A. Music and Creation⤒🔗

Introduction←↰⤒🔗

Anyone studying the history of music up till the eighteenth century, sooner or later will have to deal with theology. During that time the music of the church not only played a dominant role, but also occupied a leading function. This role she lost in the eighteenth century when secular music took over. This take-over also had farreaching consequences for the way people thought about music. There was a shift from 'theological' to 'secular' thinking.

Up to and including the Reformation, the Chris­tian church thought about music, its function and purpose, in terms of theology. The content and form of music were in large measure influenced by theo­logical views. Also in matters of music "doctrine determined life," and not the other way around. That is why it is meaningful for us to examine the purpose theology assigned to music in the past.

Augustine – Middle Ages←↰⤒🔗

With this article you'll find an illumination from an English Psalter c. 1290. The letter illuminated is the B, from the word Beaus, with which Psalm One begins in Latin. The letter contains a picture of David with a harp. In his left hand he holds a (rather large) tuning key and with his right hand he plucks the strings.

The artist has done everything possible to make it clear that David is here tuning the harp. The tuning key is conspicuously large and the pegs are drawn in the wrong position. They have been placed on top of the neck. We know that in the Middle Ages, the tuning pegs were on the side of the neck. If the artist has drawn them there, it would not have been clear that David was tuning a harp. Obvi­ously the fact that David was tuning the harp, and not playing it, had to be emphasised.

Since Augustine, David was seen as the fore-father and a fore-shad­owing of Christ. And when you say Christ, you're talking about the Word that created the world. The word 'creating' means: to bring or­der. When you tune a harp, you are busy with ordering. You bring the strings in correct harmonic relation to one another, by giving the strings their correct length and tension. The illustration, therefore, tells us that David (fore-shadowing of Christ) orders the strings, as Christ ordered the Creation.¹

That brings up the question: How are music (the tuning of a harp) and creation related to each other? Mu­sic until the eighteenth century was seen and approached as mathemat­ics. Since the sixth century, music belonged to the exact, mathematical sciences (Quadrivium). Music had everything to do with mathematical rules and number relations. Until the eighteenth century, music was primarily considered to be an ar­ithmetical phenomenon and a mathematical science.² Therefore, one could establish a clear relation­ship between music and the crea­tion. One posited namely that in the creation we are everywhere dealing with certain established numbers and measures.

Everything in the creation can be reduced to constant number ra­tios. This idea was already held by early Greek philosophers and via Augustine, it entered Christianity.

Since Augustine, Wisdom of Solomon 11:20 (an apocryphal bi­ble book) has played an important role in musical thinking. It tells us that God "has ordered everything according to measure, number and weight." It is a very important text, referred to by theologians and music theorists to well into the eighteenth century.

God has created everything according to meas­ure, number, and weight. And that He did by using constant number ratio. The foundation and essence of music are based on the same ratios and math­ematical laws, with which God ordered the whole creation. What exactly these number ratios were and how precisely they work, falls outside the scope of this article. What is important for us to remember is the fact that the measurement/the number according to which God ordered the creation, also became the basis and essence of music.

During the Middle Ages, Augustine's thoughts were worked out further. Because music was above all a question of numbers and proportions, and because the whole creation was based on the same mathematical laws, it was said that the whole of creation was permeated with mu­sic. In everything that was created, there was the presence of music. It was a circular argument: music is number, creation is based on this number, conclusion: creation con­tains music.

Man, however, was not able to hear this 'music' with his ears. In the cosmos there existed then inau­dible music. It was called musica mundana, music that on earth could not be heard. Music nevertheless because people knew that God had created the universe according to the same number ratios as those in music.

For centuries it was believed that God Himself had put music into Creation. It was further posited that music was simple creation made audible. A composer, it was said, was busy with making the created cosmos, the whole of creation to sound to the honour of the Creator.

In the Medieval world view, heaven was above the universe. Heaven was the dwelling place of God, and where God dwells, there is the liturgical music of heaven, the praise of the angels.

