How did chanting come to Lutherans in America?
When Protestant Christianity made its way into the New World, it did not leave its anti-Catholic sentiments behind. Following the lead of their Puritanical neighbors, many of our Lutheran ancestors who came to North America utterly rejected anything that resembled a Catholic service, including chanting. (Beisel)
However, there were a few Lutherans who rejected such intolerance, like Dr. C.F.W. Walther, the first President of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod. Walther defended Lutheran Pastors against any criticism of chanting. As I shared in last month’s article, Walther said chanting no more makes one a Roman Catholic than does reading the Epistle or the Gospel in the Church. He wrote:
Whenever the Divine Service once again follows the old Evangelical-Lutheran agendas (or church books) it seems that many raise a great cry that it is “Roman Catholic:” “Roman Catholic” when the pastor chants “The Lord be with you” and the congregation responds by chanting “and with thy spirit;” “Roman Catholic” when the pastor chants the collect and the blessing and the people respond with a chanted “Amen.” Prove to me that this chanting is contrary to the Word of God, then I, too, will call it “Roman Catholic” and have nothing more to do with it. However, you cannot prove this to me. If you insist upon calling every element in the Divine Service “romish” that has been used by the Roman Catholic Church, it must follow that the reading of the Epistle and Gospel is also “romish.” Indeed, it is mischief to sing or preach in church, for the Roman Church has done this also. … Those who cry out should remember that the Roman Catholic Church possesses every beautiful song of the old orthodox Church. The chants and antiphons and responses were brought into the church long before the false teachings of Rome crept in. This Christian Church since the beginning, even in the Old Testament, has derived great joy from chanting. … For more than 1,700 years orthodox Christians have participated joyfully in the Divine Service. Should we, today, carry on by saying that such joyful participation is ‘Roman Catholic?’ God forbid! Therefore, as we continue to hold and to restore our wonderful Divine Services in places where they have been forgotten, let us boldly confess that our worship forms do not unite us with modern sects or with the Church of Rome; rather, they join us to the one, holy Christian Church that is as old as the world and is built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets. (Walther 163)
And so, medieval chant has survived to this day. “To God the Holy Spirit Let Us Pray” (LSB 768) and “O Come, O Come, Emmanuel” (LSB 357) are only two examples of hymns based on medieval chant.
Chanting reemerged in Lutheran churches almost 4 decades ago, in part, because LW (1982) returned us to our historic roots. It is amazing what one learns when actually becoming a student of history rather than assessing everything through the lens of one’s own limited experience. When I became such a student of Worship and Liturgy over 40 years ago I discovered that, with few exceptions, Lutherans have always chanted … and have done so since the Reformation. Martin Luther not only recommended chanting but also composed chants.[1]
Lutherans who are opposed to chanting might be surprised to hear that several of the chants used in our services today were composed by Luther himself. Like many theologians and pastors before him, Luther understood the gift that God had given in music, echoing the long-held belief that “next to the Word of God, music deserves the highest praise.” (Beisel)
Again, let us remember that just because something was NOT done for a brief period during the 20TH century, we dare not conclude that this is the traditional Lutheran practice for the centuries preceding. For example, historically and traditionally Lutherans ONLY used a Chalice for the blood of Christ in the Eucharist. Individual cups were never seen. We got that idea from the Reformed churches who did not use wine. Lutherans in America “borrowed” this from the Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians and Congregationalists because we intentionally (unfortunately) wanted to look more “Reformed” and less “Catholic”. Does that mean that receiving the Holy Blood of Christ in anything other than a chalice is wrong? No, but it is not traditionally “Lutheran.”
When TLH appeared in 1941, pastors stopped chanting partly because the music for the “Pastor’s chant was not included with TLH but put into a supplementary volume of Music of the Liturgy” (Frahm) which was not published until 1944. This inconvenience led to the inadvertent loss of chanting in many parishes for four decades. Even still, pull out your old TLH and take notice of all the printed directions which say “Then the Minister shall say or chant.” This validates the claim that TLH intended that Pastors chant as they had previously done in German and English[2] hymnals.
