Louis Bourgeois and Thomas Ken: A Hymn Collaboration Separated by 80 Years

Every Sunday when congregations sing the Doxology, they have early 16th-century composer and music theorist Loys “Louis” Bourgeois to thank for composing the music and Thomas Ken for penning the lyrics of one of the most popular melodies in all Christendom. It was only recently that a long-lost copy of the 1551 Genevan Psalter had come to light in the Rutgers University library that contained a note in Bourgeois’ hand specifying exactly what he had changed and which pieces where his own contributions. Bourgeois was imprisoned by church authorities for changing the lyrics to some of the Psalms without a license, as we required at the time. None other than John Calvin himself personally intervened to have Bourgeois released from jail.

In the original versions by Bourgeois, the music is monophonic (a single melodic line with no accompaniment), in accordance with the dictates of John Calvin, who disapproved not only of counterpoint  (multiple melodic voices that may be independent from or in imitation with one another) but of any multiple parts; Bourgeois though did also provide four-part harmonizations, but they were reserved for singing and playing in private homes only. Many of the four-part settings are syllabic and chordal (multiple voices with similar rhythmic material in all parts), a style which has survived in many Protestant church services to the present day.

The tune was prepared originally for the French version of Psalm 134. The first English words to which it was wedded were William Kethe’s version of Psalm 100, “All People That on Earth Do Dwell;” accordingly, the tune became known as “The Hundredth.”

Thomas Ken, credited with writing the current lyrics to Old Hundredth, has been called “England’s first hymnist.” He was an ordained minister and served as the chaplain for the all-boys school, Winchester College. Ken wrote three short hymns  for the boys to sing at specified times of the day: One upon waking; one at bedtime; and one at midnight if they weren’t asleep. During this period in England, the Psalms were sung in public worship; therefore English hymns had not yet appeared.

The morning hymn had 13 stanzas that began as:

Awake, my soul, and with the sun, thy daily stage of duty run;

Shake off dull slot and joyful rise, to pay thy morning sacrifice.

The evening hymn included this verse:

All praise to Thee, my God, this night, for all the blessings of the light;

Keep me, O keep me, King of kings; beneath Thine own almighty wings

All three hymns concluded with a common stanza, which has become the most widely sung verse in the world:

Praise God, from Whom all blessings flow; Praise Him, all creatures here below;

Praise Him above, ye heavenly hosts; Praise Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.

In 1680, Thomas Ken was appointed chaplain to England’s King Charles II. During the reign of the next king, James II, Ken, who was now a bishop, was sent to the Tower of London for his Protestant convictions. After his release, he retired to the estate of a wealthy friend where he died on March 11, 1711.

He was buried at sunrise, and the Doxology was sung at his funeral.

Does Self-Deception Influence Music Choices for Worship?

When we embrace music for our worship, do we hold to the same value criteria as we do for other areas of our Christian lives, or do we use a different set of measures that contradict our professed Christianity? Are we biblical Christians in all other roles but cultural Christians when it comes to music choices that we use to envelop our praises to God? Has value, in the moral sense, become a relative concept, in which its “worth” is dependent on the situation?

Why do so many people assign truth and validity to those who excel at inciting our emotions and endearing us to them with their impassioned speeches? The masses often equate truthfulness with likeability when in fact there is no correlation at all between them as we have discovered in politics and religion in recent years. For most people, the concept of discernment and maybe even simple common sense bypasses them because they lack the knowledge of its application, or they have replaced it with selections not based on sound logic or reasoning.

The same can be said for our music choices for worship. Why do so many of us automatically assign truth to those choices that are based on what we like? There is no assumed connection, nor can there be any contrived, quasi-justified relationship. All music for worship must pass muster through spiritual discernment.

Our musical choices and the ways we use them often define who we are and how we fit into society. Because of the intensity of our personal identification with music, a statement such as, “well, that’s just your personal taste” or “that’s just your opinion” can raise our defenses. When someone challenges our music preferences we can sometimes perceive it as a personal attack. Philosopher and atheist John Searle provides an explanation for why we use such phrases so often:

I have to confess . . . that I think there is a much deeper reason for the persistent appeal of all forms of anti-realism [anti-realism: where realities are created based on personal preference, uninformed opinion, and disingenuous, manipulative positioning], and this has become obvious in the twentieth century: it satisfies a basic urge to power. It just seems too disgusting, somehow, that we should have to be at the mercy of the “real world.” It seems too awful that our representations should have to be answerable to anything but us.

