BIBLICAL Horizons, No. 30
October, 1991
Copyright 1991, Biblical Horizons
Several months back, a candidate for ordination was being examined for entrance into the Presbytery of which I am a member. The candidate had a good deal of trouble with the exam on the sacraments, stumbling badly as he tried to define the "nature of the sacrament." Apparently in an effort to help him, a member of the Presbytery asked him to describe how a sacrament worked, that is, how it communicated grace. The answer the questioner was looking for was that sacraments speak to the eyes of the believer as the Word speaks to his ears; for this pastor, the distinguishing mark of the sacrament is that it can be seen. Even with various hints, the candidate had a difficult time answering the question put to him.
That exchange is one very minor illustration of a difficulty that has plagued the Church throughout her history: the definition of the term, "sacrament." The evidence of the difficulty is apparent on the surface of Church history: the many debates about the number of sacraments, the efficacy of the sacraments, and the administration of the sacraments — all are in part and perhaps centrally debates about the definition of "sacrament." In this brief essay, I wish to raise two prominent problems in Protestant sacramental theology, and to suggest how these problems might be solved.
1. For Protestants, one of the main difficulties of defining the sacrament is finding a definition that encompasses baptism and the eucharist, but only baptism and the eucharist. This is not a problem for other traditions. In particular, the Orthodox tradition and, to a lesser extent, Roman Catholicism do not face that problem. In Orthodoxy, "sacrament" is given such a broad definition that literally everything becomes a sacrament; in Roman Catholicism, there is a tendency to include every ordinance of the Church, and indeed the Church itself, under the category of "sacrament." (These are, by the way, fruitful perspectives, which are, I believe, consistent in certain respects with the Reformed position.)
The difficulty of finding a limited definition of sacrament is illustrated by James Bannerman’s discussion in his The Church of Christ (2 vols.; St. Edmunton, Canada: Still Waters Revival, [1869] 1991). Bannerman argues that "there is a promise of grace annexed to outward ordinances when rightly used." Over and above any natural effect "there is a spiritual efficacy in the ordinances of the Church, distinct from the natural, and which is derived from the blessing of Christ and the working of His Spirit." In short, the Spirit makes "every ordinance of the Church . . . the channel for the conveyance of supernatural grace" (2.1-3). Prayer, worship, fellowship, discipline — all these and others are means of grace.
If this is the case, however, on what basis are baptism and the Supper singled out as the sole "sacraments" of the Church? Bannerman answers that the sacraments, like the Word, appeal to the understanding. Yet, the sacraments have "this peculiarity, that they speak at the same time and alike to the outward senses and to the inward thought." It is the unique ministry of the sacraments to "the twofold nature of man, as made up of body and soul, to minister both to the senses and the understanding; and to speak at once to the outward and inward nature of the believer" (2.7-8).
Bannerman’s position fails on two fairly obvious grounds. First, the implied philosophy of language is thoroughly rationalistic. What theologian today would make the claim that the word addresses itself solely to the "intellect and spiritual nature of man"? One does not have to buy into modern linguistics wholesale to concede the obvious fact that words do much more than appeal to the understanding. Second, and even more obviously, one can hear the word, or sing praises to God, or utter prayers, only with the body and with the use of the body’s senses. Preaching appeals to the sense of hearing no less than the sacraments appeal to the sense of sight, taste, and touch. Since this is the case, the fact that the sacraments appeal to the senses does not distinguish the sacrament from the other ordinances of the Church.
One way to defend the Protestant doctrine of two sacraments is to stress the covenantal character of the sacraments. Covenant is, of course, a key to the Reformed understanding of the sacraments. Because the sacraments are signs and seals of the covenant, they are signs that mark out the covenant people. Only the people of God, and all the covenant people receive these signs. This covenantal perspective excludes ordination and marriage as sacraments, since the former is applied only to the ministers of the covenant community and the latter is not peculiar to the covenant people.
This definition would not, however, exclude confirmation, penance, or unction (anointing the sick) from the purview of the sacraments. We can, however, exclude the rites of confirmation and of penance because the Bible does not command them, so that they are merely customary. We can exclude unction from consideration because, though it is a Biblical rite of healing, it is not for every covenant member.
At the same time it is not clear how the covenantal emphasis helps us to distinguish the two sacraments from other rites of the Church, such as prayer and worship, which are, like the sacraments common to the covenant community.
2. Bannerman implicitly reduces the "senses" to one: sight. That limitation has a long and venerable history in theology. It was Augustine who defined a sacrament as a "visible sign of an invisible grace," and Calvin approvingly cites that definition (Institutes 4.14.1.) The key to defining a sacrament is that it is "outward" and that it is a "sign." But, Calvin goes on to argue, a bare sign does not constitute a sacrament. Rather, again citing Augustine, Calvin argues that the word must be added to the physical "element" and only then will the element become a sacrament (4.14.4). A sacrament, then, is for Calvin a visible sign annexed to the Word.
This definition, however, raises a host of problems. If Word + Element = Sacrament, then the element would become a sacrament (the water would become baptism and the bread and wine the body and blood of Christ) without ever being administered. It seems plausible to suggest that it was this very definition of the sacrament that led to many of the medieval abuses that Calvin so vehemently (and so rightly) condemns. Once we assume that the water, bread, and wine become sacraments when the Word is spoken, and that the sacrament is mainly a "visible sign," then the logic of the veneration of the host and medieval "hocus pocus" becomes almost irresistible.
