I absolutely think that the church should provide music education! Singing in our worship assemblies is vital to our overall worship experience and should be taken very seriously. One way to accomplish this is to find a way to teach 4-part harmony. I would suggest a couple of things: 1) Host a Praise and Harmony seminar that will lay the ground work for introducing the concept of bringing 4-part harmony back in to our churches. 2) Have a WEEKLY class on teaching this practice. In all of our churches there are great Bible classes each and every week, whether it be on a Sunday morning or Wednesday night. Why not incorporate a singing class also? I think that if it is presented in a way so as to not "rock the boat" and just come across as a time to teach "contemporary" music, rather it's presented in a way that will promote improved singing in the worship service, it will work. Often, people look at these classes as just a time to learn "new songs". Teaching newer songs is great but it's not the purpose. The purpose is to educate the congregation in the benefits of 4-part acappella harmony. If you don't have someone at your church that is capable of teaching this, then I would suggest bringing someone in who could. Promoting unity in the brotherhood is what it's all about. Why not "borrow" a skilled worship leader from another congregation for a few weeks if you don't have one that can teach? And by the way, just because someone doesn't have the gift to teach, doesn't make him a bad worship leader. Let's start thinking "outside the box" to improve our singing. As we reach out to our communities, we can be certain that folks will want to come back to a church where the singing is awesome and uplifting. Just some thoughts.

YES, YES, YES!

I cannot sing. But, I WANT to sing. I think it is a WONDERFUL idea for churches to teach 4-part harmony to its members. If I could find such a class near me, I might start attending the sponsoring church simply BECAUSE of these classes.

I am on the web searching for "singing lessons for people who can't sing." I got to your post by typing either "a cappella" or "congregational."

There is nothing more glorius than attending a worship service of people who know how to sing. I recently attended a "packed house" funeral of a long time Church of Christ preacher - and the buld of the service incorporated congregational singing. As you looked about, people were weeping, not because it was funeral (we knew the pastor was with the Lord), but because of the INCREDIBLE, ETHERIAL, BEAUTIFUL, God-honoring sound of the unified members in a cappella worship.

To any Worship Leaders that may read this post, I have a "theory" about what is happening in worship music styles, today; please read on: I get the impression that the traditional hymn is falling out of favor, in lieu of praise and worship music. I really think this is a "self-imposed, self-fulfilling" eventuality BECAUSE people are NOT taught to sing, and therefore they are not comfortable with more complex singing. Many of the P&W songs today are musically simple and lyrically repetitive; some sound like chants that should be associated with eastern religions instead of the Body of Christ. (For clarity, I am not a musical "old foggy." I was raised on rock and roll, and genuinely enjoy EVERY type of music except Rap. But I think that Christian worship styles are evolving not due to our preferences, but because of our inadequacies.) Worship Leaders - PLEASE continue to incorporate traditional hymns into the worship service, and PLEASE set up 4-part harmony classes, as this post suggests. I believe you will be surprised at the interest. One other thought: I believe that incorporating the singing of the "meaty" lyrics of traditional hymns can be equated to Paul's 1 Corinthians 3:1-3 challenge to become more spiritually mature, while contemporary P&W is really settling for the "milk." (also see Hebrews 5:11-13.)

BTW, If anyone knows of congregational singing lessons in San Antonio, TX, please email me at kldement@mac.com.

I tend to place more importance on the message and heart of worship and not the music, although those of you who know me know that I'm fairly capable and big on the music part of worship. That said, my response to this survey hinges on a particular word of Keith's question and the implications that follow.

"The question for this week is: Do you think the church should teach four-part harmony singing skills to its members?"

SHOULD teach? No, not necessarily. If a particular congregation has capable singers/teachers or resources to hire such, then they certainly COULD do so. I don't believe it's either the duty, requirement or obligation of the church community to teach four-part harmony and probably doesn't find it's way into any church's mission statement. Not that it couldn't, but the question is "should". There are those who value four-part harmony almost to idolatry and who declare that it is essential to worship and our (C of C) identity. While it certainly is a wonderful practice and I believe a part of God's gift to humanity to enjoy and utilize for His purposes, I certainly don't see it as an essential.

Some would argue that the introduction of 'praise teams' or the use of instruments in worship has contributed to the waning of four-part harmony singing. I think the greater culprit in our current society is the decline of good teaching in our school systems, both public and private. Most teachers are so burdened with activities, fund-raisers, discipline problems and non-educational duties that they (if they indeed have the skills) barely have time to teach music skills. Just give the kids a CD and repeat these eight songs a bazillion times till you have it memorized.

