 |
| I am going to use mine for a special project. Read the entire Lindee article at the IL site - this is a real contribution for faithful Lutherans. |
Three weeks ago, we published a lengthy post entitled, An Explanation of Lutheran Worship: For the Lutheran who asks the Meaning of the Beautiful Liturgy of His church. The body of that post contained a full Explanation of the Common Service — the order of Divine Service beginning on “page 15” ofThe Lutheran Hymnal which was published by the Synodical Conference in 1941. An English-language harmony of sixteenth century Lutheran liturgies published in 1888 by the General Council of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, it still serves as a benchmark of liturgical excellence. Indeed, in our recent post, Lutheranism and the Fine Arts: Dr. P.E. Kretzmann and the Necessity of Continuing Catechesis, we quote Dr. Kretzmann referring to theCommon Service as “unsurpassed in the entire history of the Christian Church.”
The Explanation we published two weeks ago was taken directly from catechetical materials developed by the General Council for the distinct purpose of educating Lutherans regarding the doctrinal integrity and catholicity of genuine Lutheran worship. Indeed, this Explanation of the Common Service, published in 1908, was dedicated to the “Young Lutheran who asks the meaning of the beautiful liturgy of the Lutheran Church.” In our introductory remarks preceding the explanation, we marveled at this. Lutherans these days don't educate their youth about Lutheran worship, and if they do, they don't do so in a way that extolls it's beauty as a work of Fine Art, nor do they do so in a way that reinforces its doctrinal integrity, nor do they do so in a way that embraces its catholicity. One of the bright shining exceptions to the lamentable reality that contemporary Lutherans no longer value their heritage of worship enough to bother passing it down to their youth, is the LCMS-affiliated organization, Higher Things. Outside of this organization, the best one can hope for is a one- or two-lesson explanation of Lutheran worship which neither extolls its beauty nor places value on its doctrinal integrity and catholicity, but uses the opportunity to deride our heritage by vaunting its status as “an adiophoron” and setting it on equal footing with just about any form of Sectarian Worship imaginable – as long as one wears the appropriate set of blinders as he goes about imagining. Yeah, sure, you can do it, but why would you want to? In answer to this one needs but a “reason,” and in the world of adiaphora that merely means “opinion.” Thus one “reason” is as good as another, and anything one can “justify” has open license attending it.
But we further asked the reader to notice the use of language this Explanation employed. It was not written for functionally illiterate Lutherans who find reading and understanding anything written above the sixth-grade reading level to be a hopeless struggle. On the contrary, being dedicated to the “Young Lutherans,” it was written to Lutheran Youth, and plainly assumed that they had command of their own language. If it was written above their level, then it served the noble purpose of lifting them out of their immature literacy and colorless task-oriented-use of language, through the rich vocabulary and precise grammar employed in the distinctive and enculturating language of the Church. Contemporary Lutherans, it seems, no longer value the uplifting qualities of higher literacy, either.
Regardless of what the so-called wise-men of contemporary times insist upon, I am not ready to succumb to such disrespect for others that my operative assumption is that they are all functionally illiterate. I don't think all, or most, or even a significant minority of educated Lutherans are just a bunch of dumb-dumbs who can't read. Some very-well may refuse to read anything more complex than a comic book, but that is a separate matter – a matter of sinful obstinacy, and perhaps even rebellion. It is not a matter of literacy. So today, we are going to continue our use of materials having high-literary quality to provide a brief explanation of Lutheran hymnody.
What is a Hymn? A Canticle? A Carol? An Anthem?
We begin with the source pictured at the top left: The Handbook to the Lutheran Hymnal, by W. G. Polack – who was the chairman of The Lutheran Hymnal committee. This work first appeared in 1942, essentially accompanying the publication of The Lutheran Hymnal, and went through several revisions thereafter. It is a book which catalogs all of the hymns used in The Lutheran Hymnal, identifying their authors and sources, providing a history of the circumstances under which the hymn was written (if notable), reproducing the hymn in its original language alongside the English version which appeared in the hymnal and identifying (sometimes justifying) alternate readings from the original composition. It is considered a classic in the field of hymnology.