Several medieval theologians offered a more satisfying theory of the sacraments. The author of the Summa Sententiarum proposes a threefold, rather than a twofold definition of the sacrament: Sacraments are composed not merely of word and element, but of word, element, and act (dicta, res, facta). All three are equally fundamental to the proper observance of the sacrament. It is not merely water and the Word that constitutes baptism; it is the Word with water poured or sprinkled upon the baptized that constitutes baptism. It is not merely bread and wine with the Word that makes the Supper; it is the Word plus bread and wine eaten and drunk. This emphasis has the salutary effect of forcing us to think about the elements of the sacraments in the context of the liturgical act. (This discussion is based on the enlightening series of three articles by Damian van den Eynde, "The Theory of the Composition of the Sacraments in Early Scholasticism," Franciscan Studies.)
This perspective moves us away from preoccupation with "seeing" the sacrament. I have not been baptized if I have only seen a baptism, nor have I communed if I have merely watched the Supper. The promise is attached not to the viewing but to the doing.
BIBLICAL Horizons, No. 30
October, 1991
Copyright 1991, Biblical Horizons
A close supporter of Biblical Horizons asks whether it is proper and wise to get involved in all the boycotts that Christians are being asked to observe today. She raises the point that Paul’s advice about eating meat sacrificed to idols seems relevant to the discussion. I think she is right, and in response to her question and observation, would like to set out some points for consideration.
We should take note of the situation described in 1 Corinthians 8 and 10. The pagan temples in Corinth took much of the meat sacrificed to their idols and sold it in the market. Indeed, 1 Corinthians 8:10 informs us that these temples actually had restaurants attached to them. The Corinthians wrote to Paul and asked him if it were proper for believers to frequent these restaurants and if it were proper to buy meat from temple fleshmongers in the market.
Paul replies that since idols are nothing one way or another, there is nothing wrong with eating meat sacrificed to idols. He tells them that when they buy meat they should not bother to ask about it (1 Cor. 10:25). He tells them that the only consideration should be whether or not their personal practice offends weaker believers. If a weaker believer makes a point of telling you that the meat you are buying is the residue of a pagan sacrifice, then oblige him and buy meat elsewhere (1 Cor. 10:28). If a weaker brother will be hurt seeing you eat in a pagan Temple restaurant, then don’t eat there (1 Cor. 8:10-13).
The issue here is not one of obliging pharisees and legalists. If someone disapproves of buying sacrificed meat or disapproves of your eating in a Temple, you don’t have to oblige him, because he clearly thinks of himself as a strong believer. But if someone is likely to misinterpret your actions and as a result start paying attention to pagan idols and thereby be led astray, then by all means be sensitive to his needs.
Now, this is all that Paul says about the matter. A modern boycotter would press the point by observing that the temples were making loads of money from the sale of this meat. A boycotter would argue that the Corinthian Christians should refuse to buy such meat in order to "put the temples out of business." But Paul does not say anything about this matter. He could have. If he’d had a boycotting mentality, he would have. But he didn’t.
As Biblical Christians, we recognize that idolatry is a far worse sin and far more dangerous to society than either abortion or pornography, gross and wicked though they are. If Paul did not advocate boycotting the shops run by the very temples of idolatry, we cannot expect that he would advocate boycotting K-Mart or Walden Books.
In fact, nowhere in the Bible that I know of does any religious leader advocate boycotting as a means of effecting social change.
Now, an argument from silence, which this is, is a weak argument — but it is not completely nugatory. If boycotting is not part of God’s social agenda, we ought to ask if there are reasons why it is not. I can think of three good reason why the Bible does not advocate boycotting.
First, boycotting is almost never successful, by itself, in getting a store to change its policy. I doubt if there are enough Christians willing to engage in boycotting K-Mart to make even a slight dent in K-Mart’s profits. If K-Mart changes the policies that the boycotters object to, it will be for other reasons. The primary reason that some boycotts seem to work is that the boycott creates a scandal, and no sales business wants scandal and controversy attached to its name. There are other ways to create "scandal" than boycotting, however. The boycotting aspect of the action is unnecessary.
Second, even if the boycott worked, who would be hurt? Certainly not the owners and managers of Burger King or Walden Books! Even if the boycott succeeded in closing down these chains completely, the men at the top, who have made the offensive decisions, would find other equally lucrative jobs, or they would be laid off with "golden parachutes." No, it is the little people at the bottom of the chain who alone may be hurt by a boycott. It is the ordinary, decent, hardworking people who staff your local K-Mart who might be laid off.
It is interesting that conservative Christians have argued for years that boycotting South Africa only hurts the poor blacks, and that we should employ other means to persuade that nation to change its policies. Yet when it comes to large chain stores and restaurants, conservative Christians completely reverse their policy.
Third, I believe that boycotting does not set out a good witness for the faith. Consider the alternatives. For one thing, concerned Christian leaders could phone the officers of these companies and ask for a hearing. Christians could engage in letter campaigns, writing kind but firm letters asking that the stores they patronize not support Planned Parenthood or sell pornographic literature. If such appeals as these fail, it is still possible to put pressure on the men at the top by the use of mass media, or by a token one-week boycott to call attention to the problem. Measures like these do not threaten the livelihood of the innocent employees of these large chains, who often are in the lower socio-economic brackets of our society.
Boycotting is a bad witness because it politicizes all kinds of issues that ought not to be political. Paul’s argument holds true: What and where we eat and shop ought not to be a religious or political matter. Politicizing every economic decision down to which brand of cereal or stick of gum to buy diverts the true focus of the faith (and starts to border on the ridiculous). As Peter Leithart observes in the essay preceding this one, it creates the idea that the conservative Christian world is a power bloc rather than a servant community.
