Christians and Hymns, part 4

Before delving further into Christian hymnody, I must thank Jeffrey O'Rourke for pointing out that my quotation from Origen in the last post was taken rather out of context. Origen is defending Christians against charges levelled by a pagan, Celsus, that they have some arcane Christian tongue for secret rituals. So Origen is not describing a particular worship service; rather he is saying that Christians sing and pray to God using their mother tongue - wherever they may be. There is no "Christian tongue"; God hears us no matter what tongue we use. He is delineating a principle, not a practice.

One thing that surprises me with early Christian worship is that singing praises does not appear in the list of things the first believers devoted themselves to in Acts 2:42, namely the apostles' teaching, the breaking of bread, fellowship, and prayers. The First Apology of Justin Martyr, dated c.155, describes a Christian worship service. The emphasis is on ritual (baptism / ablution and Holy Communion), not singing.

This all seems oddly at variance with the Apostle Paul's exhortation to address one another with psalms, hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your hearts to the Lord [Ephesians 5:19]. A very musical response indeed! As with Origen, the context is primarily the believer's personal devotional life. But not exclusively: "addressing one another" can only mean a context of corporate worship.

We know that Jesus and the Twelve, before they went out to the Mount of Olives, sang a hymn [Mark 14:26]. But what, and how? Many Biblical scholars believe it would have been one of the so-called Hallel series in the Book of Psalms, consisting of Psalms 113 - 118. It was common practice among the Jews to chant these holy songs at the Passover table. Did they sing it responsively, their 'Rabbi' leading and the disciples responding? we shall never know.

In the next post, the early testimony of a Roman official gives us a few clues.

Christians and Hymns, part 3

The 1st century traveller and writer, Philo of Alexandria, describes the singing of a contemplative Jewish sect called the Therapeutae:
"They rise up together and ... form themselves into two choirs, one of men and one of women, the leader chosen from each being the most honoured and most musical among them. They sing hymns to God composed of many measures and set to many melodies, sometimes chanting together, sometimes antiphonally."

Jewish liturgical singing took two forms: antiphonal and responsorial. The first is what Philo is describing: the division of singers into two groups in such a way that they are separated from each other; for example, to the right and left sides of the central aisle in the building. They then sing alternate parts, one side starting, the other responding.

This has continued in Christian worship ever since, not so much in congregational worship, but rather by the choir. Many a well-loved anthem has the two parts marked decani and cantores, indicating that, in the past, a group of church deacons would have sung one part, and a group of chosen cantors (singers) the other.

The second type of singing is similar, involving the priest or a perhaps a solo cantor singing an opening line and the congregation in unison singing the reply. Anyone who has been to a traditional sung service in church will be familiar with this.
Priest: O Lord, open thou our lips.
Answer: And our mouth shall show forth thy praise.
Priest: O God, make speed to save us.
Answer: O Lord, make haste to help us.
Priest: Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost;
Answer: As it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.

The Old Testament book of Psalms really came into its own here, as not only did it allow the congregation to take God's word directly on its lips, but also the very verse form made for successful breaking down into statement and response (as in the above example). Even where it didn't, a congregational reply of "Alleluia" or "We bless Thy name, O Lord" did just as well. Tertullian, at the end of the 2nd century, refers to response singing of pslams in the church at Rome.

But what happened in a multi-national congregation where several langiages were represented? The writer Origen in the mid-3rd century gives the answer:

The Greeks use Greek, the Romans Latin ... and everyone prays and sings praises to God as best he can in his mother tongue.

Which sounds like a lot of fun!

If you have any comments on this post or the subject of hymns, please use the COMMENT box below. I'd love to hear from you.

Christians and Hymns, Part 2

Another early Church father who understood the 'why' of hymn-singing was Basil of Caesarea (†379). In his Discourse on Psalm 1, he writes:

The Spirit mixed sweetness of melody with doctrine so that inadvertently we would absorb the benefit of the words through gentleness and ease of hearing. O the wise invention of the teacher who contrives that in our singing we learn what is profitable, and that thereby doctrine is somehow more deeply impressed upon our souls.

The conscious or unconscious absorption of a message, with music as its medium, is a powerful tool. Today's marketing world knows this very well, associating a product with particular mood music. From the 1970s onwards, technology has even allowed "backmasking" - the insertion of a subliminal secret message when a music track is played backwards.

All this was unknown to the first Christians, of course. What they did understand, however, was the need to confess spiritual truth aloud: not just to 'believe in your heart', but also to 'confess with your lips' [Romans 10:9]. Or in Basil's words, to impress doctrine more deeply on their souls.

For this they had a clear and obvious model: the Jews. At first, Christianity was a Jewish sect. The early Christians continued to worship at the Temple and to attend synagogues. It was therefore inevitable that Jewish methods of performing music were incorporated into Christian worship.