When a person on earth made music, he made everything that God had created to sound. In addition he joined in with the angelic praise inaudible on earth. The music making man knew himself to be taken up in the cosmos that existed to the glory of God. He also knew himself to be connected with the heavenly liturgy, the praise of the angels. In making music, man reached his purpose and goal for which he was created, namely, the praise of God. Briefly that was the theological goal of music, as it existed from Augustine to the fifteenth century.

The Reformation←↰⤒🔗

The whole matter of parallel proportions and number ratios in music and creation is not clearly present in the reformers Luther and Calvin. With Luther one can find here and there points of contact, but the idea does not play a dominant nor determining role in his thoughts.

Luther states that music is a gift of God. He adds — following Au­gustine and the Middle Ages ­that God Himself put music into Creation. Literally, Luther said it as follows: "For music is a gift and largesse of God, not a gift of men."³ Music already existed before the creation of man and was not in­vented by man.

Calvin sees music as a gift of God, but — as far as I know ­nowhere does he state that God Himself put it into Creation. He, however, said: "All arts come from God and must be seen as a divine invention."⁴

Because music is a gift of God, the Reformers could value and approach it positively. After all, what God created was good. And everything God has given is good.

Because music is a creation gift of God, its goal and purpose is determined. For music then exists for His praise and to proclaim His greatness on earth. That after all, is the purpose and goal of the whole creation. Everything that has been created exists to the greater glory of God. As it says in Psalm 19: "The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the works of his hands ... There is no speech or language where their voice is not heard. Their voice goes out into all the earth." Or as Calvin puts it in a sermon about Psalm 148:

The sun and the other creatures cannot make sounds that we can hear. They have no intelligence to understand what God has put in them. But before our eyes they are a hymnal with notes. The book itself is dumb; it does not know the art of music, but the book serves us to sing from it. In the book we have the words and notes that allow us to sing. So God keeps this book before us far and wide, so that we can join in and together with the angels proclaim His power.⁵

According to Calvin, the church together with the angels may proclaim God's glory. Here we see that the medieval idea of Creation's praise joining the heavenly music is also present in Calvin.

Beside the differences between Augustine and the Reformers, the theological purpose of music remains the same. Music is an integral part of crea­tion and is meant for praise, and with the whole of creation it must resonate to the glory of God.

It is, therefore, self-evident that music was used in the service of Christian life. For where God is praised, the congregation is built up, and man ar­rives at his original purpose and goal. Music in the first place, exists for praise.

That of course, does not mean that music cannot be used for recreation and other such matters. It is the same with our voice. God gave us a voice to serve Him and our neighbour in the first place, to praise God and to make His name great on earth. This does not preclude the use (often misuse) of our voice for other purposes. It concerns the primary goal for which God intended His creation gifts.

B. Music and Re-Creation←⤒🔗

Music and Ethics←↰⤒🔗

It is generally accepted that music has a certain influence on people. This thought is widely propagated today, and has always been there.⁶ For that we can go back to the time of Plato, perhaps even fur­ther. Let's, however, stay with Plato for a moment, for this philosopher is constantly quoted throughout history.

Plato's teachings about ethos is of importance here. Plato posited that creation, man, and music, are based on the same number ratios. Man finds every­thing pleasing that is in agreement with the number ratios and proportions that can be found back in all of the cosmos. This also means that man finds those things ugly that do not adhere to these proportions. From it we can draw two conclusions. In the first place, that according to this view of aesthetics, the experience of beauty can be explained and deter­mined by mathematical laws, the similarity of number ratios in music and man. Simply put: what man finds "beautiful" can in broad lines be calculated.

That, of course, runs counter to the twentieth century opinion about beauty and taste. Although, the composer Olivier Messiaen writes in Technique de mon Langage Musical (Paris, 1944), that musical­aesthetical pleasure is obtained by "numerical restrictions in rhythm and harmony."

In the second place, we can conclude that, ac­cording to Plato, music is a powerful means for educating man. That also means that you can wrongly educate a man with music. In other words, music was a matter of ethics. Music had to do with good and bad morals.

