Servantofthesovereign.files.wordpress.com



Paul’s Theology of Congregational SingingBy Taylor DrummondA person who gives [the gift of music] some thought and yet does not regard music as a marvelous creation of God, must be a clodhopper indeed and does not deserve to be called a human being; he should be permitted to hear nothing but the braying of asses and the grunting of hogs.Martin Luther, from his Forward to Georg Rhau’s Symphoniae“[Concerning music], there is scarcely in the world anything which is more able to turn or bend this way and that the morals of men.”John Calvin, from his preface to The Genevan PsalterIntroductionThere are few topics which can produce more controversy in evangelical churches than the issue of congregational singing. Accordingly, much of the discussion over the forms appropriate for use in congregational singing produces more heat than light. The purpose of this paper is to examine Paul’s theology of congregational singing and to apply his teaching to the practice of the church. I will argue that Paul’s theology of congregational singing is profoundly shaped by the horizontal axis of worship which has four profound implications for our practice of congregational singing – namely, that what we sing must be meaning-full, true, clear, and appropriate for corporate worship.Many modern Christians may be surprised to hear that Paul wrote about congregational singing given that so much of the rhetoric surrounding the topic has relegated every issue to a matter of preference or opinion, yet Paul did indeed address it. For the purposes of this paper I will assume the regulative principle of worship (RPW), namely, that we must worship God only in the manner that He has prescribed in His word. The Bible functions as the positive regulation for the elements of worship, therefore exegesis and interpretation of key biblical texts must precede practical decisions about how to worship God. It is toward that end, therefore, that I will precede to offer an exegesis of the three texts in which Paul directly addresses congregational singing: Colossians 3:16, Ephesians 5:19, and 1 Corinthians 14:15, 26.Colossians 3:16Structure. The macro structure of Colossians 3:16 is easy to discern, Paul gives a command followed by three adverbial participles. However, that is where the agreement ends, for nearly every other point (the placement of the prepositional phrases, the function of the participles, the relationship of the participles to one another, the content of what is to be sung, etc.) is debated by commentators and various views will be given as each part of the verse is discussed.? λ?γο? το? Χριστο?. In all of his writings, Paul only uses this phrase here. It is most likely equivalent to “the word of the Lord” which he uses in 1 Thess 1:18, 4:15, 2 Thess 3:1, and 1 Tim 6:3. The choice of Χριστο? instead of κυριο? is most likely stylistic in order to create a parallel with ? ε?ρ?νη το? Χριστο? in Col 3:15. Most commentators take the genitive το? Χριστο? as an objective genitive, that is, the word or message about Christ – though some argue that we should not press the decision as Paul may have been purposefully ambiguous here. However, the objective genitive does not rule out the subjective meaning but encompasses it – Christ spoke about Himself and His words reveal His character, therefore the words spoken by Christ are also words about Christ and cannot be excluded from the meaning of the phrase ? λ?γο? το? Χριστο?.?νοικε?τω ?ν ?μ?ν πλουσ?ω?. The imperative is the main verb of this verse upon which the rest is dependent. Paul’s command to the Colossians is that they would let the message about Christ, the gospel, dwell among them rightly. The adverb πλουσ?ω? communicates the idea of abundance and fullness (cf. 1 Tim 6:17, Titus 3:6, 2 Pet 1:11). Paul’s command is not that the word might barely dwell in them but that it would dwell in them in all its richness and fullness. The prepositional phrase ?ν ?μ?ν could be translated “in you” or “among you,” and we should not press the translation “among” on the basis of the plural pronoun because Paul has elsewhere used the second person plural pronoun to speak of Christ dwelling “in your hearts” (Eph 3:17) and of the Holy Spirit dwelling “in you” (Rom 8:11).?ν π?σ? σοφ??. This phrase modifies the following two participles and not the preceding imperative, as most commentators agree cf. Col 1:28. It indicates the manner in which the church is to teach and admonish one another.διδ?σκοντε? κα? νουθετο?ντε? ?αυτο??. Various translations and commentators take these two participles (along with ?δοντε?) in various ways. NT scholar Barry Joslin has identified four distinct translation groups 1) The ESV, NET, and NAB take all three participles as coordinate with each other and not imperatival and move “singing” forward in the verse. 