There are other considerations as well. Once a boycott starts, it is hard to end. Many of us receive information, often through the Christian grapevine, urging us to boycott Mennen products or Maxwell House coffee, but how many of us hear when the boycott has been called off because these companies have apologized or changed their ways? Calling off a boycott is seldom pursued with the same vigor as was employed in calling for the boycott in the first place. If the boycott has been effective in hurting the company financially, then the poor people at the bottom continue to be hurt.
At the same time, the Bible does not forbid boycotting either. I believe there may be a place for boycotting a local store that is offensive, when the boycott will directly affect those making the offensive decisions. A local store that chooses to sell hardcore pornography might be effectively boycotted as a last resort. Those who would be hurt directly would be the owners.
And of course, if your personal conscience is bothered by the thought of patronizing a "temple market," then don’t do so. But that is a personal choice, and actually according to Paul a "weaker" choice. Your personal choice is not a license to start a crusade to move the Church into a posture of political confrontation, particularly when the tool used in the confrontation is only marginally effective and actually could harm only innocent people.
The Biblical principal of war is clear: Go for the head and crush it. Only in small, local situations will a boycott actually harm the person making the offensive decisions, so only in small, local situations will the boycott be effective in crushing the head of the opposition. The kinds of boycotts that conservative Christians are calling for these days only hurt the weak and helpless, like the teenagers that were massacred in Viet-Nam while we let Ho Chi Minh sleep easy at night, or like the teenagers buried alive or sliced to ribbons by "smart fire" in the Gulf War while we granted Saddam Hussein immunity.
This is not how Christians should fight.
BIBLICAL Horizons, No. 30
October, 1991
Copyright 1991, Biblical Horizons
Exploring the influence of televangelism on American religion in his book, The Struggle for America’s Soul, Princeton sociologist Robert Wuthnow presents a typical, though hypothetical, case study: Mabel Miller. Mabel lives alone, thousands of miles from her family. She grew up in a Baptist Church, but now, approaching 65, she no longer attends church. Instead, she gets up early on Sunday morning, switches on the television, and sits "alone in her living room getting God via satellite." Sipping a cup of tea in front of a preaching face, Mabel "epitomizes what sociologists have been calling privatized religion."
Yet, as Wuthnow brilliantly points out, on closer inspection, we discover that Mabel’s "concerns . . . are not so strictly private as we thought. She tells of her deep interest in the direction moral standards have been going in recent years. She watches, she says, to gain information about important social and political issues of the day. She routinely receives letters from Jerry Falwell, sometimes sent by certified mail, which keep her abreast of the latest developments at the Supreme Court and in the White House." Paradoxically, "at the same time [televangelism] privatizes, it also makes public."
Mabel Miller symbolizes in a strikingly accurate way the theologically and politically conservative branches of American Christianity. Mabel symbolizes American Christianity not in the fact that she watches television preachers, but in the strange dialectic of public and private in her religious life. Her worship and doctrine are wholly private concerns; Wuthnow calls her personal brand of religiosity "Mabelism." When she enters the public realm, she does so as a political actor — writing letters, signing petitions, donating money.
Notwithstanding recent, welcome appeals for an evangelical catholicism, a large segment of that amorphous beast known as Evangelicalism remains caught in the same dialectic. Though Evangelicals were not politically passive before the 1970s, few would deny that they have now entered the public arena in a more aggressively political way than in the preceding decades. The public presence of much of contemporary Evangelicalism, both left and right, is a decidedly political presence.
Meanwhile, doctrinal standards are loosening. Survey evidence for this conclusion is supported by anecdotal evidence. I commonly hear stories of members and even elders of Presbyterian churches who have little understanding of or use for the Church’s Confessional standards, and of members of Calvinist churches who are shocked to learn that Calvin taught predestination.
Traditional forms of worship are dissolving as well. Presbyterians have historically been among the most strict in matters of liturgy. Yet the Church growth "theology" of liturgy has taken some sectors of conservative Presbyterianism by storm, and is making hesitant inroads even into the strictest of the Lutheran denominations. Psalms and the great hymns of the Church have been replaced by "Scripture choruses" sung to warmed-over pop tunes. Profound but difficult music finds little or no place in worship. Anecdotal preaching has replaced the exposition of the Word. Most Evangelicals commune almost as seldom as the congregation of a medieval cathedral. The Reformation principle that the chief work of the priesthood of believers is to offer the sacrifice of praise is overthrown in favor of the principle that the Church must at all costs make visitors feel comfortable.
Much of the Evangelicalism has been, in a word, thoroughly "Mabelized": While maintaining high political visibility, it is increasingly doctrinally pluralistic, ecclesiologically invisible, and liturgically passive.
Privatization and politicization seem polar opposites, but they are in reality two effects of the same event. The late Alexander Schmemann once wrote that secularization is the "negation of worship," of man as homo adorans, of man as priest. Secularists may genuinely believe in a Supreme Being, but what they cannot tolerate is the demand that, in the words of the Book of Common Prayer, "it is . . . our bounden duty, that we should at all times, and in all places, give thanks." Secularism can be seen as a denial of the profoundly eucharistic character of human life.
Secularization often takes the form of politicization. James Davison Hunter’s researches detected among some Evangelicals a "shift . . . from the transcendent to the imminent," a part of a larger tendency to conform to "the cognitive and normative assumptions of the modern world view." Hunter notes that on the edges of Evangelicalism are some for whom "social and political activism is redefined as the essential Christian act." What Hunter is describing is precisely a shift from worship to politics as the chief focus of the Church’s life and mission.
