Women in Church Music and Church Choirs

CHURCH MUSIC ACCORDING TO THE DIVINELY AND SCRIPTURALLY REVEALED ECCLESIASTICAL POSITION OF WOMEN

Now, where it concerns the question of Church Music, and woman's divinely appointed place within it, the thread makes the following four foundational a-priori assumptions, all of which have always been the historical position of the Church of England for at least the first 350 years of its existence:

1: That 1 Corinthians 14:34/35 and 1 Timothy 2:11/12 are still in full force today exactly as written and exactly as it reads at face-value; and that it absolutely forbids women to PUBLICLY ADDRESS the ASSEMBLY (includes of course, PREACHING, TEACHING, EXHORTATION, LITURGICALLY READING THE SCRIPTURE, LEADING IN PUBLIC PRAYER, PROPHESYING, SPEAKING IN TONGUES, EXORCISM, ...) and/or put forth questions in a voice LOUD and PUBLIC ENOUGH TO PUBLICLY ADDRESS the ASSEMBLY; and that this precept is a universal and perpetual divine law;

2: That neither CONGREGATIONAL SINGING nor DEVOTIONAL RESPONSES are included in the prohibition;

3: That the REASONS for these prohibitions are universal and of natural moral equity, based on the divine order of creation of the sexes, according to which, the man is the head of the woman; and that this divine order of creation of the sexes is part and parcel of the divinely prescribed perpetual and universal natural law of mankind;

4: That the XXXIX Articles of Religion, the Book of Common Prayer, the Homilies, and the Church of England Catechism are to be taken in their straightforward literal meaning, without any evasion, equivocation, or mental reservation, and without adding anything new or taking away anything therefrom, and finally, without any ulterior motives or hopes of private selfish advantage to be gained therefrom.

I have put up a poll entitled: Does the historical Catholic Tradition of the Church of England allow women in church choirs? The 4 possible answers are 1: Always, 2: Not in cathedral choirs (except under a valid indult), but in smaller parish churches only, 3: Not even in the smaller parish churches (except under a valid indult), 4: Never.

An Indult is a special exemption granted by the church authorities that would grant permission to do a certain act that would otherwise be contrary to the established rules, customs, traditions, and disciplinary decrees of the Church which be neither contrary to the divinely revealed doctrines on faith and morals, nor essential to the true and accurate meaning of the said divinely revealed doctrines on faith and morals.

And remember what it means to be catholic: it means, according to St. Vincent of Lerins, to conform to "quod semper, quod ubique, et ab omnibus creditum, receptum, and observatum est": that which always, everywhere, and on the part of all rightfully believing orthodoxical professing Christians, has been believed, received, and observed. And when I mean "historical Catholic Tradition" I mean the perpetual and constant usage of the Church of England unchanged by unauthorized modern innovations made by private judgement especially of the laics.

 

DISTINGUENDUM EST (something must be distinguished).

QUI BENE DISTINGUIT, BENE DOCET - He who distinguishes well, teaches well.

The Lord's Supper - i.e. the Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist - is binding on Christians at all times and places, but that doesn't mean that every time and place is equally acceptable for celebrating the Lord's Supper. We believe, teach, and confess, as even do the Presbyterian CALVINIST sectarians in their Westminster Larger Catechism that: ‘what God forbids, is at no time [or place] to be done; what he commands, is always [UNQUESTIONABLY] our duty; and yet every particular duty is not to be done at all times’ or at all places.

Thus here are some useful terminologies I have devised in order to distinguish well in this regard.

The Corpus Exequendi = Body of Execution - of a precept = that body or system or category containing only ALL the material and formal causes without which no action can justly be deemed (externally) to be an act of obedience (in which case the corpus exequendi can be called the Corpus Parendi = Body of Obeying) or disobedience (in which case the corpus exequendi can be called the Corpus Delicti = Body of Crime) to the given precept = more precisely, that system of only all material & formal causes without constitute either the very thing commanded or the very thing forbidden in the precept; even the Mahometan Sharia Law has the same concept in its entire system of "revealed" religion, they call it the Illat, whereas the Hikmat is that philosophical, logical, and rational framework for understanding WHY the ruling takes the particular form it does.

Extent, Collocation, Ubication refers to that geographical or geometrical extent over which a precept shall remain in force, and to which the precept is addressed as those who are bound in conscience by its every provision (i.e. how near and/or far in space - and in what directions in space - the precept applies, from any one place at which the precept applies, and in what directions in space the precept applies); whereas the Venue / Premises, Demesne are all those aspects of place which are part and parcel of the corpus exequendi of the precept: such an appointed place has such a decisive significance such that nothing done except there itself, or something that tends or intends to cause or glorify the very sin forbidden or good action commanded there itself, can be justly reputed to be an act of obedience or disobedience to the precept.

