Instrumental Worship Music of the Season: O Holy Night, in Celtic style

Posted on December 20, 2010 by Jay F Guin

Celtic Women

“Fall on your knees, oh, hear the angel voices…”

And why not add …

About Jay F Guin

My name is Jay Guin, and I’m a retired elder. I wrote The Holy Spirit and Revolutionary Grace about 18 years ago. I’ve spoken at the Pepperdine, Lipscomb, ACU, Harding, and Tulsa lectureships and at ElderLink. My wife’s name is Denise, and I have four sons, Chris, Jonathan, Tyler, and Philip. I have two grandchildren. And I practice law.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

18 Responses to Instrumental Worship Music of the Season: O Holy Night, in Celtic style

  1. Anonymous says:
    December 21, 2010 at 7:45 am

    Interesting footnote, Jay, the second song, Carol of the Bells, was written as an a cappella piece.

  2. aBasnar says:
    December 21, 2010 at 1:49 pm

    Add instruments, remove modesty …

    Sorry for being so unfavorable; but the title "Instrumental Worship of the Season" is quite provocative to us a-cappella people. Not for paying back with the same coin, Jay, but blank shoulders might be allright for wordly entertainment, but not for worship. This is my deepest concern for the church today: Don't conform to this world!

    Alexander

  3. JMF says:
    December 21, 2010 at 2:24 pm

    1) Have you considered that Jay noted that these were instrumental pieces so that people like you wouldn't click on it and be offended? He was attempting to keep you from witnessing "worldly" behavior.

    2) Being said, why did you click on it and watch it? Why did you conform to the world and watch the video? Even if you didn't watch it, you obviously allowed your eyes to stay fixed on the screenshot for long enough to view flesh. (since we are holding each other accountable to our own inferences and all)

    3) Since (you believe) that non-AC music isn't proper for worship, then you would certainly agree that this music was worldly and doesn't qualify as worship. So, based on your rationale, you shouldn't have a problem with the ladies showing "blank shoulders" as this video is not actually worship, and thus, should be expected to be worldly.

    4) Your inferences on what is worldly/immodest and what is not are tiresome.

  4. JMF says:
    December 21, 2010 at 3:14 pm

    AB: I just re-read my post and my use of the word "tiresome" in pt. 4 sounds smug. Bad word choice. But I do find it belittling for you to suggest that my wearing of a sleeveless shirt is unchristian-like. I think that is a perfectly fine inference for you to make for yourself, but I think that is as far as you need to go with your inferences.

  5. Robert52 says:
    December 21, 2010 at 4:39 pm

    Instruments or a Cappella just listen to the words. We don't much do that even when we sing from the song book in church

  6. Jay Guin says:
    December 21, 2010 at 8:31 pm

    Abasnar,

    I admit the caption is intentionally "provocative." But it's only provocative for pointing out an obvious truth: These are worship songs and they are sung with instrumental accompaniment.

    Several people have argued that instrumental music in worship is necessarily bestial, animalistic, pagan, Jewish, sensual, lascivious, etc. Moreover, it's argued by some that the instruments destroy the lyrics and the thought of the songs.

    And it is, of course, entirely possible for instruments to be misused in this way. (Of course, a cappella music can be abused, too.) The point of the caption is to encourage readers to consider whether some of the things said about instrumental worship really are always true.

    I'm of the opinion that some of the most uplifting, worshipful, moving music I've ever heard is instrumental. Consider the recent YouTube video of the Hallelujah Chorus being sung in the mall. I found the video encouraging, exciting, and moving. I was thrilled to see shoppers drawn toward God in celebration of the fact that Jesus reigns! — even though there was an organ playing in the background.

    If someone wants to argue the scriptures to oppose instrumental music, then the response must be scriptural. But if someone wants to argue that instrumental music is inherently wrong because it's necessarily pagan or lascivious, then the counter-argument is found in experiencing the reality of instrumental worship.

  7. aBasnar says:
    December 22, 2010 at 1:24 am

    Instrumental music is not necessarily sensual – but this performance tends to this. This was my concern – I must admit, that I was a bit angry and did not use the right words either; I think I should have omitted my comment.

    Anyhow: This is a worldly show, by worldly professionals (http://www.celticwoman.com – see for yourself at their web-site). It is at least a valid question whether it is still worship, when worship songs are put on stage by people who don't know what they sing. The songs are all-right, but the setting? Is God honored merely when His name is mentioned by whoever does so? in their program "From the heart" they also have the well known Irish drinking song "Nil 'sé 'nLá" (Chorus: "'S bí ag ól an seo go maidinn" – And I'll be drunk here till the morning). And because they are worldly professionals, they do it in a worldly, sensual way (just look at the picture of their newest member). Their seasons greetings with "Santa-hats" reveal the same. So: Is it worship or is it show?