When the Reformers spoke of an "invisible" Church, they did not mean to suggest that Christianity is a purely private religion. On the contrary, they insisted that the preaching of the Word and administration of Sacraments — both public acts — were essential marks of the Church. For the Reformers, the "face" of the Church was publicly unveiled not primarily in political action or even in "little platoons" of Christians involved in ministry, but in the gathering for the preaching of the Word and the celebration of the Eucharist. Though the Reformers were hardly apolitical, they knew that the Church has been given a public task that transcends politics.
The Church has always been the object of vicious ridicule and slander. In the early centuries of the Christian era, Christians were accused of incest and cannibalism. Today, many of the finest and most courageous American Christians are vilified as bigots and fascists. That is to be expected. Jesus warned, indeed promised, persecutions.
But the difference between the contemporary slander and the ancient one points to a significant difference in the world’s perception of the Church. Today, the world views the Church as an interest group, intent on seizing political power. That is certainly a gross distortion, but it tells us something important not only about the world’s own obsessions, but also about the "face" that the Church is presenting to the world.
By contrast, the ancient slander shows that pagans, if they knew anything at all about the Church, knew that the Church gathered to eat and drink the flesh and blood of her Savior and greeted one another with a kiss of peace. The world perceived the Church as a liturgical, not a political community because the Church’s public presence was primarily liturgical. We will know that the Church is being de-"Mabelized," and that a proper balance is being restored, when the slander of fascism recedes and the accusation of cannibalism regains currency.
Biblical Chronology
Vol. 3, No. 10
October, 1991
Copyright © James B. Jordan 1991
by James B. Jordan
Solomon began to build the Temple of the Lord in the fourth year of his reign, which was 480 years after Israel came out of Egypt, the year A.M. 2993 (1 Kings 6:1).
Seven years later, in the year A.M. 3000, the Temple building was finished (1 Kings 6:38). The many ornate pieces of furniture needed for the Temple were not yet made, however, and during the next thirteen years the palace of Solomon and his royal apartments were built, while the apparatus of the Temple worship was being created (1 Kings 7). Then, in A.M. 3013, both houses were finished (1 Kings 7:51; 9:10).
After Solomon dedicated the Temple and worship began to be conducted there, God appeared to Solomon. This was in the 24th year of his reign. God told him that if he remained faithful, the throne of David would be established over the kingdom of Israel perpetually. If Solomon sinned, however, the rule over Israel would be lost (1 Kings 9:1-9).
Virtually every time in the Bible that God gives a promise or a kingdom to someone, the first thing he does is ruin the promise by sinning against God. Adam did it. Abraham did it (committing polygamy with Hagar right after God told him he would have a son). Saul did it (1 Samuel 9-15). David did it, committing adultery with Bathsheba right after God promised to dwell in his house. Many other examples could be mentioned, but here we see it again.
God had told Solomon through Moses that there were three things the king must not do: multiply gold, reduce the people to servitude to build up a war machine, and commit polygamy (Deuteronomy 17:16-17). Shortly after we read that God appeared to Solomon and gave him the kingdom promise, we read that Solomon broke these three conditions.
First, he multiplied gold (1 Kings 10:14-22). He took in 666 talents of gold per year. The number is obviously significant. The actual weight is about 25 tons of gold per year. That is, 50,000 pounds of gold per year. That is, 800,000 ounces of gold per year. At $400.00 per ounce, that comes to $320,000,000.00. That’s the least it might have been. Using the equivalent figures found in The Open Bible, (one talent of gold = $5,760,000), we come to $3,836,160,000.00. That’s a lot of gold for a nation the size of New Jersey. Every year.
We are told that Solomon made 200 large ceremonial shields of beaten gold, using 600 shekels of gold on each large shield. These were used to form a "glory cloud" around the king (God’s viceroy) when he walked across the common pavement between the royal palace to the palace of the High King (the Temple) (1 Kings 14:28).
Second, Solomon multiplied horses (1 Kings 10:26-29). Finally, Solomon multiplied wives (1 Kings 11:1-8). These marriages were political alliances, and in order to play politics Solomon build temples to the gods of his wives’ nations. This offended the Lord, and the Lord raised up adversaries for Solomon.
The Egypt Factor
Egypt comes to prominence at this juncture of history. One way to understand the relevance of Egypt is to contrast Egypt with Tyre. Hiram, king of Tyre, had been a loyal ally of David. He loved David. He clearly was a converted man. When Solomon came to the throne, Hiram could not do enough for him. He volunteered to help build the Temple, because Israel’s God was his God also (1 Kings 5). He showered Solomon with gifts (1 Kings 9:11, 14). If there was any nation Solomon should have allied with, it was Tyre.
Yet, Solomon gave Hiram a cheap and insulting present, and offended him (1 Kings 9:11-12; 2 Chronicles 8:2). Solomon evidently thought his relationship with Hiram was secure, and so did not try to please him. (I am reminded of how the "conservative" Reagan and Bush administrations constantly offend their Christian supporters–evidently because they regard them as "in their pocket–while they pursue the goodwill of liberals and degenerates.)
Solomon chose to pursue Egypt instead, marrying the daughter of Pharaoh (1 Kings 9:16). Solomon had actually married Pharaoh’s daughter in his youth, perhaps with God’s blessing. At least the Lord overlooked the matter (1 Kings 3:1ff.). Now, in his Adamic "fall," his rebellion against the promise God had given him, Solomon’s relationships with Egypt are not overlooked.
