. My own assessment of my "heart" at any particular time is, at best, an exercise of the fox guarding the hen-house rather than His perfect assessment. That is why God has taken that subjectivism from our hands and has given the RPW. I think that is the bare minimum on what we must agree. What goes on in pop-evangelicalism is the prosecutorial "exhibit A" against what happens when we follow our "hearts".....

Thank you! God tries the heart by his perfect Word. The folly of thinking a man's "right" heart is able to safely take him beyond what God has prescribed is perilous.

 

[timfost]

Tyler,

You have misrepresented my argument. Please reread. As a rule of thumb, try to be able to make your opponent's argument even when you don't agree.

If you have questions, please ask. If you think my argument is inconsistent, say so. If you want to make me say something that I haven't, I don't feel as if I need to defend yourself.

 

[TylerRay]

Tyler,

You have misrepresented my argument. Please reread. As a rule of thumb, try to be able to make your opponent's argument even when you don't agree.

If you have questions, please ask. If you think my argument is inconsistent, say so. If you want to make me say something that I haven't, I don't feel as if I need to defend yourself.

Tim,
I can't see where I have misrepresented you or dealt unfairly. Please let me know where I've done so, and I'll be glad to correct myself. It may be that I have misunderstood part of your argument.

 

[timfost]

Tim, do you know of any place in the New Testament or the old where the term sing psalms means to play musical instruments other than in the temple.

Do you think that David never used a harp in his worship?

 

[timfost]

Tim,
I can't see where I have misrepresented you or dealt unfairly. Please let me know where I've done so, and I'll be glad to correct myself. It may be that I have misunderstood part of your argument.

I likely won't have time to reply at least for a day or so due to work. Sorry...

 

[TylerRay]

I likely won't have time to reply at least for a day or so due to work. Sorry...

No worries, brother. Reply when you can.

 

[TheOldCourse]

Could you share the church's webcast you sing with?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Happily! Greenville Presbyterian Church in Greenville, SC is the church we sing with (http://www.greenvillepresbyterian.com/). Their second service is streamed live at 2pm EST which, for us an hour earlier, gives us most of an hour for lunch after we come home from our own morning service and is very convenient. They also put the words of the psalm up on the stream which makes it very easy to sing along to.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Look at Psalm 150, where all four categories of musical instruments are represented: percussion, brass, woodwinds, and strings. Different translations will translate the specific words used in different ways but, with these four categories, the whole orchestra, so to speak, is represented. (The piano, by the way, is a percussion instrument.) So, go for it!

How does appeal to the OT for the allowance of instruments today not effectively undermine the circumstantial position? One cannot appeal to adiaphora here, for the appeal to the elemental OT mandate (it was not circumstantial, nor adiaphora) thus becomes a mandate today.

 

[Held Fast]

Hi Rob,
I think the context here is specifically Lord's Day worship.
But consider that a heart that is sincere in wanting to worship God will seek to do it in a way that pleases Him. The substance of what we bring in worship is a reflection of our hearts. How do we know that Cain's heart was wrong before God? Because he brought the wrong thing. However sincere you think your heart is, if you bring a thing not required, your heart is wrong. Perhaps wrong in ignorance rather than malice, but once you know God's will..."He who knoweth to do right and doeth it not, to him it is sin."

Ben, I would say the healthy place for the Christian is to live in the tension. The desire for the law, for regulation, destroys worship as handily as the desire for liberty, and just as quickly - each desire emanates from the heart of the worshipper. Neither extreme should claim superiority. Many likewise offered the smell of burnt animals as an act of worship, following the regulative principles as they understood them, when what God stated He wanted was their heart, and by so doing their sincere worship became a stench in His nostrils. This, coupled with your posts, suggests that sincere and ignorance are not exclusive to either extreme when it comes to worship.

 

[earl40]

For those who think instruments are circumstance? May I ask why now after Jesus and not before?

 

[Ben Zartman]

Ben, I would say the healthy place for the Christian is to live in the tension. The desire for the law, for regulation, destroys worship as handily as the desire for liberty, and just as quickly - each desire emanates from the heart of the worshipper. Neither extreme should claim superiority. Many likewise offered the smell of burnt animals as an act of worship, following the regulative principles as they understood them, when what God stated He wanted was their heart, and by so doing their sincere worship became a stench in His nostrils. This, coupled with your posts, suggests that sincere and ignorance are not exclusive to either extreme when it comes to worship.

Why do you say that the desire to know God's will and do it carefully (law and regulation) destroys worship? It is the essence of worship to give God what is His due, and the desire of the sincere Christian to seek out God's will so that he may do that. Law and regulation are the Christian's delight. See Psalm 119 for this. Now there is no question that the right thing can be offered by an insincere and legalistic heart, but that does not negate the duty of the sincere heart to worship aright. "They that worship the Father shall worship Him in spirit (sincerely) and in truth (according to His prescription)".