Searle’s point strikes at the heart of the myth that man is the pinnacle of moral autonomy: it is a managed form of self-deception whereby we fool ourselves by elevating our self-importance. Do we not fall into a similar trap when personal preference dominates the selection of music for worship? How does such a position not elegate God’s glory to what serves our own identities and purposes.

The Modern Day “Bones of the Saints”

According to Roman Church doctrine, the saints throughout history had amassed an overflow of good works, and this excess of “holiness,” which had been deposited in the Church’s treasury, could be sold as indulgences. (An indulgence is a payment made to the church that provided the giver a forgiveness of sin and curtailed the length of time spent in purgatory.) This doctrine is a contradiction of the truth and sufficiency of Scripture that states we have all come short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23). To raise the astronomical sum of money required to rebuild St. Peter’s Basilica  in grand style, the pope authorized the selling of licenses for the sale of indulgences. The licenses to sell these indulgences were sold in each district of the Holy Roman Empire to the highest bidder.  

The typical indulgence peddler went from town to town in a grandiose procession that involved the cross, beating of drums, waving of flags and banners, and pealing of church bells. In each town these peddlars sold indulgences in the cathedral, and proclaimed to the illiterate masses that never before had the splendor of heaven been so widely available for so little. Previous generations of poor who could not afford the high price of indulgences earned them by fighting in foreign crusades.

Each sin had a particular price and, of course, the rich paid more for their indulgences. Each payer received a letter of absolution from the Roman Church. Indulgences were even sold for future sins and for the dead, to help them exit purgatory sooner. The peddler would often declare: “At the very instant the money rattles at the bottom of the chest, the soul escapes from purgatory!”

Many people were stunned at the excesses that were committed by these indulgence peddlers in their over-the-top attempts to recoup their significant investment. But far worse than the commercialization of the church was the impact such activities and practices had on European morality. People were engaging in gross immorality believing that they had already paid in advance for forgiveness. Even Martin Luther was distressed to see some of his own congregation indulging in such egregious behavior.

The underlying crisis that Luther confronted in 1517 confronts the church in the 21^st century, but manifests itself in different forms: Christology is in crisis and the Gospel is in crisis because people refuse to believe in the power of the word of God. Luther once wrote:

“For though we had the bones of all the saints or all holy and consecrated garments upon a heap, still that would help us nothing; for all that is a dead thing which can sanctify nobody. But God’s Word is the treasure which sanctifies everything…”

In many of today’s church sanctuaries, worship services have been replaced by felt-needs programming, which for all intents and purposes, is the modern-day equivalent of the bones of the saints. The unchurched, when given a choice, will shy away from attending when the message is about sin and redemption; however, they may come to church for financial management advice, marital counseling, positive upbeat messages and music, or learning how to relate to their teenage children.  There’s nothing wrong with churches offering such programs—particularly when presented from a biblically Christian perspective. However, displacing or sacrificing the practice of communal worship and biblical exegesis for such programming places the emphasis on man, rather than the collective worship of God.

So, now as in 1517, the new method, the new program, the new technique, the new music, the new technology fails to supplant the power and the sufficiency of the truth as found in the Gospel.

On the Virtues of CWM

Many church music authorities attempt to establish common ground between defenders and critics of Christian worship music (CWM). While some may argue that such choices are presumably a disputable matter, the fact remains that some disputable matters lie in a direct, straight and narrow path to the Cross, while others may take a more circuitous route, and often detour into the weeds on their way there.

CWM already represents common ground; the musical style as a whole therefore represents a compromise of pop-culture-sounding music and very often only a modicum of Christian theology in lyrical content. It seems that the culture (and pop music industry) got the better deal in the compromise. So, how can we reconcile seeking “common ground” between that which is already a compromise with pop culture, and the admonition in 2 Corinthians 10:5 to “bring every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ” which would seemingly apply to our choices for music for worship?

Before I am accused of not showing any tolerance for contemporary worship music styles, let me explain that most people believe the word “tolerant” means embracing all views. In fact, the historical non-medical definition of the word is “putting up with some error” despite the many other definitions embraced by various social, political, and special-interest factions. When manufacturers have to machine a part to exacting specifications, that spec assigns a certain level of “tolerance” to that exactness. The part must meet the specifications, which include an acceptable level of error, and not just any error. Whenever too much error is present beyond that defined by the specification, the part is “out of tolerance” and can’t be used for the intended purpose.   