Here's are some 'devil's advocate' thoughts:
-Perhaps the LORD in His infinite mercy and wisdom is revealing some greater truths about His sovereignty over the creation and usage of instrumental music and our priorities in the musical aspects of our worship.
-Perhaps we've something to learn about the beauty of simplicity and the unity that's experienced when we sing with one voice (unison).
-Perhaps allowing His other contributions to our musical experience that require us to mostly listen rather than participate, will help us to appreciate other traditions of worship music.
-Perhaps we have become so arrogant in our 'four-part a cappella' heritage that God is going to see if we're capable of worshiping without it.

It's interesting to me that recent trends have us looking back to ancient or simple practices like Lectio Divina, Taize, traditional liturgies, etc. which often involve chant, unison singing or two-part harmonies or (gasp) silence.

Don’t' get me wrong, I'm 'born and raised' a cappella Church of Christ. I love singing four-part, five-part, six-part, etc. harmonies and think there is a beauty found in the human voice and the way God created us so that our voices cover a range of frequencies. I love it that He created chord structures and tonality into the universe and that we can discover, manipulate, quantify and then regurgitate His awesome creation in our a cappella tradition. But I have also seen how our singing can easily become an exercise in self-accomplishment, pride and vanity. Those of us who have been gifted or have developed an appreciation for music find it a very meaningful part of our worship.

But there are many people in the pews for whom the participatory singing part of our corporate assembly is not particularly meaningful. Not that they don't enjoy it and worship with it, but they have no desire or perhaps ability to learn music much less sing in parts. To teach it across the board and place a high value on it, while perhaps helping us sound better, may create a feeling of 'second-class citizenship' for those who can't or don't learn better singing skills. Those same individuals may be some of the most Christ-like servants in your churches.

Wow, that was a long answer to a short question. And I'm just getting started!! Sorry Keith. But you asked.

Yes, I think the church should provide music education for congregations, although it should never be mandatory and I'd be very careful about doing so during Sunday AM worship as there are likely many who feel it might detract from the worship service.

I would suggest incorporating it into worship or like I have seen done in other churches with any of the following:

- Once or twice a month, schedule open worship in an informal setting to begin 15-30 minutes before the actual service begins. This also serves to "warm-up" the congregation, preparing them not only for the worship service but puts them in an ideal mindset to be more open and receptive to the preaching.

- Once a month or once every other month, for a change of pace have a "Singspiration" in the place of the Sunday evening service, although it should not replace the minister's message. Worship services like this that I've participated in often close in a 5-10 minute devo-type message from the minister. And I always felt especially refreshed afterwards. I don't know about other people, but singing is very theraputic for me.

- It could also be offered as a church class for any interested. Keep it within 30 minutes, and you'd be surprised how many people turn out just to sing. You'd also likely find some great recruits for a choir or praise team.

I also believe that 4-part harmony singinghas become a lost art and tradition in many churches due to ministers choosing Powerpoint presentation of worship lyrics over using church hymnals.

My wife and I visited a church for a while that used only contemporary worship songs--no hymns at all, and they never used their pew hymnals (and they had two different ones to choose from!). And then there was a service where the music minister opened the invitation by giving a number from the hymnal, which was followed by a little chuckling and whispering among the congregation.

To which the minister responded, "Yes, I realize we don't normally use the hymnal, but I believe this song ties in beautifully with the preacher's message."

Lesson learned: you shouldn't have to apologize for using a hymn or putting the hymnal to use during a worship service.

Some of my fondest childhood memories in church are sharing a hymnal with my dad or my mom. It made me feel like I was involved and sharing in something special. And as a result I learned harmony-singing by ear because Daddy sang bass and momma sang tenor... well, alto actually.

I appreciate your balance, Keith. Of course, in the early church they sang only unison (and a cappella). So 4-part singing is not required by any means. But especially in the a cappella tradition, if people don't sing harmonies, then harmonies don't happen. (Of course, when a church uses instruments and a vocal team and a loud sound system, no one particularly notices whether people are singing harmony parts. But that's another story...)

Here is an idea that I tried: in the summer, I invaded (with permission) Bible school classes and "recruited" (some would say "kidnapped") them to be our Summer Surprise Choir for the day. I marched the class up to the auditorium, and taught them a song that they could sing for the congregation. We spent some time learning basics about reading music, spent some time on a Bible study drawn from the song's insights, and prepared them to sing for the rest of the congregation. The next week, I grabbed a different class or two to learn a different song.