Of Pythagoras it is said, that he calmed a drunk­ard, who on hearing a phrygian melody had become quite aggressive, by playing a hypophrygian melody with a different rhythm. The great ethical value of music was not only ascertained and recognized by Plato, but also by Augustine, Luther and Calvin. In the preface of "La Forme Des Prieres" (1543), Calvin writes the following about music:

But there is still more, for there is hardly any­thing in the world with more power to turn or bend, this way and that, the morals of men, as Plato prudently considered it. And in fact, we find by experience that it has a secret and almost incredible power to move hearts in one way or another. Therefore, we ought to be even more diligent in regulating it in such a way that it shall be useful to us and in no way pernicious.⁷

Typical is also Luther's well-known statement that the music drives away the devil (the origin of cares, sorrow and unrest). Less well-known is a similar statement by Calvin. It can be found in a sermon about Psalm 149. In verse 6 of this psalm we read: "May the praise of God be in their mouths and a double-edged sword in their hands." In connection with this text Calvin says:

When God has shown His power to them (the believers), with His mighty power has helped and saved them, then that will spur them on to praise Him. That will take all fear away, no matter how threatened they are on all sides.

And a little further:

When we magnify His name, we need not doubt that He will lift us up and give us the victory over our enemies.⁸

Re-Creation←↰⤒🔗

Sung praise is a mighty weapon against the devil and his powers. That is why, according to the Re­formers, praise has such great value for the life of faith. Where there is singing, the devil is put to flight. For where man exalts God's name, he is assured that God will lift him up and give him the victory. In praise man is re-created. In connection with that re­creation, the following passage from Calvin's pref­ace (1543) is important:

Now among the other things which are proper for re-creating man and giving him pleasure, music is either the first, or one of the principal; and it is necessary for us to think that it is a gift of God deputed for that use.

Calvin sees music as a gift of God for re-creation. The word 'recreation' does not have the meaning we give to it: free time and relaxation. Calvin here literally means re-creation, i.e. to be created again. Just before the quoted passage, Calvin says that Scripture teaches us that we must rejoice in God and that all joy must be directed to that end. He says that the Lord has given us all sorts of means to keep us busy with spiritual joy. Then follows the passage in which it is stated that music is the most important or one of the most important gifts for man to be re­created.

It is remarkable that this thought is also present in Lutheran theology. Johann Sebastian Bach once wrote, paraphrasing Niedt: "the aim and final rea­son ... of all music ... should be none else but the Glory of God and the recreation of the mind. Where this is not observed, there will be no real music but only devilish hubbub."⁹

Re-creation for the Reformers meant the dedica­tion of man to the task for which God had created him, namely, the praise and proclamation of God's name. The praise of God is part and parcel of the 'new' man (Heidelberg Catechism, L.D. 33). In praise man reaches his original purpose and goal (see above: Augustine – Middle Ages).

From the above it also appears that the Reform­ers distinguish between a good and bad use of music. Music for them is then a matter of ethics. Both Reformers agreed that music could be misused, when its primary goal and purpose no longer was consid­ered. Luther says that we must accustom ourselves (apparently it is no automatic process) to recognize the Creator in music and praise Him with it. The devil, however, will do his utmost to prevent this. There is another danger in man himself. Man, after all, lives after the Fall into Sin and, therefore, it is not always self-evident that he uses music correctly. We must guard ourselves against the misuse of music. When we sing, it must not only be with our mouth but also with our heart.

This thought, more or less, we also find with Calvin. As we have seen, Calvin says that we must correctly use music, as a gift of God, i.e. to our salvation and God's glory. Furthermore, we must not only sing with our mouth, but with our heart as well. The difference between Luther and Calvin is that the latter was very much afraid of its negative use.¹⁰

The fear of misuse was so great with Calvin that he — in contrast to Luther — states that there must be a difference between what we sing in church and what we sing at home.¹¹

The Reformer then makes a strong distinction between secular and ecclesiastical music. As argument for this, Calvin not only states that music can be misused, but also that we in the worship appear before God and His holy angels. A holy assembly requires a holy music style, that is a music style that is set apart from the world and dedicated to God.

