The Rise and Decline of Exclusive Canonical Psalmody in the Reformed and Presbyterian Churches: The German Reformed Church

In the post that introduced this series on the Rise and Decline of Exclusive Canonical Psalmody in the Reformed and Presbyterian churches, reference was made to an article which caught my attention many years ago when I first started studying out the issue of exclusive canonical psalmody. That article was entitled, “We Used To Sing Only Psalms---What Happened?”, and in examining that article it was noted that the “We” in the title referred to several different American Reformed and Presbyterian denominations including the RPCNA, CRC, RCA, PCUSA, and OPC and PCA. The significant claim made in that article was that all Reformed and Presbyterian churches in North America, which have roots in continental Europe and the British Isles, sang psalms exclusively in their worship in the past. Of course, the only denomination which continues to remain faithful to the Reformed heritage when it comes to worship is the RPCNA, the rest of the denominations listed, long ago exchanged the praises of Scripture for the words of men. The keen observer will have noticed however, that one denomination, which has roots in the 16^th century Reformation, the German Reformed Church, has been left out of the article. Some might argue that omission was intentional and the account of it is that the German Reformed were so heavily influenced by the Lutherans when it came to song in worship, that they never really followed the pattern of Geneva. Such an accounting however is surely inaccurate and wrong. The PCA sub-committee on Psalm-singing was able to conclude many years ago that the German Reformed Churches shared the same worship practices as the rest of the 16^th century Reformed church as it reported that “the Reformed churches in France, the Netherlands, and Germany, as well as the Presbyterian church in Scotland and later the Puritan churches in America were all exclusively Psalm singing until the beginning of the 19^th century.” Obviously what is relevant for our purposes is that the German church is listed here with the rest of the Reformed and Presbyterian churches and the committee report asserts that the German’s along with the rest of the churches committed themselves the practice of Psalm singing until about the early 19^th century. In what follows, support for that claim will be provided.

The early Reformation era practice of the German speaking churches must be distinguished from the later, mid 16^th century German church practice. Hughes Old explains that the sources of Reformed psalmody and hymnody are to be traced back to four main cities: Strasbourg, Augsburg, Constance, and Geneva. The first three cities are relevant in this analysis because they were German speaking and their practice of praise in worship in the early days of the 16^th century Reformation did vary from the practice which would take hold in Geneva under Calvin. Strasbourg, having a strong claim on being one of the earliest German speaking Reformed churches, deserves attention first. Bucer, the reformer of Strasbourg, held the line, early on, when it came to the content of worship song. The first several Strasbourg Psalters contained only inspired canonical songs. Apparently, Bucer’s position was coherent enough and consistent enough on this point, that Old is able to conclude that Calvin took over his position on worship song from Bucer (p.260). However, honesty requires us to mention that the 1537 Strasbourg Psalter does contain, for the first time, some human compositions which were used for newly approved holiday services, Christmas, Good Friday, Easter, and Ascension. The newly revised practice of Strasbourg would be short-lived however as the city was sacked by imperial forces and returned to Papal control in the late 1540’s. As for the German speaking church at Augsburg it did not follow the early pattern set by Strasbourg, and as early as 1530 had included roughly 20 man-made hymns. Finally, we must note the rather obvious inclusion of a large number of hymns in the Constance Hymnbook of 1540 (p.260). Johannes Zwick and Ambrosius Blarer were so committed to the use of man-made hymns, that Old reports they made an argument for their practice in the preface to their hymnal. Conscious of a need to support their argument from the early church, they appealed to Tertullian’s comment that some brought songs of their own composition to church and to the example of Ambrose of Milan who is known for having composed a number of his own hymns for worship. Old’s comments at this point are instructive, as he points out that though it was legitimate, historically speaking, for them to appeal to Tertullian and Ambrose as support for the claim that the practice of Constance conformed to examples of the early church, it was also fraught with its own difficulties since “Tertullian and Ambrose represented the minority opinion in the ancient Church. From the middle of the second century until at least the end of the fourth century most churches confined themselves to hymns and psalms taken from Scripture” (p.261). It is not a great obstacle to the thesis presented in this post to note that Constance maintained such a liberal policy on man-made hymns since the Reformation was suppressed in Constance in 1548. That means, whatever worship practices emerged in the German Reformed church of the mid 16^th century are not necessarily tied by genealogical succession to the practice of Strasbourgh, Augsburg, or Constance, since the work of Reformation had largely been terminated in these areas.