We also have tried music reading classes on Saturdays. Of course, that doesn't include everyone, but it is a more concentrated time.

Otherwise, my more cynical, blunt philosophical answer is:
Culture changes. Get over it.
:-)

We shouldn't make teaching 4-part harmony a priority in our churches. This question was geared towards the "next generation." Although I am a fan of 4-part harmony, I don't find it necessary, and am very glad you stated that.

I don't think there is anything wrong with hosting a P&W seminar, but spending time weekly that copuld be spent in spiritual conversation, encouraging dialogue, prayer, silence before God, and faith community bible study, is just not beneficial.

I think the survey before this, showing that spiritual formation of a worship minister is important, should somehwat flow over here. If we get those same people to answer, then 50% should say that time would be better spent on spiritual formation and then the other % should be spent on community team building and music education.

I have a deep love for 4-part singing. Actually I have a love for 5 and 6 part harmony for that matter. There is beauty in unison and beauty in harmony. Should we teach people in our church how to sing 4-part harmony? I think the answer is we already do. I know so many people who grew up CoC that know how to sing harmony. Did they take a class? No. Were they instructed at a singing school? No. They how did they learn? Through the weekly participation in 4-part harmony. Do they sing all the notes as written? Rarely, but they sing with all their heart. The way you teach it is to keep singing it.

Now I will say that musical teaching in public schools has greatly diminished over the years and I think that will continue to have a negative impact on 4-part singing. I still don't think that having a class for the church is the answer, but I think that praise teams have been good on enforcing the 4 parts.

I think we also need to realize that 4-part singing, though near to my heart, is not the only way to worship God and is certainly not THE prescribed method of worship. That means that as culture changes, so could 4-part singing in CoC assemblies. I do think it is a great part of our heritage and that we should do our best to preserve that heritage. I think that praise teams have been a great tool on keeping that alive.

I really appreciate the comments thus far, so, rather than "chew that gum" again, I'll just try to add to the conversation.

In most churches where I've been, 4-part harmony continues to be an valued part of our tradition... at least among those of us who have been around a while (some reading the notes and others using the shape note approach). I'm not so sure it's as important to many younger Christians. Not sure why, but my guess is that Gary is right about fewer learning opportunities in schools. I also think that in our music saturated culture, almost everyone sings the melody as they're listening to their Ipods, so it's natural to sing the melody at church too. One song writer told me that, in his opinion, the message in most contemporary worship is musically tied to the melody, making that the most "meaningful" part to sing. Don't know if he's right, but it's food for thought.

Most guests to our worship assemblies who do not have a coc background are intrigued by the wonderful harmonies of our singing, even if it takes some getting used to for them. I believe that a properly mixed praise team on mic totally enhances this experience for these guests.

While even as a teen in the 60s I loved learning and singing tenor and bass, at some point it dawned on me that most of the time I was more concerned with singing the right notes than bathing in the message of the songs. If you're a tenor, you know that hitting that G cleanly can almost be an idolatrous worship experience all by itself. Perhaps the best of both worlds is gifted people who can intuitively harmonize by ear without worrying about the notes on the page, allowing their hearts to fully engage the message as they sing. The problem with that is there aren't too many of those folks around, are there?!?

If we accept that ideas like "gift based ministry" and "one-to-one mentoring" are both biblical and culturally effective ways to do ministry, perhaps one way to discover and grow younger folks who might be gifted in singing harmony is to combine the two. We've had some success by partnering an older singer with a younger one who wants to learn, encouraging them to sing until the harmony part becomes natural for them. It takes a while, but it can work. Now, we do this as a way of discovering and training gifted individuals to eventually consider singing with our praise team, but that's actually the way I learned to sing tenor 40 years ago, long before praise teams in our fellowship.

Whatever way we go, I pray that we don't allow preference for a particular style of singing become more important than allowing God to shape us as we sing the messages of songs we love.

In his book, The Cross of Christ, John Stott writes about singing as a unique feature of Christian worship. "A Buddhist temple never resounds with a cry of praise. Mohammedan worshippers never sing. Their prayers are, at the highest, prayers of submission and request. They seldom reach the gladder note of thanksgiving. They are never jubilant with the songs of the forgiven. By contrast, whenever Christian people come together it is impossible to stop them singing. The Christian community is a community of celebration."