With the publication of both LW and LSB our traditional liturgical dialog has been resurrected, and congregations have grown more and more accustomed to the practice (though some still see things like chanting, and making the sign of the cross, as “Catholic” and therefore unwelcome, if not verboten, for Lutherans).
Lutheran Service Book (2006) has continued and in many ways expanded what was begun in Lutheran Worship, providing chants for the pastor, chant tones for the Psalms and for the prayers in the Divine Service and Daily Prayer Offices. (Beisel)
Now it is not uncommon to chant the Introits and Psalms, and to hear the Pastor chant not only his parts of the service, but also the Collects, the Verse and in some services even more of the Liturgy of the Sacrament (e.g., the Lord’s Prayer and Words of Institution).
If you grew up in the American Lutheran Church (ALC) or the Lutheran Church in America (LCA) [now both part of the very liberal ELCA after the 1988 merger] you likely used the Service Book and Hymnal, 1958 (SBH). I find it interesting that this hymnal DID include the Pastor’s music for chanting in two different settings. How or why chanting disappeared from these church bodies before the publication of their LBW in 1978 is beyond my knowledge, since I grew up in the LC-MS.
Simple stated, what you may SAY is “traditionally Lutheran” may actually show ignorance and may be more about your isolated experiences than what Lutherans have actually been doing in worship for centuries. Do we decide what is or what is not Lutheran based on what we personally like or dislike … or how we feel? No. So, to have an emotional reaction against chanting and declare it “Roman Catholic” represents an uninformed opinion.[3] Consider the following:
Liturgical chant has a long history from the time of the founding of the Missouri Synod and other synods in North America, to the time of Luther in Germany and Scandinavia, on back to the early church and indeed into the worship of the Old Testament believers in the Messiah. It is nothing new and it is not uniquely Roman Catholic at all. Among Christians one not only finds chant among Roman Catholics but also Anglicans (Episcopalians), Eastern Orthodox, more liturgical Presbyterians, and many Lutherans. Historically speaking, it is representative of the majority of worshiping Christians throughout the centuries. As is clear from Martin Luther, his liturgical reforms sought only to revise what was in error and leave intact and cleansed what good gifts were passed on in the church’s tradition that were unproblematic (i.e., if it isn’t broke, don’t fix it!). Both of the Divine Service orders produced by Martin Luther featured chant prominently (Formula Missae and the Deutsche Messe[4]).” (Frahm)
Chanting communicates the Biblical “text at the higher level of intensity suggested by song” (Pfatteicher 89). Chanting adds immensely to the spirit of the service. Chant allows the text of Scripture be the master. In particular the Psalm tones are quite simple, yet carry the text of Scripture without importing a foreign emotion. Chant is reserved and holds back from being too exuberant and by doing so it allows God’s Word to dominate.
Chanting is an elevated form of speech, which honors the words and makes them more distinct and easier to hear. In its purest forms, the music of chanting follows the natural flow and rhythm of the text, rather than imposing itself upon the words. Its purpose is simply to carry the words, not to embellish them. This is part of what distinguished chanting from singing. Chanting does, however, help to set Divine Words apart from the routine chatter of everyday speaking. (“Introduction to the Liturgy” 4)
Chanting is meant to make the words more distinct and easier to hear. It also lends beauty to the service. It helps to set Divine Words apart from everyday, secular words and ceremonies. The music is deliberately simple. It is intended to carry the words, not to interpret them. (Petersen 4)
… Chant helps to emphasize that the Divine Service is heaven coming down to earth in the means of Christ’s grace (Revelation 4,5; Isaiah 6:1-7; Acts 2:42; I Corinthians 11; Luke 22:27). It communicates the divine mystery of this transaction of the means of grace and faith. (Frahm)
Because we are in the presence of Christ, every action is elevated to a higher and more beautiful level. Poetry, especially when it is sung or chanted is the way in which we elevate speech above the common or mundane. (This is why people sing love songs, for instance.) What is sung is not ordinary or simply for amusement. (Frequently Asked Questions. http://www.gloriachristi.org/id49.html)
It is of no surprise, then, that Luther not only encouraged the use chanting but also provided direction as to how it might serve the Word of God.
