Were hymn tunes borrowed from the
world?
Is there such a thing as
sacred music?
It is often said today that
as far as worship is concerned, music is neutral. But music can never
be neutral. It is bound to exhibit an influence on the emotions,
and must therefore match and support the words of a hymn. It should
never be too powerful in melodic or rhythmic appeal, or in musical sophistication,
because then it will divert the soul away from a sincere appreciation of
the words.
Greek philosophy taught long
ago that music had a deep effect upon the soul. It was said to build
character (with which we cannot agree), but it certainly has the power
to eclipse genuine worship, and also (if it is ‘worldly’ music) to undermine
a believer’s abhorrence of things ‘in the world’.
Augustine was anxious about
the possibility of music being used in a way which would interfere with
worship. Wycliffe also is on record as being deeply concerned.
The Morning Star of the Reformation believed in singing, but he said that
if he liked the tune more than the words, then he liked not the tune.
Calvin, certainly, was cautious about the misuse of music.
Music is not neutral in another
sense. It is bound to have associations. If it is closely identified
with the music of a sinful age, then the principles of biblical separation
will be broken. (Sometimes today’s so-called Christian music deliberately
imitates disco music, because this seems to be what some Christians really
want.) There is a vast difference between ‘sacred’ and secular music.
It is fashionable nowadays to
claim that all hymn music was once worldly music. Many believers
accept this claim. But where does it come from? Is it true:
The reality is that it is a
groundless claim. Those who repeat it have given too much respect
to the source from which they heard it. (And that source has mistakenly
trusted his source, and so on.) We would like to trace this ‘politically
correct’ idea to its origin, but it seems impossible. What matters
is that it is totally incorrect. It is a much retailed myth which
has no foundation in history.
Luther and tavern songs
The jibe is heard that Luther,
for example, used tavern songs and dance tunes for his hymns. Church
music, it is said, has always been influenced by the entertainment of the
secular world, and what is happening today in new-style worship is no different.
If this jibe is true, then the
separation texts of the Bible are undermined. Those passages which
say that we must have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness
are all overthrown. How can we have nothing to do with worldly music
in worship if our ‘sacred’ music tradition depends on it?
Did Luther, as it is claimed,
borrow from the secular world around him? The charge is not true.
It is baseless. Throughout church history great care has been taken
with the use of music.
Luther loved music and wanted
the people to sing. He re-introduced congregational hymn singing
in his day. He wanted hymns to have fine tunes. Before the
Reformation, the Church of Rome had no congregational singing at all.
The people just listened. They listened, for example, to such things
as Gregorian chants, along with other items performed by those who carried
out the components of the liturgy.
Luther was a great composer
himself, and also an adapter of other works. We read in Robert Harrell’s
work, Martin Luther: His Music, His Message that Luther wrote thirty-seven
chorales, fifteen of which he composed himself. Thirteen were derived
from Latin hymns or church music. Four were taken from German religious
folk songs. Only one out of the thirty-seven came from a secular
folk song.
This hardly justifies the idea
that Luther helped himself wholesale to secular sources. And in the
case of the one drawn from a secular folk song, it is probable that the
world had stolen that melody from the church, and Luther merely reclaimed
it (totally adopting and sanitising it).
When Luther said, ‘Why should
the devil have all the good tunes?’ he spoke in the context of Catholic
chanting. He was not interested in stealing from the world around
him, but providing singable melodies so that congregations could begin
to sing. If a secular melody was used, it was very greatly changed.
And what else would we expect from the Reformer who wrote these words:
Luther’s rejection of non-sacred
‘Take special care to shun perverted
minds who prostitute this lovely gift of nature and of art with their erotic
rantings. And be quite assured that none but the devil goads them
on to defy their very nature … They purloin the gift of God and use it
to worship the foe of God.’
Luther clearly believed that
music was to be identified with its source and users. It was the
world of those days that stole freely from the church to obtain a melody
for a bawdy bar song.
This writer remembers (and so
will many readers) the time when pre-teens in both state and private schools
had an obligatory weekly session called ‘folk singing’. All the songs
dated back to past centuries, and they were all sufficiently innocent to
be sung by children. They were easily recognisable as comprising
a genre of their own. It would clearly not be so objectionable to
borrow an air from these. But hymn tunes have never (before now)
been drawn from, or fashioned by, the musical idiom promoting and characterising
a godless society.
Luther boldly asserted that
he had never used a bar song or a dance tune. People charge him with
a ‘crime’ of which he would have been appalled. We repeat, it is
a charge not substantiated by history.
A distinct style
In the course of the Reformation
we gained the Genevan Psalter. We still use many of its tunes today.
For several centuries now there has been in the churches of Jesus Christ
a distinctly Christian idiom for music, easily distinguishable from secular
music. New-style worship is now sweeping this away.
Article
Index
E-mail a friend about this page
Printer friendly page
Search the site
Top