    @JMF: I certainly did not want to belittle you, since i did not even know that you are a sister nor what you usually wear. But I do believe in the relevance of 1Ti 2:9 or 1Pe 3:3 that call for an application. I have NEVER heard a sermon (in church) on these texts that urged the congregation to change anything in their attire, if at all mentioned (maybe twice in over 20 years) they reduced the texts to "lifeless principles" leaving the application to everyone's own judgement. We had one conference speaker last year in spring, who spoke in a more direct way about it (but more as a testimony how they as a family approached it) – the reaction from the church was irritation (esp. when he mentioned the headcoverings), the application zero. I have the impression it is very hard to stop a car rolling downhill when its breaks are broken.
    I certainly won't blame you for this lack of teaching.

    Alexander

  8. HistoryGuy says:
    December 22, 2010 at 4:58 am

    Jay,
    I have enjoyed the songs you posted and found them entertaining. However, based on the context, I would not call that worship. God was glorified, but God receiving glory and worship are not always synonymous. That said, thanks again.

    it's only provocative for pointing out an obvious truth: These are worship songs and they are sung with instrumental accompaniment…

    Nobody denies that one can sing a worship song with IM. In fact, it is also “true” that in the OT, worship songs were sung with IM, incense, animal sacrifice, and other commanded Levitical elements. However, what does the ability to sing worship songs with IM or anything else have to do with whether IM is acceptable to God in the NC worship?

    I am still not clear what your position on IM in worship is, because I did communicate my question clearly, so you replied with “that’s a false dichotomy” in relation to culture/Scripture. Allow me to be clear this time.

    Sat, Dec 5, 2:51pm >, the scriptural writers say nothing on the subject… IM… is cultural — Jay Guin

    but you also said

    Nov 26, 2010 (ephesians-518-21-being-filled-with-the-spirit-part-2) > Paul [ scriptural writer]…writes…Eph 5:18b-21…borrowed from…Psa 108:1-6…How do you sing and make melody with all your being? With the harp. With the lyre… — Jay Guin

    What is your position? Do you rely on OT teaching? Did the NT Scriptural writers say anything on IM subject? Is IM commanded? Is IM permitted? Is IM explicitly taught? Is IM implicitly taught? Is God silent about IM? I know you say IM is okay if it “edifies,” but that does not tell how you arrive at that conclusion. IWhat is it from Scripture that informs you that IM is okay if it edifies? I’m not listing 100s of questions as if ou have to answer them, but rather to demonstrate what is on my mind in order to help you communicate to me your position. I am sincerely asking you.

  9. Todd says:
    December 22, 2010 at 12:30 pm

    Alexander,
    This blogsite advocates a view of worship where issues such as IM are irrelevant to truly living in Christ and you expect not to be "offended" when you sign on? Jay should stop advocating his position because you disagree with it? If you have a website may we edit it for you?

    Come on guys, haven't these years of posting and counterposting shown that we aren't even speaking the same language?

    Bruce looks to ancient Ephesus to tell us what Paul was really saying and yet somehow failed to say.
    Alexander points out (validly) that music in the ancient world had strong pagan overtones and we should be suspicious of it today as well. He overlooks however the period before the church fathers when God had His own sacred music with orchestras and choirs before Jerusalem was removed and how the same set up is waiting for us in heaven. He also consistently ignores the fact that the CF's refused to outright condemn the practice because of the example of David.
    Historyguy keeps plugging "authority" and gets upset because authority questions are not answered. How do you answer "authority" questions authoritatively when you no longer see authority as an issue? The idea of grace and lives living submitted to that grace take us away from the regulative principle that requires authority for every action and makes our charts and plans and lists look small and foolish.

    See we are all speaking different tongues. Will love unite us?

  10. aBasnar says:
    December 23, 2010 at 1:34 am

    Will love unite us? A very good question! I believe that love will unite us.

    As for your comments on my approach: I don't ignore the fact that the CFs refused to condemn the practice of instruments because of the example of David. I commented at lenght at this passage in Clement's Instructor (the only mention of this), but somehow these comments were bypassed or not understood … usually IMers take these words out of context to prove their case. The same was true for Danny Corbitt's misrepresentation of the Odes of Salomo. These discussions were disappointing for me, because I felt my arguments were not seriously dealt wilth.