Duration (Chronos time) is how long the precept shall remain in force. Appointed (Kairos) Time are those parts of the duration which are part of the corpus exequendi: those moments or intervals of time are precisely what the Greek calls KAIROS: they are of such decisive importance that only what is done at that time whether actually or virtually can be justly deemed to be an act of obedience or disobedience to the precept.

The Populace, Audience of a precept are all those persons - I have collectively called it the audience - to which the precept is addressed; whereas the Personnel are those persons who are part of the corpus exequendi: meaning that they are of such decisive importance above everyone else, that only what is actually or virtually done or caused to be done by such persons can be deemed to be an act of obedience or disobedience to the precept.

The truth of the matter is that the binding force of affirmative duties depends on its corpus parendi and not on the philosophical framework for understanding WHY the precept takes the particular form it does, and the corpus parendi is a question of its venue/premises, its appointed time, and its personnel, and is independent of WHERE and WHEN in the space-time continuum you choose to place any event which contains the corpus exequendi of the precept, and also independent of what direction in space the event is oriented. In theory, where it is a question of any affirmative precept of universal and perpetual general applicability, the body of material and formal causes making up the corpus parendi should be able to be reduplicated (or are likely to recur) exactly at any time or place within the space-time continuum one chooses or one can conceive, and orient such an occasion in any direction of space one so desires without changing the essentials of matter and form of the corpus parendi. Wherever and whenever the corpus parendi is situate, there the affirmative precept is binding. Wherever and wherever the corpus delicti is situate, there the action containing it is forbidden.

 

Thesis 1. The DETERMINING factor in the question of WHY Ephesians 5:19 EXCLUDES the possibility that SINGING be included in the definition of LALEIN as used in 1 Corinthians 14:34/35 to name the action absolutely forbidden to women is some noticeable important DIFFERENCE between the meaning of the terms SING and SPEAK themselves sufficiently important enough to DISQUALIFY each one from being a species of the other.

Proof: Or else, there will be no way of sufficiently accounting for the NECESSITY of this exclusion except by means of just the mere fact that Paul the Apostle may have been simply encouraging the disciples to discuss the content of psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs with each other in ordinary conversation, which can be done without singing them.

But then there would be left over no possibility that the first part of Ephesians 5:19 (because it is no longer a question of SINGING) could be fulfilled in any mutual, reciprocal fashion in a formal worship service. The established ancient conventional wisdom of conservative Christianity is that Nunquam licet, nunquam licuit, nunquam licebit (it always is, was, and will always continue to be unlawful) for any number of persons, of whatever condition, dignity, or sex they may be, however few or many that number, to engage in private conversations during a formal worship service on any pretext whatsoever, or on any subject matter, however devout and holy these pretexts or subject matters may be; but on the contrary, these things are properly done outside the time and place of public Divine Worship. The first part of Ephesians 5:19 is therefore only a question of the individual private meditation of the themes and content of these psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs. But where does that leave the second part? Well, it could not have possibly been an ILLUSTRATIVE example of HOW the SPEAKING of Ephesians 5:19 can be lawfully and permissibly effected: much less can it SPECIFY how the SPEAKING of Ephesians 5:19 can and MUST be done in formal public worship. If SINGING and SPEAKING do not differ from each other in meaning, then they have exactly the same normal ordinary literary definition X; but then we get the absurd and meaningless conclusion, that despite the fact that the second part of Ephesians 5:19 prescribes X, it could not have possibly been an ILLUSTRATIVE example of HOW the X prescribed in the first part could be fulfilled!

Ergo, their meanings MUST somehow differ from each other, but the question now is this: in what should this difference consist? And they should differ from each other sufficiently discernibly enough in order to disqualify each one from meeting the definition of the other.

There is something else my opponents should consider: while the proposed interpretation of my opponents would seem to explain quite well WHY Ephesians 5:19 does not NECESSITATE that SINGING be INCLUDED in the definition of LALEIN; yet still it is not per se a sufficient reason to EXCLUDE the possibility that the second part of Ephesians 5:19 could be an ILLUSTRATIVE example of HOW the SPEAKING of Ephesians 5:19 prescribed in the first part can be lawfully and permissibly effected (without the aid and concurrence of a difference in their meanings from each other, sufficiently important to disqualify each one from meeting the definition of the other). In fact, even the Campbellites’ repeated insistence of specific authority on this point would most NATURALLY favor the possibility that SINGING can be (and is) included in the definition of LALEIN.