However, one does not do justice to Calvin when it is stated that Calvin did not honour the positive use of music. He may have been fearful of misuse, but the fact that music can also be used positively, led him to admit music into the worship service. It is incorrect to state that he only returned to singing to the congregation because after all, that was the way it was in the early Christian congregations. The Reformer was acutely aware of the fact that the use of music in the liturgy could be very useful. In the already quoted preface (1543) we read:

Moreover, in speaking now of music, I under­stand two parts: namely the letter, or subject and matter; secondly, the song, or the melody. It is true that every bad word (as St. Paul has said) perverts good manners but when it has the melody with it, it pierces the heart much more strongly, and enters into it; as wine is poured into the cask with a funnel, so venom and corruption are distilled to the very depths of the heart by the melody. Now what is there to do? It is to have songs, not only honest, but also holy, which will be like spurs to incite us to pray to God and praise Him, and to meditate upon His works in order to love, fear, honour, and glorify Him.

In connection with this passage, it is meaningful to emphasize two aspects. In the first place the fact that Calvin not only recognized the spoken, but also the sung proclamation. Calvin does not juxtapose proclamation and church music, but sees the latter as a part of the proclamation. We often consider the song as only a response to something, not as procla­mation in its own right. The song of the congregation has a clear proclamatory function with Calvin, and there are many arguments in favour of that function. We will only mention here that Calvin in his preface clearly sees the song as an instrument for the strength­ening of faith and that can only be done through proclamation.

From the quoted passage we can conclude that it is not a question of words coming from within man. The text, the message comes from outside man. For that reason Calvin uses the metaphor of the funnel and the wine. Had Calvin intended the song prima­rily as a "response" and not as proclamation, it would have been rather strange to see the melody as a funnel for the text. A "response" does not have to be poured into man, but must go into the opposite direction.

Calvin, as stated in the preface, also preferred the singing of psalms, because "we are thus assured that God Himself puts the words in our mouth as if He were singing in us to proclaim His honour."

In short: Calvin did not know the contra-distinc­tion: word (= Spoken) — Response (= Sung). For that reason too, for example, he had the Law sung by the people.

In the second place, it is important to point out that Calvin says that a sung text has a greater influence on man than a spoken one.¹² A sung text re­mains longer, deeper, and stronger in our memories.

From Calvin's preface it appears that he for that reason sees the usefulness of music for the proclama­tion. He values its range more than that of the spoken word.¹³ Precisely because music exerts such a great influence on man, according to Calvin, music can serve within the proclamation.

This thought we also encounter in Luther. Music intensifies the Word. Through music, man's intellect and emotions become involved in the proclamation. Luther writes:

Note well, that singing and speaking are dis­tinct, as singing a psalm or reciting it and only know and learn it intellectually. When the voice is added to it, it becomes a hymn, which is the voice of the affect. As the word belongs to the intellect, so the voice belongs to the affect.¹⁴

Music stands in the service of the proclamation of the Word in order to involve man with intellect and emotion with the Word. The proclamation is to be found in the text, the words. If the music is to serve the text proclamation, it must be guided by (conform to) the text. Therefore, Luther as well as Calvin, had an integral unity of text and music in mind. Espe­cially Calvin did not want music to begin to live a life of its own or pursue other goals that had nothing to do with proclamation.

The Reformer not only means that one must have a melody on which one — without too many prosodic derailments — could sing a text. The rela­tion between text and music lies much deeper. In his Preface (1543) Calvin writes:

Touching the melody, it has seemed best that it be moderated in the manner we have adopted to carry the weight and majesty appropriate to the subject, and even to be proper for singing in the Church, according to that which has been said.

Calvin realized this agreement with the text by the correct choice of modes, among other things.

C. The Steward and the Singing Angel←⤒🔗

Thus far we have primarily busied ourselves with the theological view of music commonly held up to the eighteenth century. Inevitably, this gives rise to questions, such as; What has it to do with today? We, after all, live in a totally different time and culture than, for example, Luther and Calvin. After the eighteenth century, the world of music changed drastically and fundamentally. Completely new forms, styles, instruments, and ensembles came into existence, which we wouldn't want to miss for all the gold in the world. During the eighteenth century separate music rooms, called concert halls, were built everywhere as well.