While the reproach is aimed at those who would seek neutrality with the world in intellectual endeavors, should it not also apply to such issues (such as music for worship) where worldly compromise has already occurred? The late Christian theologian and philosopher Dr. Greg Bahnsen wrote in Always Ready:

The Christian who strives after neutrality in his thought is found actually to be endeavoring to efface the fact that he is a Christian! By denying his distinctive religious commitment he is reduced to apostate thought patterns and absorbed into the world of unbelief.”

John Calvin wrote in the first book of his Institutes of the Christian Religion that worship is what separates man from the remainder of creation; everyone worships something, and because of sin, we have become what Reformed theologian Dr. Cornelius Van Til called “creature worshippers” by venerating something created rather than He who created us. In every church that offers traditional and contemporary worship services, there will be those who state that they attend service for the music, with all other considerations– which may include the act of worship–being of secondary significance.

Worshippers who hold to a biblically reinforced Christian worldview (they believe in God’s saving grace through Jesus Christ, and they believe Scripture is the infallible Word of God) do not seek common ground or compromise with unbelievers in matters of the faith; worshippers take for granted God in everything first.  Is it a stretch for that approach to serve as a type of “portal” through which all offerings generated from the culture enter the sanctuary? Being “in this world but not of it” does not imply concession; it entails maintaining a true course by negotiating around—not compromising with—cultural obstacles that lie in our path.

 

Is There Really a Biblical Defense for Some “Contemporary Worship Music”?

In our quest to refine “our utmost for his highest,” we still find ourselves wallowing in disagreement as to what constitutes music worthy of praise of an Almighty God. All too often, the discussions focus on our own preferences for a particular style of music, when in fact, our likes and dislikes should not serve as the differentiating factor for congregational participation because there are other more pressing worship concerns.

Here’s an example of a contemporary “worship” song I heard in church recently:

 “Draw Me Close” (Words and Music by Kutless) 

Draw me close to you; Never let me go
I lay it all down again; To hear you say that I’m your friend
Help me find a way to bring me back to you

[Chorus:]
You’re all I want, You’re all I’ve ever needed
You’re all I want, Help me know you are near

You are my desire; No one else will do
Cause no one else; Can take your place
To feel the warmth of Your embrace
Help me find a way to bring me back to you

[Chorus:]
You’re all I want, You’re all I’ve ever needed
You’re all I want, Help me know you are near

While the above lyrics read like a current pop-music pre-teen love song, they are actually from the Christian rock band, Kutless. This song is being performed by praise & worship bands in contemporary worship services around the country in both non-denominational and mainstream denominational churches. According to Wikipedia, Kutless chose their name because of a specific Bible verse. Romans 6:23 says, “For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord” (NRSV). Because of this, the band says, “He took our cuts for us… leaving us ‘Kutless’.”

As seen in the above example, it is questionable how such music and lyrical content devoid of any explicit or implicit theology falls into the category of “worship music,” especially when Wikipedia places the band’s music in these genres: “Alternative rock,” “Christian rock,” “hard rock,” and “post-grunge.” Much of the controversy surrounding   contemporary CWM focuses on the lyrical content, which often implicitly portrays Jesus Christ as some cool friend or boyfriend, or contains watered-down theological themes. Could it be by design, whereby such lyrical content devoid of an explicit Christian worldview can easily cross over into the pop music genre, where an even larger listening/buying market exists? After all, the primary motivation for CCM/CWM is one grounded in commercialism, and the recording industry and buying public do not want to hear overt Christian messages in their music.

Who is responsible for this pop-culture-sounding music finding its way into our Christian worship sanctuaries? There is plenty of it to go around—starting with an industry that packages pop-culture music with benign, pseudo-Christian lyrics, creating a marketing Trojan Horse that increasingly is welcomed into church sanctuaries—and ending with ourselves for swinging wide open the doors of our hallowed halls to usher in such a pop-oriented, post-modern cultural artifact.