In Luther’s view, those who were to lead in the public worship of the church needed to be well-trained in music to meet those responsibilities. “Before a youth is ordained into the ministry, he should practice music in school.” He was especially scornful of those “who want to be theologians when they cannot even sing.” For presiding and assisting ministers to neglect their respective roles in the singing of the liturgy is to abandon the traditional practice of the Lutheran Church, often replacing it with an approach that is highly individualistic, overly personal, and inappropriately informal, and thereby depriving congregations of the ennobling experience of a sung liturgy that is rightfully theirs. (Schalk 250).
Chanting is musical speaking on one or more tones. It is not solo singing. Clear articulation and maintaining a fluid pace are more important than tonal quality. Syllables are not to be run together, but are sung evenly, flowing along smoothly with normal accents. Those who chant should never consider this a virtuoso solo. Likewise, one should never use vibrato when chanting, to do so draws attention to the one chanting instead of the Biblical text. I cringe when I hear a cantor chant with a forced and dramatic basso profundo as though performing in the Barber of Seville.
A helpful point of comparison may be vestments. … The purpose of vestments is to cover the person so that we do not focus on the individual but upon the means of grace (Gospel and Sacraments) and the office that person holds. What is worn in addition to the alb or the cassock/surplice indicates the office the person holds by virtue of call, ordination or consecration. Another purpose of vestments is to adorn the liturgist and assistants to indicate the reverence, joy, and holiness of the Divine Service. This brings us back to chant in the liturgy of the church.
In many ways chant serves as a “vestment” for the voice. Chant, as a kind of combination between singing and speaking, serves to de-emphasize the idiosyncrasies of the person conducting the liturgy or assisting and helps to emphasize the mystical and sacramental unity and communion between Christ and His Bride, the Church. In this way also, chant serves as a kind of vocal “uniform” like the basic liturgical vestments or even the clerical shirt and collar. Theologically speaking, personality doesn’t then matter much from one pastor to another so long as the Gospel is preached purely and the sacraments are administered according to Christ’s institution (Acts 2:42; Augsburg Confession VII). Chant helps convey this uniformity in office and the transparochial nature of the church’s ministerium. This means that it points to the continuity of the church beyond simply our own local congregation and beyond the moment and century that we live in now. (Frahm)
Other benefits of chanting include:
- helping the Pastor and the congregation to slow down and recite Psalms in unison.
- making it easier on the Pastor’s voice to project.
- aiding in the learning process … Most of us learned the alphabet by singing it to “Twinkle, Twinkle, Little Star.” Consider song lyrics: it is easier to recall those lyrics when singing them than when just speaking them. So also with Holy Scripture. When set to music, it is easier to remember.
Someone once told me that services without chanting are preferred because “we are not Catholic” … to which I responded, “Oh yes, we are.” I meant that we are “catholic” (small c). Chanting is part of the worship history and tradition of the “one holy, catholic and apostolic church” … it is our worship history and tradition! Lutherans have chanted throughout the majority of our history because chanting is the heritage of all western Christians. We should NOT think of it as something only for Roman Catholics. It is a timeless way to proclaim the Word of God. And today, when we chant, we are proclaiming to the world that we are not just adopting another latest-greatest-feel-good worldly fad as so much of our own church body has done in importing vapid contemporary “praise and worship” music into worship. No, we proclaim and present an ancient truth in an ancient way.