 

[timfost]

Just imagine if someone tried to prove that Americans eat warm canines from a similar argument applied to the term hotdog!

Come on, Tim, we all know that The term came to refer to the lyrical composition itself!

I agree that a word's etymology is not necessarily proof of what is included in the usage. The comparison to the hotdog is ridiculous for the following reason: Hotdogs were never made out of dogs, unlike Psalms that were accompanied by musical instruments for... 1500 years (if we assume that this ceased under the new covenant). I would prefer not to waste time actually defending my position against such comparisons. I neither have the time nor desire.

1. What is James saying here? Let's try to apply each of the definitions you have provided.

"Is anyone cheerful? Let him pluck an instrument."
"Is anyone cheerful? Let him sing along with instruments."
"Is anyone cheerful? Let him make music."
"Is anyone cheerful? Let him sing."

Beforehand, I think that it's important to point out that James is speaking of private expression of joy--it's impossible to understand the verse in any other way.

Isn't it a WCF proof text for what is acceptable in worship, public or private?

"Let him pluck an instrument"--Do you think that everyone to whom James was writing could play instruments? I think it's doubtful. Was he recommending that they all learn to play instruments so that they can express their joy? Again, it's very doubtful. Further, what relationship does plucking an instrument have to prayer, which is given as a parallel activity in this verse? It is clear that he is referring to singing. So, option #1 is out.

You have not heard my argument. My argument all along is that the words do not exclude instruments. I made it clear on multiple occasions that one can offer praise to God without instruments. I made it clear that instruments, though they are an acceptable circumstance of praise, they are not requisite. Your argument hinges on me saying that instruments are required under the RPW. Disagree with my argument if you wish, but disagreeing with an argument I didn't make doesn't offer any clarity in the matter.

"Let him sing along with instruments"--Do you think he was recommending that they find someone to accompany their singing when they want to express their joy? I hope you will agree that such an idea is ridiculous.

Agreed. How does this apply to our conversation?

"Let him make music"--This translation is so vague as to allow for any kind of music. I've already refuted the idea that it refers to plucking instruments or singing with accompaniment in this context.

Sure. Our praises are in psalms (religious), hymns (religious) and spiritual songs (religious because of the word "spiritual," an adjective that clarifies the word songs (odes) which could be either religious or secular). The NAS renders it "sing praises."

"Is anyone cheerful? Let him sing." Clearly, this is closer to what James is getting at. But what are they to sing? "Zip a Dee Doo Dah?" It's best to understand him as referring to the songs of the church, that is, the Psalms.

Again, let's not make caracatures of a position I have never espoused.

2. I frankly don't understand how instruments aid in the clarity of singing. I'm able to understand the Psalms in our congregation, and we don't use instruments. How does having instrumental music make words more intelligible?

We actually sing verbatim Psalms in my church. We have not "translated" the psalms into CM, LM, etc. meters in rhyme. Singing verbatim Psalms that don't fit into Western poetic stanzas requires stronger musical leadership so that the melodies, meters, etc. do not dictate our translations. Since you have opted for the poetic license taken in your psalter and forced the inspired Word into the parameters of a Western stanza and musical idiom, the comparison is lacking.

I think my treatment of the passage in James is sufficient to show that Paul need not be understood to refer to plucking instruments.

You have not proven that instruments are excluded as a circumstance. What you have proven was never disputed.

3. This doesn't seem to be an argument for using instruments. Instead, it seems like an argument to disregard particulars in worship. I'll only answer that if the heart is in the right place, diligence will be given to see that the outward things are ordered properly.

Do you believe that the early church was singing rhyming and metered psalms put to modern Western scales? At some point, if you are to be consistent, you're going to regulate praise right out of worship.

Brother, I have written strongly against some of the things you said. I am trying to be concise. Having spoken frankly with you before and received the same, I trust that you understand I'm opposing your position, not in any way trying to imply that you are less than sincere or have any other motive than to glorify God.

Blessings,

Tim

 

[Andrew P.C.]

You have not proven that instruments are excluded as a circumstance.

I know you aren’t addressing me, but doesn’t the one making the argument that it is circumstaial need to prove such a statement?

It seems that, as Ask Mr. Religion points out, the issue of it being elemental needs to be dealt with. We know that instruments were commanded specifically for the Levitical priesthood (2 Chron. 29:25).

 

[Jeri Tanner]

Concerning the context: the context seems favorable to your position if praise was something only external, or at least first external. Biblical praise wells from within and manifests from without.