Anyone purporting to hold a biblically Christian worldview must question the use of such music for congregational worship:

• How strongly does the music—and the lyrical content—promote a biblical, Christian worldview? Does it uplift the gospel?
• How strongly does the music avoid the influence of pop culture styles and the baggage associated with them? What is the “provenance” (origin) of the selection? Was it written primarily for use in the service of the Lord, or was the selection lifted off a music CD, where the primary motivation may have been a commercial bent?
• How strongly does the music selected complement the theme for the sermon, or the time of the Christian year? (Advent, Lent, Pentecost, etc.)
• Can the congregation fully participate in song? Are they familiar with the lyrical content and do they know the melody or are they struggling to follow along?
• How strongly do the music selections help bond the congregation together, to foster tradition within the church?

These are just a sample of the type of filters and portals that all practices should pass through before they are allowed into the hallowed halls of the sanctuary.

“The Power of a Christian Song” Augmented Version

I recently came across a poem entitled, “The Power of a Christian Song” penned by an unknown poet. I couldn’t resist the temptation to add a few stanzas to reinforce the theme and message of the original:

The Power of a Christian Song

There’s something about a fine old hymn
That can stir the heart of a man;
That can reach to the goal of his inmost soul
Such as no mere preaching can.

It’s more than the tune of the song he sings
And it’s more than the poet’s rhyme–
It’s the Spirit of God working through these things
That gives them their power sublime

So we thank Thee, Lord, for the fine old hymns;
May we use them again and again
As we seek to save from a hopeless grave
The souls of our fellow men!

Now, here’s my addition to the poem…

There’s something about a fine old hymn
That awakens the soul of a man;
That proclaims the truth of the gospel in song
Such as no Christian pop music can

It’s not just the words or the music we hear
And it’s not about your likes or mine—
It’s the purpose with which that hymn was writ
To glorify God upon High!

The song that’s composed with intent to praise God
Finds favor with heavenly hosts;
It makes no compromise with worldly styles
Such as Christian pop music can boast!

The Christian pop music most folks want to sing
Draws crowds who will pack in the pews
But the type of praise we should be offering
Must reflect a strong Christian worldview

Those lyrics proclaim too much about “me”,
The theology in them is so slim;
But the purpose of praise in these post-modern days,
is not about you, it’s about HYMN.

Artistic Constraints on the Use of Music for Worship

As Christians, we must understand that the scriptural theology of music does not offer music as a whimsical art form. Unlike the secular world, which has the unbounded liberty to use music without regard for discipline, the church is lovingly constrained by a higher mandate. To quote Martin Luther:

 We have put this music on the living and holy word of God in order to sing, praise, and honor it. We want the beautiful art of music to be properly used to serve her dear Creator and His Christians. He is thereby praised and honored and we are made better and stronger in faith when His holy word is impressed on our hearts by sweet music.

More than at any time, the Divine blueprint for music used in worship demands skill, knowledge, a watchful eye, an attuned ear, and spiritual discernment to avoid music that could cause spiritual harm or confusion in a congregation populated by seekers and new Christians. When the church takes theological direction in its highest, purest, and most creative form from Scripture, it has a refreshing license for a fulfilling and exalting sacred and spiritual music experience. The church must never envy, welcome, or mimic the world’s predisposition to do as it desires with music. As Igor Stravinsky, 20^th-century pianist, composer, and conductor said:

The Church knew what the psalmist knew: Music praises God. Music is well or better able to praise him than the building of the church and all its decoration; it is the Church’s greatest ornament.

Secular music plays to the pleasure of the culture, but church music serves the purpose of the Almighty. The music in worship services must serve the will of the Creator because worldly and sacred music have different functions and serve diametrically opposite purposes. Within the worship function, music has to be a vehicle for the serving of grace. But can music serve grace when it assumes an undisciplined, even a wayward manner? Maybe Johann Walther, composer and Martin Luther’s cantor, offers a direction in the introduction to his poem, “In Praise of the Noble Art of Music”:

I have just named two reasons why,
God gave us music from on high,                                  
Those reasons teach us we must use,
the gift from heaven as God would choose,                
By it let God be glorified,
Then let it be our help and guide.

Since this high art most certainly,
Was given by God, as all can see,                                

It outshines other arts in name,
Nobility, and lasting fame.                    

For music and theology,
Were given by God concurrently,

No other arts with it compare,
For it breathes purest Gospel air,
Exalting Holy Writ on high,
And earning highest praise thereby.