If the Bible urges us to sing joyfully, sing praises, sing the glory of the name of God, sing in the shadow of His wing . . . I do not understand how Christians can responsibly do anything other than encourage it, and encourage doing it well. If the Church doesn't take the responsibility to teach and encourage musical expression, to whom will we entrust it?

Yes, it is important for the Church to take some responsibility in teaching music, and be proactive about it, not only because singing is an important part of our worship to God, but also because by actively doing so, we SHOW it is important to us.

A friend of mine who attends a community megachurch commented to me one time that she's noticed how people in the church of Christ focus too much on accuracy in singing, and place too much emphasis on ability. That really hit home with me, as at that time I was preparing a praise team for a retreat, and rather than worshiping together, we were hyper-critical of how we sounded.

I don't think God cares so much how we sound as how honest we are when we are singing. I have enough ability to be able to prepare and lead worship, and I pray that when I do so, my emphasis is on how well we worship God, rather than how well we sing.

Teaching 4-part harmony to the church should not be a priority. There's nothing wrong with it, but we must be careful to give God our praise rather than ourselves. It's very easy to give in to pride and center our worship on our music rather than our Maker.

We should make our priorities feeding the hungry, and taking care of the downtrodden, just as Jesus did.

Teaching four part harmony perpetuates one of our dearest and most honorably distinctive heritage components. We may differ with each other about prescribed acappella worship theology holds water, but who among us can trash acappella worship’s elegant beauty and simplicity?

Our family’s experience indicates that corporate gatherings provide great forums for full-family communication about family matters and matters that can be disseminated through mass communication media such as sermons, prayer announcements, etc. (By the way, I generally use “family” in place of the words “church” and “congregation.”) When we want to accomplish something that only certain people may value personally, we assemble affinity groups that share affinity for those things. Thus, we avoid annoying the pig (you know, don’t try to teach a pig to sing or you’ll waste your time and annoy the pig).

Our family uses an ensemble praise team with some members rotating in and out from one week to the next. Wes recruits praise team members for participation at various commitment levels for variously demanding roles (special events such as funeral singing, Christmas carols, weddings, Keith Lancaster gatherings, etc.). We try to involve as many as possible people into the worship ministry in these roles to discover, share and promote musical gifts. This does not fix the decline of four-part harmony from the quality and pervasiveness that we enjoyed 30 years ago, but it helps us preserve and build the flame without obscuring our worship mission.

If we consider the four part singing class in a modern/post-modern context, does the singing class idea fit equally well in both cultures? I perceive some incompatibility with post-moderns. However, when I pull along someone with an interest in music (after building a relationship), he or she may accept a challenge to learn more about musical art and find a new world of expression that we can share together with the family. It’s a much slower process to mentor one person at a time, but a post-modern person will more likely share an intimate worship experience with me than sign up for my class. My personal testimony may infect someone with the song in my heart and spread passion for the song on my lips.

This personal mentor approach offers spiritual leadership roles to more of us than other music teaching methods may afford. If every member of the worship ministry seeks opportunities to bring new people into the ministry, the ministry builds more members with high quality spiritual foundations in worship. Again, this process requires generations of foresight to reap significant rewards.

Keith,

Four part harmony is a great tradition that I hate to see die out. In the body where my wife and I are members, the old familiar songs still resonate with four parts. When we sing newer songs, however, the singing is mainly melody. Many church bodies singing newer songs simply rely on memory when these songs are led or, when using a projector, project the words only (as do we). As a result, there is just no written arrangement to follow for those who can read music.

As you've already mentioned, four part harmony is not required for our worship to God.

However, there is the 'speaking to one another' portion of our singing where we encourage and lift one another other up. So many of us raised in the church of Christ love this type of singing so much that when we're down, it encourages...as much of our funeral singing does.

Does anyone remember those 'shape note' teachers? I remember in my childhood a brother that went around to various congregations in middle Tennessee who taught members who couldn't otherwise read music to 'read' shape notes. My, how I remember our singing improving! (this brother is still around, by the way) It seemed to give confidence to those singers who were less confident, and get more involved in singing who weren't before.

The question was: Do you think the church should teach four-part harmony singing skills to its members?

My answer: most definitely!