Moses had forbidden the kings to engage in horse trading with Egypt (Deuteronomy 17:16). Solomon not only got horses from Egypt, but became a middle-man for horses between Egypt and other nations (1 Kings 10:26-29).
The folly of Solomon’s involvement with Egypt is apparent from what we read in 1 Kings 11. It is evident that Pharaoh’s policy as regards Palestine was to play all sides against each other. (How different from loyal Hiram!) Back in David’s day, the Israelites had defeated the Edomites, and the prince of Edom, Hadad, had fled to Egypt. There he was nurtured in Pharaoh’s court, and Pharaoh made him his brother-in-law. When the time was ripe, Hadad took leave of Pharaoh and went to make trouble for Solomon (1 Kings 11:14-22). (It should be noted that Pharaoh tried to dissuade Hadad from this; v. 22. He didn’t try very hard, though.)
Solomon’s equine enterprise actively supplied the king of Syria with horses (1 Kings 10:29). Shortly thereafter, Syria was taken over by a man who hated the house of David, and who used those horses to plague Israel (1 Kings 11:23-25).
Moses said that the kings of Israel must never reduce the people to slavery, and he linked this idea to involvement with Egypt (Deuteronomy 17:16). Solomon had conscripted labor to help build the Temple and the palace, and the people had willingly volunteered (1 Kings 5:13-18). The actual citizens of Israel did not have to come and put in time working on the Temple, but they had to supply manpower from their serfs (1 Kings 9:20-22).
Now, as long as the Temple and palace were being built, the people did not mind supplying this labor. Afterwards, however, Solomon kept building and building. The citizens of Israel had to supply the manpower for this. The citizens themselves had to serve as conscripts in the army (1 Kings 9:22), and Moses had prohibited having a standing army. All of this amounted to a great financial burden, and the citizenry did not like it.
Solomon put Jeroboam the son of Nebat in charge of conscripting workers from Ephraim. Ephraim was the other great and powerful tribe, next to Judah, and they did not like this Judahite king taxing them so heavily. Jeroboam probably did a good job of bullying work out of the Ephraimites, until one day the prophet Ahijah informed him that God was going to let him have the rule over the ten northern tribes, as a way of punishing Solomon. Solomon caught wind of this, and Jeroboam fled to Egypt, where he was protected by Pharaoh (1 Kings 11:26-40).
After Solomon died in A.M. 3029, Rehoboam his son came to the throne. The people appealed for tax relief, but Rehoboam told them that he was going to increase their taxes. As a result, the ten northern tribes seceded from the confederation of Israel and made Jeroboam their king, in the year A.M. 3030 (1 Kings 12).
Rehoboam was initially chastised by this turn of events, but he soon forsook the Lord and promoted all kinds of idolatry. The Lord prompted Pharaoh to invade Judah. Remember, Pharaoh had been a friend of Jeroboam’s. Pharaoh doubtless regarded Solomon’s exceedingly wealthy kingdom as too powerful. Accordingly, he must have rejoiced to hear that the kingdom had split in half. In the fifth year of Rehoboam, Pharaoh captured Jerusalem and helped himself to all the gold Solomon had stored up, including the 200 ceremonial gold shields. Rehoboam had to replace them with bronze ones (1 Kings 14:25-28).
Solomon ignored his friends (the Lord and Hiram) while he courted and curried favor with his enemies (Syria and Egypt). The result was disastrous to the nation.
Rite Reasons, Studies in Worship, No. 17
October 1991
Copyright (c) 1991 by Biblical Horizons
(continued from Rite Reasons No. 16)
Historical Periods of Hymnology
Timothy Dwight, 1800
New Trinity Hymnal #353, v. 2 and 4
The best brief review of hymnology is found in Erik Routley’s The Music of Christian Hymns. Because the book is written in English he deals almost exclusively with hymns that were written by English-speaking composers or hymns that have standard English translations. We believe that most Christians have very little idea of the rich heritage available to them because their music leaders have not explained it to them. Many church musicians probably are not aware of their heritage either. Routley gives roughly the following outline of the historical periods of hymnody:
Plainsong Hymnody
The Late Middle Ages–carols and hymns
Lutheran chorales
Calvinist Psalters
Early English and Scottish Psalmody 1549-1564
Developed Psalm Tunes 1564-1677
Unofficial Psalters and hymnbooks 1560-1637
Psalmody after the Restoration 1677-1738
German Hymnody 1600-1850
J. S. Bach
English Evangelicalism 1738-1800 (Wesley)
Roman Catholic Hymnody 1680-1850
English Psalm and hymn tunes (1800-1860)
English Hymnody, Oxford movement (1860-1890)
Victorian composers
Edwardian composers
Welsh hymn tunes
American hymnody 1776-1900
New England style
Appalachian folk hymns
Black Spirituals
Gospel songs
England, 20th century Renaissance 1900-1930
Other English Hymnody 1900-1955
American, Canadian and Australian hymnody in the 20th century
English church music since 1955
How many of these categories did you sing from last Sunday? Even this wealth of material is a fraction of what could be available with good translations. The musical heritage handed down by the church is rich and varied and is continually being expanded by composers of our generation.
The Kingdom Model and the Work of the Priest as Guard
We learn in Genesis 2:8-14 that God divided the world into three regions: the sanctuary, the home, and the workplace. Certain types of activity are proper to each sphere. Work tasks do not belong in the midst of sanctuary worship just as home duties do not belong in the workplace. Certain types of music fit the workplace, others the home, and still others the sanctuary. Music serves varying functions in the different regions of our lives. In the context of this review we are concerned about music for the sanctuary.