2) The NIV (1984), HCSB (and now CSB) do not take the participles as imperatival, and they insert “and” before “singing,” and move “singing” before “psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs.” 3) The NRSV, NLT, RSV and NJB all take the participles as imperatival and move “singing” forward. 4) The NASB, KJV, NKJV, and NIV 2011 all take the participles as circumstantial and not imperatival and do not move “singing” forward in the verse. These diverse translations show the basic two exegetical issues (the function of the participles and the relation of the third participle to the first two) as well as various ways of deciding the issues. I shall take up the first issue here and the second when I deal with ?δοντε?.There are essentially four different ways of taking the participles διδ?σκοντε? and νουθετο?ντε?: imperatival, attendant circumstance, result, or means. The first option, though preferred by some translations and commentators, is unlikely because such participles are very rare in the NT and are grammatically independent of any governing verb. The second option, though much more common in the NT, does not fit the construction in this verse since attendant circumstance participles are always aorist and precede the verb they modify whereas these participles are present tense and follow it. The third and fourth options have more merit than the first two and are both grammatically possible and at least one major commentator adopts the third and many the fourth. Though both are possible, the fourth option (means) is most likely given the relationship between the idea of being filled with the gospel and the actions of teaching and admonishing. In the first century church to whom Paul wrote, much of the congregation would have been illiterate, and even for those that could read, books were so expensive as to render them far too expensive for the average Christian to own. The Christians to whom Paul was writing did not each have their own copy of the Bible, and so they could not “let the word of Christ dwell in [them] richly” by reading their private copies as modern Christians can. They were dependent on the public reading and teaching of God’s word as the means by which they could know it and have it dwell in them. Finally, Paul also used the same two participles to unambiguously convey means and not result in Colossians 1:28 where they modify καταγγελλω.Moving on, though the pronoun ?αυτο?? is technically reflexive, it can be used reciprocally to mean “one another” and as such is a synonym of αλληλων. This is very significant since it brings to the fore the horizontal axis of congregational singing and places the congregation as both the subject who teaches and the object who is taught – both by means of congregational singing.ψαλμο?? ?μνοι? ?δα?? πνευματικα??. There is debate over the function of these three nouns in the verse. Some commentators take them as modifying the following participle (?δοντε?) and conveying either means or content. Others take them as modifying the preceding participles and conveying means. The later view is preferable for three reasons: First, the parallel with Ephesians 5:19 clearly takes the three nouns as modifying the preceding participle and conveying means. Second, if they were taken with the following participle it would break the symmentry of the verse, i.e. two participial phrases beginning with ?ν. Third, datives naturally express means; if they went with the following participle we would expect them to be accusative direct objects. The significance of this decision is that it orients our expectations of congregational singing toward edification and teaching, not subjective emotional experience. There is also debate over precisely what ψαλμο??, ?μνοι? and ?δα?? mean. Scholarly commentators generally fall into two different camps, those who make distinctions between the terms and those who do not. Since this list is virtually identical to that in Eph 5:19 (with the exception of the conjunctive between each noun), I shall deal with the issue here for both verses. The discussion is made more difficult by the fact that Paul uses ωδη and υμνο? only in these two verses, and ψαλμο? only in these verses and 1 Cor 14:26. Paul’s use of the verbal forms does not provide much help either, as he uses αδω in only Eph 5:19 and Col 3:16, uses ψαλλω in Rom 15:9, 1 Cor 14:15, and Eph 5:19, and never uses υμνεω.Those who argue for distinctions between the terms generally define ψαλμο? as OT psalms, υμνο? as songs of praise, and οδη as the broadest term referring to songs in general. Those who argue for the essential similarity of the three nouns generally point out that they were all used in the psalm superscriptions, and that elsewhere in the NT the terms appear to be synonymous. John Murry even goes so far as to argue that these three terms refer only to the book of Psalms.A mediating position between these two extremes is the wisest. Those who argue that ψαλμο?, υμνο?, and οδη refer to three separate categories push the distinctions too far and do not do justice to the LXX’s usage of these terms