|
| Christian news worldwide |
 Home |
 Archives |
 Subscriptions |
 Adverts |
 Find a church |
 About us |
 Contact us |
 Site Map |
 PrintableVersion Musical discordAn introduction to the history of church controversies over hymnsControversy in the letters page of EN regarding the new Praise! hymn book has set some historical alarm bells ringing. It seems that there is nothing new under the sun . . . Since the Reformation1 protestant churches have divided, rancorously, over musical matters with depressing regularity. At different times, all manner of issues have caused bitter dispute. Often a conservative old guard opposed 'dangerous innovations'. Usually the dangerous innovation soon became general practice, and the oceans of print spilled over its introduction were completely forgotten. Below are listed some of the arguments that have raged over singing in church down the centuries. - Congregational singing is unbiblical because it includes women and unbelievers The end of the seventeenth century saw the Calvinistic Baptist community in London bitterly split over congregational singing. Opponents said that women should be silent in the churches, and it was wrong to allow unregenerate people to praise God. They opposed any congregational singing, whether of psalms or hymns. Insults were hurled both ways. Churches divided.2 Benjamin Keach cautiously introduced a hymn at the close of the Lord's Supper at Horsleydown soon after its formation in 1672. He only dared introduce hymns at the end of Sunday services in 1691, but furious opposition resulted. One member (Isaac Marlow, a prosperous jeweller) distributed hostile pamphlets, wrote 11 books on the issue, and thought those who wanted congregational singing were 'book-burning papists.'3 - Psalms onlyFollowing Calvin, many held that singing anything of human composition was a violation of Divine worship. Isaac Watts famously objected to the way that 'Psalms only' condemned Christians to praise God with 'confessions of sin you never committed, with complaints of sorrow which you never felt; cursing such enemies as you never had; giving thanks for such victories as you never obtained; or leading you to speak ... of things, places and people you never knew.'4 His Hymns & Spiritual Songs (1707) led to the transformation of public worship. Particular Baptists and Congregationalists gradually adopted hymn-singing during the late 17th and early 18th century-the process was not always peaceful. Similarly bitter controversies on this issue beset churches in America throughout the 18th century, but by the beginning of the 19th century the majority used hymns as well as psalms. - Using pre-composed hymns leads to formalism, like using a liturgy Some held that singing in the New Testament was an extraordinary gift - like tongues, not for today. Some said that using written hymns would quench the Spirit-it was a liturgical invention that would undo the Reformation.5 Similarly, some believed that using rhyme and metre were both 'carnal formalities'.6 - Hymn books discriminate against the unlearnedDuring the 17th century, the provision of hymn books for congregations was often too expensive, and anyway many people could not read. Hence the widespread practice of 'lining out'-one or two lines were read out at a time, and then the congregation would sing them. This was tedious to say the least. But when hymnbooks were introduced, they were viciously opposed by conservative forces in the church. It was said that 'lining out' helped fix the words in the memory. During the first part of the 18th century churches divided over 'lined out' versus 'regular' singing. Hymns were 'lined out' in the Porthleven Wesleyan Chapel in Cornwall as late as 1886.7 - Different tunes for different hymns are dangerously worldly In the 1770s, Hitchin Baptist Church only allowed Watts's hymns to be sung 'on condition that every hymn in the book was sung to the same tune, no matter what its metre.'8 One deacon commented that the tunes provided in Watt's book were 'too light and airy.' Others felt it was 'worldly' to use any set tune - the congregation should just sing whatever tune each one wanted, at what speed they wanted, no matter whether every one ended at the same time or not! - The hymns of the Wesley brothers are dangerously Arminian Sheer vitriol characterised some of the debate between Calvinists and Arminians during the 18th century. Toplady called John Wesley 'a tadpole in divinity.' Wesley called Toplady 'the most rancorous hater of the gospel system.' Yet few could resist the sheer spiritual force of Charles Wesley's hymns. Even Toplady placed Charles Wesley's 'Jesus lover of my Soul' right next to his own Rock of Ages in his 1776 hymnal. - Organs are adjuncts of poperyBy the 19th century, most non-conformist congregations had accepted the principle of congregational singing (hymn-singing was only formally approved by the Anglican Church in 1820). Although some argued that it was 'unlawful' to use any instrument, many chapels used a variety of instruments to accompany singing-bass viols, flutes, fiddles and so on. The result could be robust to say the least, and during the 19th century organs were often introduced to replace what had sometimes become an ad hoc but over exuberant orchestra. Furious controversy resulted.9 Many people seriously and fervently believed that introduction of an organ signified the beginning of the slippery slope down to Rome. Ironically, by the end of the next century, organs had become a traditional part of nonconformist worship, but when some churches wanted to introduce other musical instruments this was seen as the 'slippery slope' towards wild charismania. - Sankey type songs bring the music hall into the sanctuary Sankey published his Sacred Songs & Solos in 1872, which was fiercely criticised for bringing the music hall into the sanctuary. Many churches would only use it in mid-week meetings. By the end of the 20th century of course some of the songs had been incorporated into 'mainstream' hymn books. 10 The slippery slope?Nonconformist discussion of music and hymnody has all too often been characterised by a lack of proportion, wild accusations against fellow-believers, misrepresentation of motives and dire predictions of 'slippery slopes'. It seems that those who have proposed change of any kind have always been accused of betraying the status quo. At different times church meetings have divided over whether congregations should sing at all, whether they should sing hymns at all, whether to use hymn books at all, whether there should be any musical accompaniment at all and if so what it should be. As Isaac Marlow zealously distributed pamphlets and laboured over his plethora of books opposing all congregational singing, he sincerely believed he was standing for truth against error. With the benefit of hindsight we would wish he had used his intellect, wealth and influence on a more positive cause. Comic or tragic?Some of the debate would seem comic if it were not so tragic. Bizarre ironies abound. In the 18th century proponents of hymn books were radical ('keep to lining out!'); while today they are conservative ('you can't raise your hands when you're holding a book!'). In the 18th century those who wanted to introduce set words or tunes were radical ('it will quench the Spirit, let each one sing his own tune!'); while today the radicals are those who advocate the freedom for individuals to sing in the Spirit as they feel led. In the 19th century, defenders of the jolly chapel band were conservative, and proponents of the newfangled organ were radical; but in our day defenders of the organ are traditionalists, while proponents of music groups are radical. Even a perfunctory sketch of a few of the debates that have raged regarding music suggest that we should try to conduct such discussions with a charitable spirit, a due measure of proportion and a sense of humour. Sharon JamesReferences: © Evangelicals Now - January 2001 |
|