 The German Reformation in the mid 16^th century was marked by a new phase of development in the trend toward strict Calvinism. In 1546 the Protestant faith found an opening in the Palatinate but opposition between Lutherans and Reformed parties prevented a Reformed consolidation until Frederick III took control in 1559. Convinced of the Calvinistic brand of Protestantism, Frederick reorganized the doctrine and worship of the Palatinate along classically Reformed lines. Not only did Frederick commission a catechism, he also called for a new liturgy which included the requirement to sing the Psalms in German. Timing could hardly have been better since the finished form of the Geneva Psalter had just been printed in 1562 and all it took was some translation work to provide the church in the Palatinate with a song book. Westermyer (1980) tells us that the work of translation was performed by Konigsberg law professor, Ambrosius Lobwaser, by 1565, and it was done so on account of the fact that it was Calvin’s example that the German Reformed followed (pg.90). German Reformed church historian, J.I. Good, writing in the 19^th century confirms the German Reformed commitment to exclusive psalmody after the model of Calvin when he writes, "the Reformed Church of Germany had been like the other Calvinistic churches, a Psalm-singing Church for about a century. Since the days of Zwick and the Strasbourg hymn-writers in the time of Bucer they had produced no hymns (pg.403)." This quote makes it fairly clear that German Reformed Church after the mid 16^th century was a psalm singing church and that it followed this practice out of a conscious determination to align its worship with that of Calvin and Geneva.

Now comes the distasteful part, which is to relate in brief, the DECLINE of psalm-singing in the German Reformed Church. Whether it occurred by the mid 17^th century or by the early 18^th century, there seems to be no dispute among historians that the practice of the German church changed from exclusive psalmody to a position that is very similar to the Lutheran practice. How and why that change took place is not all that difficult to nail down. Good tells us that though the practice of psalm-singing had been the norm for the first 100 years of the German Reformed, the winds of change did begin to blow and those winds were fanned by rise of German Pietism. Perhaps a sampling of quotes from Good at this point will serve well to capture what caused the reversal in practice:

Now if it had not been for revival of Pietism, who knows but we might still be singing the Psalms in the Reformed Church?

 

               We therefore have Pietism to thank for our hymns…

Strange as it may appear to us, the introduction of hymns was bitterly opposed in many parts of the Reformed Church as an innovation, as the old Reformed people had become greatly wedded to the Psalms…

They held that God’s word (the Psalms) and not man’s words (the hymns), should be sung in God’s worship. And in their Psalms they aimed at the literal rather than the rhythmical translation, so that God’s Word might be changed as little as possible.

For many years Neander’s hymns were not permitted to be sung in the churches. They were, however, used at private meetings, at conventicles and prayer meetings. But by and by they became so popular that they won their way into the churches, for the Church could no longer afford to pass them by.

 

So after will nigh a century and a half of psalm singing, the General Synod of Julich, Cleve, Berg and Mark issued a new hymn book in 1738 (pg.404).

Clearly, Good writes as one who supports the change caused by Pietism, but he also makes it abundantly clear that the change from psalms to hymns marked a radical and not minor change in practice. He  points out that the radical change was more about what was pragmatic than principled. Notice the principle of the old German practice as Good says, “They held that God’s word (the Psalms) and not man’s words (the hymns), should be sung in God’s worship,” but now, the German church does what became “popular” through use in the private meetings and conventicles. In other words, the false piety of German Pietism actuated the change in practice not the discovery of a command in the word of God to sing man-made hymns.

This new policy was far from the old one not only in practice but also in tone and ethos. Again, a quote from Good, no advocate of exclusive canonical psalmody either, which implicitly contrasts the original German Reformed commitment to Biblical worship with the new captures the difference:

The Reformed in many places closed the organs and introduced the singing of the psalms into the churches. Many of the old hymn books contained nothing but psalms…these psalms sustained the Reformed in persecution and linked their hearts more fully to God’s word. The early Reformed Church was Puritanic in her churches and her services (pg.453-4).