in the superscriptions of the Psalms. On the other side, some go too far in stressing their synonymy to make it no different than if Paul had said, “psalms, psalms, and psalms.” Rather, we should see these three terms as overlapping yet distinct terms which are not mutually exclusive but which emphasize different aspects of congregational singing. The argument that these three terms refer only to the book of psalms fails on three accounts. First, it makes too much of the LXX’s translation of the superscriptions and does not do justice to the rest of the LXX’s use of the terms. Second, it fails to interpret these words in context – as the means by which believers teach and admonish one another so that the word about Christ would dwell in them. That is, the scope of these three nouns cannot be less than the scope of the “word of Christ,” because they are the instrument by which it is to dwell in believers, and since the word of Christ cannot be interpreted as only referring to the book of Psalms, neither can these three nouns. Third, such an interpretation makes it impossible for Paul to refer to songs outside of the book of Psalms – for what word would he use since every word available to him is to be interpreted as referring to the book of Psalms?There is disagreement over the function of πνευματικο?, whether it should modify all three nouns or only ?δα??. Those who argue that it modifies all three point out that the fact that it agrees in gender only with the last noun can be explained by the fact that adjectives can be attracted to the gender of their closest head noun. I take it to modify only the final noun because ?δα?? is the most generic of the three terms and can refer to non-religious songs, therefore Paul felt it necessary to specify the type of songs to which he was referring. One last note on the meaning of πνευματικο?. Some commentators take it to mean “Spirit-inspired.” This is an unwarranted translation and seems to be motivated by the desire to make all three nouns in the list refer to only the canonical psalms. Yet when one surveys Paul’s usage of πνευματικο?, one finds that he generally does not use it to mean “Spirit-inspired” but “characterized by the redemptive historical and eschatological epoch of the Spirit” (Rom 15:27, 1 Cor 2:13, 15, 15:44, 46, Eph 1:3, Col 1:9). Therefore, when Paul tells the Colossians to use ?δα?? πνευματικα??, he is instructing them to use songs characterized by and suited to their New Covenant situation as people upon whom the risen and ascended Christ has poured out the Spirit (Acts 2:33).?ν [τ?] χ?ριτι ?δοντε? ?ν τα?? καρδ?αι? ?μ?ν τ? θε?. This last verse presents us with three issues especially relevant to the topic of congregational singing. First, I will deal with the relationship of ?δοντε? to the preceding two participles. The NRSV, RSV, NJB, NLT, CSB, and Murray Harris all interpret ?δοντε? as coordinate with διδ?σκοντε? and νουθετο?ντε?. However, O’Brien points out that if ?δοντε? were coordinate with the preceding participles as the third in the list, we would expect a και connecting it to what precedes, yet as it stands Paul employed asyndeton. We should, therefore, interpret ?δοντε? as a participle of means subordinate to the preceding participles. In other words, Paul instructed the Colossians to teach and admonish by singing. This is in keeping with the context since he already instructed them to teach and admonish by means of psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs.Second, the prepositional phrase ?ν τα?? καρδ?αι? most naturally modifies the participle ?δοντε? and should be interpreted instrumentally, not locally. That is, the idea is not to sing “in your hearts” but “with your hearts.” This does not mean we are to only engage in silent praise because for Paul “the heart” is synonymous for the whole inner person as it is in Colossians (cf. 2:2, 3:15, 3:22, 4:8). We could paraphrase Paul by saying “singing with wholehearted sincerity to God.” I will draw out later the significance of this as it relates to the clarity and content of what we sing in corporate worship.Third, the object of congregational singing is τ? θε?. This is interesting because Paul has already specified an object for teaching and admonishing, namely, “one another.” Yet here he has said that we are to sing to God as well. Pao sums up the dual object of congregational singing nicely, “To their fellow members of the body of Christ, believers are to teach and admonish one another with psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs. To God, they are to sing these songs.”Ephesians 5:18b-19Since Eph 5:18b-19 and Col 3:16 are so similar, I will limit my comments to their differences. The first major difference is the governing imperative, in the place of ? λ?γο? το? Χριστο? ?νοικε?τω ?ν ?μ?ν πλουσ?ω? Paul here says πληρο?σθε ?ν πνε?