I had an interesting revelation yesterday. In arguments surrounding ancient vs. contemporary liturgy and hymnody the conversation usually devolves into either "personal taste" or "historicity." Both seem to be largely subjective means of argumentation. Consequently both are largely unsuccessful. "personal taste" has in its very essence no external reality, no greater truth but only the "person" and hence is completely subjective. On the other hand to those convinced that adherence to ancient and historical rite and tradition as essential will argue their perspective is objective. Unfortunately this argumentation often falls outside Biblical practice and reality and so becomes subjective decision-making whether your preference is for the rites of John of Damascus, Cyril of Alexandria, and the like. For that matter, it would seem the "song" practice was largely divergent in the NT church from reading the Epistles. Finally adherence to tradition is a subjective decision process. Imagine Luther had held to the tradition of medieval Rome over the apostolic tradition? We'd still be relying on our works to save us.
My friend Roy pointed out we should differentiate between liturgy and hymnody. Liturgy has been and should continue to be the Word God gave us, repeated back to him. It's textual context must never change. On the other hand, hymnody are our words confessing the faith given back to God. They may be God's Word itself or it may be our sung confession of faith. These are textual arguments. What about the musical wrappings that are intended to carry the text?
The question becomes: can one make an argument for ancient, traditional, and classical hymnody in an objective way that does not fall back on "personal taste" or "adherence to tradition"? Are there objective truths to musical characters, tones, instruments? Do certain instruments evoke meanings contrary to Scripture?
It seems that the musical trappings have taken precedence over text in these discussions. Objectively, we do confess and believe that this confession need not be contained in subjective emotive musical accompaniment. While the accompaniment may aid in our understanding of the text, the text ultimately is what matters.
We are challenged today in a way that the church has never been before. For most of the church's history, the music of the world and the music of the church were largely consistent both in textual and musical content. Yes there was secular music but it was the minority. Since the advent of recording technology we have an art form born completely outside the church and for the purpose of entertainment and retail sale. In the last one hundred years this "popular" music has overtaken the importance of the church as the musical artisans of the world. Now the majority of composers and compositions are secular.
If we want to approach this situation, old argumentation like "Luther used bar music" or "classical music is more reverent" will fail to work. We are really dealing with a different beast on many levels. Philosophical questions arise and the culture versus church debate takes on a shape unlike that of the apostolic era, medieval era, or even the modern era.
Are there other objective argumentation for the "old way?" I'm at a loss to address this in a convincing way without falling back on "my likes" or "that's the way we've always done it."