Adam was to guard the Garden of Eden (Genesis 2:15). He failed at that task, so God placed cherubim at the east of the garden to guard it after Adam fell. God later raised up a priesthood to guard the sanctuary. Now we are all priests and thus we are all given the responsibility to guard the sanctuary. This is a very unpopular thing to do in the area of music. One of us was called a snob by a member of the hymnal revision committee for suggesting that trained musicians among God’s people are to act as guards. In this age of relativism most Christians do not believe in holding up a standard in this area.
Perhaps the doctrine of the priesthood of all believers has led to an egalitarian view of our gifts, talents, and training, and we have allowed people who do not understand the raw materials of music and God’s pattern for shaping them to produce music for God’s sanctuary. When God instructed Moses to build the Tabernacle, He did not say to let everyone contribute, but He chose Bezalel son of Uri, the son of Hur, of the tribe of Judah and filled him "with the Spirit of God, with skill, ability, and knowledge in all kinds of crafts. . . . So Bezalel, Oholiab, and every skilled person to whom the LORD has given the skill and ability to know how to carry out all of the work of constructing the Sanctuary are to do the work just as the LORD has commanded" (Exodus 35:31; 36:1).
Evaluation of the New Trinity Hymnal
With this background let’s now return to our original complaints about the old Trinity Hymnal and see what has been done in the revision.
Typesetting: Perhaps the best thing about the new Trinity Hymnal is the improved set up. The hymnal is much easier to read. It was set up on a computer using the software Finale, FreeHand, Word, and Pagemaker. The type for the music is Petrucci and the text is in Times and Helvetica. Printing was done by Dickinson Press, Inc., in Grand Rapids, Michigan. The type is larger, and no more than five lines of text are placed between staves (though this is still too many, and works a hardship on ordinary pianists and organists). All in all, however, this is a great improvement from the old Trinity Hymnal. (For a truly easy-to-read hymnal, however, look at the 1958 Service Book and Hymnal of the Lutheran Church in America, still one of the best hymnals ever put together.)
Overabundance of nineteenth century hymns: One of the bigger disappointments to us was that the preponderance of 19th century hymns in the OTH was made even worse in the NTH. Nearly half of the hymns come from only one century. The American Gospel song, the Victorian style, and Lowell Mason and his school are particularly over-represented. There are too many other styles that were neglected to justify this.
Too few twentieth century hymns: The committee has made a real effort to rectify this problem. Many fine modern hymns were added. We were personally sad not to see represented many of the fine Lutheran composers of today such as Jan Bender, David Johnson, Carl Schalk, Walter Pelz, and Paul Manz, and also some of the major British contributors, such as Herbert Howells and John Ireland. Perhaps the texts for some of their hymns were not acceptable to the theological advisors.
Too few Genevan psalm tunes: The old Trinity Hymnal contained only six Genevan Psalm tunes [OTH #1 (#348), #72 , #148 (#246), #511, #512, and #514]. One was added to the NTH and one was subtracted. We were told by a member of the committee that these tunes were too hard for most congregations. Some of them are indeed difficult and take some study and patience to learn. Many, however, are just as accessible as the tune for Psalm 134, known in English speaking circles as Old Hundreth (All People that On Earth Do Dwell). Numerous Christian schools use the rhythmic Genevan tunes, and the children love them.
"No Longer, Lord, Despise Me" (OTH #511) (Geneva Psalm 6) is one of our personal favorites from the Psalter. The rhythm of this psalm tune, as well as all the others represented, needed to be restored to the original, but we do not understand why it was removed altogether. The hymnal designed for two Calvinistic denominations really should include more of their musical heritage. The Genevan Psalter is a treasure-trove and is available in English translation. Book of Praise: Anglo-Genevan Psalter (1984), a complete translation of the Genevan Psalter using the original Genevan melodies, is available from Premier Printing Ltd., One Beghin Ave., Winnipeg, Manitoba, R2J 3X5.
The tune that was added is a setting of the Ten Commandments (NTH #724). This is a very useful addition and acquaints you with the Genevan tune to Psalm 140. The rhythm here is also close to the original.
Too few Scottish Psalms: By this we mean that there are too few tunes from the Scottish Psalter of 1929. Two tunes from the Scottish psalters of 1615 and 1635 were added to the NTH. One of the few pairings of a text with its commonly sung tune, "Behold! The Mountain of the Lord," (OTH #272) was not carried into the new hymnal. (The 1929 Scottish Psalter is available from Oxford University Press. A marvelous compact disc will introduce you to the beauty of these psalm settings: Psalms of Scotland, performed by the Scottish Philharmonic Singers directed by Ian McCrorie; Abbey SCSCD 2830.)
Important Chorales–Additions and Deletions: The NTH adds many of the great chorales but unfortunately deletes some of the few that were in the old hymnal. The chorale style is a rich heritage from the Protestant Reformation. The melodies have provided source material for composers down to the present generation.
The chorale style was used extensively during the Reformation and often follows the pattern of AAB or "bar" form. `A’ represents the melody of the first line, which is then repeated (the second A). This is followed by B, a contrasting melodic phrase usually twice the length of A. Often B will close with the same melodic cadence as closes A. Thus there is unity and diversity built into the chorale form making it easy to learn because of the repetition but interesting by way of contrast in the sections. "A Mighty Fortress" is a good example of the bar form.