However, this development, admirable as it may be, had its dark side. New views of music, diametri­cally opposed to the theological one, became cur­rent. The priorities in music changed and were put elsewhere. As in other areas of life, a shift from theo­-centric to antropo-centric thought occurred. In other words: when the Church lost her leading role in the Western world, it had far reaching consequences for music as well. The music of the church, which for centuries had had a leading role, lost more and more ground to 'secular' music. In our century, church music hardly plays any significant role in the world of music.

It, therefore, does not need to be argued that the situation, drastically altered since the Reformation, forces us to re-formulate our position. It should also be clear that it is impossible to write a completely though-out and well balanced view here. At best we can offer a few basic thoughts on the subject.

Music and Creation←↰⤒🔗

Even though it may be necessary in the twentieth century to formulate new positions, past principles are available to us. We can take them over, unless of course it can be shown that those starting points were incorrect.

One basic principle appears to be the fact that music is a 'donum Dei,' a gift of God, and not an invention of man, intended for his pleasure and amusement. On this point there has been a consen­sus within the Christian church for centuries. Au­gustine already thought so, and his view was taken over by the medieval church and the churches of the Reformation.

In the beginning of this article it became clear that when music is seen as a gift of God, the question why God has given it can also be answered. It is then primarily given for the praise of the Creator, to magnify His great Name and to serve our neighbour. When man dedicates himself to that task, he will also be re­created. So man, when he sings praise, fulfills his original goal and destination.

It has been said that for centu­ries music was closely associated with Creation. This idea was based on the thought that the same math­ematical laws and number ratios, as found in the entire micro- and macro-cosmos, also applied to music. These properties were laid by God in the Creation, and, therefore, in music as well. Music then was the means by which Creation was made to sound.

In this century scientists have pointed out that the laws and number ratios that apply to music, also play an important role in chemistry, astronomy and nuclear physics, for example.¹⁵ In how far this is correct, I cannot judge. In any case, there is not any reason for us to denigrate the medieval idea that there was a close connection between music and creation.

In the twentieth century, the mathematical side of music has once again been emphasized by composers. Today music and its beauty has everything to do with order, structures and ratios, as was the case before the eighteenth century. The statement that music is tied hand and foot to the Creation, seems to me tenable. I am, therefore, more inclined to describe the essence of music as making Creation to sound, as it was originally intended, than as giving sound to what lives in man or something similar.¹⁶

That does not mean that a different basic position vis-a-vis music has negative consequences for aesthetics, the experience of beauty, or for the possi­bility of enjoying music ethically. That fact may appear from compositions written during a time in which music was approached especially from aritmetica. Ethical enjoyment was originally not au­tonomous, but was closely related to (the place of man in) the Creation.

When music is a gift of God inherent in Creation, and primarily intended for His praise, then this origin and purpose must also determine our attitude towards, and our involvement in music.

It is then obvious that music and liturgy are bound up with each other. Not only because it can be of service in the proclamation and adoration, but also because in music the whole creation is made to resonate in it.¹⁷ Also here the principle that we give back to Him what we have received from His hand (1 Chron. 29) counts. At the same time the view that Creation and Word are not opposites holds, for both are means by which we know God. Both comple­ment each other. Music in the worship service makes the Creation — which leads us to perceive clearly the invisible qualities of God (Belgic Confession Art. 2) ­to sound. It should be clear that here "beauty" and "ethical enjoyment" are and cannot be excluded, on the contrary! By means of music a man — with intellect and emotions, body and soul — reaches his original purpose and goal: the praise of the Name, together with the Creation (Pss.19, 98; Is. 44:23; Rev. 5:13) and the angels (Pss. 103:20; 148:2).In addition, the origin and purpose of music teaches us that we need to manage this Creation gift not as consumers but as stewards. For there is — I think — a difference between the development of creation and the consumption of it.

Finally, in my opinion, we should ask questions, when we only view music as a pleasant means to while away our "free" time. For even though music may and can be used as such, it is not its primary purpose.

