<< 1 >>
Rating: 
Summary: Not so much how as why one should worship the Messiah
Review: This book is written by a graduate of Dallas Theological Seminary and a professor of Hebrew Scripture at Western Conservative Baptist Seminary, Portland, Oregon. Certainly he is aware of the musical notation of the Hebrew Masoretic Text -- and that fact influences my comments below.Unlike many other books on Christian worship listed by Amazon.com, this book does not focus on the issues of =what= is sound in worship music, but on =why= one should worship the Messiah in song. (At the risk of quibbling, Prof. Allen should be able to transliterate and pronounce Jesus' name in Hebrew properly: =Yeshua=, not =Y'shua=.) In three enlightening and enjoyable sections of several chapters each, the author deals with the Savior as the center of the Scriptures, as the Singer of the Psalms, and as the recipient of the songs we sing to Him. It is worth noting something of the author's opinion on the original music of the Psalms. On p. 149 he writes: "While the Psalms is a book of music, only its lyrics have come down to us -- no musical notation system has survived. This appears to me to be God's providence. Had we been able to reproduce exactly the singing of ancient Israel, we likely would believe that such a pattern is the only proper way to make music to the Lord. And we would be the poorer for it." This argument is simply a red herring -- and unfounded besides. The Hebrew Bible =does= preserve the original music of the Psalms in a written notation: the =te`amim=. This was known in Christian circles as far back as the Renaissance by the metrical Psalmist Thomas Ravenscroft and others -- if indeed not many centuries earlier, when the notation was described by the Catholic Father Clement of Alexandria. More importantly, the belief in the link between the =te`amim= and the Temple liturgy was effectively that of the Masoretes themselves, who were in a position to know (having received the notation from the priestly Elders of Bathyra via the Karaites). But for the Christian, the Word of God is the =foundation= of humanly obtainable knowledge; it is not the =sum total= of that knowledge. Keeping that distinction in mind keeps one from enshrining what should be used as a springboard -- even a touchstone -- for discerning what is "good" music in all cultures and times. Prof. Allen notes the real need to teach old truths in new ways across the generations. Yet strangely, he overlooks the fact that the "new songs" mentioned by the Hebrew Bible were consistently written and performed in one and the same ancient and traditional musical system. Not only the biblical notation, but the biblical narrative, indicates this. The Hebrew Bible is not promoting cultural change as such by such exhortations as one finds in Psalms 96:1 ("Sing to the LORD a new song..."); in fact, it is doing precisely the opposite. It is exhorting the worshipper to sing new songs in the old sacred style. This sort of traditionalism is typical of ancient and traditional music in general, even in folk music where improvisation within limits was and remains the norm. If Mr. Allen claims that "all the best music of the ages and cultures of man may be used to praise the Lord of Song" (ibid.), how then shall we judge what is "best"? While the biblical narratives and exhortations give us many valuable keys to making that assessment, they do not answer every question that may be raised -- especially with regard to the =ethos= or moral force in music. I submit that only the original music of the Bible, taken as a foundation, can train one's ear to make =infallible= distinctions between good and evil in music. That is why I recommend the work of the late Suzanne Haik-Vantoura along with this book. We owe to her the rediscovery of the original music, without which Prof. Allen is in fact the one who is poorer.
<< 1 >>
| 
