There is some merit to this although I have no use whatsoever for the Pelagian baptismal regeneration heresy of a bunch of waterdogs! I do believe it is important to keep CONGREGATIONAL worship at the forefront and a minimalist approach to musical accompaniment often helps this. I do like the congregational singing of some of these Churches though.
If you want to do any further in-depth study of the perspective of those who prohibit instruments in corporate worship on the basis of the lack of authoritative warrant in the New Testament, especially those who believe such from the reformed tradition, you can Google something known as the regulative principle. From that rule, or standard of in biblical interpretation, it all boils down to whether Scriptures explicitly commands something and their opinion is, if it’s not explicitly commanded that it’s not warranted. The other perspective is known as the normative principle, which is what you will find in most evangelical churches, particularly of those the Baptist variety.
I’ll admit, I was unaware of this musical Catholic heritage until reading the article. However, I did know that in many American churches in the late 1800s/early 1900s, the use of pianos in worship were highly controversial due to the legacy of them being played in saloons and whatnot. The church sanctuary was considered a place too reverent for the use of a piano.
Understanding that the singing and making melody described here is internal and private, (as well as the speaking), and that it is contrasted with drunkenness, if it has any implication for corporate worship, it would suggest the demeanor thereof, which would be sober and temperate, as opposed to the wildly exuberant manner of the dithyramb.
On the other hand, it shows that issue of church music is a moving target and there’s really no way of knowing who’s right and who’s wrong. Personally, it boils down to a smell test for me. If I’m in a church with what feels like more of a rock concert Hollywood production than a true praise of God, then it doesn’t pass the smell test in my book.
The quote from Luther is spurious, as apparently it occurs in none of his writings. Luther himself was skilled on the lute and a strong singer, he desired all Christians to be instructed in music, and he helped make numerous innovations to make church music accessible to the congregation--notably the chorale, a sacred Latin hymn translated into German and set to well-known sacred or secular melodies. As I recall, the Lutheran chorale is the origin of the modern SATB arrangement for choral music.
They're not allowed to do what Psalm 66 says to do either.
What do you mean when you claim this singing is “private”?
When you say John Calvin and his contemporaries felt that way, was it because he/they viewed it as just unbecoming and irreverent, or did they view it as a sin to use instruments in worship?
Great info…thanks for sharing. I guess I kind of, philosophically, approach modern CCM in churches this way. Most of it is usually not my cup of tea, but I also realize that, as you’ve pointed out, music in church has evolved over hundreds of years. What is taken as perfectly acceptable in even the most conservative churches today, at some point in history, would have been controversial at best, and perhaps blasphemous at worst. Anyway, just some rambling thoughts of mine.