What is striking about Good’s observation is that the psalms were for a time when the church endured suffering and persecution for the sake of the gospel, and the hymns were for a time of ease, after the blood had been spilt, and the sweat and pain of the previous generation of builders had provided them a church where they could take rest in comfort. Perhaps the key to understanding the rise and decline of psalmody in the Reformed churches is found in this off-handed insight of Good. When the church suffers it looks to the word of God for relief, but when the church is at rest it looks to the opinions of men to sustain its comfort and ease. In a sense though, that may be the silver lining in the story for those who desire to see the church return to faithfulness in worship since our age is growing increasingly hostile toward true Christian faith. It may just well be that as the church in our age begins to endure more significant forms of persecution from an increasingly hostile culture that the syrupy, feel good worship that prevails everywhere today, even in Reformed and Presbyterian churches, will be replaced with the worship prescribed in God’s word. However, our prayer should not be that God would send sufferings so that we may be obedient in our worship, rather, our prayer ought to be that God would send us the Spirit of obedience, and that out of gratitude for salvation and a desire to glorify His name we may return to the kind of worship which God commands.   

On the Necessity of Reforming the Church by John Calvin:

If it be inquired, then, by what things chiefly the Christian religion has a standing existence amongst us, and maintains its truth, it will be found that the following two not only occupy the principal place, but comprehend under them all the other parts, and consequently the whole substance of Christianity, viz., a knowledge, first, of the mode in which God is duly worshipped and, secondly, of the source from which salvation is to be obtained. When these are kept out of view, though we may glory in the name of Christians, our profession is empty and vain.

I know how difficult it is to persuade the world that God disapproves of all modes of worship not expressly sanctioned by His Word. The opposite persuasion which cleaves to them, being seated, as it were, in their very bones and marrow, is, that whatever they do has in itself a sufficient sanction, provided it exhibits some kind of zeal for the honour of God. But since God not only regards as fruitless, but also plainly abominates, whatever we undertake from zeal to His worship, if at variance with His command, what do we gain by a contrary course? The words of God are clear and distinct, "Obedience is better than sacrifice." "In vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men," (1 Sam. 25:22; Matt. 15:9.) Every addition to His word, especially in this matter, is a lie. Mere " will worship" is vanity. This is the decision, and when once the judge has decided, it is no longer time to debate.

J.I. Good, The Origin of the Reformed Church in Germany (Reading, PA: Daniel Miller, 1887).

Hughes Oliphant Old, The Patristic Roots of Reformed Worship (Zurich: Theologisher, 1975).

 

Westermeyer, Paul. German Reformed Hymnody in the United States. The Hymn 31 (1980): 89-94.

The Rise and Decline of Exclusive Canonical Psalmody in the Reformed and Presbyterian Churches: The Rise of Exclusive Canonical Psalmody in Geneva

It is a claim beyond dispute that the Reformed church in Geneva during the 16^th century sang only inspired canonical psalms. Support abounds for this assertion, but perhaps the easiest way to substantiate it is the contents of the 1562 Geneva Psalter. The 1562 Psalter was the finished form of the song book Calvin had been working to produce for at least 20 years. Previous editions contained various lyrical content, but by far and away these editions contained the Psalms to the virtual exclusion of anything else. By 1562 Pidoux is able to confirm that the final edition, which was printed and translated and distributed across Europe, contained only the 150 Psalms and the “Nunc Dimittis” and the Decalogue. In fact, so obvious is it that Calvin supported only the use of inspired psalmody in the worship of the church, evidenced in his signature work, the Geneva Psalter, that Benson (1909) can speak of a “peculiar” kind of worship song that was used in Geneva which called “The Calvinistic Psalm,” which he describes as “simply the Word of God, translated and versified in hymn-form, so as to be sung by the people.” With heavy weight scholars such as Pidoux and Benson lined up in support of the claim that in 16^th century Geneva, the church, under oversight of Calvin, sang only inspired psalms, no further argumentation will be offered in defense of the position. Surely, if someone can offer credible support from credible scholars to refute the claim presented here then the position being promoted would have to be reassessed and altered. Since such evidence and scholarship is most certainly lacking, then the basic soundness and correctness of the claim can be now taken for granted and another line of thought can be pursued, namely, the rise and then the decline of inspired psalmody in the Reformed church of Geneva.

The rise of inspired canonical psalmody in Geneva is very well documented by the scholarly research of Dr. Charles Garside. In the summer of 1979 Dr. Garside presented a study entitled “The Origins of Calvin’s Theology of Music: 1536-1543” to “The American Philosophical Society,” the oldest scholarly journal in America, which reaches back to 1769. This work is the gold standard, along with that of Dr. Hughes Oliphant Old, in establishing with the greatest scholarly credibility, the historical record of Calvin’s commitment to exclusive canonical psalmody. In the subsequent paragraphs we will follow Dr. Garside’s account of the rise of canonical psalmody in Geneva and then we will turn to the impeccable work of liturgist Luis Benson on the decline of exclusive canonical psalmody in the Genevan church.