That praise, in the Bible, is not primarily an external action is something I would dispute. I think that praise proper is not something God has left open for his people to stumble on. The book of Psalms is the Book of Tehillim- the Book of Praises. God has left nothing unfurnished or unfitted for his holy house. The content of our corporate duty to praise is supplied to us.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[bookslover]

How does appeal to the OT for the allowance of instruments today not effectively undermine the circumstantial position? One cannot appeal to adiaphora here, for the appeal to the elemental OT mandate (it was not circumstantial, nor adiaphora) thus becomes a mandate today.

If we are not to use musical instruments today, why are they not explicitly banned in the New Testament?

 

[Parakaleo]

If we are not to use musical instruments today, why are they not explicitly banned in the New Testament?

The common comeback to this is that beastiality is never condemned in the NT either, but it doesn't need to be because we know it violates the moral law of God.

To go a little more in-depth, when talking about worship, the RPW requires that we can reason a worship practice is specifically authorized by God and proven to be what he desires for his worship. That he desired musical instruments to be a part of his worship in the Old Testament is beyond dispute. What we must explore carefully, however, is whether musical instruments were properly part of the ceremonial worship of the Old Testament (worship by type and shadow) that God only appointed for his church under age, or whether musical instruments were part of the pure worship (worship in truth; untypified worship) that continues in all ages of the church. I think a pretty quick study of this question would show that musical instruments were a shadowy and ceremonial element meant for Old Testament temple worship and not reiterated in the New Testament as being fit for worship.

As others have pointed out here already, the very only way musical instruments can be logically allowed in Christian worship is if a person views them as a mere circumstance of singing praise. I used to reason this way myself. However, I was challenged on how something that was once very much an element of worship could transform into a circumstance. Not finding any good answer to this question, I'm now very happy to worship God without musical accompaniment.

 

[TylerRay]

Just imagine if someone tried to prove that Americans eat warm canines from a similar argument applied to the term hotdog!

Come on, Tim, we all know that The term came to refer to the lyrical composition itself!

I agree that a word's etymology is not necessarily proof of what is included in the usage. The comparison to the hotdog is ridiculous for the following reason: Hotdogs were never made out of dogs, unlike Psalms that were accompanied by musical instruments for... 1500 years (if we assume that this ceased under the new covenant). I would prefer not to waste time actually defending my position against such comparisons. I neither have the time nor desire.

You're right--it was a bad comparison.

Beforehand, I think that it's important to point out that James is speaking of private expression of joy--it's impossible to understand the verse in any other way.

Isn't it a WCF proof text for what is acceptable in worship, public or private?

That may be so, but I have a hard time seeing how it applies directly to public worship. While I don't dismiss the proof texts that were added to the Confession, I don't agree with them in every place.

"Let him pluck an instrument"--Do you think that everyone to whom James was writing could play instruments? I think it's doubtful. Was he recommending that they all learn to play instruments so that they can express their joy? Again, it's very doubtful. Further, what relationship does plucking an instrument have to prayer, which is given as a parallel activity in this verse? It is clear that he is referring to singing. So, option #1 is out.

You have not heard my argument. My argument all along is that the words do not exclude instruments. I made it clear on multiple occasions that one can offer praise to God without instruments. I made it clear that instruments, though they are an acceptable circumstance of praise, they are not requisite. Your argument hinges on me saying that instruments are required under the RPW. Disagree with my argument if you wish, but disagreeing with an argument I didn't make doesn't offer any clarity in the matter.

You used Strong's definitions of psallo as support for your position. So, I applied each definition to the text you cited in order to discern how the term is to be defined in context.

If your argument is "that the words do not exclude instruments," then you right--I missed it. I thought you were trying to vindicate the use of instruments based on the words. I'll grant that the words don't exclude instruments--they are positive commands to sing, and do not include any caveats.

"Let him sing along with instruments"--Do you think he was recommending that they find someone to accompany their singing when they want to express their joy? I hope you will agree that such an idea is ridiculous.

Agreed. How does this apply to our conversation?

"Let him make music"--This translation is so vague as to allow for any kind of music. I've already refuted the idea that it refers to plucking instruments or singing with accompaniment in this context.

Sure. Our praises are in psalms (religious), hymns (religious) and spiritual songs (religious because of the word "spiritual," an adjective that clarifies the word songs (odes) which could be either religious or secular). The NAS renders it "sing praises."

"Is anyone cheerful? Let him sing." Clearly, this is closer to what James is getting at. But what are they to sing? "Zip a Dee Doo Dah?" It's best to understand him as referring to the songs of the church, that is, the Psalms.

Again, let's not make caracatures of a position I have never espoused.

Again, I was applying each of the definitions you supplied to the context in order to discern how the word was to be understood according to its usage. I was not saying that you espoused any of these particular views. My point was to show that the use of instruments cannot be vindicated by this passage by trying out each of the definitions.

2. I frankly don't understand how instruments aid in the clarity of singing. I'm able to understand the Psalms in our congregation, and we don't use instruments. How does having instrumental music make words more intelligible?