Bruce Bowman

I think music education is important! I remember in my home congregation as a young child back in the early 80's, we had a music education class taught to us during the week, outside of worship time. Even as a child, I remember it being beneficial, and learning some things about music that I had never heard before. I would love to have something like this again because I don't read much music, I strictly do everything by ear. Alot of times in our churches you look around and people aren't singing, or they look like they don't care, when in actuality they may not read music, causing them to not know how to sing. One example I've encountered is women starting out singing Soprano, as the song becomes higher, they drop an octave, when it gets too low for them, back up an octave they go. If four part harmony was taught in our churches, as it is in a chorus, we might have greater participation, and we wouldn't have the "octave switching", or nearly as much because they would know what part to sing, and what fits their range. :) I do agree that sometimes too much emphasis can be put on the "right note" or "we're going flat", and we can easily forget the meaning of the words, and WHO we are singing to. All God wants is our heart and total focus on Him, but He also wants our BEST, so shouldn't we put this into practice when we sing? We are singing for the Almighty One...we need to give it our ALL!!! Four part harmony is beautiful when it is sung correctly, and I truly think through music education in our churches, congregational singing can be taken to new heights. :)

yes. We are to offer to God our best fruits.

That sums it up for me.

Why is it waning? I blame power point "mystery music" and our instant gratification culture (of which I am first in line to get it the fastest, quickest, road of least resistance way I can!).

How? Offering a class during the week for those who are interested. Maybe only at one church in a town, if there aren't enough interested in one congregation. Or at least put the notes up on the screen with the words... (yay Chris Stivers!)

We should teach four part harmony to our members. We should take some time on Wednesday nights (after services) to learn the parts to new & old songs alike. I think we would be suprised at how many people want to know how to sing their part but don't have the time or ability to teach themselves. I'm sure that God does not care what wesound like, but it sure feels great to hear a song sung well by an entire congregation. I wouldn't blame powerpoint for unisonsinging.....I remember going to my grandmother's church 30 years ago and most of the church sang in unison.

I think we also need to learn to sing with some enthuasim. I am surprised at how little volume comes from such big congregations!

Praise God for giving us voices to praise Him!!

I don't ever want to be dogmatic about opinion. Part singing is truly a matter of preference. There is great power in harmony 2 part or more. Why do you suppose we strive for quality in our singing? Could it be that this is inherent in the command to sing together, teaching each other and praising God as a matter of sacrifice of our lips? I think so. If we are going to obey any command it should be not only in letter but in spirit as well.

If we are to know the will of God should we not learn to study (2 Tim 2:15). To give honor and glory to God shouldn't every person do his dead level best to sing correctly? I'm not saying that the off key, out of rhythm singer is condemned for his inability but he could be condemned for not doing his best.

Knowing the nature of men and women in the body of Christ I am certain that there was division over singing parts when it was first introduced. I know of people today who forbid the singing of songs that feature a certain part as a duet or solo. They believe that every word of every song should be sung together as a group. Four part harmony and modern hymns include more than just mixing of voices but the syncopation of those voices rhythmically. To accomplish that correctly we are going to have teach folks how.

There is a tradition among us country folks to have singing schools. Brothers Robert Arnold, Paul Epps, Holland Boring Sr. and Jr., Austin Taylor, Tillet Teddle, et. al. of the past generation took upon themselves the job of teaching most of the brotherhood to sing 4 part harmony with the simple seven shapes. They would gather brethren in various places for 2 week schools throughout the summer. The Johnson family in Central Texas and Okalahoma had a circuit of schools every summer for many years.
The last school I attended of Robert Arnold had only about 12 students. Sad to see this type of thing pass away.

I think in some way the old Singing School and Convention was a form of entertainment for folks during the 30's, 40's and 50's. There was a whole industry within the religious world known as Singing Convention they made fortunes for the Stamps Baxter publishing company. Stamps Baxter still has a school primarily promoted within the Baptist churches and Gaither groups.

We still have a few singing schools in the churches of Christ. Joe Ed Furr has a summer school at Abilene Christian University. R.J. Stevens has a school in a few places in Oklahoma and Texas. Tom Chapin has a school at Canfield, Arkansas and Haskell, Texas each year. Cecil Price took over the old Foundation School for a several years. I believe Keith and Acappella ministry hosts an Acafest which teaches 4 part harmony.

A very few congregations seek out training sessions for singing. Most of them are looking for a quick fix to a major problem. A two day seminar can do some good but what is taught needs to be taught again over and over. We need to send young people to schools to learn the art of singing, writing and leading. We need to visit with elders and preachers to encourage them to invest in training leaders.

It would break my heart to see harmony and part singing pass from use only because people didn't see the value in training themselves to do their best. Would it make it to where I could not worship God in Spirit and in Truth to sing only the melody? Not really.