With respect to the rise of canonical psalmody in Geneva, it is to be attributed exclusively to Calvin’s conviction and tireless effort. The story of the rise of canonical psalmody under the leadership of John Calvin begins with the Articles of 1537. These Articles contained four proposals which formed the backbone of Calvin’s attempt to bring order to Geneva: church discipline, psalm-singing in public worship, catechizing the youth, and reform of marriage statutes. For our purposes it is evident that the second proposal, psalm-signing in public worship, is of central significance.  Expanding upon this second article, Garside quotes from Calvin where he gives expression to the rationale of this ordinance: Furthermore it is a thing most expedient for the edification of the church to sing psalms in the form of public prayers by which one prays to God or sings His praises so that the hearts of all may be aroused and stimulated to make similar prayers and to render similar praises and thanks to God with a common love. What is of such great importance about Calvin’s accounting for the essential role of psalmody in worship is that it marks a departure from Calvin’s previous views and the prior practice of the Church of Geneva.

When Calvin arrived in Geneva in the autumn of 1536, he complained that the prayers of the Genevan’s were “cold.” Garside explains that Calvin is probably reacting to the fact that when he arrived in Geneva there was no music in worship at all since Farel had abolished it from the liturgy (p.14). Though Calvin took note of this defect, he himself was not at this time in substantial disagreement with the position of Farel as Garside notes, the 1536 edition of the Institutes indicates that Calvin was yet under the sway of Zwingli who from1525 removed the “barborous mumbling” (worship song) from the churches in Zurich (p.11). However, by January of 1537, Calvin’s views about song in worship had sharply changed and he found himself proposing psalm singing in the worship of God. What accounts for this change in thought? Garside suggests two factors: cold prayers and Bucer. With respect to the former, it is evident that Calvin, having experienced the dreadful and spiritually numbing effect of the Zwinglian prohibition against worship song, began to reconsider his position and found support for a new way forward in the writings of Bucer. As early as 1524 Bucer defended song in worship in his Justification and Demonstration from Holy Scripture. This work not only proposes suggestions for where song is to be appropriately used in the course of the liturgy, it also defends congregational singing in the final chapter.  Though it is fair to wonder if Calvin had read much of Bucer and his rationale for worship song, Garside’s judgment is likely correct that while the 1536 Institutes show an inclination towards  Zwingli’s view of prayer (song), the Articles of 1537 betray the hand of Bucer.

Although Calvin experienced a renaissance in his thinking about worship song, the church in Geneva would not experience something similar in its practice, at least not during Calvin’s first stay in Geneva. By early 1538, not only would Calvin not yet be enjoying the proposed change in worship, he also found himself in the position of being banished from Geneva by the city council. On account of his refusal to endorse the arrangement which would cement political ties between Geneva and the Swiss city of Bern by implementing liturgical reform that would make these two cities uniform in their worship, Calvin and Farel were given their "pink slips" and were bounced out of Geneva (p.14). Upon their dismissal from Geneva, both Calvin and Farel went straight to Bern in order to give an account of the fallout in Geneva. From there, they went on to a local synod meeting at Zurich in early May of 1538 where something of a tectonic shift occurred. There, Calvin and Farel presented 14 articles for consideration to the synod, and among those, article 13, was a requirement to sing psalms in public worship. The synod unanimously approved these articles, including article 13, and just a couple of months later the city of Bern changed course from a Zwinglian policy of no congregational singing to one of exclusive psalmody in June of 1538. Ironically the unintended consequences of the Bernese political arrangement with Geneva left Calvin without a pastoral call, while at the same time, it triggered a massive change in policy among the Swiss churches signaling a decisive shift away from the policies of Zwingli toward the new views of Calvin (Bucer!) on worship song.