ματι. At first, the difference may seem great – after all the words are entirely different – yet when one realizes the close connection between the Spirit and the Word in Paul, particularly in Ephesians (cf. 6:17), the difference does not seem that great after all. Paul’s emphasis in Ephesians is Spirit-filled living, in Colossians it is Word-conformed living. This can be seen by the fact that Paul uses πνευμα in Ephesians fourteen times, and in Colossians only twice.This leads to the second difference, the participles. Paul follows the imperative with five participles instead of three: λαλο?ντε?, ?δοντε?, ψ?λλοντε?, ε?χαριστο?ντε?, and ?ποτασσ?μενοι. Of these five, only ?δοντε? is used in Colossians. In the place of διδ?σκοντε? and νουθετο?ντε?, Paul here uses the much more generic λαλο?ντε?, “speaking.” This does not change the fact that ψαλμο?? κα? ?μνοι? κα? ?δα?? πνευματικα?? are all datives of means modifying the preceding participle, for “speaking” a song is used elsewhere in Scripture (Deut 31:20, 1 Sam 22:1).The first two differences lead to the third difference: the function of the participles. While I argued that the participles in Col 3:16 were instrumental (expressing means), the participles in Eph 5:19 are best taken as participles of result. Wallace expresses the reason for this well, “Means fits well with the grammar of the passage. But it may not fit well with the theology of the Pauline epistles – i.e., it would be almost inconceivable to see this text suggesting the way in which one is to be Spirit-filled is by a five-step, partially mechanical formula! Result may fit well both syntactically and exegetically.” These participles, then, are not the means by which one is filled with the Spirit, that is, Spirit filling is not the result of performing these actions. Rather it is the basis for these actions and the fountain from which they flow.However, despite the different functions of the participles, the content of what is spoken, i.e. the psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs, is expressed by the dative of means and conveys the means by which we are to speak to one another and, by extension, to sing and make melody to one another. Just as with Colossians 3:16, the focus of Paul’s instruction in Ephesians 5:19 is horizontal (though he does not forget the vertical axis).1 Corinthians 14:15, 261 Corinthians 14 continues Paul’s treatment of the spiritual gifts which he began in 1 Corinthians 11, and most of the chapter is dedicated to the use of tongues and prophecy. Throughout it, Paul consistently places prophecy above speaking in uninterpreted tongues for one main reason – prophecy edifies the assembly of God’s people, the church, whereas uninterpreted tongues do not. The difference between the two is that prophecy is intelligible and uninterpreted tongues is not. Paul sets up the contrast between prophecy and tongues in verses 2-4, where he clearly prioritizes prophecy over tongues specifically because prophecy is intelligible and able to edify. This is relevant for the topic of this paper because the standard of edification by which Paul encourages prophecy and forbids uninterpreted tongues is the same standard he applies to congregational singing in verses 15 and 26.Verse 15 functions as Paul’s conclusion to his prior teaching, indicated by the question: τ? ο?ν ?στιν. In verses 6-12 Paul had just explained the contrast between intelligible prophecy and unintelligible tongues using two illustrations – that of a musical instrument and that of a foreigner. He compared speaking in uninterpreted tongues to playing a musical instrument without distinct notes and to speaking a foreign language one’s audience cannot understand – in both of these instances his indictment is the same: it is unintelligible (v.9). Instead, Paul exhorts the Corinthians to exercise their spiritual gifts in an intelligible way in order to edify the assembly. In verses 13-19 Paul applies this teaching to the assembly gathered together for corporate worship and in verse 15 he applies it to congregational singing in particular. In verses 14 and 15 Paul draws a contrast between praying and singing with the spirit and with mind. David Garland outlines three possible meanings of πνε?μ? μου: 1) the nonrational part of Paul’s psychological makeup, 2) Paul’s spiritual gift, or 3) the Holy Spirit. Most modern commentators take the first option. I agree with them that the first option makes the best sense of the text, but I disagree with Garland that the πνευμα is nonrational. Paul, then, is laying a contrast between inward singing in which the spirit is fruitful and outward speaking in which the spirit and the mind are fruitful, and the fruit in view is the edification of the assembly. This verse is significant because Paul applies the same principle to congregational singing that he does to prayer and speaking in tongues – it should be with the spirit and the mind (i.e. intelligible) so that the whole congregation is edified. In this respect, prayer and singing (and tongues) are governed by the same principle of intelligibility in corporate worship. Theologian David Peterson says, “Prayer and praise…must be conducted in church in a way that will edify the congregation. They cannot be purely private, God-directed activities when others are present.”In verses 20-26 Paul gives a very interesting discussion about the purpose of prophecy and tongues. However, two things are of special significance to us. First, Paul labels the use of intelligible worship as a hallmark of mature thinking, with the implication that the use of unintelligible worship is a hallmark of immature thinking. Second, he considers what would happen if ungifted persons (?