Richard C. Resch, associate professor of pastoral ministry and missions, and cantor of Concordia Theological Seminary offers ten points for a scriptural theology of music that can provide a foundation upon which to build:

1. Music is a divine gift.
2. Music is a gift in which all angels and heavenly hosts join mortals without ceasing.
3. Music is ordained for use by the church.
4. Music teaches doctrine to the church.
5. Music carries the confession of the faithful.
6. Music is to be a full-throated response of praise and thanksgiving to God.
7. Music heals, soothes, and drives away the devil.
8. Music is powerful.
9. Music in the church requires understanding and a proper spirit.
10. Music in the church is led by those who are skilled.

Dr. Resch also suggests that certain elements be removed from church music practice to more closely align with a scripturally based theology of music:

• All music that serves other gods
• All music that has the goal of pleasing men rather than God
• All manipulative uses of music
• All that regards the church as a business and thus exalts the methods and ingenuity of man
• All that brings the world’s influence into the gathering of saints around the means of grace
• All inconsistency in doctrine and practice
• All that refuses to point heavenward

Truths about appropriate music for use in worship service result from discovery of scriptural tenets and from what tradition bequeaths to us; it is not an invention to be used as a means to an end. Truths about appropriate music for worship services remain static and fixed; however, our beliefs about those truths can be dynamic and can change because of external (temporal, cultural) influences and pressures. Truth is unchangeable when assailed by beliefs, no matter how sincere. The roar of scriptural prescription for music in worship services is louder than any attempted worldly justification to the contrary.

There is room for both the old and the new in congregations, whether we offer centuries-old church music or works created by contemporary church music composers/musicians. However, we must continue to rely on spiritual discernment to ascertain that which is appropriate for God’s glory and not use it to justify the veneration of man (that is, our “personal preferences”).

Charlotte Kroeker, director of the Church Music Initiative for the University of Notre Dame, writes that:

Perhaps for the first time in history, the amount of religious music available has never been greater, requiring a level of discernment not always demanded by prior generations.

The church musician–whether serving as choir director, choir member/vocalist, accompanist, instrumentalist–is an important filter through which the byproducts of that discernment are manifested to the congregation.

Louis Bourgeois and Thomas Ken: A Hymn Collaboration Separated by 80 Years

Every Sunday when we as a congregation sing the Doxology, we have early 16th-century composer and music theorist Loys “Louis” Bourgeois to thank for composing the music and Thomas Ken for penning the lyrics of one of the most popular melodies in all Christendom. It was only recently that a long-lost copy of the 1551 Genevan Psalter had come to light in the Rutgers University library that contained a note in Bourgeois’ hand specifying exactly what he had changed and which pieces where his own contributions. Bourgeois was imprisoned by church authorities for changing the lyrics to some of the Psalms without a license, as we required at the time. None other than John Calvin himself personally intervened to have Bourgeois released from jail.

In the original versions by Bourgeois, the music is monophonic (a single melodic line with no accompaniment), in accordance with the dictates of John Calvin, who disapproved not only of counterpoint  (multiple melodic voices that may be independent from or in imitation with one another) but of any multiple parts; Bourgeois though did also provide four-part harmonizations, but they were reserved for singing and playing in private homes only. Many of the four-part settings are syllabic and chordal (multiple voices with similar rhythmic material in all parts), a style which has survived in many Protestant church services to the present day.

The tune was prepared originally for the French version of Psalm 134. The first English words to which it was wedded were William Kethe’s version of Psalm 100, “All People That on Earth Do Dwell;” accordingly, the tune became known as “The Hundredth.”

Thomas Ken, credited with writing the current lyrics to Old Hundredth, has been called “England’s first hymnist.” He was an ordained minister and served as the chaplain for the all-boys school, Winchester College. Ken wrote three short hymns  for the boys to sing at specified times of the day: One upon waking; one at bedtime; and one at midnight if they weren’t asleep. During this period in England, the Psalms were sung in public worship; therefore English hymns had not yet appeared.

The morning hymn had 13 stanzas that began as:

Awake, my soul, and with the sun, thy daily stage of duty run;

Shake off dull slot and joyful rise, to pay thy morning sacrifice.

The evening hymn included this verse:

All praise to Thee, my God, this night, for all the blessings of the light;

Keep me, O keep me, King of kings; beneath Thine own almighty wings

All three hymns concluded with a common stanza, which has become the most widely sung verse in the world:

Praise God, from Whom all blessings flow; Praise Him, all creatures here below;

Praise Him above, ye heavenly hosts; Praise Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.