One last point here. We have so many powerfully talented writers and arrangers today. Look at what Zoe is doing. Look at Hallel and Covenant and Coram Deo and the Praise and Harmony that Keith has done. I am seeing a resurgence of harmony in the South! We are even seeing Basses sing something besides keytones and 5ths. There is a new awakening in the Tenor line that brings fresh air to singing. Yeah, Tenors have to sing E's F's and sometimes holding up there for several measures. Didn't see a whole lot of that in Brumley Songs or the old Gospel music harmony of the 18th and 19th century.

So Keith, Maybe, just maybe your hope and mine is unfolding to be something even better than we imagined.

Because of Him,
Joe Chase

I have been part of congregations that had so much harmony, I had to find 'color notes' to sing something else! Now, our congregation is almost tone deaf. It's a huge change. I feel that the difference is a lack of confidence, not desire. I think if our congregation had some music education, people would feel more confident.

I've been blessed to have music education throughout my life - from playing instruments, to attending ACMS (aka acafest!) and being in choruses . . . these things were daily practices and so uplifting. Being in chorus in college was one of the highlights I had. It was a great thing to see how harmony is a mirror of the church - everyone using their gift or doing their 'part' to create one thing of beauty and power.

I'm not sure how to go about it exactly. I think the idea of a chorus is a good thing. That way, it's not exclusive to just 'worship team' people, but it's a risk-free opportunity to learn some new parts. Maybe even promote it with "Do you wish you could sing alto?" (:) ). I think people would not only learn a lot but they'd really enjoy it.

I'm one of those people who the Lord has chosen to work with worship in churches that has little formal music training. Most of what I learned about singing came from my home where my Mom, sisters, and I harmonized all our lives.

My passion for singing was later combined with my passion for worship. As a youth minister in the first years of my ministry I always emphasized singing and worship. I was always impressed that our young men and women in churches could always "get" four-part harmony in singing even without formal training. I have been told my experience is somewhat unique, but I can't remember any of the youth groups I worked with that didn't have amazing, passionate, harmonious singing. One of my conclusions is that finding the right people who are passionate about singing to the Lord with our teens, even if they don't have musical training, can develop great results in developing a worship which includes rich harmonies.

I've carried my worship philosophy with me into my work with adults. "Passionate talent", I believe, should be a higher priority in praise team selection than "music-reading ability." There are many people who can and do learn harmony very well by ear. It may not be the popular approach, and our praise team may not be as "musically" talented as some, but our worship at this time is wonderful and full of harmony here at Northwest.

As to whether a "music class" is necessary, I'm not sure. I think a class that is held for a period of time once a year would be helpful, but I'm convinced that passionate worship that is a little off key is much more beautiful than a worship which emphasizes music over all else.

All that being said, I believe there are two keys to keeping "four-part harmony" strong within our churches. First, make sure those leading the worship are serious about teaching the harmonies. If the majority of the church do not read music, put the harmonies on CDs and let them learn them by listening. Even teach a harmony part as a fun part of a worship service. Our people love it when we do that and we've been able to do so without "taking away" from our worship time.

Secondly, we must start young. Make singing in Bible classes a priority. Teach songs where guys and girls sing counter-melodies or "echo" songs so that they can hear musical harmonies regularly. Use events like "Leadership Training for Christ" or "Lads to Leaders" to develop a youth chorus or small singing group. Teach songs at devos and camps that are rich in harmony. If the youth are excited about harmony, the church will catch their passion. Also, that love for harmony will carry over into adulthood as they grow.

Again, developing music ability might be important, esepcially among those who have the gift. But, I don't think the ability to read music is the critical element in keeping harmony in our fellowship. It's sort of like telling our people that they must be passionate about the Bible while neglecting to develop their passion for Jesus.

Great music is, first, an expression of the passion of the soul, long before its put on paper. It seems to me this must be the primary starting point for any discussion such as this one.

Keith has certainly struck a chord (pun intended) with many of us by introducing this topic. Times are a changin’ but that is nothing new. Each generation has its list of priorities that it must champion to preserve the parts of the past it wishes to present to future generations.

When the restoration movement vaulted into full motion, a cappella singing was on the list of issues, but wasn’t at the top of the list. Most protestant denominations sang a cappella. As was pointed out in an earlier discussion, instrumentation didn’t become an issue, especially in the South, until after the Civil War when untold congregations found themselves without sufficient men adding their voices to the singing. To many of these churches, they felt it “expedient” to add the piano or pump organ to make up for the missing voice parts. It wasn’t preference that brought them to their decision but a try at remedy. They were trying to find a solution and did the quickest thing they could. This isn’t so different from congregations now deciding on a course to do something about their singing.

