Often attackers will quote studies that claim that music can have an effect on humans. They overstate the obvious. Music is an incredible gift from God with great power of expression. Who hasn't soared in the proclamations of the Hallelujah Chorus or rested in the soulful arms of It is well with my soul? Who isn't affected by the militaristic beat of Onward, Christian Soldiers, and the proclaiming key of the last verse of Amazing Grace?
Where these studies (most of questionable sources and methods) go wrong is that they imply a subconscious and irresistable mind control over the listener. Attackers reason that since the world writes songs using these insidious techniques, and since much of Christian music today contains these 'evil sounds', we are unknowingly unleashing the subliminal songs of satan on millions of unsuspencting listeners. Now, I sincerely wish this were the case, not because we'd be releasing 'satan sounds' but because then all we would have to do is write songs with 'Christian sounds' and zing!--instant evangelism! There would be no more revivals, no more missionaries, no more altar calls, no more fundamentalist web pages, and no more lyrics. Instead, we'd have busy recording studios pumping out disc upon disc of 'christian sounds'. People would mysteriously show up for Church. They would be saved in their cars without even knowing it. Forget preachers: "listen to todays sermon, played by organist John Smith...."Nailed it. I couldn't have said it better myself. :))
(Source)
-Jeph
Strictly speaking, sacred music should be Gregorian Chant. Jesus and the apostles sung the Psalms in the manner that resembles the Chant. No wonder, in every encounter with the new fad of secular music, the Church resisted and protected the Chant.
ReplyDeleteWith the current revival of the genuine sacred music, the devil might be fuming mad.
Strictly speaking, sacred music should be Gregorian Chant.
ReplyDeleteIt is always easy to say this and that. Proving an assertion however is totally a different story.
Jeph,
ReplyDeleteWell, I suppose calling the experts to answer you is in order. You can find it here: http://www.nationalpost.com/todays-paper/What+Jesus+sing/4002136/story.html
Jesus sang what we now know as "Gregorian Chant."
Except that the site to which your link directs to says,
ReplyDelete"We're sorry, the page you requested does not exist at this address..."
You can Google search: What did Jesus Sing? by Geoffrey Clarfield
ReplyDeleteWhatever. First off, Clarfield is not my rule of faith and practice, so any appeal to him and to anything besides Scriptures won't work to me.
ReplyDeleteWell, scripture must be understood as lived by the Church. The works of these scholars give us a view of how it was and how we should be.
ReplyDeleteBesides, this is NOT doctrine, not a rule of faith but a practice worth preserving if we are really to IMITATE Christ. If the Catholic and other Orthodox Churches are faithful in imitating a "mere" practice of Christ and the Apostles, how much more should they be faithful in terms if doctrine?
Radical Reformers hated the Chant. They did not realize that what they hated was what Jesus loved.
Well, I remember the saying: "Little things mean a lot."
Forest,
ReplyDeleteWell, scripture must be understood as lived by the Church.
I'm not really sure where did you get that idea. Scripture tells us that practices are subject to Scriptures, not the other way around (2 Tim. 3:15-16).
The works of these scholars give us a view of how it was and how we should be.
Not unless their insinuations are backed up with Scripture.
Radical Reformers hated the Chant. They did not realize that what they hated was what Jesus loved.
Well prove it. I'll wait.
Jeph,
ReplyDeleteWhen I said, "Well, scripture must be understood as lived by the Church.", I was responding to your statement, "anything besides Scriptures won't work to me." I am simply saying that you cannot interpret scripture apart from the Church, which produced the Bible under the inspiration of God. This statement is not actually directly addressing the issue on the Chant and pardon me if I caused confusion. This is actually a statement particularly applicable to the issue of biblical criticism.
You said: "Not unless their insinuations are backed up with Scripture."
We know from scripture that Jesus sang; but, scripture is silent on how he did it. The hymns in the Bible do not have musical notes for us to follow; but, just the same, we knew that these were sung; all the Psalms were sung. The Bible doesn't have it because the Bible does not contain everything.
Relative to this, although marginal to the meaning of the statement, I opened my previous post with "scripture must be understood as lived by the Church". I said this precisely because the Bible could not help us in answering the question: "How did Jesus and the Apostles sing those hymns?" We can only find answers to this question by looking into the life of the Church: how did the people of God follow the footsteps of Jesus and the Apostles? This is a classic example of the inseparability of Church and Scripture. We can only understand one in light of the other. Hence, my statement "scripture must be understood as lived by the Church."