In 1680, Thomas Ken was appointed chaplain to England’s King Charles II. During the reign of the next king, James II, Ken, who was now a bishop, was sent to the Tower of London for his Protestant convictions. After his release, he retired to the estate of a wealthy friend where he died on March 11, 1711.

He was buried at sunrise, and the Doxology was sung at his funeral. Visit www.donnleviejr.com to hear Donn’s classical guitar arrangement of the Doxology.

Emotion in Worship Music: Points of Reference

St. Augustine once wrote, “Qui cantat, bis orat” (“he who sings, prays twice”): music by itself can express prayerful thoughts separate from the words of the prayer that was set to music. We are often charmed by a particular musical passage underlying the poetic, lyrical content of a hymn, for it is a gracious gift indeed to be able to consciously discriminate such sensory input at different levels of awareness.

However, we need exercise caution when defining or characterizing sacred music in light of any spiritual or religious feelings such music may bring forth for individuals or congregations. Our fleeting emotions are subject to external influences, are relative to the moment, and can falsely portray as sanctified and holy that which we might otherwise deem as subjective in nature. When the music itself becomes the object of our joy, we have misdirected our focus away from the purpose of music as used in worship much the way a small child is absorbed by the beautiful wrapping paper that once concealed a gift rather than the gift itself.

The emotions can be tricked into a type of Pavlov’s Dog stimulus-response behavior, especially with music for worship that is designed to manipulate our sentiments and feelings. People can experience spiritual or religious emotions when subjected to music that sounds sacred in tone, tempo, and form—even when that music is from a Hollywood movie soundtrack.

Several years ago, I had two groups of 10 people listen to the same piece of music as part of an experiment. The first group was told the title of the music was “The Empty Tomb,” and asked to relate their emotional responses to the music. All ten experienced various levels of religious and spiritual emotions to the piece.

The second group was told the actual title of the piece (“Yoda’s Theme” from the Star Wars movie, The Empire Strikes Back), and asked to relate any particular emotional response to the piece. Only two of the members of this second group reported experiencing any religious or spiritual emotions. The leading and fictitious title for the first group set up an expectation to which the emotions gladly played along, highlighting the problem of attaching too much validity to emotion-based experience—especially when music is involved.

However, emotion is the lifeblood of music; it is not only a creative expression of the soul; it also serves as an escape route for the inner heartfelt passions of composer and audience alike. Both Mozart and Haydn (and many other composers) incorporated portions of their secular cantatas and operas into their sacred music compositions; many of Bach’s sacred music works are virtually indistinguishable from his secular ones. Yes, music cannot help divorce itself from the manipulative aspect of its character for it is a major component of its DNA, yet we can clearly delineate and associate certain types of music with given emotional responses.

The church has a long history of commissioning sacred music works from the genius of Claudio Monteverdi, Giovanni Palestrina, Josquin des Pres, Franz Joseph Haydn, J.S. Bach, and many others. And with the Reformation, hymn writing soared through the Great Awakenings and revivals of the 17^th, 18^th, and early 19^th centuries from the pens of Isaac Watts, Fanny Crosby, John Wesley and Charles Wesley, to name a few. Contemporary hymn writers are very active blending theologically sound texts in modern vernacular with simple melodic lines that facilitate participation by all age groups in the congregation. Contemporary sacred music composers such as John Tavener, John Rutter, and Arvo Pärt are creating incredibly rich, profound works for choirs, painting with new or complex tonal textures on the never-changing canvas of the gospel. There is so much other “contemporary Christian music” being composed and performed today that bypasses the culture’s attention—and that of the media as well.

Perhaps more focused criteria for discriminating music for worship would include: (1) the purpose for which the piece of music was written (for performance in church to celebrate a particular Christian season, to define or separate a specific portion in the order of service); (2) the strength of the theological content and context of the lyrics (does it up hold a biblical Christian worldview); and (3) how the piece of music is used as an offering or sacrifice in Christian communal worship (is it a choir introit, a congregation-sung hymn or psalm, or an instrumental piece or solo piece). When we consider purpose, theological strength of lyrical content, and specific application of music for worship, perhaps these criteria work in concert to direct our emotions to bear on the true object of our worship.