Now days for the most part, churches rely on two forms of music education: public and/or community education for training their members to sing. Public and private elementary schools have in the past introduced music education in early formative years of children, before a cultural stigma could take hold. Public education, and this depends greatly of the school district, has failed in recent years to place the emphasis on the arts that we took for granted in years past. Because of budget and time restraints, music and PE have become luxury items when compared to the requirements dictated by the promises of politics. We can no longer count on public music education.

Community singing conventions are for the most part a thing of the past. Stamps-Baxter Music Company, and many others, held these conventions in both large and small towns, drawing huge numbers of participants. They taught new songs from their latest paperback song booklet and in doing so sold thousands of their new publications. They held sight singing classes and taught shaped notes to the whole town. This was entertainment in those days but television has replaced this form of constructive entertainment. We can no longer count on community music education either.
As pointed out by Joe Chase in his comments on this topic, there have always been alternatives in training for churches in the form of summer singing schools, at least for over 100 years. The Singing School at ACU, the modern day Texas Normal Singing School that moved from Sabinal, TX., just observed its 60th anniversary. These schools do a wonderful job of teaching the few that attend their programs. Something to notice here is that most students attending these schools are from smaller congregations what realize that the future must be prepared for - now. These smaller churches provide chances for their youth to practice the skills they acquire. When they master their directing skills, they are hired by the larger urban churches to direct their singing. Most good song directing is not a result of education obtained from college, and that doesn’t matter whether we are talking about one of our fine Christian schools or not. We need to use this form of music education more, but these schools can’t education whole congregations.

Now, to the topic at hand – the first century church did not sing four part harmony– that is true. But the budding church did sing. Where did they get their training, if they had any training at all? Consider where the church started and who where the first members. They were Jews who had received their training in the synagogues. The Jewish men of that day were taught how to read and write by Jewish leaders in the local synagogues. While the scripture was in written form, the music existed only in oral form, but it was handed down to the next generation none the less. The New Testament church was modeled after the Jewish synagogue. The Psalms were the main source of the lyrics and they authored their own lyrics and were free to use whatever music melody they preferred, so it seems. While there was private education available in that day, it wasn’t available to the masses. The main thing to understand is that the music training that existed in that day that equipped Christians to sing was taught to them in their church, either formally in classes or informally during their assembly times.

Our music is far more complicated now than it was in the first century. We have a written language of music that didn’t exist then. But just because it is different and is now written, can we say that we shouldn’t be teaching it? I don’t think so. When the church spread to the Gentiles, we find that their forms of music found favor just as the Psalms remained in favor. I believe that we are at the point, that if our young people are going to be trained in any of the things we hold dear, we have prepare and do that training ourselves. We can no longer rely on public and/or community training. If we don’t do the training, the church will suffer from lack of knowledge and skills. That will only lead to the “expedient” quick remedy, and we know that bad choices have been made in that area before.

alright, here is my totally honest opinion on this matter. when i was in high school i was in chorus for only one year b/c of these "waning" practices. i do, however, feel strongly that 4 part harmony is beautiful and i absolutely loving singing it!! i feel that the incorporation of a praise team helps teach the parts as the congregation listens. so that is my opinion...hearing the parts and allowing the congregation to sing with those parts would be the least "waning." i would encourage the effort that was made a while back. the teaching double cd's with one cd teaching the individual parts and the other cd of the congregation singing the parts. people loved that...and i did too!! i don't think you would even have to provide free cd's for the congregation. just like with zoe cd's, i think people would love to buy them at a good price. three things would benefit from this. additional money to a worship ministry, teaching the parts to enhance times of singing as well as incorporating some new songs as well for people to learn...but it couldn't be the ooooooing songs:). now, sure, a congregation would not learn the details of music, but i think it could be a good option. like i said...this is just my opinion. long live the 4 part harmony!!

Yes, I think we should try and educate our churches about music. Many people are speaking about music education as energy better spent on something else. Singing is a part of our worship just as prayer or the lord's supper is. Why would we not want to better our worship to God if we have those with the knowledge and willingness to share it? I think back to my teenage years when a friend came to church with me. She was not raised in the CoC and was amazed by the singing. It is a part of our wroship that should not be ignored and when made better, can enhance our personal connection with the Lord.