Proof of hatred of Radical Reformers is all around. In Evangelical communities, the standard "music" is produced by electric guitar, drums, tambourines and other "noisy" instruments. Chant is absent and the idea of chant usually raises their eyebrows if not vehement objection.
Well, there are protestant communities, not radical and a bit traditional, who sing sacred polyphony, the offspring of chant. But, very seldom do I see them. In the Philippines, I haven't heard a protestant community singing chant yet. I don't know which among the variety of protestant persuasions do you belong.
First, I believe it is virtually impossible to determine how exactly Christ and the apostles had sung their hymns and songs of praises. It is just not recorded in the Bible as you yourself have admitted.
ReplyDeleteSecond, even if perchance my first assertion was wrong, you still need to convince me that the chant is the only manner of singing by which songs of worship should be sung, and that Christians are under moral obligation to have things that way. Can you prove that? I don't think so.
And lastly, there's no hating going on here. I don't really have any problem with people like you who prefer to have your songs sung the traditional way. The problem arises only when one becomes too dogmatic over his personal preferences.
Jeph,
ReplyDeleteWe may not know the "exact" way Jesus and the Apostles sang. But we can have an idea on how they probably sang by looking at how the early Church did it as against the Jews of Jesus' time. At the very least, we can determine the genre and the style of their singing; although, I concede that we cannot replicate "exactly" the way they sang.
I think this is important because from here, we can see the attitude of the Church towards a very important aspect of Christian worship in the Liturgy. The fact that throughout history the Church resisted secular music to enter into the Liturgy while protecting and preserving the Chant, we should be pushed to ask why? what is in the chant so that the Church down the ages upheld this form of music as most fitting for the celebration of the Sacred Liturgy?
AS to your second point, we know in history how the Church tried to resist secular music to enter into the Liturgy. Church documents on the Liturgy and Sacred Music have always stressed on the appropriateness of the Chant in the celebration of the Eucharist and defended it from its enemies. On the other hand, there is no proof that the early Church sang in the Liturgy what is now known as "Gospel Music" with drums, electric guitar, etc. I think this is sufficient evidence what the Church desired for sacred music in the celebration of the Liturgy.
At this point, let me be clear that I am NOT against Pop(ular) Religious Music as long as they are sung OUTSIDE the Sacred Liturgy.
AS to your third point, I don't think this is about personal preference. This is about faithfulness and obedience. While the singing of the Chant is not a dogma of the Church, we are called to faithfulness and obedience to follow the way of Christ. After all, one mandate for every Christian is to imitate Christ.
Forest,
ReplyDeleteHave you heard of the fallacy of appealing to tradition? It is a fallacy that occurs when it is assumed that something is better or correct simply because it is older, traditional, or "always has been done." The traditional Jews at Jesus' time was fond of committing this fallacy. Do you know how the Lord refuted them?
Jeph,
ReplyDeleteEverything that we can attribute Jesus is "ever old and ever new." Chant doesn't fit to our categorization of "traditional," which connotes a practice acceptable only to a certain period of time.
Chant is not a fad that we can just replace anytime we want. Chant is so precious a gift so that the Church did everything in its power to protect it from harm and preserve it and, in so doing, protect the Liturgy from banal inventions that may destroy it. Of course, she did this not because of whim or simply be traditional but because of faith and obedience.
If Jesus were physically present now, surely he won't refute the high regard of the Church for the Chant. He cannot contradict Himself.
It all goes back to my second comment, bro.
ReplyDeleteWell, Jesus being the Logos cannot be inconsistent. Won't this be enough?
ReplyDelete1- Jesus as Logos cannot be inconsistent
ReplyDelete2- Therefore, we are under moral obligation to sing our worship songs in the "Gregorian chant" manner.
Do you honestly think this'll make any sense to me?
Jeph,
ReplyDeleteIt doesn't really matter if it doesn't make sense to you. After all, what you think is not important as compared to what Christ thinks. If your life is so self-centered and everything revolves around what YOU think, go ahead.
What I am simply saying is this: we are called to imitate Christ. If we are to imitate him, we have to follow his ways; we have to imitate the way he prays and sings his prayers. We know that he chanted the Psalms, he chanted his prayers. To deny this is outright a show of ignorance.
Now, I also notice a salient feature of Evangelicalism: inconsistency. Evangelicals fashion themselves as imitating the 1st century Church such as holding services in the homes etc. Now, when reminded that Christ sang the Chant, they would dismiss it outright as it is too Catholic and cling to their worldly "music." Chant is wrong because it is Catholic. I wonder who the logical person in this world would buy this folly.
Forest,
ReplyDeleteIf your life is so self-centered and everything revolves around what YOU think, go ahead.