"O God, My Faithful God" (NTH #602) is an addition and is an example of a finely crafted hymn both textually and musically. The text was written by Johann Heermann (1585-1647), a German pastor who was undergoing severe trials at the time. The Thirty Years’ War had produced havoc in his town of Koben, and he lost all his possessions on more than one occasion. The text of "O God, My Faithful God," is scriptural in sentiment and expression. In this (altered) English translation by Catherine Winkworth (1858), Heermann refers to God as the "true fountain ever flowing." The believer seeks God’s help in bearing the cross instead of trying to bear it by his own fortitude and determination. Although it is a devotional prayer, it is also objective in its praise to God because of the great attributes ascribed to His name. It does not become overly personal or sentimental in character, but remains universal so that all believers can sing it. One can expect a good hymn when it is authored by Johann Heermann and translated by Catherine Winkworth.
This particular chorale does not use the bar (AAB) form. The melody is well constructed with four phrases. The tension builds to the end of the third phrase and then is brought to rest in the fourth phrase creating good drama in the music. The harmonization is by J. S. Bach, always a good choice for a hymn.
The NTH adds three chorale tunes that are particularly good: "Soul, Adorn Yourself With Gladness" (NTH #421), "From Depths of Woe I Raise to Thee" (#554), and "Jesus, Priceless Treasure" (#656).
"Soul, Adorn Yourself with Gladness", is based upon Revelation 19. Unfortunately the editors saw fit to use the translation as found in the Lutheran Book of Worship (1978), perhaps because they thought the original Winkworth translation was too archaic. (It isn’t.) The original is also nine stanzas instead of four as is found in the NTH. Are we afraid of spending an extra three minutes in praise and thanksgiving to the God who instituted the great Eucharistic feast so that we might enjoy His presence? Personally, we’d like to use the time singing to Him.
(The way to deal with hymns that have many stanzas, like "Ah, Holy Jesus" [NTH #248], which should have fifteen, is to place an asterisk next to the optional stanzas. That way the hymn can be used in its entirety sometimes, and in condensed form at other times. The best source for complete chorales is the 1941 Lutheran Hymnal of the Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod, published by Concordia. These are un Copyrighted and can be photocopied for congregational use. Other long hymns that are unfairly shortened include "The Church’s One Foundation" [ten stanzas] and "The God of Abraham Praise [twelve stanzas].)
AUS TIEFER NOT is one of the greatest chorale melodies and fits the text of Psalm 130, "From Depths of Woe I Raise to Thee" (NTH #554) as well as any melody that we know. The opening drop of the fifth and subsequent ascending fifth is a beautiful depiction of being brought out of the depths of woe. The OTH had coupled this text with ALLEIN GOTT IN DER HOEH (OTH #461), a wonderful tune but a jarring mismatch with the text.
"Jesus, Priceless Treasure" (NTH #656) was found in the OTH but set to LINDEMANN. Although the Lindemann tune is very nice, it doesn’t fit as well as Crueger’s JESU, MEINE FREUDE. This would have been an instance where we probably would have opted for both tunes to be in the hymnal, but given the choice, the NTH has definitely made the right one (though it is too bad that not all six stanzas were included).
But the NTH does not contain several of the great chorale hymns found in the OTH, such as: "The People That In Darkness Sat" LOBT GOTT, IHR CHRISTEN (OTH #123), "Lift Up Your Heads, Ye Mighty Gates" MACHT HOCH DIE TUR (OTH #146), "Lord, Keep Us Steadfast In Thy Word" ERHALT UNS, HERR (OTH #91), and "Savior of the Nations Come" NUN KOMM, DER HEIDEN HEILAND (OTH #165).
Early Chorales "Pietized": Sixteenth century chorales and psalm tunes have a characteristic swing and vigor that was stopped cold in the 18th century by Pietists who thought the rhythms too complicated for congregational singing. "The hymns of Luther have had their wings clipped and have put on the straight-jacket of 4/4 time," as a writer put it in Evangelische Kirchenzeitung No. 84 (quoted by Carl F. Schalk, "German Hymnody," in Marilyn Kay Stulken, Hymnal Companion to the Lutheran Book of Worship [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1981], p. 32).
The original rhythms were restored in the hymnbooks of the Confessional Revival of nineteenth-century Germany. In many recent American hymnals (Lutheran Book of Worship, Augsburg, 1978; Lutheran Worship, Concordia, 1982), the rhythm of these hymns has also been returned to their original form. (The older Lutheran Hymnal [1941] of the LCMS also uses original rhythms.) Chorales and Genevan psalm tunes lose their delightful Renaissance swing when they are reduced to even quarter notes.
When we received the 1986 "Report on the Revision of the Trinity Hymnal," we were glad to see that the editors were going to offer an alternate version of "A Mighty Fortress Is Our God" (NTH #92). In its original version (which you can see in the 1941 Lutheran Hymnal and more recent Lutheran hymnals), this truly magnificent hymn is full of dance-like vitality. Its variable rhythms sound like syncopations to our ears. But alas, in the NTH, stodgy tradition has won and we have lost the opportunity for a fresh look at an old friend. The difference between the original and the "Pietized" version is akin to the difference between the fresh clear colors of the restored Michelangelo Sistine Chapel and the dark muddy way it had come to look before the restoration. This same criticism applies especially to "Comfort, Comfort Ye My People" (NTH #197), and "If Thou But Suffer God to Guide Thee" (NTH #670). (Compare the way this last hymn sounds when sung from either Trinity Hymnal with its beauty as sung in the wonderful film, Babette’s Feast. It is hard to believe that the square, pound-each-note style of the Pietists could mow down such a lilting, bouyant tune!)