I wrote It’s All About HYMN: Essays on Reclaiming Sacred and Traditional Music for Worship to provide a church musician’s perspective on the issue of music for worship and to address specific issues not attended to by other authors. My latest book in progress, Safeguarding the Sanctuary: Guarding Against Cultural Trojan Horses in Christian Worship, is a continuation of this perspective. While the emphasis in this work focuses on music choices for Christian worship, we also must be vigilant for any and all cultural Trojan Horses being introduced into our sanctuaries by a contemporary culture that seeks equilibrium in compromise.

Compromise is the result of parties working together; but compromise often appears as neutrality in disguise. When it comes to exonerating the Christian worldview—whether in thought, word, or action—there is no such thing as neutrality because of our fundamental Christian presuppositions. The Apostle Paul tells us to “make every thought captive,” which rules out engaging in compromise on many levels. When we agree to compromise in what we allow in the hallowed halls of sanctuaries, have we not conceded the integrity of our Christian worldview to the influence of more worldly perspectives?

John Calvin, Music, and the Early Reformed Church

When people think of the great Christian composers they usually do not look to the Reformed Church. In fact, the Catholic Giovanni Palestrina, or Anglican Michael Byrd, and the Lutheran J.S. Bach come immediately to mind.  However, most seem to think that the Reformed Church was unmusical.

In  Reformed churches the role of church music was often far less significant than in Lutheran churches. Reformed and Puritan Churches did have simple, unadorned music during services for two important reasons: so that everyone in the congregation could participate in worship, and so none were tempted to give men glory in the house of God. But the Genevan Psalter, as used predominantly within the Calvinist churches, was a way to render the Psalms into singable tunes to allow the laity to participate in the liturgy. Under John Calvin’s direction, the Genevan Psalter was a collaborative effort involving Louis Bourgeois, Claude Goudimel, Théodore de Beze, and Clément Marot, all of whom were acquaintances of the French lutenist and music publisher, Adrian Leroy. The Psalter would later be translated into German, Dutch, Hungarian, Czech, Italian, and eventually, Afrikaans, Indonesian dialects, and English.

Martin Luther wrote that we have to get accustomed to praising God’s name; our sinful nature prevents such praise from happening automatically. Calvin elaborated further on this by warning not to follow our sensual desires. He embraced the position of St. Augustine but extended it by noting differences between church music and worldly music. Calvin argued that in the church service we appear before God and His holy angels and we must adopt and apply a holy style of music. His was a concern about the abuse of music for worship.

Calvin was also very positive about music as reflected in two key points:

• Songs are to strengthen faith and therefore songs have a proclaiming function.
• A song has a greater effect on the human being than the spoken word. He recognized that the song intensifies the spoken word—that music speaks to both mind and emotion.

Music that serves the proclamation of the Word must be focused on the proclamation, and point to the text, wrote Calvin. It is not just enough to have a pleasant melody to sing. The marriage of music and text was important for both Calvin and Luther. In the Genevan tunes, this unity is brought about by selecting different keys (or modes) for specific texts dictated by the character of the text and the melody.

In terms of music, Calvin believed strongly that music should be the ancilla, the handmaiden, of the text. In other words, no catchy tunes, but suitable music, which enabled the congregation to focus all its attention on the lyrical content. At the same time, however, the melody had to have poids et majesté (weight and majesty), since it was sung “in the presence of God and His holy angels.”

This different approach to congregational singing in many Calvinist churches manifested as singing in unison. Harmonies and instrumental renditions were used exclusively within the home or for concert performances. It was perfectly appropriate for a family (with all members trained in music as was the custom of the day) to sing and play together both simple and elaborate settings of the Psalms, canticles, and hymns.

Perhaps the most recognized of the Reformed composers–and contributor to the Genevan Psalter–was Claude Goudimel (1505-1572).  Goudimel was a French Huguenot who lived in the Calvinist community at Metz, France. He had converted to the Reformed faith in 1560. In 1567 he left Metz because of the growing persecution of Protestants there and moved to Lyon. However, his peace lasted only a short while. Sometime between August 28 and 31 of 1572, he was martyred in the St. Bartholomew’s Day massacre along with much of the Huguenot population of the city.

Among other sacred music compositions, Goudimel is most famous for his four-part settings of the psalms of the Genevan Psalter. Some of his music has survived the centuries and is performed in churches around the world today.

You can hear several of Adrian Leroy’s lute compositions (arranged for classical guitar) from the Genevan Psalter at www.marcelodelapuebla.com.