Use and Misuse←↰⤒🔗

When the Reformers speak about "music as recrea­tion" they mean that man is re-created. He dedicates himself to his original mandate: the praise of God's name. Precisely because music makes great demands on the whole person (body and soul, intellect/ra­tionality, and feeling), one needs to see to it that music is used correctly. Misuse of music is a real danger. It can undermine or block the 're-creation process.'

We have talked about the sub­ject 'music and ethics.' It was said that Plato as well as Augustine, Luther, and Calvin valued music ethi­cally. According to them there is a good and bad use of music.

It is my impression that the ethical value of music is today no longer recognized. In general, we only concern ourselves outside — and often inside — the church with the question: is the music beauti­ful or ugly? Another function than 'beautiful' music apparently is not allowed to have. We only drag in ethics, when 'music' breaks all rules of decency and taste. Then it concerns, for example, the question whether or not a Christian can listen to hard rock. Often ethics only become relevant, when we think that the devil uses 'backward masking' in pop music in order to pass on a certain message.

Yet, I would like to plead for paying more atten­tion to the ethical value of music, for music and ethics are inseparable. That becomes clear when we remember that in many cases music is used to stimu­late or to slow down a certain kind of behaviour. For instance, think about the function of music in discos, shopping malls, factories, etc.

Most music in our society is in the first place used for extra-musical purposes. The "experience of beauty" often plays a role as well, but it is subordi­nated to the goal this music must attain. That goal can vary greatly. There is, for example, music for religious or ideological purposes, music for adver­tising (promotion of sales) and music in factories (increase in productivity).

Today man is inundated with music, that is nothing more than musical wallpaper, i.e. music of which one may or need not be aware. Yet, it is there to make the environment more agreeable. We call it 'muzak'!

By itself this is a legitimate use of music, that, for instance, during a visit to the dentist may be appre­ciated. The problem, however, is that the unbeliev­able amount of muzak in society has an enslaving and levelling effect. One result of this abundant use of muzak could be that man unlearns to use and evaluate music differently.¹⁸ Its 'development' can — as it can happen with all of creation — degenerate in mere consumption. The danger is real that one be­gins to measure and select music by muzak-stand­ards.

So I was once told that all 'obstructive' organ music — music that does not give people the opportunity to chat with one another (during the worship service) — is not wanted. Now I do not know whether this is a generally held opinion, however, it indi­cates that a one-sided approach to music as a sound decor for other activities (such as conversation) not automatically remains outside the walls of the church. In my opinion, there are then ethical norms for music and "beautiful" music could well be 'incorrect' mu­sic. That depends on what purposes and functions this music pursues. It depends on questions such as: Where is the music performed? Why is it used and for what purpose?

For example, when we come to church to escape into romantic day-dreams, we should not sing 'beau­tiful' Genevan psalms, but play a CD with 'beauti­ful' music of Laurens van Rooyen, for instance. Musical choices are always connected with and pro­ceed from extra musical starting points and princi­ples.

Conclusion←⤒🔗

In the Middle-Ages, numerous representations (paint­ings and sculptures) were made of a singing angel. That angel had a strong symbolic value and was an example to man. The angel was a reminder that man was created to praise God and that he could already participate in the eternal praise during his time on earth.

The singing angel symbolized the origin and ultimate purpose of liturgical music. He represented the power and value of church music. In addition the angel was the symbol for the continuity of praise. For people knew that the song must continue to sound and that it concerns the praise of one universal, apostolic church. People knew that church music and its continuation can be endangered by political, societal and cultural changes.

Briefly, it seems to me only correct that we in the matter of church music, think about it and act histori­cally. That means that we have an eye and ear for church musical principles and heritages that have been handed down to us. We have something to safeguard and something to build on. Here, too, stagnation is retrogression.

In addition, to prevent our church-musical de­liberation and practices from becoming band-aid solutions a thorough knowledge of its history is of great importance. This knowledge prevents that we blindfolded 'fly on' our intuitions. In that case, the danger is great that we need never make choices again, for the 'world' will make them for us. Church-musical traditions and principles will not remain 'safe' automatically. May we always keep the singing angel in mind.