Without the aid and consent of some difference in their meanings from each other, sufficiently important to disqualify each one from meeting the definition of the other, the proposed traditional interpretation - exempting congregational singing from the prohibition found in 1 Corinthians 14:34/35 - while it explains WHY Ephesians 5:19 does not NECESSITATE that SINGING be INCLUDED in the definition of LALEIN; yet even this cannot be sufficient to preclude the possibility that singing CAN be included in the definition of LALEIN (unless one is prepared to accept the absurd and meaningless conclusion that SINGING and SPEAKING mean exactly the same thing X, and yet despite the fact that the second part of Ephesians 5:19 prescribes X, it could not have possibly been an ILLUSTRATIVE example of HOW the X prescribed in the first part could be fulfilled)!

Thus without the aid and consent of some difference in their meanings from each other, sufficiently important to disqualify each one from meeting the definition of the other, even the mere alleged fact that it is because Paul the Apostle may have been simply encouraging the disciples to discuss the content of psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs with each other in ordinary conversation, which can be done without singing them has NO determining power at all.

The DETERMINING factor in the question of WHY Ephesians 5:19 EXCLUDES the possibility that SINGING be included in the definition of LALEIN must therefore be sought in the meaning of the terms SING and SPEAK themselves. QED

The question now, is this: in what must this difference consist? Well, all of us KNOW the answer to this question: SPEAK = to use the voice in a NORMAL tone of voice; SING = to use the voice in a MUSICALLY MODULATED and TUNEFUL form of voice; which prepares us for Thesis 2 which I will give in my next post.

 

Thesis 2. Those who allow women to join in the congregational singing in a MUSICALLY MODULATED and TUNEFUL form of voice might as well also allow women to sing in choirs and solos.

Proof: But why?

J1: Because there is NO difference in principle between allowing women to join in the CONGREGATIONAL singing, and allowing women to sing as members of choirs and being female solo singers in church. This in turn is because it was already proven that the DETERMINING factor in the question of WHY Ephesians 5:19 cannot be used to support the contention that LALEO includes SINGING is that SPEAK = to use the voice in a NORMAL tone of voice, and to SING = to use the voice in a MUSICALLY MODULATED and TUNEFUL form of voice with intent to perform vocal music.

J2: If the act of women joining in AUDIBLY and VOCALLY in the CONGREGATIONAL singing can occur without resulting in any violation of 1 Corinthians 14:34/35, then the same is true for the act of women singing in the choir or singing solo: for the SAME vital life principle AND DETERMINING FACTOR that is found in women joining in AUDIBLY and VOCALLY in the CONGREGATIONAL singing is also an ESSENTIAL characteristic of the very CONCEPT of the act of women singing in the choir or singing solo. But this is the very same ESSENTIAL definitive property which would exempt congregational singing from the lawful jurisdiction of the precept governing the term LALEIN as used in 1 Corinthians 14:34/35: therefore by parity of reason, singing solos and singing in the choir should also be exempted for that same reason.

J3: I cannot claim this exemption merely as a matter of grace or favor from the time-honored customs of society, or the Sacred Tradition of any Church, or any of the Apostles, or even God Himself; but on the contrary, I must insist on this claim as a question of the plain and ordinary meaning of the terms and wherein they differ from each other. I do not claim this exemption de gratia (i.e. by virtue of the mere charity or grace of a lawful authority), but de jure divino (i.e. by the force of expressly revealed Divine Law). And I also claim it as a question of reserved rights.

We have in the USA, a thing in the Constitution called the 10th Amendment, and it reads: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The Bible also confirms its own analogous principle of Reserved Rights as well. Therefore if 1 Corinthians 14:34/35 does not forbid women from joining in the congregational singing, then neither can it forbid women to sing solo, nor can it forbid them from singing in the choir. QED

 

Thesis 3. The objection that 1 Corinthians 14:34/35 and 1 Timothy 2:11/12 forbids women from taking a leadership role in public worship is not a sufficient reason or just warrant for banning them from solos and choirs.

Proof: For first of all, the TRUE intent of admitting women and/or girls into church choirs is not that they shall govern by precept or example how MEN ought to sing THEIR parts (and I will prove this if possible or necessary and if God wills it), but that women and girls may lead other women and girls in singing no less than men lead other men in singing during the congregational singing. The same argument that is presented in supposed objection - ostensibly grounded on the divine order of creation according to which the MAN is the head of the WOMAN - could also be used to prove that it is contrary to the subjection of children to their fellow adults and elders for prepubesecent BOYS to sing in the church choir - no less than to preach or teach or rule in the Church! If there is anyone in the choir “governing” how everybody else ought to sing his/her parts, it is the choirmaster.

Secondly, but even worse, the SAME argument that was used in the proposed objection could also be used to prove the unlawfulness of PART-SINGING in the congregational singing of hymns!

