When They Had Sung A Hymn

[subllibrm]

Somewhere I heard Fanny got paid a dollar a song.

Heh. See, it is all about the dollar. Or occasionally two dollars.

Of course, that was flat rate.  She was probably very underpaid in terms of the royalties she deserved.

Coulda been worse, they coulda paid her in loonies! 

 

[Ransom]

Coulda been worse, they coulda paid her in loonies! 

You kidding? She could have melted them down for the copper.

 

[subllibrm]

Coulda been worse, they coulda paid her in loonies! 

You kidding? She could have melted them down for the copper.

;D

FACT: I have a loony and a twoony in my pocket right now.

 

[Ransom]

FACT: I have a loony and a twoony in my pocket right now.

Fact: I spent all mine yesterday, so all I have in my pocket are our funny plastic bills.

 

[brianb]

Matthew 26:30 clearly speaks to the earliest church singing a hymn.  Ephesians 5:19 tells us to sing hymns.  Colossians 3:16 tells us to teach and encourage each other with hymns.  Historical documents from the first century testify of churches singing hymns.

Yet, the "Rock the Flock" crowd wishes us to believe that singing in church was a recent invention that happened during the middle ages by fringe groups of churches which primarily copied the music of the culture.  By this teaching, we are supposed to immediately agree that all music in church should match the popular styles of music in a sin-filled culture.

By the presentation of a couple of documents from the middle ages, are we really to ignore the account of Scripture and deny that Christ Himself sang hymns?  Are we supposed to believe that music in church is a human invention that must either be completely shunned or broadly accepted as any desire we have?  If we are going to use history as our guide, why not go back in history to the founding of the church, rather than the corrupt church?  Why not see what the founder of the church did and follow that as our guide?

Based on a literal exegesis of the text I believe it was impromptu without the aid of a song leader or worship pastor though it's possible someone may have started the first few words.

 

[Bruh]

EDIT .... I did a google search and ... wow .... 1 million dollars!

And? The aforementioned Fanny Crosby sold 100 million copies of her hymns. I imagine that if she hadn't been exploited by her publishers (the copyright conventions of her day favoured composers over lyricists), she would have been quite wealthy. (Her lyrical output was also not strictly sacred, so she was also an early successful "crossover" artist.)

Or she wasn't in it for the dollar.

 

[Bruh]

Coulda been worse, they coulda paid her in loonies! 

You kidding? She could have melted them down for the copper.

You both sound like Tony Hutson.

 

[Bruh]

Coulda been worse, they coulda paid her in loonies! 

You kidding? She could have melted them down for the copper.

;D

FACT: I have a loony and a twoony in my pocket right now.

Fact: TMac wouldn't perform a concert for that.

 

[sword]

Coulda been worse, they coulda paid her in loonies! 

You kidding? She could have melted them down for the copper.

;D
FACT: I have a loony and a twoony in my pocket right now.

You might be from Detroit, Mi or Buffalo-Niagara, NY if...

 

[subllibrm]

Coulda been worse, they coulda paid her in loonies! 

You kidding? She could have melted them down for the copper.

;D
FACT: I have a loony and a twoony in my pocket right now.

You might be from Detroit, Mi or Buffalo-Niagara, NY if...

North of those.

 

[Binaca Chugger]

Matthew 26:30 clearly speaks to the earliest church singing a hymn.  Ephesians 5:19 tells us to sing hymns.  Colossians 3:16 tells us to teach and encourage each other with hymns.  Historical documents from the first century testify of churches singing hymns.

Yet, the "Rock the Flock" crowd wishes us to believe that singing in church was a recent invention that happened during the middle ages by fringe groups of churches which primarily copied the music of the culture.  By this teaching, we are supposed to immediately agree that all music in church should match the popular styles of music in a sin-filled culture.

By the presentation of a couple of documents from the middle ages, are we really to ignore the account of Scripture and deny that Christ Himself sang hymns?  Are we supposed to believe that music in church is a human invention that must either be completely shunned or broadly accepted as any desire we have?  If we are going to use history as our guide, why not go back in history to the founding of the church, rather than the corrupt church?  Why not see what the founder of the church did and follow that as our guide?

Based on a literal exegesis of the text I believe it was impromptu without the aid of a song leader or worship pastor though it's possible someone may have started the first few words.

The singing at the Supper may have been impromptu, but with Jesus leading everything happening in the room, there is some validity to the assumption that he started the song which was joined in by the others present.  The command to sing is simply that - a command to sing.  I guess this could have been intended as having such a state of peace that the songs naturally flow from our heart and mouth throughout the day at random times.  Still, this is singing.  Singing in the church was not a new invention of the middle ages.  The music of worship in church was not established by the bar room choruses of 1500 Germany.  Thus, pointing to a few songs written in this time period is not ultimate justification for music in church that is modeled after the vice of modern American culture.

 

[NorrinRadd]

Matthew 26:30 clearly speaks to the earliest church singing a hymn.  Ephesians 5:19 tells us to sing hymns.  Colossians 3:16 tells us to teach and encourage each other with hymns.  Historical documents from the first century testify of churches singing hymns.

Yet, the "Rock the Flock" crowd wishes us to believe that singing in church was a recent invention that happened during the middle ages by fringe groups of churches which primarily copied the music of the culture.  By this teaching, we are supposed to immediately agree that all music in church should match the popular styles of music in a sin-filled culture.

By the presentation of a couple of documents from the middle ages, are we really to ignore the account of Scripture and deny that Christ Himself sang hymns?  Are we supposed to believe that music in church is a human invention that must either be completely shunned or broadly accepted as any desire we have?  If we are going to use history as our guide, why not go back in history to the founding of the church, rather than the corrupt church?  Why not see what the founder of the church did and follow that as our guide?

Based on a literal exegesis of the text I believe it was impromptu without the aid of a song leader or worship pastor though it's possible someone may have started the first few words.

The singing at the Supper may have been impromptu, but with Jesus leading everything happening in the room, there is some validity to the assumption that he started the song which was joined in by the others present.  The command to sing is simply that - a command to sing.  I guess this could have been intended as having such a state of peace that the songs naturally flow from our heart and mouth throughout the day at random times.  Still, this is singing.  Singing in the church was not a new invention of the middle ages.  The music of worship in church was not established by the bar room choruses of 1500 Germany.  Thus, pointing to a few songs written in this time period is not ultimate justification for music in church that is modeled after the vice of modern American culture.

Do you have clear and explicit Biblical evidence that "proper" Xian music should not be in the loud, boisterous, multi-instrument celebratory style of Psa. 149-150?

 

[Ransom]

Based on a literal exegesis of the text I believe it was impromptu without the aid of a song leader or The singing at the Supper may have been impromptu, but with Jesus leading everything happening in the room, there is some validity to the assumption that he started the song which was joined in by the others present.

It probably wasn't impromptu. This was a Passover observance, and there were traditions that were followed. The hymn was likely one of Psalms 113-118, which were traditionally sung during Passover. That cycle of Psalms is known as the Hallel, which means "praise to God." Not coincidentally, a song of praise is the definition of a hymn.