One thing that I haven’t figured out yet is why our brotherhood hasn’t embraced chanting more fully. Before we get distracted, please note that the ancient world didn’t make the distinction between chanting and singing that we do, so we’re not talking about anything extrabiblical. At least some of what we see in the psalms would probably have been presented via a chant.
There were other ancient music forms, so I’m not arguing that all the early church did was chant. But as I listen to people discuss the benefits of singing, it seems that most of those benefits are better served by chanting.
We do know that the early church wouldn’t have used the four-part harmony that is so common in the U.S. And our modern melodies would have definitely had a foreign ring to their ears. Undoubtedly, our singing is very unlike what the early church knew. I sometimes think that people envision the Ephesian church sitting in pews, holding Songs of the Faith and singing “I’ll Fly Away.”
Don’t chants better emphasize the idea of speaking to one another? Don’t they put the emphasis on the lyrics? Wouldn’t they avoid a lot of the sensationalism that we are concerned about?
Is there any theological justification for intricate melodies and part singing? Is there any benefit in those things, beyond the way they stir human emotions?
Why do you suppose we haven’t put more emphasis on the chant?
The Catholics do it.
——————–
In our very “Everyman,” democratic religious tradition, we cling to phrases like, “What’s beautiful to the LORD is the joy in your heart,” which is true, but is often used as a weapon against those who see any importance in offering something beautiful to the One who created such a beautiful cosmos to share with us.
——————–
Probably – esp. since the lyrics are all that are there. I doubt it would avoid sensationalism, though — look how cool Gregorian chant became a few years back. We are humans – we have no other way to relate to the world except via our senses. God built us that way, and the sooner we come to terms with that, the more realistic our strategies will be. I think.
PS – sorry, I just answered all your questions in reverse :)
LOL, Nick. I do that a lot, start at the bottom when responding and work up.
They call it “RAP” now Tim, let me know when you plan on giving a sermon in rap, I want to charge up the battery on my video camera. one million hits on u-tube ain’t nuttin. :)
I think they may have tryed that already Tim, they said they would chant, then pick the lyre, no body showed up for that service, they didn’t want to be the liar who was picked. Ha Ha Ha :)
Because the Bible says sing, brother! To chant goes beyond what is written, and that is Sin! Remember Nadab and Abihu??? Are you advocating offering strange fire, brother???
Seek the old paths!
||The above was said with tongue firmly in cheek||
“One thing that I haven’t figured out yet is why our brotherhood hasn’t embraced chanting more fully…”
Um…culture! When it comes right down to it, our worship is as much a product of our culture’s musical influence as we have tried to deny it.
I have a question. What about descant singing? Does it violate singing with the understanding? I recently attended a service that used descant songs. The words were all printed out with what each part or group was to sing. I did not understand a word that was being sung because each part or group was singing entirely different words. I could not tell where the group or part I was supposed to be singing with was in the printed words. How is it possible for me to sing with the spirit and the understand when I neither understand the words being sung and find following the words in print an impossibility. All I hear is total confusion. Admittedly, I have some hearing problems anyway, but others with no such problems tell me that also have problems singing or understanding descant songs.
Wes
Thanks Jeff.
Rex,
I agree, but an oddity also occurred to me. At sporting events, most fans around the world sing. Ours chant. Human idiosyncrasies will never cease to amaze.
Grace and peace,
Tim
Wes,
Much of our vocal music is an attempt at imitating instruments. (while some instrumental music seeks to imitate the voice!) The old Stamps-Baxter songs were the church’s answer to jazz. Polyphonic songs are an imitation of orchestral sounds, in my opinion.
Grace and peace,
Tim
It is about being Jesus and seeking disciples. If something keeps us from that we should stop and seriously question it. If chanting helped us get back to that we should work for it maybe slowly at first, maybe as responsive scripture reading.
In my experience instruments in worship are in that place. I wonder if four-part harmony and praise teams in some places might be doing the same thing? Anytime something takes us from a focus on others, serving like Christ, and trying to make disciples then something is wrong IMO. But that doesn’t necessarily come from instruments just as it doesn’t necessarily come from four-part harmony.
If the early church used the Ephesians 5:19 argument that Exclusionists ( no instrument ) use today , they would have argued that to ” sing ” means to ” sing without instruments in one part harmony “. The non-instrumental denominations today conclude that to ” sing ” means to ” sing without instruments in four part harmony “. It would seem to me that chanting would be closer to ” speaking to yourselves ” than four part harmony would be. Maybe an Exclusionist of today can explain why they are right and the early church was wrong in defining the word ” sing “. The non- instrumentalists like to hold up the historical evidence of the early church ” singing without instruments “, but refuse to follow the early church’s example of ” singing without vocal harmony “. It is interesting that Exclusionists are not found Biblically refuting this ” error ” of chanting, and tolerate their erring Brethren in order to have an ally against instrumental worship. If we are going to use historical evidence as a rule for singing ( the historical argument ) then let’s have the honesty to follow it completely, not in part.