If chanting is only for “Roman Catholics” why did the last two hymnals (LW, 1982 & LSB, 2006) include chanting? Because these hymnals envision the Divine Service being sung or chanted. “The musical parts for presiding minister, assisting ministers, and congregation are printed in full.The chanting of the ministers’ parts is not to be thought of as virtuoso singing but as speaking on a tone” (Guide to Introducing Lutheran Worship 26)
The corporate worship of Lutheran Christians has traditionally been sung. This is true not only of the congregation whose song was freed by the Reformation to take its rightful place in the liturgy, but it is equally true of the song of those who exercise particular roles of leadership in worship, namely, the presiding and assisting ministers. (Schalk, Carl. “Music and the Liturgy, The Lutheran Tradition.” Lutheran Worship: History and Practice, edited by Fred L. Precht, Concordia Publishing House, 1993, p. 250.)
Not only is the action of the liturgy given a more noble form when solemnized in song, the singing of the liturgy as it is shared by pastor, assisting ministers, and the congregation adds a beauty and intensity not possible in any other way, “enlarging and elevating the adoration of our giver God” (LW, p. 6). The singing of the liturgy by presiding and assisting ministers, as provided for in Lutheran Worship (1982), raises the doing of the liturgy to a plane beyond the overly personalistic and idiosyncratic—so common in much worship today—to that of truly corporate song (Schalk 250).
Is chanting absolutely necessary for liturgical worship or is it somehow more pleasing to God than speaking? Not at all! Chanting does not make one any more of a Christian than anyone else, or any less of one for that matter. There are, however, several advantages to chanting that Pastors and congregations are beginning once again to acknowledge. There are special occasions, high festivals, notable anniversaries—when chanting is almost indispensable. And when we chant a Psalm, we not only declare God’s Word, but we praise Him at the same time. Again, for the leader not to chant is to deprive the congregation of a liturgical experience that it is rightfully due.
St. Augustine is credited in the saying: “He who sings prays twice.” Whether or not he actually said this, it is a fine reminder that our song is not just directed at us, it is directed toward God. When the church chants, we do so not only for our own edification … we are not simply reciting and declaring the truths of Scripture … we are also praising God: “Oh sing to the Lord a new song, for he has done marvelous things! His right hand and his holy arm have worked salvation for him.” (Psalm 98:1)
In the Church, we have our own vocabulary, our own “language,” and our own way of expressing it. Liturgical Chant is a reverent means of communicating the Word of God clearly without inserting too much of our own personality or interpretation into the text. It seems right that a church that really wants the world to hear the Gospel would NOT opt to simply be another voice fading into pop culture but would rather want to sound a different note … one that is distinct from that of the culture … one that is other-worldly … one that is heavenly.
______
[1] See the Words of our Lord, in post page 43.
[2] “Music for the Liturgy” was included in Liturgy and Agenda (1936)
[3] As an aside, why have I never heard anyone complain, “That’s too Baptist”?
[4] 1523 and 1526 respectively
Works Cited
Beisel, Paul L. Chanting: Why Does Pastor “Sing” So Much? higherthings.org/myht/articles/catechesis/chanting
Frahm III, John A. Chant as Vestment for the Voice. https://four-and-twenty-something.blogspot.com/2009/09/chant-as-vestment-for-voice.html
Gloria Christi Lutheran Church. Frequently Asked Questions. http://www.gloriachristi.org/id49.html
“Introduction to the Liturgy.” Here I Stand-2017 Higher Things Conferences-Worship Booklet
Petersen, David. Liturgy and Hymns booklet for a 2003 Higher Things Conference, p. 4.
Schalk, Carl. “Music and the Liturgy, The Lutheran Tradition.” Lutheran Worship: History and Practice, edited by Fred L. Precht, Concordia Publishing House, 1993.
Walther, C. F. W. translated by Paul McCain from Der Lutheraner, Volume 9, Number 24, July 19, 1853, p. 163.Texas District Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod. Guidelines for the Parish Worship Committee. Worship Committee of the Board for Parish Services, 1979.
The Liturgiologist 