I can assure you that's not the case. Please stop making up stories and be objective instead.
What I am simply saying is this: we are called to imitate Christ. If we are to imitate him, we have to follow his ways.
Agree. Christians are called to imitate Christ with regards to holiness, and this doesn't have anything to do with what musical style or manner we should sing our hymns and worship songs.
we have to imitate the way he prays and sings his prayers.
FYI, Christ prayed this way:
"And he (Jesus) went a little farther, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt." (Mat. 26:39)
Does this automatically mean that our prayers won't be acceptable to God unless we pray the same way as Jesus did in the passage above? Can't God hear our prayers if we pray sitting? lying in bed? kneeling? or standing? Well I just hope you'll get my point with these questions.
We know that he chanted the Psalms, he chanted his prayers. To deny this is outright a show of ignorance.
Granting that he really did, how is this a proof that we are under moral obligation to do the same?
Chant is wrong because it is Catholic. I wonder who the logical person in this world would buy this folly
Putting words in my mouth eh? Did I ever say anything to that effect? Did I?
Wala naman pong masama sa CCM. In fact, mas ramdam pa nga sa CCM ang pagkilos ng Holy Spirit kaysa sa mga traditional songs. Hindi ko sinasabing mali ang traditional songs... Wala namang pinagutos ang Panginoon kung ano ang style na dapat nating gawin sa pag-awit para sa Diyos. Ipinagutos ba sa Bible na dapat traditional songs lang? Hindi. Hindi rin ipinagutos na CCM lang, or bawal ang CCM. Tama si Jeph, hindi dapat maging dogmatic sa ating mga personal preferences. Maski nga ang RCC mismo hindi dogmatic pagdating dyan eh!
ReplyDeleteAnonymous said: Maski nga ang RCC mismo hindi dogmatic pagdating dyan eh!
ReplyDeleteNailed it!
Jeph,
ReplyDelete1. I tried to be objective as much as possible. It is you who argue on the basis of your own taste.
2. I agree with you that "Christians are called to imitate Christ with regards to holiness", and let me continue, of life. Perhaps you are right by saying that holiness "doesn't have anything to do with what musical style or manner we should sing our hymns and worship songs." But the way we sing our prayers has something to do with our journey to holiness. Noise can never bring us to a genuine encounter with God.
3. You cited Mt 26:39 and asked these questions: A. "Does this automatically mean that our prayers won't be acceptable to God unless we pray the same way as Jesus did in the passage above?"
My Answer: No. The falling on his face has nothing to do with his prayer. The burden of our sins seemed so much for his humanity.
B. "Can't God hear our prayers if we pray sitting? lying in bed? kneeling? or standing?"
My Answer: Yes, God can listen to our prayers however is our posture.
4. YOu asked: "Granting that he really did, how is this a proof that we are under moral obligation to do the same?"
My Answer: Jesus sang the Chant, It is a fact. We need not assume he did.
Certainly, we are not morally obliged to sing the Chant because it is NOT doctrine, NOT a rule of faith. But, it is desirable and proper to imitate Jesus' way of singing his prayers.
However, we are morally obliged to celebrate the Liturgy well and Chant is the proper music for the Liturgy.
Nonetheless, as i have said in my previous post, I am not against Pop(ular) religious music as long as it is sung outside the Liturgy. In Bible studies and in prayer meetings Pop religious music may have a place; but, NEVER in the Sacred Liturgy.
5. I did not intend to put words into your mouth. I am making a general statement on the attitudes of most, if not all, evangelicals to Chant. I am being objective here, Jeph.
Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteI dont know what is CCM. I would suppose it is equivalent to Pop(ular) religious music with drums and other noisy instruments.
Let me be clear that I am not against Pop religious music as long as it is sung OUTSIDE the celebration of the Most Holy Eucharist.
YOu said: "In fact, mas ramdam pa nga sa CCM ang pagkilos ng Holy Spirit kaysa sa mga traditional songs."
My response: I beg to disagree, assuming that you and I think of the same with what you call as CCM. Nothing can outbest the Chant. Some Pop sacred music cause internal emotional satisfaction. The chant on the other hand does more than this, it elevates the soul and leads it to the face-to-face encounter with God. This is precisely the reason why it is proper for the Liturgy.
Note also that Chant is NOT "traditional". It is "ever old and ever new." It is the proper music for the Liturgy. So, this is not a question of preference.
YOu are right in saying "Wala namang pinagutos ang Panginoon kung ano ang style na dapat nating gawin sa pag-awit para sa Diyos." But, Jesus gave us a model to follow. Why can't we just follow and be contented with the model?