Incomplete Representation of the Psalms in Music: The Preface to the NTH, p. 8, says that the committee "sought to preserve the completeness of each section in the hymnal and the priority of Psalms and Psalm-based hymns." Yet the NTH does not come even close to including all the psalms in singing versions. Look at the list on pages 900-901 and see how many complete psalms, or even psalm portions are listed, as opposed to mere one-verse allusions. How can a hymnal in the Reformed tradition be put together without all 150 Psalms represented within its pages? With a selection of over 700 hymns and the expressed priorities of the committee, we would think that room could have been made for all 150 Psalms. Contrast the 1987 Psalter Hymnal of the Christian Reformed Church, which not only contains all 150 psalms (some more than once, and usually with very good music), but also has 46 other scripture portions set as metrical hymns, including the Song of Hannah, the Song of Jonah, and many parts of Isaiah and New Testament passages. Additionally there are 404 hymns. This is a far better example of a Reformed hymnal!
Incomplete Psalter Readings: Not only are only a few psalms represented in singing versions, but not even all the psalms are represented as responsive readings, perpetuating one of the strangest features of the OTH. Additionally, the NTH continues the odd practice of alternating whole verses, paying no attention to the parallelism of the Hebrew poetry of the psalms. James Jordan’s critique of the OTH was published in 1985, and called attention to the problem of the OTH’s inadequacies as a psalter (Jordan, "Church Music in Chaos"). Others have criticized this feature of the OTH as well. Evidently it was not given much weight by the committee.
Because of its amazing lack of a complete psalter, either sung of spoken, the NTH cannot be considered seriously as a Reformed or Presbyterian hymnal, if measured by Calvinistic history and doctrine.
Tunes Changed in the New Trinity Hymnal
Let us begin by mentioning several of the improvements in the NTH. The OTH was overloaded with nineteenth century hymn tunes that did not always best serve their texts. Many great texts have been joined now with equally great melodies. "At the Name of Jesus" (NTH #163) is now set to KING’S WESTON, a sweeping and uplifting tune by Ralph Vaughan Williams. Another great Vaughan Williams tune is SINE NOMINE, which is now joined with "For All the Saints" (NTH #358). The ancient text "Of the Father’s Love Begotten" (NTH #162) is rightly joined to its flowing and lovely Gregorian chant–one of the few plainsong melodies (sad to say) found in the NTH.
Some of the hymns from the OTH have been retained with improvements. We have never known anyone who sings the second line of "O Come, All Ye Faithful" (NTH #208) as it was in the old hymnal. Here the irregularities of rhythm and text are set right and the key is lowered.
"Great God of Wonders!" (NTH #82) has replaced the tune PATER OMNIUM with SOVEREIGNTY. The new tune expresses this magnificent text with music that is just as powerful as the text. BROTHER JAMES’ AIR has been added to the several tunes set for Psalm 23 ("The Lord’s My Shepherd, I’ll Not Want"; NTH # 86).
Some of the tune changes, however, are problematic. Unfortunately the editors of the new Trinity Hymnal decided that the Vaughan Williams tune KING’S WESTON ("At the Name of Jesus") would also be a good tune for NTH #285 (OTH #208) "Jesus, Lord, Redeemer." It fits the text well but there was no reason to change the tune (KIRKLAND) from the OTH since it fits as well if not better. We like for a tune to be wedded to a specific text so that the melody causes an association with particular words. Although we realize that it is a long-standing practice in Reformed circles (Genevan and Scottish Psalters), it bothers us to see one melody used for four or five texts, thereby weakening any associations made with that tune.
A similar example of an unnecessary tune change is "All Praise to God, Who Reigns Above" (NTH #4; OTH #4). Both tunes are good hymn tunes but LOBET DEN HERRN, IHR by Melchior Vulpius expresses the joy of this text beautifully and did not need to be changed. MIT FREUDEN ZART is also better associated with its original text by Georg Vetter "With High Delight Let Us Unite," a hymn that should have found its way into the new hymnal.
"Welcome, Happy Morning!" (NTH #268; OTH #199) is a hymn that needed a new tune but not NOEL NOUVELET, which was the choice of the new hymnal editors. This melody has too many associations with Christmas to be used with this text. There was a tune written specifically for this text by Arthur Sullivan called FORTUNATUS, which although not perfect, is better than any of the choices found in either of the Trinity Hymnals.
Some hymns were retained without improvements but with existing problems. A minor disappointment to us is that the wrong accidental in "All Glory Be to Thee, Most High" (OTH #92; NTH #102) in the fourth measure from the end was not corrected. The last bass note of that measure should have been an E-natural, not an E-flat. (As conductor Julian Craster says in the film The Red Shoes, "Makes all the difference, doesn’t it? Should be an E-natural.") Every time we hear it played as written it sets our teeth on edge. Also, though the Mendelssohn setting of this melody is beautiful, it destroys the original dance-like rhythm, which should have been restored by imitating the Lutherans.
Another hymn retained with an accretion is BRYN CALFARIA, the rugged Welsh tune used for several texts. The dreaded rit. (slow down) mark over the 8th phrase in the OTH has not been eliminated but has been moved back to include both the 7th and 8th phrases. One was bad enough! The slowing down negates the power and drive of the quick moving notes, and changes it from forceful to sentimental. Too bad.
Other tunes that were changed and should not have been are as follows:
Some tunes were left out altogether such as ISTE CONFESSOR, a great melody and one that fit the "Ah, Holy Jesus" text quite well (OTH #179a). There are many wonderful medieval and Reformation hymns that would be well matched with ISTE CONFESSOR.
(concluded in Rite Reasons No. 18)