In particular, the church continued to use the book of Psalms. Basil again:

Now the prophets teach certain things, the historians and the Law teach other, and Proverbs provides still a different sort of advice, but the Book of Psalms encompasses the benefit of them all. It foretells what is to come and memorializes history; it legislates for life, gives advice on practical matters, and serves in general as a repository of good teachings.

In other words, if it is important to confess God's truth aloud, then how better than to sing scripture. Not only is there no risk of emotionalism or error, but also the addition of music aids the memorising of the words.

How exactly this was done - and what implications that might have for today, I hope to look at next time.

Christians and Hymns, Part 1

A subject that fascinates me is that of Christian hymnody, so I intend to explore the subject in a few posts here. First of all, why hymns at all?

In the introduction to his Exposition of the Psalms of David, the medieval theologian Thomas Aquinas described the singing of hymns thus: A hymn is the praise of God with song; a song is the exultation of the mind dwelling on eternal things, bursting forth in the voice.

It would seem that, for the first Christian centuries, believers sang their hymns without stopping to analyse the process. One of the first who did was John Chrysostom (347-407). In his 'Exposition on Psalm 41', he points out that music is an integral part of the human condition: To such an extent, indeed, is our nature delighted by chants and songs that even infants at the breast, if they be weeping or afflicted, are by reason of it lulled to sleep.

Mixing this innate sense of music with the power of words is, Chrysostom continues, a powerful vehicle, affecting the intellect and spiritual standing of the singer.

When God saw that the majority of men were slothful and that they approached spiritual reading with reluctance and submitted to the effort involved without pleasure - wishing to make the task more agreeable and to relieve the sense of laboriousness - He mixed melody with prophecy, so that enticed by the rhythm and melody, all might raise sacred hymns to Him with great eagerness. For nothing so arouses the soul, gives it wings, sets it free from earth, releases it from the prison of the body, teaches it to love wisdom, and to condemn all the things of this life, as concordant melody andsacred song composed in rhythm.

In words very relevant to today's ipod culture, Chrysostom warns that there are bad words and bad music too, and these can similarly affect the human soul. "Those things that are lascivious and vicious in all songs settle in parts of the mind, making it softer and weaker." That is why, he maintains, the devil is keen to fill the mind with dirty things through music.

From the spiritual hymms, however, proceeds much of value, much utility and sanctity, for the words purify the mind and the Holy Spirit descends swiftly upon the mind of the singer. For those who sing with understanding invoke the grace of the Spirit.

On the Trail of Fundamentalism, Conclusion

In the light of the considerations outlined in the last two posts, the consensus today seems to be that most sincere and active Christians and churches would reject the “fundamentalist” description. They prefer “Bible-believing” or “evangelical”, each of which carries the idea of foundational New Testament beliefs and practices (thus avoiding the charge of liberalism). Such terms also allow churches to distance themselves both from the perceived rigid legalism of some (hyper-Calvinist) wings of the church, and from the 'lunatic fringe' associations attached to “fundamentalism” by the popular press and trendy atheism.

We do well to return to A W Tozer's analysis (see previous posts). Although written 50 years ago, his overview of trends is both timeless and masterly.

The human mind can endure textualism just so long before it seeds a way of escape... The masses of Fundamentalism reacted against the tyranny of the scribes.

In centuries past, perhaps, a matter so weighty to the Church might have required the convening of a Council of wise and respected leaders to confer and deliver a prescriptive ruling. Not so now!

The result... has been a religious debauch hardly equalled since Israel worshipped the golden calf... The separating line between the Church and the world has been all but obliterated.

Aside from a few of the grosser sins, the sins of the unregenerate world are now approved by a shocking number of professedly "born-again' Christians, and copied eagerly. Young Christians take as their models the rankest kind of worldlings and try to be as much like them as possible. Religious leaders have adopted the techniques of the advertisers: boasting, baiting and shameless exaggerating are now carried on as a normal procedure in church work. The moral climate is not that of the New Testament, but that of Hollywood.

This has come at a terrible cost:

Most evangelicals no longer initiate, they imitate... The holy faith of our fathers has in many places been made a form of entertainment, and the appalling thing is that all this has been fed down to the masses from the top.

And worst of all:

That note of protest which began with the New Testament and which was always heard loudest went the Church was most powerful has been successfully silenced. The radical element in testimony and life that once made Christians hated by the world is missing from present-day evangelicalism.

This is still the dilemma for Christians and churches today: to tighten up and risk "the tyranny of the scribes"; to let go and settle for a non-threatening but emasculated faith; or to be bold enough to cut a new path, which is nevertheless the old path of the New Testament: "a new commandment, but the commandment you heard from the beginning" (1 John.2:7).

