I meant to comment on a particular thing that jumped out at me, and completely forgot to: the author makes the following statement in this chapter: "Christians often disagree over the style of music used in worship, passionately defending their preferred style as the most biblical or God-honoring. But there is no biblical style! There are no musical notes in the Bible; we don't even have the instruments they used in Bible times."
On the first half of that paragraph: too true. It goes beyond what style of music, too; it goes to liturgical style, to what holy hardware is or is not used, what gestures are or are not made, what words are or are not spoken.
And I'm just as guilty as anyone; I freely admit to being a liturgy junkie. I love the rhythm and flow of well-done high church liturgy (candles, incense, robes, bells, hymns, organ, trumpets...you get the idea). I also love older, more classical music, and tend to turn my nose up at more contemporary stuff (some deservedly so, but some not).
However, the author is dead wrong when he says there's no biblical style!!! We have ample descriptions of worship services of varying kinds - just look in I and II Kings and in I and II Chronicles for examples! Granted, we don't have a service leaflet from the dedication of Solomon's Temple, but we have very nearly the equivalent in the detailed description of the robes, the instruments, the forming of the processions...we also have clues in the "stage directions" and even in the style of some of the psalms.
For example, Psalm 124 opens "If the Lord had not been on our side, let Israel now say:" -- it seems pretty clear this is an invitation to join in the recitation! There are other examples.
Finally: there are musical notes in the Bible. We just don't see them because we usually read the Bible in a translation into our vernacular, whatever it happens to be. And most of our vernacular languages are not tonal; that is, the meanings are not partially or completely derived from the tone of the spoken word.
Hebrew, however...Hebrew is different. And in written Hebrew, there are at least some indications of musicality. The language itself isn't music, per se. And - of course - there are no vowels per se.
But there are "notations" added to the letters to give us a clue what vowel sound comes between the consonants that are shown, and there were certain associations of musical tone with those as well. The Hebrews who wrote it down knew what they meant; we are not quite so clued-in.
Hence the confusion over exactly how to spell or say "Yahweh," resulting in the name Jehovah, for example. We simply do not know for certain what that word is that usually is translated into English as "I AM." We make guesses based on our knowledge of ancient language. We postulate. But we do not know. (Which, by the way, is why this passage may also be translated "I will be who I will be.")
So in a sense, I guess, the author is right: there is no biblical style that we can now approximate. But that isn't the same at all as saying we have no clue what these folks did for worship. It's still okay to worship however we worship; no one style lasts forever, and no one style fits absolutely everybody. That's the beauty of being human, of being able to appreciate diversity.
BTW...
On the first half of that paragraph: too true. It goes beyond what style of music, too; it goes to liturgical style, to what holy hardware is or is not used, what gestures are or are not made, what words are or are not spoken.
And I'm just as guilty as anyone; I freely admit to being a liturgy junkie. I love the rhythm and flow of well-done high church liturgy (candles, incense, robes, bells, hymns, organ, trumpets...you get the idea). I also love older, more classical music, and tend to turn my nose up at more contemporary stuff (some deservedly so, but some not).
However, the author is dead wrong when he says there's no biblical style!!! We have ample descriptions of worship services of varying kinds - just look in I and II Kings and in I and II Chronicles for examples! Granted, we don't have a service leaflet from the dedication of Solomon's Temple, but we have very nearly the equivalent in the detailed description of the robes, the instruments, the forming of the processions...we also have clues in the "stage directions" and even in the style of some of the psalms.
For example, Psalm 124 opens "If the Lord had not been on our side, let Israel now say:" -- it seems pretty clear this is an invitation to join in the recitation! There are other examples.
Finally: there are musical notes in the Bible. We just don't see them because we usually read the Bible in a translation into our vernacular, whatever it happens to be. And most of our vernacular languages are not tonal; that is, the meanings are not partially or completely derived from the tone of the spoken word.
Hebrew, however...Hebrew is different. And in written Hebrew, there are at least some indications of musicality. The language itself isn't music, per se. And - of course - there are no vowels per se.
But there are "notations" added to the letters to give us a clue what vowel sound comes between the consonants that are shown, and there were certain associations of musical tone with those as well. The Hebrews who wrote it down knew what they meant; we are not quite so clued-in.
Hence the confusion over exactly how to spell or say "Yahweh," resulting in the name Jehovah, for example. We simply do not know for certain what that word is that usually is translated into English as "I AM." We make guesses based on our knowledge of ancient language. We postulate. But we do not know. (Which, by the way, is why this passage may also be translated "I will be who I will be.")
So in a sense, I guess, the author is right: there is no biblical style that we can now approximate. But that isn't the same at all as saying we have no clue what these folks did for worship. It's still okay to worship however we worship; no one style lasts forever, and no one style fits absolutely everybody. That's the beauty of being human, of being able to appreciate diversity.