The past sunday I visited two churches that differed greatly in many ways, but which once again confirmed to me that a church need not possess an organ in order for congregational singing to work well. In the morning I was at Harvest Hills Alliance. For those of you who have never set foot inside an Alliance church, I've yet to encounter one which did not use a band to accompany singing. In the evening I then visited a local non-denominational church which I soon discovered believed that instruments were not to be used to accompany the congregation. They seemed to rotate through a large chunk of the male membership (perhaps all) to serve as song leaders - with each person leading one song. The songs were a little more complicated that what is found in the CanRC Book of Praise, at some times breaking into two-part harmony, but yet it seemed to work quite well.
An outline of the latter church's argument against instrumental accompaniment: I've heard a lot about the regulative principle of worship these past days, weeks, and month, and it was this principle used to justify an anti-accompaniment conclusion. They believe that instruments were used in the old testament, but that instrumental accompaniment disappeared along with animal sacrifices in the early church. In their view all new testament references were to songs of praise - not mentioning musical accompaniment (this excepts a reference or two in revelations which they take to be a metaphorical description of heaven rather than a prescription for worship on earth). Therefore they concluded based on the regulative principle that instrumental accompaniment was not to be used.
To quote from the website of Langley CanRC's organist, Frank Ezinga:
In the early Christian churches were no organs used. Christians considered musical instruments of secular nature and not suitable for the church. Following the tradition of the Jewish Synagogue, the only instrument used was the human voice (which is done until today in most Eastern Orthodox churches). Organists in those days could be considered early colleagues of theatre organists.
Similarly around the time of Luther, Calvin, et al there was quite some opposition to the organ. I've noted some of this before when I linked to an article regarding this which was posted on Spindleworks. To quote from Calvin's commentary on Psalm 33:
There is a distinction, however, to be observed here, that we may not indiscriminately consider as applicable to ourselves, every thing which was formerly enjoined upon the Jews. I have no doubt that playing upon cymbals, touching the harp and the viol, and all that kind of music, which is so frequently mentioned in the Psalms, was a part of the education; that is to say, the puerile instruction of the law: I speak of the stated service of the temple. For even now, if believers choose to cheer themselves with musical instruments, they should, I think, make it their object not to dissever their cheerfulness from the praises of God. But when they frequent their sacred assemblies, musical instruments in celebrating the praises of God would be no more suitable than the burning of incense, the lighting up of lamps, and the restoration of the other shadows of the law. The Papists, therefore, have foolishly borrowed this, as well as many other things, from the Jews. Men who are fond of outward pomp may delight in that noise; but the simplicity which God recommends to us by the apostle is far more pleasing to him.
So, I guess that leaves me with a few puzzled thoughts. Where the Genevan tunes originally sung unaccompanied, given the attitude towards the organ that Calvin seems to exhibit in that quote? What is the place of the regulative principle of worship? Perhaps I can get a few more-informed people to speak to these questions.
As it's probably well clear to you by now - I'm not a big fan of the organ. I think that both a band and no instrumental accompaniment at all can serve just as well to accompany the congregation while costing only a small fraction of the price.