+i.e.+music+in+which+there+are+at+least+the+ordina ry+four+parts+of+vocal+harmony%E2%80%94Soprano,+Al to,+Tenor+and+Bass%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjckLaU verZAhWPzFMKHbItBEQQ6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&q=%22The%20 present%20degree%20of%20public%20taste%20demands%2 0part-music%2C%20i.e.%20music%20in%20which%20there %20are%20at%20least%20the%20ordinary%20four%20part s%20of%20vocal%20harmony%E2%80%94Soprano%2C%20Alto %2C%20Tenor%20and%20Bass%22&f=false;, Musical World, Volume 12, page 89:

But taking the leading part in any element of worship in a public church assembly is PRECISELY the very thing which according to the proposed objection, is FORBIDDEN by the divine order of creation of the sexes!! This very fact would prove AUTOMATICALLY that the system of four-part congregational singing in harmony instead of in unison is just as unlawful as for women to teach or preach in Church! QUID PROBAT NIMIS, PROBAT NIHIL – whatever proves too much, proves nothing at all. QED

 

Thesis 4. The proposed objection that "to allow women to sing solo in the divine liturgy draws attention to herself, but drawing attention to herself is a violation of the divine order of creation of the sexes" is also null and void.

Proof: How do I propose to prove just that? Solvitur ambulando.

In the Church of England Confirmation or Adult-Baptism service, does not every female candidate in the whole congregation put herself on conspicuous display pro tempore?

In the Church of England:
https://books.google.com/books?id=Uap4tFf1pWkC&pg= PA58&dq=%22In+the+order+of+Confirmation+there+is+a +special+rubric+deserving+of+notice%22&hl=en&newbk s=1&newbks_redir=0&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiqo6KV25TvAhXis DEKHe8QCE4Q6AEwAXoECAEQAg#v=onepage&q=%22In%20the% 20order%20of%20Confirmation%20there%20is%20a%20spe cial%20rubric%20deserving%20of%20notice%22&f=false:

One of the objections that a certain Mr. Cotton, a 19th Century Anglican, raised against the Congregationalist practice of "public covenanting" is that:

Thoughts on the Religious State of the Country (America), with Reasons for ... - Calvin Colton - Google Books:

But the Rubrics of the Book of Common Prayer at that time for "the Order of Confirmation" prescribed the following:

1st: "upon the day appointed, all that are to be confirmed, being placed, and standing in order before the bishop, he or some other minister appointed by him, shall read this preface following."

2nd: "the church hath thought good to order that none shall be confirmed but such as can say the Creed, the Lord's Prayer, and the Ten Commandments; and can also answer to such other questions as in the Short Catechism are contained: which order is very convenient to be observed; to the end that children, being now come to the years of discretion, and having learned what their godfathers and godmothers promise for them in baptism, may themselves with their own mouth and consent, openly before the church ratify and confirm the same."

3rd: "Then the bishop shall say: 'Do you here, in the presence of God and of THIS CONGREGATION, renew the solemn promise and vow that ye made, or that was made in your name at your baptism?"

4th: "And every one shall audibly answer, I do." And there is not even a single saving clause for delicate females.

Think about it! Even female candidates for Confirmation must answer the questions put to them in a public and audible voice in a public assembly that gathers for the Confirmation service. Do they not therefore put themselves pro tempore on public display before the WHOLE congregation?

What! Do not the Latino Hispanic PAPISTS in this country, and in many other Latino countries like Cuba, Mexico, etc., have a custom of the Quinceanyera Mass in which the candidate (which we can call the Celebrand – he or she who is either to be celebrated or is the one in honor of whom a certain rite or festival of passage, like his/her birthday, his/her marriage, his/her marriage anniversary, etc. is being celebrated) – who is a 15 year old girl – hears a special mass in her honor (with all the guests of her “sweet 15” birthday celebration)? But is it not obvious to everyone that she is put on public and conspicuous display before the WHOLE CONGREGATION – yea, and often nowadays with her HEAD UNCOVERED????

Consider also the Coronation Service. On June 1953, did not H. R. M Queen Elizabeth II, put herself on PUBLIC and PROMINENT and CONSPICUOUS DISPLAY at Westminster Abbey in order to be CROWNED as REIGNING QUEEN? See: .

Consider her CEREMONIAL apparel on that day. Is it not CALCULATED to SHOW OFF this very PROMINENCE and CONSPICUITY? This is how Queen Elizabeth II was dressed on her coronation day at WESTMINSTER ABBEY in a religious coronation service, and in such a vast PUBLIC MIXED ASSEMBLY. Yea, and with her head UNCOVERED!!! Now, would that not be a public individual display to draw attention to herself? And if so, that would have been JUST at great a violation of the divine order of creation of the sexes. Yet nobody has the COURAGE to CONDEMN it as such.