    And I certainly don't overlook the period before the church, the worship of the Israelites. But I put it into perspective and demand consistency: If we argue for IM based on the Levitical texts, we MUST also argue for incense, a kind of levitical priesthood and a temple with all its trimmings. I felt that hardly anyone whom I pointed to this, was willing to even try to understand the scriptural (!) concept of types and antitypes that applies here (and was recognized by the ECF). And to say, see in Heaven we will all have instruments, is a misundestanding; because Revelation uses the OT-types to describe what cannot be described otherwise. To picture heaven as an exact copy of OT-worship is – most likely – very wrong. To just take IM out of all these OT-types, is terribly inconsistent. In the end: Wishful thinking.

    Still I believe that love will unite us, if we are willing to do what love does: Die to ourselves.

    In this thread I first addressed the topic of modesty – this video was crossing a border (and it is quite sad, that the church seemed to have [re-]moved the border, so hardly anyone notices this anymore). And I know full well that such examples – being presented as "worship" – have a strong influence on the kind of "stage worship" in contemporary churches. CCM and immodesty often go hand in hand (as has been pointed out by Dan Lucarini in his book "Why I left the Contemporary Christian Music Movement"), and nowadays Christian churches have lost a lot of sense for modesty. This influence does not come from the Spirit of God, but from the worldly music scene. And I was surprized and a bit shocked, that worldy performers, such as the Celtic Women, are presented as "worshippers" here. It is like Dionysiac celebrants singing Amazing Grace! How very unfitting! Where has the discernment of the spirits gone? I addressed it, because there is a danger in this: Love for the world.

    Again: Will love unite us? Only, if we forsake the love of the world and be separated from it.

    Alexander

  11. HistoryGuy says:
    December 23, 2010 at 4:20 am

    Hello Todd,
    First, I have always denied IM worship Scripturally from OC/NC typology, tested and supported by Sola Scripture, history, and never from culture. Second, there is overwhelming evidence that the ECFs did not deny IM based on culture, but rather they believed the precedent was from Scripture since ECFs condemned IM in some context and welcomed it in others. Third, the church had both moral and immoral IM context to choose from, yet chose to sing [even while the 2nd Temple existed]. I am happy to talk about the details of these points with you if you would like, but I would need you to outline your position so that we can have clarity on what we agree or disagree on while working towards a resolution.

    ——————————————-

    You brought up authority, so I wanted to give some input about it below.

    First, I respect you and your posts. I started by saying that I enjoyed the songs and found them entertaining. I don’t expect anyone to change anything here for me. I did not even bring IM up again until Jay and Alexander started in on it. Why let them have all the fun? (ha ha ha). I have clearly said IM/AC is an issue in many hermeneutics outside the RPW. I am not upset. I was asking a genuine question.

    How do you answer "authority" questions authoritatively when you no longer see authority as an issue? The idea of grace and lives living submitted to that grace take us away from the regulative principle that requires authority for every action and makes our charts and plans and lists look small and foolish. — TODD

    Authority and RPW are NOT synonymous, so please allow me to focus solely on the concept of authority. I have had wonderful conversations with Catholics, Sola Scriptura Protestants, Solo Scriptura Protestants/COCs, agnostics, atheists, Muslims, and a variety of others who realize the authority they submit to, even if it’s their own. When the point is reached that one cannot ask another if there is authority revealed in “some way” (explicit, implicit, silence, permission, theological) from some source (Scripture, Pope, Qur’an, self, personal revelation from God, something), then I need to leave such thinkers alone.

    I realize my response is apologetics101, but you cannot have law without a law giver, you cannot have grace without a grace giver, you cannot have edification, without a basis to determine what is and is not edifying. Therefore, one will rely upon his own authority or the authority of something or someone else to make a determination in any area of life, since nothing can be determined without an appeal to authority.

    The Christian doctrine of grace truly means that am pardoned from a debt I cannot t pay, and deserve nothing from God except my punishment in hell. Grace is only needed where “authority” has been broken, else grace is not grace. Grace is about hell, but the IM issue is about truth. I appeal to grace as the basis for saying we can be wrong in matters of doctrine, and freely go to heaven. I affirm that we are freely justified by faith and kept justified by faith. However, we are expected to listen and strive after God, respecting his authority, while all the time realizing God has paid our debt because we cannot (Lk. 17:10). This doctrine of grace is unique to the Bible, and not found in any other religion. Therefore, it relies on the authority of Scripture, which relies on the authority of God, and brings us full circle back to me asking authority questions for beliefs [reveled in some way] (explicit, implicit, silence, permission, theological).

