|
DID LUTHER USE WORLDLY MUSIC?
Republished May 25, 2005 (first published March 12, 1998) (Fundamental Baptist Information Service, P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, MI 48061, 866-295-4143, fbns@wayoflife.org; for instructions about subscribing and unsubscribing or changing addresses, see the information paragraph at the end of the article) - We hear the question constantly asked, "Didn't Luther borrow from the secular music of his day? Isn't that proof that it is all right to borrow from the rock music of our day?" This question comes up so often that it is appropriate to study exactly where Luther stood on this topic. This study should serve to amplify the principles we have been teaching in this volume. Was Luther influenced by the secular music of his day? Yes, clearly he was. No man lives in a vacuum, and it is ludicrous for him to think that he can be creative while remaining totally unaffected by the culture in which he lives. Luther was no exception, but to assert that "since Luther borrowed from the secular music of his day, then we can borrow from the rock music of our day" is to be irresponsible with the facts. LUTHER MADE IT CLEAR THAT THERE WAS BOTH GOOD MUSIC AND BAD MUSIC EVEN IN HIS DAY:
Clearly, Luther did not believe in the neutrality of music. To what extent did Luther borrow from secular sources? Of the melodies to Luther's thirty-seven chorales, fifteen were composed by Luther himself, thirteen came from Latin hymns or Latin service music, four were derived from German religious folk songs, two had originally been religious pilgrims' songs, two are of unknown origin, and one came directly from a secular folk song (data compiled from several sources, quoted in Robert Harrell, Martin Luther, His Music, His Message, Greenville, SC: Majesty Music, 1980, p. 18). You can see here that it was not the majority of his songs that came from secular sources. Very little was derived from secular sources. Remember that in Luther's time culture was controlled by the church. All major universities were under church authority. The fine arts, including most of the great composers, writers, sculptors, and painters, were trained under church sponsorship or were employed by the church. It would be foolish to say that Luther's secular surroundings were similar to ours today, where the leadership in fine arts is in rebellion to the church and traditional culture. [Note from Bro. Cloud: The author is using the term "church" in an unscriptural manner; the Roman Catholic Church (and later the Lutheran state church) which controlled Germany of Luthers day was certainly not a church in any biblical sense. Fisher is correct, though, in saying there was a great contrast between Luthers secular surroundings and that of our time.] Blume observes: "Protestantism preserved the medieval classification of the world, with secular art subjected to an intellectual discipline characterized by piety and churchliness. Under these conditions the disparity between sacred and secular music could at first hardly become a problem" (Blume, p. 29). So to say that Luther borrowed from secular sources is to admit that he relied on, at the worst, a religion-based culture. An important contribution of Luther to church worship was the restoration of congregational singing. He said, "I wish to compose sacred hymns so that the Word of God may dwell among the people also by means of songs" (Kenneth Osbeck, Singing with Understanding, Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 1979, p. 48). In the days of Martin Luther, congregations were not allowed to sing at all in Roman Catholic services. Their "musical training" consisted only of secular tunes they picked up on the street. Blume points out that "people accustomed to singing only in secular surroundings and to remain[ing] silent in the traditional church . . . now had to learn how to sing in the church" (Blume, Protestant Church Music, p. 65). It is in this context that Luther made the statement, "Why should the devil have all the good tunes?" We must remember that there were no tunes which the people were allowed to sing, and in their services only Gregorian chant and similar austere musical forms were heard at all--and those in the Latin language which the average person could not understand. Luther's idea was to use more familiar, singable tunes to teach the people quickly the new German texts he was compiling or writing. His plan was to develop a unique style of music for use in worship. LUTHER DIDN'T RELY ON THE SENSUAL, EROTIC MUSIC OF HIS DAY. HE DIDN'T LOOK TO THOSE WHO WOULD REBEL AGAINST HIS VERY CULTURE TO SERVE AS A MODEL FOR HIS MUSIC. It is more truthful to say that Luther used as his example the "classical" music of his day. Even then, the practice of borrowing from secular sources--contrafacta--was short lived. Blume refers to the "quick rise and decline of contrafacta" (Blume, ibid., p. 45) and admits that those tunes borrowed from secular sources "rarely attained the timeless greatness" (Blume, ibid., p. 44) of Luther's original compositions--which were, by far, the greater portion of his work. SO TO SIMPLY MAKE THE STATEMENT THAT "LUTHER BORROWED FROM THE BARROOM TUNES OF HIS DAY, SO WE CAN TOO" IS DISHONEST. Luther's favorite composer was Josquin de Prez, who is widely acknowledged as the most competent composer of that century. [Luther said concerning Josquin de Prez, "Josquin is the master of the notes: they must do as he wishes; the other masters of song must do what the notes wish" (Blume, op cit, p. 8).] Luther had progressive training on the lute and was considered to be very proficient. Contrast this with CCM performers who list their role models:
What a stark contrast to the influences upon the life of Martin Luther. EVEN THE MUSIC THAT LUTHER DID BORROW FROM SECULAR SOURCES DID NOT REMAIN IN ITS ORIGINAL FORM. LUTHER CHANGED THE MELODIC AND RHYTHMIC STRUCTURE TO TAKE AWAY ANY WORLDLY INFLUENCES THAT THE MUSIC MIGHT HAVE. Robert Harrell explains:
Harrell, in his excellent and well-documented study, concludes:
Luther's love for music and his love for the youth in his church gave impetus to his work. He delighted in arranging music for his young people to teach them the fundamentals of music theory, as well as an overall appreciation of good music.
It would help the discussion if we could put this controversy to rest. But those who are dishonest with the Word of God will no doubt continue to be dishonest with Luther's statements. The battle won't be over even if the CCM crowd were to give on this point. But Martin Luther's use of secular sources should teach us some valuable lessons. We must desire to sing the Word of God above all else. Only then can we take that which culture offers as excellent music to use as a vehicle to communicate God's Word. TO AVOID WORLDLINESS WE NEED NOT ONLY AN INTENT TO COMMUNICATE TRUTH, BUT ALSO A GOOD KNOWLEDGE OF MUSIC. Then we will be competent to use our talent and creativity to help teach others that which is good. |
|||||||||||
|
|||||||||||