Please forgive any typos, I majored in Music Ed not English.

Pretty cool. I read your comment and thought it was from my son (also Jeremy Johnson), but the give away was that he was neither a music ed nor English major. However, he is involved in worship ministry out in CA. www.truelift.com

Ok, I'll try to keep this simple. My post is just to state my opinion, not to argue someone else's point.

I love acappella music. I'm like a one-man spebsqsa chapter (google it) and promote it all the time. However, I believe that it is the responsibility of the individual to promote acappella music, not the church...if it is to stick around. Org's like www.casa.org and spebsqua do a great job, but most folks don't get it like we do. It's an aquired taste and doesn't click for MOST people. Everyone can appreciate it, but I would say that most don't prefer it.

However...hehehe. If a church is going to remain acapella only, and they are striving for excellence in whatever they put their hand to, they need to teach those who WANT to learn. I wouldn't suggest making it a church-wide thing. Offer a class, make part CD's, have singing/songlearning classes.

I believe that praise teams are keeping the harmony alive. Most of us learned the parts to the songs in the book by sitting next to someone as a child. We sing what momma or daddy sang. I knew the tenor to all the songs in the book before I was ten. My father and my music theory teacher taught me music, not my minister. I didn't learn this song at church http://www.mitchfewell.com/comeuntome.html I agree with Gary that we are failing our children by not teaching music in our schools well enough.

Let's all take some time out to promote or support acappella music. Share your CD's (gasp!!! make sure to put your name and phone number on the disk) take someone to a concert, etc... Rally the troops!!! hehehe. I love this question.

Music has, and continues to play a huge role in my spiritual development. Music speaks to me in so many ways. I've grown up in an a cappella church of Christ singing harmony. In my own personal opinion, I think a much greater effort needs to be placed in our churches on keeping the beautiful sound of 4-part harmony. At the same time, we need to look at the issue from all perspectives. I am a person who loves to sing and loves to listen to a cappella music. Harmony is a wonderful thing that God has given many of us the ability to sing, and I think that those who have this ability should use it. When it comes down to it, I think that there should be a lot more opportunities to learn to sing harmony, but I do not think it should be mandatory. It is still a good idea to encourage it in our churches, but it should not be something we force upon people. Having a good praise team singing four-part harmony is an excellent way to encourage others to sing harmony. The biggest reason that four-part harmony is fading in our churches today is likely because people have less of an opportunity to learn how to sing harmony. Praise and Harmony seminars are a great way to promote exciting, heart-felt worship, along with 4-part harmony. I think that, given the opportunity, many people would love to learn to sing in 4-part harmony.

Why is it that so many people immediately equate the desire to teach music theory and learn to sing parts with not being worshipful? Why do some assume that if you care about how it sounds you must not care about the heart behind it? Who's to say you cannot care passionately about both?

Sorry, no answers, just questions. I grow weary of being judged in that regard sometimes. It's almost a badge of honor for some that they can't read music, as if that means they worship better than those who do.

Yes, I think we can care passionately about both, and I do (although perhaps not with the same level of intensity of passion). There was a time in my life, years ago, that the notes were more important to me than the message... and I didn't even realize it at the time. I believe that yielding to the Spirit in areas such as this tends to move one toward a somewhat more spiritually healthy balance... at least it seemed to do that for me.

Hmm, interesting question. I think that as long as churches value music as a popular form of worship, then they should have somebody available who can teach music.

However, I do not think that teaching 4-part harmony should be any kind of priority at all. What makes 4-part harmony more "beautiful" than 3-part harmony, or more than 6-part harmony? Really, I'd rather be singing in 6-part harmony... the chords sound much fuller and more interesting to me!

As it stands, the music used by the Church throughout the centuries has changed quite a number of times. Usually it's changed with the culture. And the music has hardly ever been the same throughout different parts of the world. (Keep in mind I speak of, oh, 18 centuries of music or so.) I think to say that we have to prolong 4-part harmony is to force culture into a particular form, which may have less meaning than another form to them. If the music of the culture is changing, and that's where the people's hearts resonate the most, then the music of the Church should change accordingly.

Should we teach music? Sure. Should we teach 4-part harmony? If that's what the people still want. But let's not force it just because we think it sounds better. If it becomes a matter of taking resources away from more spiritual matters, I'm not even sure I'd put priority on teaching music. I'd rather have people's hearts and heads in tune than their voices.