It is certainly not true that we were all of one mind when it came to music -- at least until contemporary Christian music came along. The music in the liturgy has always been rather controversial and subject to debate. Occasionally we remember this but most of the time we conveniently forget it. Why this matters is that it is good to know the history as we approach new styles or forms of music that some want to include in what happens on Sunday morning. This does not mean to say that there is no such distinction between sacred and secular but only that the line between the two has been redrawn over time.
The first issue was voice or instrument. For the earliest period of Christianity, voice was the only instrument for the music of the Divine Service. There was no question or doubt here. Indeed, the witness of the early church fathers here is almost unanimous against the use of instruments in worship and it looks very different than what we typically expect today. The voice was the only instrument of praise and voices were raised in chant.
Instrumental music was associated with Judaism. In the effort to maintain a clear distinction between Judaism and Christianity, instrumental music was omitted from the early liturgy without much discussion. Indeed, the presence of instrumental music in the Temple was seen less as belonging than concession to the sensuality of the people -- at least according to the Christian view of things. There was a firm conviction that what the Old Testament (particularly the Psalms) said about the use of instrumental music in worship had no bearing on Christian worship. Also present in the early church fathers was an attention to unity which was best reflected in unified singing -- monophonic music better expressed this unity in the ancient Christian mind, it would seem.
Whether we like to admit or not, the early fathers were much more puritanical and Amish when it comes to the role of music in worship than Lutherans, Roman Catholics, and even Protestants in general. I suspect they would be shocked to find polyphonic music, instruments, harmonies, hymns, and organs that have become par for the course for most Christians today. Part of this was the constant association of instrumental music with sensuality, emotion, and secular (dare I say sinful) arenas. They sought a higher and spiritual but also primarily word dominated idea of worship. Augustine himself reflects the conflict within him over both associations with the secular part of his earlier life with its sensuality and the desire to serve God on a higher plane. That expression finds it ultimate definition in Thomas Aquinas who insists that worship employ only voice for God's sake and for ours. Obviously, something changed along the way.
What was largely absent in the early Church and tolerated only in limited ways in places later gave way to the embrace of music with any harmony was altogether excluded by the Late Middle Ages. The mind of the Church began to change with the Edict of Constantine (321 AD) as the Church came out of hiding into a more public presence and into a more public space. The very possibility of gathering together in large, cavernous spaces had an impact on the singing and the song. Embellishment of the melody and the skill of the singer made the chant more elaborate and drew more attention to the music and to the text but in a different way. Choirs or scholas were formed to enhance this musical form but also to keep it distinct from the congregational song. Gregorian chant became more complicated and there was more movement in the melody and even a hint of harmony. Along with this, music began to become more mathematical. After harmony went from two-part, to three-part, and then to four and more parts, it was not a big step to introduce polyphony. With this was a constant concern against the loss of the text due to the elaboration of the musical form.
There was even a move during the Council of Trent to ban polyphony altogether. This was surely in sync with the Protestants who were suspicious of Luther and his embrace of music in service to the Word and his own personal advancement of congregational song. Renaissance polyphony was controversial within Rome and Protestantism together. By the time you get to the Baroque period and Bach, Vivaldi, Handel, Mozart, Gabrieli, Schubert, Scarlatti, and many others, the connection between math and music is much more obvious. You can see this most of all in the fugue -- the form mastered most of all by Bach but not unique to him. Both Lutherans and Roman Catholics were not unconcerned about the principle use of music as a handmaiden to the Word and sought to preserve the intelligibility of the text. In this they had much in common with some Protestants who insisted that the words of the music must be directly from the Scriptures alone (though some allowed paraphrase).
Although debate continues and will always continue over the suitability of newer forms of music and whether or not they are they can be employed within the sacred use of the Divine Service, these are not new. The judgment against forms unsuitable to the sacred setting of the Mass or so tied to their secular identity that such a context cannot be erased in order for it to be rehabilitated for sacred use will also remain. The key to that judgment will not simply be the sound or cultural popularity of such forms but the intelligibility of the text and whether such forms reverse the role and dominate the Word rather than serve that Word. The problems with contemporary Christian music and usage within the setting of the Mass or Divine Service cannot be argued simply on the basis of association or origin but must be dealt with on the level of the Word and its proclamation. That said, it is not being unfair or narrow minded to suggest that some forms have such association with the sensual or with pagan contexts that their usage within the sacred setting of worship cannot and will not overcome to provide for their inclusion the way harmony and polyphony have been incorporated into orthodox Christian worship.
Obviously, everything I have written is true in the West but may not be reflective of the developments within the East and Orthodoxy there. I have not even written of the fact that the Tridentine Mass has little place or appreciation for congregational hymns of any kind while the post-Vatican II Mass of Rome seems much more friendly to the form.
No comments:
Post a Comment