And so if it is right for even the QUEEN to play such a prominent role in the worship of God, and therefore much-more, then a fortiori for delicate female candidates for adult baptism or confirmation thus to be placed in CONSPICUOUS DISPLAY before the WHOLE congregation, and yet NOBODY has the COURAGE to say that all this is contrary the divine order of the creation of the sexes, well then, who gave us the lawful authority to censoriously judge it to be an act of violating the divine order of creation and drawing attention to oneself in public worship for women to sing in solos or choirs or play the church organ?????????????????

This is the strongest PROOF that I have discovered in a LIFETIME in order to prove that the proposed objection is fallacious. QUID PROBAT NIMIS, PROBAT NIHIL – whatever proves too much, proves nothing at all. QED

 

Would it not be less long winded though to point out that addressing the entire congregation by anyone at any time should never be an occasion for drawing attention to oneself.

In fact never, in 68 years in the Anglican Church have I experienced anyone, male or female, drawing attention to themselves when reading the intercessions, preaching a sermon, leading a service, celebrating the Eucharist, singing in the choir or playing the organ or any other instrument in church. We are in worship, that is why in church services we do not generally applaud a performance.
.

 

Thesis 5. WE BELIEVE, TEACH, and CONFESS that the music of the church and of the divine liturgy should emphasize the message, not the music, nor the musician, nor the audience, but the message (Psalms 66:2, John 12:43, Matthew 16:23, Galatians 1:10, Colossians 3:16).

Ecclesiastical and liturgical music should give ALL the attention and praise to the Deity — and His divinely revealed DOGMAS on faith and morals — and NONE to the music, or the musician, or the singer, or the audience. The Lord should get ALL the praise, ALL the glory, and ALL the honor. Spiritually speaking, all those who take an active part in presiding over the service, or take any active part in the sacred music, especially in the divine liturgy, should be heard but not seen — the Christian musician, liturgist, priest, prelate, pastor, elder, bishop, vicar, curate, cleric, etc., should be hidden in Christ.

For it is written in the Sacred Scriptures: Sing forth the honour of His name: make His praise glorious. Psalm 66:2.

We therefore REJECT, ABJURE, and CONDEMN the practices of many professing Christian musicians nowadays, who are so obsessed with their music and how it can be made more appealing to the world, that the message in the lyrics is unduly relegated to a subservient and subordinate position.

So-called Contemporary Christian Music (CCM) far too often tends to place its emphasis on its own "performance" rather than the message contained in the lyrics. The result is that the undue love of "performance" and "display" involved in the music tends to weaken or frustrate the message by drawing attention to the self or the music. The result is that God is not duly glorified as He deserves.

For they loved the PRAISE OF MEN more than the praise of God. John 12:43

Case in Point: Stan Moser, the former head of Word Records (he was the one who signed Amy Grant) and CEO of Star Song Records, one of the pioneers and most important executives in CCM: his testimony after over 25 years of his involvement in CCM, was that

"But to be candid, I look at the majority of the music I hear today and think it's virtually meaningless." (Christianity Today, "We Have Created a Monster", May 20, 1996 p. 27)

Also: "There is a growing chasm between CCM and the church – between what's actually happening in the real world of ministry, or even in the music ministry of the church, and what we're doing in CCM. In fact, I would probably be more inclined to call the industry "commercial Christian music," rather than "contemporary Christian music."" (Christianity Today, "We Have Created a Monster", May 20, 1996 p. 27)

Another case in Point: HM Magazine's testimony!

"There are a lot of bands out now who do not feel it necessary to speak about God or Christ". (HM mag, Issue #67, p.26)

"Sometime people give us a hard time because we don't mention God onstage. . . I know that a lot of other bands and people are called to talk about God onstage a lot more than we do, and that's great, but we just feel that our calling is to get people interested in our MUSIC, interested in US . . ." (Ghoti Hook, HM mag, Issue #67, pp.34-35)

Another case in Point: Christian rockers, Spudgun:

"We don't normally say stuff about God from the stage". Jason Keely, Spudgun (HM mag, Issue #67, p. 40)

These CCM artists don't have the COURAGE to confess Christ, yet they call themselves Christians! Why? Because they prefer to please and amuse their audiences and flaunt their musical talents rather than worship and adore God and confess Christ!

For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should NOT be the servant of Christ. Galatians 1:10

Objection: But preaching Christ is not the proper sphere of church musicians but men duly appointed to Holy Orders. Answer: A CCM artist could have engaged a chaplain to preach, or invited the audience to your house to hear his chaplain preach the Word to the seekers and catechise them. No man can be a chaplain unless he is already in Holy Orders. But instead, these CCM artists and musicians prefer to entertain and amuse the world and flaunt their talents under the pretext of praising God. OBJECTION OVERRULED.

We REJECT, ABJURE, and CONDEMN the HERESY that Church Music is entertainment. We BELIEVE, TEACH, and CONFESS that real Christian music, especially Liturgical Music, admonishes [reprove mildly], while praising the Lord.

Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom; teaching and ADMONISHING one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your HEARTS to the Lord. Colossians 3:16

Testimony of St. Augustine of Hippo: "When I am moved by the voice of him that sings more than the words sung, I confess to have sinned". (Oliver Strunk, Source Reading in Music History, Vol. I, p. 74)

Testimony of Dr. Frank Garlock, an instructor of Christian Music:

"Contrary to popular opinion, sacred music is not for entertainment. Christian music is first and foremost a vehicle for praise unto the Lord." (Garlock, Frank & Woetzel, Kurt, Music in the Balance, Majesty Music, 1992 p.54)

We therefore REJECT the CAVILLOUS QUIBBLE that "to allow women to sing solo in the divine liturgy draws attention to herself, but drawing attention to herself is a violation of the divine order of creation of the sexes", just as though, it had been the special exclusive prerogative of the male sex, and a special mark of his de jure divino superiority and jurisdiction over the female sex, to draw attention to himself when taking his official part of the worship service.

 

There are legitimate occasions when applause is appropriate in church though. For example at the end of the service our congregation sometimes sits to listen to the organ voluntary. The organist has often invested considerable talent, time, skill and effort in this audible presentation and I feel it a holy offering of thanks, both to the musician and the God who inspires his talent for the congregation to applaud the organist's hard work and possibly their own composition for our and God's pleasure.

Yea, we know that thou rejoicest o'er each work of thine.
Thou did'st ears and hands and voices for thy praise design;
Craftsman's art and music's measure
For thy pleasure
All combine.
.

 

Thesis 6. We CONDEMN the HERESY that all and singular of the good and morally-neutral things we may safely and lawfully enjoy at home are ipso facto suitable for use as integrant and conspicuous parts of the Divine Liturgy in the public assemblies of public worship in Church.

Proof:

"“The question for thoughtful Christians to consider is — Are the things we may enjoy in our homes, as good gifts from God, suitable for transference to our churches? One likes to have a Bible word to help in forming a right conclusion, and the one spoken by the Apostle Paul to the Church at Corinth seems to hold within it the principle [nay, the precise, particular, specific, and clear proof-text of the Bible] which will adapt itself to the variety of details involved in this question, 'What! have ye not HOUSES to eat and to drink in!' "The people had thought that on occasions of celebrating the Lord's Supper, it would be no harm for them to have a social feast. The food was God's gift, why not enjoy it in God's house? “No,' says the Apostle, eating and drinking are all very well in your own houses, but to eat and drink in the house of God, except in His appointed way, is an irreverence. If ANY ONE HUNGER,* let him eat at HOME, that ye come not together FOR JUDGMENT!!"

And indeed according to the teaching of the Anglican Church, 1 Timothy 4:4/5 says that every creature of God is equally good and fit for food; and therefore food and drink may be neutral. But to eat or drink anything as an integrant part of the divine liturgy except as specifically and clearly prescribed in the Blessed Sacrament of the Eucharist according to the precepts of Christ and the Rubrics of the Book of Common Prayer is a desecration of the divine liturgy. And to employ anything but natural bread to stand for the Body of Christ and natural wine to stand for the Blood of Christ is a sacrilegious Communion, and even the Papists themselves believe, teach, and confess that the precept of receiving Communion is NOT fulfilled [but on the contrary, VIOLATED and CONTRADICTED!!!] by a sacrilegious Communion.

Another example is this: Goods and chattels for sale may be morally neutral and culturally relative, provided that the transactions are done fair and square and are entirely destitute of covetousness and fraud; but it does not seem proven from the Bible and Lutheran Confessions that such conduct is equally acceptable during the divine liturgy itself! Nay, but on the contrary, according to the plain and explicit ordinary meaning of John 2:14-17, although such common buyings & sellings of merchandise may be all right in marketplaces and on Wallstreet – yet in solemn liturgical functions, and even in the so-called non-liturgical assemblies of devotional nature, they are unlawful – absolutely VERBOTEN – ULTRA-VERBOTEN – HYPER-VERBOTEN – UEBER-VERBOTEN – VEDADO – NEFAS – CONTRA DIGNITATEM ECCLESIAE (contrary to the dignity of the Church)! No giving or receiving of moneys is lawful except the act of paying tithes and offerings (offerings includes almsgiving). Any other kind of exchange of moneys or redistribution of wealth is absolutely unlawful in the public devotional assemblies of the Church. WHAT! Is this because you don’t have marketplaces to buy and sell in? Neither can we accept the objection that there were grave reasons why ‘a certain amount of shopping was necessary’ in order to supply the worshippers with suitable clean beasts, fish, fowls, and other valid and licit material articles for ritual sacrifice; but on the contrary, this plea of ‘necessity’ is repugnant to the faith of all Confessional Lutherans who trust in Divine Providence to meet all their needs. The truth of the matter is that ‘Jesus did not try to reform the “den of thieves,” neither did He try to reduce the excessive prices being charged. The house of prayer had been transformed into a house of merchandise. He energetically purged the temple of its commercialism by casting out those who bought as well as those who sold.’ Bibliotheca Sacra 91:363 (Jul 34) p. 312. So, if any professing confessional Lutheran hungers for worldly gain and business success, let him “eat” of such things “at home” viz. find some other appropriate venue outside the church for business and commercial affairs, or else the mere fact that he engaged in such buying and sellings or even merely discussed them in the very Church in which he had been assembling together for the Divine Liturgy with the rest of the professing Christian faithful will AUTOMATICALLY stand against him on the Day of Judgment!