δι?ται) or unbelievers (?πιστοι) should enter the worship service while the congregation is speaking in tongues or prophesying. The first instance results in confusion and derision against the people of God, the second in conviction, examination, worship, and confession. This is the power of intelligible worship. Verse 26 sums up the whole argument up until now: when the people of God gather together for corporate worship – whether they are singing, giving thanks, teaching, speaking in tongues, or interpreting tongues – it all must be done for the edification of the assembly. There is some debate over the nature of ψαλμο? in verse 26. Because nothing is said of it beyond its inclusion in the list, we should not be dogmatic about its nature. That being said, Thiselton argues that there is a strong possibility that it was an Old Testament psalm, and at the very least there is no reason to think that the song would have to be spontaneous and unprepared. What is certain is that there is a radically corporate focus to gathered worship – it is not private or individual, but outward focused and edification driven. I agree with David Garland, who says concerning Paul’s teaching in 1 Corinthians 14, “Edification is the benchmark by which to measure what goes on in…public worship.”ImplicationsI have shown how Paul’s theology of congregational singing is profoundly shaped toward edification, that is, the horizontal axis of worship. To be sure, we are to sing with thanksgiving in our hearts to God, but for Paul the vertical axis of congregational singing is almost assumed and the horizontal is stressed. Therefore, I suggest that Paul’s teaching in Colossians 3:16, Ephesians 5:19, and 1 Corinthians 14:15, 26 has at least four implications for congregational singing. I will put these four implications as four criteria by which to evaluate songs for singing. 1) The song must be meaning-full, 2) It must be true, 3) It must be clear, 4) It must be appropriate for corporate worship. I will briefly explore each criterion and show where it is grounded in Paul’s teaching as well as its implication for worship today.First, the song must be meaning-full, that is, it must be full of meaning. If we are to edify one another by teaching one another in song, we must sing songs that are full of meaning. This seems like a truism, but we live in an age where songs sung in corporate worship have less and less meaning. It is impossible to fulfill Paul’s paradigm for congregational singing with a song that focuses heavily on “oh’s” and “la, la, la’s.” Furthermore, if we are to sing in our hearts – that is, to mean what we sing – what we sing must have meaning. The lack of meaning can be seen in the abundance of the use of repetition in many contemporary worship songs. It is rare to find a popular contemporary worship song that has three substantial verses, let alone five or six as do many psalms and hymns. In order for the word of Christ to dwell richly in us through congregational singing, we must sing songs that are rich with meaning.Second, the songs sung in our corporate worship must be true. This too appears to be a truism, but it needs stating. This criterion is a direct application of Paul’s teaching in Colossians 3:16 that we are to let the word of Christ dwell in us by means of teaching and admonishing one another, by means of congregational song. If songs are means of teaching one another, then it is as important that they be true teaching as it is that the teaching from the pulpit be true. False songs are false teachers. In fact, the rule of lex orandi lex credendi implies that what we sing is even more important because the act of singing and the power of music drives the theology of what we sing into our hearts and shapes what we believe. Indeed, the standard for truth in congregational song should be as high as the standard for creeds – for both are confessed corporately by the congregation. Indeed, Scottish politician Andrew Fletcher said truly, “Give me the making of a people's songs, and I care not who makes its laws.” We might say, “Give me the making of a church’s songs, and I care not who writes its systematic theologies.”Paul’s instruction to “sing with your heart” has implications at just this point, for we must be able to sing congregational songs wholeheartedly if we are to obey his command. Christians are not