On the Trail of Fundamentalism, Part 3

Holding back on A W Tozer's analysis a little longer, let's look at where Christian fundamentalism has reached today.

In his book What People Ask About the Church, Dale Robbins writes: "In the broad sense, fundamentalism may be used to describe Christians who are uncompromising, conservative and who take their beliefs to the maximum - exactly how every believer should live." In all probability, this is how serious evangelical Christians the world over would describe themselves. It is therefore a neutral, general description, which distinguishes such believers from liberals on the one hand and ritualists on the other.

However, as Robbins points out: "In recent times, because of increased activism by those identified as fundamentalists, who have promoted unethical actions such as bringing violence against abortion clinics, some academic circles believe that fundamentalism has been redefined by our society... [In their eyes] fundamentalism has evolved into a legitimate form of extremism, with views too radical for the balanced, evangelical Christian."

The analogy with Islamic fundamentalists is never far away. That term only gained currency during the Iran Hostage Crisis of 1979-80. The media, in an attempt to explain the ideology of the Ayatollah to a Western audience, described it as "a fundamentalist version of Islam". So Islamic fundamentalism was a merging of religious teaching and social revolution, and this idea has now been carried back to Christianity - at least in the eyes of an onlooking world.

Now, therefore, some Christian theologians refer pejoratively as "fundamentalist" to any Christian thinking or plan of action which they see as too literal-minded and with the potential to rock the boat. On wonders what would they have said of Jesus Christ and the twelve Apostles? The persistent criticisms which they (and non-Christians) level at fundamentalist evangelicals are triumphalism (they make simplistic claims which they cannot prove) and selectivity (they are happy to be literal-minded about Jesus' miracles, but not about Christians sharing all things in common).

The key issue, as I would see it, is open-mindedness. Barry Morgan, Archbishop of Wales, puts it helpfully: The new fundamentalism of our age leads to the language of expulsion and exclusivity, of extremism and polarisation, and to the claim that, because God is on our side, he is not on yours. If we, as Christians, reach the point where we are no longer able to question, to "test all things and hold fast to that which is good" (1 Thessalonians 5:21), then our particular brand of fundamentalism is teetering on the edge of the very idealistic extremism we might condemn in others. A sorry state indeed!

On the Trail of Fundamentalism, Part 2

My last post on Christian fundamentalism has generated some discussion. Before returning to A W Tozer's analysis, we need to be sure what actually constitutes fundamentalist Christianity. Do an image search on an internet browser under those words and up come an inglorious succession of caricatures of clichéd tub-thumpers and slightly weird bible-bashers. This is clearly the perception 'out there'. This is as sad as it is uninformed. The origins of modern fundamentalism lie back in the 1890s and an attempt to safeguard the true foundations of Christianity, which had been attacked and eroded from all sides throughout that century. For example, the 1910 General Assembly of the [American] Presbyterian Church distilled the historic faith to "five fundamentals":

* The divine inspiration of the Bible, and therefore its inerrancy;
* The virgin birth of Jesus;
* The belief that Christ's death atoned for sin.
* The bodily resurrection of Jesus.
* The historical reality of Jesus' miracles.

Others added extra stones to these key foundations, principally the belief in Christ's divinity. Conservative, conscientious Christians rallied to these as to a firm rock in a stormy ocean. They became known as "fundamentalists".

As we saw last time in A W Tozer's trenchant analysis, what began as a laudable attempt to stay the tide that was pounding away at Christianity, morphed into a rigid system that regulated all belief - what Tozer calls "the cult of textualism". As Jeffrey O'Rourke commented after my last post, Tozer eloquently sums up the huge danger involved in a rigid, mental reliance on prescribed beliefs.

"The error of textualism is not doctrinal. It is far more subtle than that and much more difficult to discover, but its effects are just as deadly. It assumes, for instance, that if we have the word for a thing we have the thing itself. If it is in the Bible, it is in us. If we have the doctrine, we have the experience. If something was true of Paul, it is of necessity true of us because we accept Paul's epistles as divinely inspired... Assurance of individual salvation is thus no more than a logical conclusion drawn from doctrinal premises, and the resultant experience wholly mental."

John Vagabond's comment on my last post ably shows the process whereby "fundamental-ism" (the correct process of returning to what God actually said and wants done) turns into Fundamentalism (a doctrinal system which allows a self-righteous elite to pass judgement on others): When belief hardens into principle, thereafter into doctrine which people then are willing to defend, textual criticism becomes its own harbinger of destruction.

As Tozer rightly points out, the human mind can endure textualism just so long, before it seeks a way of escape, and this is what I hope to turn to in Part 3.