    Jay and I both claim to believe in Scriptural authority. If Jay thought something was against God, I don’t think he would do it. Since he advocates IM, he thinks its fine. We know edification is a Scriptural topic and Jay has used it as his guidance (authority) for his choice regarding IM. I applaud his effort. However, when anyone says “Scripture is my authority, and IM is acceptable in worship if it “edifies,” it should be perfectly tolerable to ask “how does one arrive at that conclusion from Scripture?”

  12. HistoryGuy says:
    December 23, 2010 at 4:37 am

    Jay and Todd,
    [Jay] Feel free to delete my last post. I meant what I said, but I have limited time at the moment. I would rather focus on reading the baptism posts and talking about some areas of agreement. Todd, I appreciate you trying to bring up a topic that everyone could agree on. Merry Christmas, brothers.

    Alexander, I am not sure if you participate in some form of the tradition of Christmas, so grace and peace to you my brother.

  13. JMF says:
    December 23, 2010 at 11:18 am

    Abasnar:

    Getting back to modesty–

    First off, I am not a woman. 🙂 But I still reserve the right to wear a sleeveless shirt should I choose to. 🙂

    Secondly, I can't tell if you are trying to flame things or if you truly feel that you have the right to determine dress codes for the rest of us. You speak of these ladies as having broken some specific biblical command by wearing strapless dresses as though we'd have no reason to disagree with you! Surely you aren't that vain and obtuse to think your opinions on such matters are the standard by which we are all measured.

    Why don't you offer the rest of us the guidelines on these things? I'd like to know the standards for both men and women as to what is modest and what is not.

  14. aBasnar says:
    December 23, 2010 at 2:34 pm

    Why don't you offer the rest of us the guidelines on these things?

    There are two ways to apply the relevant scriptures; First let me quote them, so we know what we are talking about:

    1Ti 2:9 likewise also that women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire,

    1Pe 3:3 Do not let your adorning be external–the braiding of hair and the putting on of gold jewelry, or the clothing you wear–

    So both Peter and Paul address the same issues.

    Let me assume, that we agree that there must be some kind of visible application to these texts. There is an application of not wearing certain styles of dress and hairstyle, and there is an application for proper behavior (not quoted, but this follows right after these verses).

    Now what is the application of NOT wearing gold or pearls or costly attire? Not difficult at all: Christians shall not wear jewelry. Why? Because Peter and Paul said so. Period. They did not give a reason, so we have to accept it without reason – although we can guess why …

    What is the application of "respec table apparel with modesty and self control?" Also clear: All kind of clothing that is sensual and is designed to provoke sexual attention (better understood from the KJV shamefacedness). Useful and simple clothing is also included in this.

    What about elaborate hairstyles? Women's hair ought to be long, menm's hair to be short. Simple haistryles, not trying to attract attention. Headcoverings for women in worship.

    These are the principles, and they are very clear. Peter and Paul did not use ambiguous language here.

    As for the two ways of dealing with these texts:

    a) Preach them, preach them, preach them – but leave the details to the congregation … normally this is neither satisfying nor does it bring any results. Especially in times as ours where any theological debate can be silenced with "This is how I see it, and it's fine with me."

    b) Agree on standards as a congregation. Then you don't have to preach that often about it, because the agreed upon application is the teaching.

    But really:

    When I look at the way the world dresses and the way Christuians do, very often I see little to no difference at all. It is neither preached nor practiced today. And what's the outcome? We lose our abilty to call evil evil and good goos, modest modest and shameless shameless. Then such videos get posted under the title "worship" (which it is not!). Tell me, JMF, how far shall we continue in this direction?

    Alexander

  15. Bruce Morton says:
    December 23, 2010 at 10:14 pm

    Todd:
    I read this and decided to chime in: "Bruce looks to ancient Ephesus to tell us what Paul was really saying and yet somehow failed to say." I am certain that is not what we should read in the text — but instead what a strong historical and cultural bent in our day regarding the text has left us with.