beholden to agree with everything their pastors say. If I disagree with my pastor on any given Sunday, I can simply make a mental note of that – I am not required to consent to every minor point he ever makes. However, congregational singing is different in that I am the one teaching by means of it because I am confessing with my own voice that these things are true. Unless I make myself out to be a liar, I must be able to wholeheartedly agree with everything I am teaching – if the song is untrue, I am at best teaching falsely (if I believe the falsehood) and at worst teaching falsely and lying (if I do not believe the falsehood yet still teach it in song).Third, what we sing must be clear. This is where the teaching on intelligibility in 1 Corinthians 14:15, 26 is very relevant, for it is becoming increasingly popular in some churches to sing songs in corporate worship which are almost completely unintelligible. I suggest that there are at least three ways churches can violate this teaching in their congregational singing. First, we can violate it by using a language foreign to the congregation. This would be a clear violation of Paul’s teaching and in direct contradiction to his instruction to use a known language. However, since Vatican II when the Roman Catholic Church permitted using the vernacular language in the Mass, this kind of violation is hardly seen. The second way we can violate Paul’s principle of intelligibility is by singing songs in the vernacular that are too complex or archaic for the congregation to understand. This violation might be slightly more common than the first but barely so. This violation is more than just using “thee” and “thou,” the vast majority of English speakers know what they mean, even if they are uncommon. It would be possible to attempt to sing poetry that is too complex for the average congregant to understand after a few readings, but I have never seen that done. The third way we can violate it is by singing songs that are too vague and ambiguous to mean much at all, and as such they are unintelligible to the congregation. In my estimation, this is far and above the greatest way Paul’s teaching on intelligibility is violated in the evangelical church today. There is not space to demonstrate that claim sufficiently here, but the reader may see for himself what I mean if he takes any popular contemporary worship song and writes it out as prose. The first thing he will likely notice is the bare minimum of punctuation, often leaving reader uncertain as to where a line of thought begins and ends. Furthermore, there is almost a complete disregard for the basic rules of grammar including the distinction between dependent clauses and independent clauses (with the subordination of former to the latter) and the necessity of clear antecedents for pronouns. The final way in which many contemporary worship songs fail to meet Paul’s requirements for intelligibility is in their use of metaphor. In language, metaphors, similes, and figurative language in general is meant to make the meaning of one thing clear by comparing it to another better known thing. Yet in many contemporary songs the images confuse and obfuscate rather than clarify.Fourth, what we sing must be appropriate for corporate worship. A song may have meaning that is true and intelligible – yet still be inappropriate for corporate worship because it focuses on individual realities not shared by the whole congregation. What we sing must be catholic to every member of the congregation and not encourage a modern individualistic understanding of worship because the purpose is to edify the whole congregation. A contemporary song that encourage individualism is Chris Tomlin’s “Good Good Father” with its emphasis on hearing the “tender whisper of love in the dead of night” – it is hard to imagine a more individualistic line than that. This criterion even cuts against some gospel songs, such as “I come to the Garden Alone” by Charles Miles, and classic hymns such as “Amazing Grace.”ConclusionPaul’s teaching on congregational singing is profoundly shaped by the horizontal axis of teaching in worship and his desire to see the church edified. I have shown four implications for this drawn from the exegesis of key texts but many more could be given. Paul’s teaching has implications for the loudness of the music, the function of praise teams, the lighting of the sanctuary, the bodily positions of the worshipers, and much more. Overall, our congregational singing will be shaped by the purpose which we assign to it – Paul has assigned it the purpose of edification, teaching, admonishing. It is our job to conform our singing practices to the inspired purpose which God has given and not to one of our own imagination. If we do this, we will have worship that is meaning-full, true, clear, and corporate.I understand and have not violated the seminary’s statement on plagiarism. ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download