YOu said "hindi dapat maging dogmatic sa ating mga personal preferences."
Again, on the issue of Sacred Music and the Liturgy, personal preference is out of the question. The proper music is chant.
For other services, go ahead however you like to sing.
You said "Maski nga ang RCC mismo hindi dogmatic pagdating dyan eh!" While I find your use of "dogmatic" malicious, I forgive you. But, you are wrong. The Church says: " The Church acknowledges Gregorian chant as specially suited to the Roman liturgy...it should be given pride of place in liturgical services" (Vatican II Constitution on the Liturgy)
Forest,
ReplyDeleteIt appears that you misunderstood objectivity as the attitude of trying to convince others to believe something as truth simply because you say so. Well, if you think that's the objectivity I was talking about you should have, you're absolutely wrong.
To be objective is to seek for the truth through concrete evidences, sound reasoning, and proper argumentation. These elements, unfortunately, were hardly seen in all your comments.
All along I've been asking you and waiting for you to substantiate your assertions, but you NEVER DID. You're opinions remain unsupported until this very moment.
If there's anyone here who has been consistently objective all throughout, he was the one who had the second comment on this blogpost.
Jesus sang the Chant, It is a fact. We need not assume he did.
ReplyDeleteIt is a fact because you say so. And you call that 'objectivity'?
Noise can never bring us to a genuine encounter with God.
ReplyDeleteYet another unsubstantiated opinion from the "ever-trying-to-be-objective" Forest King.
Certainly, we are not morally obliged to sing the Chant because it is NOT doctrine, NOT a rule of faith.
ReplyDeleteThen we're settled. That's exactly the point I've been trying to make the whole time.
Jeph,
ReplyDelete1. Jesus sang the chant not because "I said so". It is what those who studied this area said. It did not come from me, you know that.
2. Indeed, noise can never bring us to a genuine encounter with God. This is not an opinion of mine. The bible has it the Jesus meets and talks with the father in silence. This is not to mention the fact that Jesus sung his prayers with chant. There is no proof that Jesus worshiped the "evangelical way." And the early Church never did as well. The early Church chanted.
3. I have been clear since the start that Chant is not a rule of faith, it is not doctrine. We may not be morally obliged to sing chant; but we are morally obliged not to destroy the Liturgy, which has Chant as its proper music.
I don't know your tradition on worship. I don't even know if you celebrate the Liturgy. It requires a deep love, respect and devotion to the Liturgy for one to value the Chant. For us Orthodox Christians, the Liturgy is at the center of our lives. No wonder then that we have high regard for genuine sacred music - Chant. Of course, this is not just our preference, we are simply following the lead of Jesus.
Forest,
ReplyDeleteYou still have yet to prove your assertions. So much for your self-proclaimed 'objectivity.' I need solid proofs, evidences, sound reasoning, and proper argumentation.
Again, appealing to authority and to anything besides Scriptures will never work to me. You should have realized that by now.
Jeph,
ReplyDeleteIf the proof of the experts don't convince you, go ahead with your ignorance.
I dont really mind if "appealing to authority and to anything besides Scriptures will never work" for you. After all, "sola scriptura" is never a Christian gospel; it is a lie. It's Luther's gospel. I follow Christ, not Luther.
What is important for me is I have made an act of charity to you by telling you that in Chant we imitate Christ in the way he sang his prayers.
I think, if there is anyone who has to prove something here is you. you need to prove that Jesus, the Apostles and the early Church sang IN THE LITURGY the "evangelical way". I doubt if you can even do this via "sola scriptura".
you need to prove that Jesus, the Apostles and the early Church sang IN THE LITURGY the "evangelical way". I doubt if you can even do this via "sola scriptura".
ReplyDeleteForest,
May I know what it is that made you think that I should prove something which I myself have never asserted?
Last time, appealing to authority. Now, strawman fallacy. What's next?
Jeph,
ReplyDeleteIn this dialogue, you have been consistent in denying the rightful place of the Chant in Christian worship(i.e. Liturgy). [Let me reiterate my position that I am not against other forms of Religious music as long as they are performed OUTSIDE the Sacred Liturgy.] As a consequence, you "assert" its opposite - the "evangelical way" [with all its variety]. Well, it is common sense that you cannot just oppose without justifying it; you need to proved the validity of your claim. I have opened all my cards and you rejected them while keeping yours to yourself. I thought transparency is in order by proving the validity of your opposition.
If you will suggest that the final authority on this matter is scripture alone, checkmate.