In the Introduction to this magnificent work, Polack answers the questions everyone has regarding the various words used to identify the music we sing at Divine Service. He writes:
- The Lutheran Hymnal contains 644 hymns, 16 spiritual songs, and, besides those included in the orders of matins and vespers, 8 canticles and chants. The term hymn in this connection is used in its special sense of church-hymn. St Augustine defined a hymn as “praise to God with song.” That is a very general definition. In the usage of the Church, in order to distinguish it from a carol, a spiritual song, an anthem, a gospel-song, or a canticle, the hymn has come to have a more specific meaning.
The term carol, originally a dance song, now signifies a popular, spiritual folk-song, usually of praise and joy. The carol originated in the later Middle Ages and was frequently addressed to the Virgin Mary. Carols are less formal than hymns, and sometimes are trivial and even nonsensical. They are ballad-like in character and include lullabies, shepherds’ songs, songs of the Wise Men, and sometimes are based on ancient legends connected with the life of our Lord or the Holy Family. A spiritual song is more formal than a carol and designates a song of a spiritual, religious nature. An anthem, according to Webster, “formerly, a psalm or hymn sung antiphonally, or responsively, is now a sacred choral composition, usually sung by a church choir, with words usually from the Scriptures.” A canticle, originally a little song, now refers to a non-metrical spiritual song or chant, sometimes a Scriptural song, sometimes a Scriptural paraphrase. Examples are the Gloria Patri, the Magnificat, the Te Deum, the Beatitudes. A gospel-song, in contrast to a hymn has been defined as “a religious exhortation to fellow-men.”
What then is a hymn? It has been rightly said that “it is much easier to say what is not a hymn than what is a hymn.” Certainly, there is no agreement among authorities as to what really constitutes a hymn; and yet, when we consult the latest hymnals published by the leading denominations in Great Britain and America, we find that these hymnals are closer to being collections of hymns than they have ever been before. And while the committee which edited The Lutheran Hymnal had set for itself a rather high standard as to what constitutes a hymn, yet, for obvious reasons that standard could not always be adhered to rigidly, for, as Prof. L. Blankenbuehler states in The Christian Hymn, “the line between the hymn and the spiritual song, an individualized, subjective lyrical poem or prayer, is at times very tenuous.”
If we were to venture a definition of a church-hymn, we could hardly improve on that by Harvey B. Marks, in his The Rise and Growth of English Hymnody: “A hymn is a sacred poem expressive of devotion, spiritual experience, or religious truth, fitted to be sung by an assembly of people.”
A church-hymn, then, must be a song, a popular poetical expression of that which the believers have in common. It must be true, Biblical, Christian, edifying, simple yet dignified in language, excellent in content and form, devotional in tone, churchly and congregational in viewpoint and sentiment. It must contain nothing that is untrue, questionable, unclear, uncouth, offensive. It must not be unrhythmical, humorous, sentimental, too imaginary, and too allegorical.
A true church-hymn is reverent in its language and by that token will inspire the singer with reverence. The reverent language of our best hymns is the result of their being thoroughly Scriptural and in perfect harmony with their lofty religious themes. True church hymns are objective in character. That does not mean that they are always “we” hymns. The use of the personal pronoun “I” and “we” in a hymn does not necessarily imply a lack of objectivity any more than does the use of “I” in the Apostles Creed. Nor does the fact that a Scriptural song is extremely subjectiveeo ipso mean that it must be condemned as altogether unfit for use by Christians. There are many such that are very properly loved and sung by God's children in their homes, in schools, and in social gatherings, but they are not churchly and congregational in character and for that reason are not true church hymns.
A true church-hymn is centered in God or in some great doctrine of our faith or is an expression of hope, faith, confidence, and reliance in Him or His Word. It must have Scriptural warmth and power. High liturgy quality should be there, but that alone does not make a poem a hymn. The vigor and strength, as well as the fervor of faith, must definitely be present in a true church-hymn. F. J. Gillman in his Evolution of the English Hymnreminds us of St. Paul's definition of the purpose of song-worship in the Apostolic church – “Teaching and admonishing one another,” and says: “A hymn has a teaching office and an office of mutual encouragement and edification, as well as an office of prayer and praise.”
(Polack, W. (1942). The Handbook to the Lutheran Hymnal. St, Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House. pp IX-X)
'via Blog this'