The source for this is an Anglican book, entitled, Musical Service: Is it Right?, written by a certain James Neil, M.A. in 1903. I have quoted Appendix C: Not all Right Things Right in Divine Worship. See: https://books.google.com/books?id=5OQTAAAAQAAJ&pg= PA64&lpg=PA64&dq=%22transference+to+our+churches%2 2&source=bl&ots=p_j4R7HoLO&sig=ACfU3U0G4GAcGcku8vJ 40CMC85dmLK_8uQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiZoJHX9ZbvAh XLSDABHZJlBOIQ6AEwAHoECAEQAw#v=onepage&q=%22transf erence%20to%20our%20churches%22&f=false.

So here is the testimony of Mr. Neil for the case of Church Music: "Oh! say some, who are quite shocked at the Corinthian idea—we must have 'bright services' to attract our young people, plenty of music, &c., &c. And to effect this 'alto, tenor, and bass' are inquired after, and men and boys—whose only qualification for leading the prayers and praises of the congregation is that they can sing —are brought into prominence as a surpliced choir. 'Plenty of music' is an almost universal cry, but alas! in the majority of cases, what music is it? The music of the unconverted. [And nowadays, the music many Churches desire to use is so-called Contemporary Christian Music (CCM), with all of its worldly tunes and styles sung to plausible and pious sounding lyrics.] ... Yes! music is a good gift, and we know it may and should be used in the service of God, but the rule is 'singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord.' [Another scripture rule for music in church, even apart from the lyrics themselves is: "Upon an instrument of ten strings, and upon the psaltery; upon the harp with a SOLEMN SOUND". Also, other scriptural limitations on the kind of music that may be used in Church are: Ro. 12:2; Eph. 4:17-19; 5:19; Col. 3:16; Jas. 4:4; 1 Pe. 2:11; 1 Jo. 2:15-16, which all by implication, if not by express specification, forbid worldly music in church. Any species of music that is contrary to these divinely revealed and inspired or Scripturally implied limitations and stipulations is] offensive to [the Deity]. And surely whatever approaches mere [worldly and theatrical] musical performance is out of place in the house of God. If ANY ONE HUNGER' for [such secular or theatrical] music 'let him eat AT HOME" - James Neil (an Anglican Low-Churchman), "Musical Service: Is it Right?", Year 1903.

Ergo: We CONDEMN the HERESY that all and singular of the good and morally-neutral things we may safely and lawfully enjoy at home are ipso facto suitable for use as integrant and conspicuous parts of the Divine Liturgy in the public assemblies of public worship in Church. QED

 

I’m lost. In one sentence, what specific point are you trying to make?

 

Precisely the point that Mr. James Neil was trying to make against the Romanizing Ritualistic "Anglo-Catholic" choral service in parish churches, where the things appointed by the Book of Common Prayer to be SAID or READ or PRAYED are SUNG or INTONED instead of simply SAID using the normal and concionatory inflections of the voice (concionatory means addressing a public assembly).

https://books.google.com/books?id=5OQTAAAAQAAJ&pg= PA64&lpg=PA64&dq=%22transference+to+our+churches%2 2&source=bl&ots=p_j4R7HoLO&sig=ACfU3U0G4GAcGcku8vJ 40CMC85dmLK_8uQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiZoJHX9ZbvAh XLSDABHZJlBOIQ6AEwAHoECAEQAw#v=onepage&q=%22transf erence%20to%20our%20churches%22&f=false:

