Music is then to be handled for the sake of the embellishment and composure of manners. For instance, at a banquet we pledge each other while the music is playing; soothing by song the eagerness of our desires, and glorifying God for the copious gift of human enjoyments, for His perpetual supply of the food necessary for the growth of the body and of the soul. But we must reject superfluous music, which enervates men’s souls, and leads to variety, — now mournful, and then licentious and voluptuous, and then frenzied and frantic.
Stromata, Book 6, Clement of Alexandria
According to an article by David VanBrugge, Greeks saw music this way: the gods made musica mundana (the universe) and then, a little lower, musica humana (humans). Clement saw musica humana as the crown of all musica mundana, being created in the image of God.
In the quote above, according to VanBrugge, music represents musica instrumentalis, while musica humana is referred to as manners. So Clement is saying, instruments are to be used only as an embellishment of the human voice, not merely as “superfluous music.” If that’s right, Clement’s distinction would address some of what I commented on last week, the tendency in so many churches to move from accompaniment of singing to full-blown praise bands. It would seem that that trend is nothing new, or Clement wouldn’t have seen fit to address it. (Note: If I’m not mistaken, Clement is referring to the use of instruments in any setting, not just church.)
Can we make a distinction between instruments used to enhance singing and “superfluous music” used to “enervate men’s souls”? Is it possible for churches to have one without falling into the other? (I was trying to ask that last week… maybe Clement will help me ask it better.)
I was going to comment but this hits far to close to home. God bless.
A quick story… Years ago my wife and I visited an church (which sang in 4 part a cappella harmony). The worship leader was a professor of music at a local college, where he also was the choir director. During the worship, he stopped the hymn singing on several occasions to correct one person who was out of time, another person who was a bit off key, another person who… My wife and I were quite shocked to say the least. Wow our ears appreciate hearing singing that is in time and on key, we felt that the point of worship was being over looked…namely that Christians are gathered to worship God with praise, thanksgiving, etc… which in turn, encourages and builds the church up in the faith.
All that is to say, that whether or not the worship is in a cappella, light instrumental accompaniment, or a full blown praise band, we miss something of the point if our concern is the musical style. That’s not to say that we should not give any attention to the music (after all, if you’re playing guitar then at least make sure it is in tune, not prone to excessive feed-back, etc…).
I’m coming to believe that, for the last few generations of Americans, music’s purpose in general is to enervate the soul, and the listener/consumer/worshiper’s role is to invest themselves as much as possible, to get as “enervated” as we can. I think we use our a capella music towards these ends as much as any instrumental version, at least as I see the way a capella being used and presented. I’m just getting into this, but I think Clement’s folks sang a song to carry the Word or to give unity to their prayers or flow and shared meaning to the activity at the Lord’s Table. We sing songs and want to know how well the songs themselves went in matching our devotion, theology, and desire for God. I hear us argue about whether a capella or instrumental better serves the worshiper to express their heart, more than whether this style or song serves the Word or the Table better. Clement never heard of a “song service,” they just sang the elements of worship and argued about what best served the liturgy. Our arguments sound to me like which song and way of singing will enervate us best. I think if we want to argue along Clement’s lines, we’re talking about introducing a way of understanding music that is even more countercultural than an unusual style.
A few hundred years after Clement, the church burned the psalters and enforced Gregorian Chant. Not sure that solved the problem, either; we still wound up here.
Dave,
That’s a valid point. It’s one that Bruce Morton makes in his Deceiving Winds book and one that I’ve tried to make. There is a problem in much of church music that goes beyond the instrumental music question. We’ve forgotten why we sing and what is supposed to be accomplished when we sing. We’ve forgotten that the power of singing is in the combination of music AND words.
Grace and peace,
Tim Archer
P.S. — Don’t worry, I saw the implied smiley face as you mentioned on Twitter. :-)
My experience in the Church of Christ was that there was a very difinitive and hard line…dogmatism…when it came to having no instrumental music. This all based on the fact that the NT never endorses it (nor condemns it). Yet with other things, clearly condemned by Jesus, such as remarriage after divorce or military service…no problem.
Quite amazing really…that there always seemed to be a certain pride, arrogance almost, that “We don’t use instruments in OUR music” yet the congregations were filled with adulterous people who were proud to send their children off to kill the enemies of their nation….tragic.
Bryan,
There definitely has been picking and choosing as far as what topics to draw a line in the sand over.
Grace and peace,
Tim
I’m with you and Dave.
Tim,
The strongest point in Bruce Morton’s book was how he lifted up song as a powerful way of presenting the Word and the glory of God. As our worship is now structured, the singing is virtually the only participatory part where every person can be more than an observer.
YES! This is absolutely true, and it breaks my heart that church leaders and congregations are encouraged *not* to brainstorm ways to make other aspects of our communal worship more participatory. Having the Lord’s Supper delivered to your seat by a crew of waiters doesn’t foster a participatory mindset – efficient, perhaps, but hardly participatory. I know of a congregation that has several communion tables set up around the auditorium, and members get up and serve one another the elements. Those whose mobility is hindered are served by the people who sit near them, as an active act of love rather than a duty-role that must be efficiently carried out.
A couple Sunday mornings ago, our pulpit minister was sick, and the brother who filled in for him offered opportunity for Q&A or discussion after his presentation – dialegomai in its finest form :)
It can be done, in ways that are God-honoring and appreciative of the us-and-God nature of communal worship. It needs to be done, because what sticks in our minds and hearts the longest is not what we see or what we hear, but what we do.