We actually sing verbatim Psalms in my church. We have not "translated" the psalms into CM, LM, etc. meters in rhyme. Singing verbatim Psalms that don't fit into Western poetic stanzas requires stronger musical leadership so that the melodies, meters, etc. do not dictate our translations. Since you have opted for the poetic license taken in your psalter and forced the inspired Word into the parameters of a Western stanza and musical idiom, the comparison is lacking.

This isn't the place to debate what is the best way to sing the Psalms; however, I still don't understand how the words are made more intelligible by the use of instruments. The Psalms have been chanted a capella for two thousand years.

I think my treatment of the passage in James is sufficient to show that Paul need not be understood to refer to plucking instruments.

You have not proven that instruments are excluded as a circumstance. What you have proven was never disputed.

We were discussing the definition of the word psallo, not the dogmatic categories of circumstance and element.

3. This doesn't seem to be an argument for using instruments. Instead, it seems like an argument to disregard particulars in worship. I'll only answer that if the heart is in the right place, diligence will be given to see that the outward things are ordered properly.

Do you believe that the early church was singing rhyming and metered psalms put to modern Western scales? At some point, if you are to be consistent, you're going to regulate praise right out of worship.

No, sir, they were chanting them. You'll have to prove the logical necessity of the assertion in your second sentence. Our metrical Psalms are excellent translations, and often give a more literal rendering than the prose translations.

Brother, I have written strongly against some of the things you said. I am trying to be concise. Having spoken frankly with you before and received the same, I trust that you understand I'm opposing your position, not in any way trying to imply that you are less than sincere or have any other motive than to glorify God.

No worries there. I hope that we have a mutual understanding on that point.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

If we are not to use musical instruments today, why are they not explicitly banned in the New Testament?

The regulative principle of worship (RPW) denies the often heard "well, if it is not prohibited, it can be done". The RPW requires something to be commanded by God, expressly or by good and necessary consequence, for worship.

 

[OPC'n]

You either believe that worship can have instruments or you don't. If you're not convinced they can, then there's your answer. If you believe they can be used, I would ask your pastor how your particular gift (instrument) can be incorporated into the worship service.

 

[BG]

I hate to bring this up again but the only instruments that can be used in the worship of God are the instruments that God has commanded us to use, using anything else would be sinful. Pianos, guitars, kazoos, banjos are all forbidden, there is no way around this unless you embrace the normative principle of worship.

 

[timfost]

I know you aren’t addressing me, but doesn’t the one making the argument that it is circumstaial need to prove such a statement?

If microphones are a circumstance of worship because they aid in speaking/hearing, why not instruments which are an aid to singing?

Not sure what you want me to prove...

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

What is required to perform every action is attached as a circumstance to that action, even worship (an action). "Aids" are not requirements, hence they are not circumstantial.

 

[bookslover]

I hate to bring this up again but the only instruments that can be used in the worship of God are the instruments that God has commanded us to use, using anything else would be sinful. Pianos, guitars, kazoos, banjos are all forbidden, there is no way around this unless you embrace the normative principle of worship.

Bill, if you look at the musical instruments spoken of in the Old Testament, you'll find that all four categories - brass, woodwind, strings, and percussion - are represented. (The piano, as I mentioned before, is a percussion instrument, by the way.) Therefore, instruments from all four groups are permitted. (I would hesitate at the kazoo, though!)

 

[Cymro]

I hesitated to join in the discussion as I am on a short holiday in the Alsace, and have not deliberated on the responses as I should. But it is my view that the the question is, whether instruments belong to the old economy of the ceremonial, or that they continue in our day. The church being in a state of minority as to their spiritual ability, was accommodated by the support of these carnal elements. They were part of the glory of the old dispensation worship, which glory has been done away with by a more excellent glory. No longer shadow and type, but the day has broken and the shadows have fled away. If then I retain the one part of the ceremonial, I must logically and necessarily keep the the rest. So that candles and vestments, priesthoods and incense,these are a list of my Romish things.( sorry, I could not resist the rhythm). To my mind instruments were ceremonially tutoring the infant church of the glory of praising God. But now the simplicity of NT worship has supplanted the weak and beggarly elements, and given liberty to the tongue as man's chief organ of praise.
As to the original question, (if I might bring in a personal testimony in reference to my wife who has a good musical pedigree,) she exercised her gift in the church in Singapore. This was by teaching the Chinese children the tunes of the English metrical Psalms (Welsh ones included), and how to open their mouths in delivery. The children were between five and Fourteen, and can sing some in harmony, and have memorised many. They now can sing them in Mandarin also, though this was by the labours of another brother in the church. Employing a musical gift to promote and instil the word of God into young minds. As an aside, it is quite an experience hearing Chinese children, singing a Welsh tune to the Scottish metrical Psalms!