"Oh! say some, who are quite shocked at the Corinthian idea—we must have 'bright services' to attract our young people, plenty of music, &c., &c. And to effect this 'alto, tenor, and bass' are inquired after, and men and boys—whose only qualification for leading the prayers and praises of the congregation is that they can sing —are brought into prominence as a surpliced choir. 'Plenty of music' is an almost universal cry, but alas! in the majority of cases, what music is it? The music of the unconverted. [And nowadays, the music many Churches desire to use is so-called Contemporary Christian Music (CCM), with all of its worldly tunes and styles sung to plausible and pious sounding lyrics.] ... Yes! music is a good gift, and we know it may and should be used in the service of God, but the rule is 'singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord.' [Another scripture rule for music in church, even apart from the lyrics themselves is: "Upon an instrument of ten strings, and upon the psaltery; upon the harp with a SOLEMN SOUND". Also, other scriptural limitations on the kind of music that may be used in Church are: Ro. 12:2; Eph. 4:17-19; 5:19; Col. 3:16; Jas. 4:4; 1 Pe. 2:11; 1 Jo. 2:15-16, which all by implication, if not by express specification, forbid worldly music in church. Any species of music that is contrary to these divinely revealed and inspired or Scripturally implied limitations and stipulations is] offensive to [the Deity]. And surely whatever approaches mere [worldly and theatrical] musical performance is out of place in the house of God. If ANY ONE HUNGER' for [such secular or theatrical] music 'let him eat [of such things] AT HOME'" - James Neil (an Anglican Low-Churchman), "Musical Service: Is it Right?", Year 1903.

 

That’s quite a sentence! LOL

 

Judicially speaking as well, by the look of it.

Strikes me as being particularly judicial and rather judgmental. The Church has taken great pains to avoid the excesses of the Corinthian church by ritualising the Eucharist to protect it from becoming a secular bean feast or banquet. However the price we pay for that is separating ourselves from the immediacy and intimacy of the fellowship of the Last Supper with The Lord.

Our religious assemblies now lack the close social cohesion and fellowship that existed between Jesus and his disciples as they ate together and our social occasions lack the spirituality that Christ obviously intended for his church when he said, "As often as you drink it in remenbrance of me" i.e. every time we eat bread or drink wine, (a daily event in Palestine 32AD), we should be thankful for our deliverance from the penalty for our sins through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. The sins of the world rested upon Him, for our sake. This calls for a constant attitude of grattitude. Not just once a week on a Sunday in a ritual.
.

 

The thing is, I’m sure Mr. James Neil wrote a fine book. Read in its proper context (which I may do someday), I might even agree with parts of it. Yet somehow I doubt he would be pleased for his legacy, such as it is, to be used in this way.

 

Now, assuming that singing in psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs is not included in the scope of the prohibitions contained in 1 Corinthians 14:34/35 and 1 Timothy 2:11/12, why is it that the Cathedral Churches of the Church of England strongly continued to oppose the idea of women and girls becoming members of cathedral choirs until 1991??? Why so late, even after 400 years of allowing women to join in the congregational singing with the men?

As it turns out, the old tradition of man/boy only choirs in the Church of England survived most likely in Cathedrals, Collegiate Churches, and those Parish Churches which have a sufficient choral endowment. But in many village parish churches as early as the early 18th century, which were too poor to afford these resources, they often resorted to allowing women and girls to sing in the church choir.

Why didn't the Anglican Cathedrals let women into their church choirs until 1991? Why did women have to wait so long for the admission of females into cathedral choirs, just as if the cathedrals would rather have women teach and preach in church (in violation of the precepts of St Paul, 1 Corinthians 14:34/35, 1 Timothy 2:11/12) than permit women and girls to sing in church choirs? Why couldn't the Anglican Cathedrals in England just admit women earlier, as did even many small village parishes in the 17th and 18th century? How does one explain these facts on the basis of Anglican and Scriptural theology and not just merely historical or cultural circumstances?

 

The reason is something far more mundane than what you’re envisioning: boys on average have more powerful singing voices than women, and with the same range, if not better. You need the most powerful voices you can find in a high range if you want the songs to be intelligible, given the acoustics of the cathedrals. That’s the reason. What else you got?

 

But that reply doesn't really go deep enough. The Rev. John Macquarrie, an Anglo-Catholic clergyman of the Church of England, says that:

https://www.stmvirgin.org/benediction:

"[All Anglican liturgicians] would say – and they would be right about this – that one cannot justify an act of worship on the grounds of personal preference or what it has meant in one’s personal history, and that one cannot even justify it in terms of general psychological needs or of esthetic excellence. In the long run, the only justification can be to show that this particular act of worship has a sound theological basis."

Therefore, what sound theological basis, especially from the Bible, and which would apply just as well to the New Testament as well as the Old Testament, can the Anglican Cathedrals produce for using only boys to sing the high register voices in the choir, and excluding women and girls? What evidence do they have that the employment of females in Cathedral Choirs is contrary to divinely revealed doctrines on faith and morals??

 

None was needed. It was simply the most practical way to achieve the desired end. Using choirs of boys in cathedrals predated the Reformation anyway.

 

I suggest backing up a few steps and investing some time in finding out experientially what Anglicanism is, before presuming to make grand, sweeping statements to actual practicing Anglicans about what it should be. Just my two cents.