    I well realize that church history and the longstanding arguments within the Restoration Movement present a challenge. Paul's use of two LXX Psalm quotes — with definitive changes — tells us more than our day may want to hear. That and Paul's textual parallels and language parallels with ancient writers reveals what the Asians indeed heard and understood. So, why doesn't Paul "lay it out", as we would say? If we will notice closely the context, I believe we will get the answer. His focus is more on what they should be doing versus what they have been doing. He is directing them to sing and he is urging a unifying event. The text tells us why the early churches were a cappella in a Mediterranean world filled with IM in worship settings. No, IM is not inherently evil. That is not the issue. The issue is us; we want the sensational. The spiritual challenges in our time are little different than 2000 years ago.

    The message of Ephesians 5:18-21 should stare us in the face — especially in a time when we long for an experience of God. Paul is emphasizing the Spirit's work in the unity of congregational song. Supernatural work! When I think of what the Spirit is doing as we are united in song, it thrills me. I am hopeful that congregations will continue to grow to see the depth of the message and act on it.

    In Christ,
    Bruce Morton
    Katy, Texas

  16. Historyguy007 says:
    December 24, 2010 at 12:00 am

    …His focus is more on what they should be doing versus what they have been doing…

    I figured Bruce would chime in to clarify his position and I believe he makes some great points. My understanding of the points that Bruce made is that Paul is not giving a “new teaching” or every “theological reason” why they “sing,” but rather correcting an issue that has occurred by bringing them back to what they were originally taught, and that is compelling.

  17. aBasnar says:
    December 24, 2010 at 3:34 am

    Someone said (regarding the 20th century):

    Our century is the first century since the first century that is like the first century.

    This is true, and this makes reading the NT speaking right into our culture, our spiritual struggles. We can draw parallels from the Asian Cults (or from the Egyptian Cults) to contemporary events, and we can clearly see how the church is being influenced by them … thus we need to be on guard. I believe the Lord is coming soon. He won't return as a helpless babe, but to the separate the sheep from the goats. There are several things He is looking for:

    1) Faith:

    Luk 18:8 Nevertheless, when the Son of Man comes, will he find faith on earth?"

    2) Charity:

    Mat 25:34 Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.
    Mat 25:35 For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me,
    Mat 25:36 I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.'

    3) Obedience:

    Mat 7:21 "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.
    Mat 7:22 On that day many will say to me, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?'
    Mat 7:23 And then will I declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.'

    4) Fruit:

    Joh 15:5 I am the vine; you are the branches. Whoever abides in me and I in him, he it is that bears much fruit, for apart from me you can do nothing.
    Joh 15:6 If anyone does not abide in me he is thrown away like a branch and withers; and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire, and burned.

    5) Separation from this World:

    Joh 17:14 I have given them your word, and the world has hated them because they are not of the world, just as I am not of the world.
    Joh 17:15 I do not ask that you take them out of the world, but that you keep them from the evil one.
    Joh 17:16 They are not of the world, just as I am not of the world.
    Joh 17:17 Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth.

    I fear that Christ's question: "Will he find faith?" will be answered: "There are only a few faithful ones left." Since many did not obey (Mt 7). Because their lawlessness their love grew cold (Mat 24:12). They fell in love with the world and became an adulterous bride (Jas 4:4). Thus they remain fruitless.

    Mal 3:1 "Behold, I send my messenger, and he will prepare the way before me. And the Lord whom you seek will suddenly come to his temple; and the messenger of the covenant in whom you delight, behold, he is coming, says the LORD of hosts.
    Mal 3:2 But who can endure the day of his coming, and who can stand when he appears?

    When we sing "Silent Night" tonight, let us remember that He will come like a thief in the night. The judgement will start at the house of God (1Pe 4:17). This discussion on modesty, on separation – reflected in a-cappella singing (which is just one little side aspect) – of confusing worship with an artistic performance on a stage … all of this should make us aware that our God views these things and the "trimmings" of this season probably very differently that our mainstream culture does, which has such a strong influence on us, our emotions and habits.
    May our Lord make this day a day of reflection, that a King has been born who is coming to reign. "Fall on your knees!" gets a different tone then …

    Alexander

  18. Ray Downen says:
    June 16, 2012 at 4:50 pm

    It amazes me that persons who love Jesus and His Word can make up an anti-instrument law and assume it somehow came from God. There’s absolutely nothing in apostolic writings which opposes Christians playing musical instruments or singing with musical accompaniment. The verb sing doesn’t stipulate singing only vocally with no instruments being played. Why do some of us pretend it has that meaning? Why would anyone assume God now hates musical instruments if they’re being played for Him? Musicians receive their talent from God even if they must practice and perfect their singing or playing. And God-given talents surely should be used in His service!

Comments are closed.