For a space of about 3 years, from 1538-1541, Calvin labored quite happily in Strasbourg as a he pastored a congregation of French speaking refugees. It would be during this stay in Strasbourg and working in close consultation with Bucer that Calvin would refine his views on psalmody and forge a connection between his theory of regulated worship and its practice. Shortly after arriving in the city, Calvin oversaw the production of a song book for worship in 1539 which was modeled on the Strasbourg Psalter. Another indication of growth and movement in Calvin’s thought on worship is found in the 1539 edition of the Institutes published during his stay in Strasbourg. By making a simple comparison between the 1536 edition of the Institutes and the 1539, Garside was able to show an important development in Calvin’s thought. For instance, in the 1536 edition Calvin expressed the opinion that he did not “condemn speaking and singing provided they were associated with the hearts affection and serve it” (hardly a ringing endorsement of congregational singing) while in the 1539 edition he inserted between “singing” and “provided” the following phrase:  but rather strongly commend them (13). Another revision occurs where Calvin deleted the phrase “serve it,” as was expressed in 1536, removing the notion that song had a mere servile role in worship. Garside suggests that these slight modifications in the 1539 Institutes, written as they were in Latin, which means they were available to a wide reading audience, form a permanent record of Calvin’s views on worship song and set in motion the emergence of the liturgical principles of Strasbourg as the standard for the next few hundred years of Reformed worship which would eventually erode and give way under the weight of popular revivalism.  With these developments in place, Calvin was prepared to return to Geneva and re-launch his quest for the Reformation in that most difficult of cities.

As time passed, the Genevans realized they needed Calvin, though Calvin was not exactly sure he wanted them. But, under council from others, Calvin returned to Geneva in 1541, on one condition however, that the city council accepts his proposals which were outlined in the 1541 Ecclesiastical Ordinances. On September 13, 1541, he reentered Geneva, met with the town council, and picked up his bid for reform where he had left off a few years before as he submitted his Ordinances. These Ordinances were substantially the same as the Articles of 1537 except for some changes to the proposals on worship song. Tucked away in the middle of a paragraph on marriage are the following two sentences: It will be good to introduce ecclesiastical songs, the better to incite the people to prayer to and praise God. For a beginning the little children are to be taught; then with time the church will be able to follow (16). Though these sentences are similar in content with the Articles they say little about the nature of worship song and they seem to shift the subject from worship to children’s education. The very wording of the Ordinances suggests that a future communication would be needed to clarify the content and role of music in the public worship of the Genevan churches and that clarification and expansion is found in the 1542 Epistle to the Reader for his order of worship for Geneva.

With the publication of the 1542 Epistle to the Reader, Calvin’s views on worship song have come to a firm and solid resting point. The title of this new work setting forth the liturgical order for Genevan worship is itself instructive, The Form of Prayers and Ecclesiastical Songs, with the manner of administering the sacraments and consecrating marriage according to the custom of the ancient Church. Here Calvin not only proposes the use of songs in worship he also classifies it is a form of prayer, describes its role, and gives us some sense of what its nature. With respect to the role of worship song Calvin says they are to “arouse and inflame the hearts of men to invoke and praise God with a more vehement and ardent zeal” while concerning the nature of song he explains “there must always be concern that the song be neither light nor frivolous, but have gravity (pois) and majesty (maieste), as Saint Augustine says” (p.18).” The 1542 Epistle represents the high water mark of Calvin’s views on worship song which never underwent subsequent change or alteration. From this point forward, Calvin worked tirelessly to produce a complete song book for worship containing the Psalms of Scripture which not only were able to “arouse and inflame” the hearts of men to praise but also met that high standards of quality proposed by Augustine.

Over the next 20 years several versions of the Geneva Psalter would be published as the body of poetry and melodies grew until 1562 when it reached its final form. At no time subsequent to 1542 did Calvin change his views on worship song. Many have thought that Calvin produced psalters which contained hymns and songs not taken from the word of God. Such suppositions are entirely false and baseless, and do not account for how Calvin could so openly contradict his own published views on the subject, yet retain his credibility as an advocate of exclusive canonical psalmody. The fact is, Calvin did not change his views nor his practice between 1542 and 1562 and the great proof of that is the final form of the 1562 Psalter. With this evidence in view, we can see that the canonical psalms had not only the principal place in praise, but the sole place in the praise of the Genevan church of the 16^th century.

In our next post we will examine the decline of psalmody in the Genevan church.

In every subsequent post I will always include Calvin’s comments on the centrality and primacy of worship to the cause of Reformation which is found in his great treatise On the Necessity of Reforming the Church:

If it be inquired, then, by what things chiefly the Christian religion has a standing existence amongst us, and maintains its truth, it will be found that the following two not only occupy the principal place, but comprehend under them all the other parts, and consequently the whole substance of Christianity, viz., a knowledge, first, of the mode in which God is duly worshipped and, secondly, of the source from which salvation is to be obtained. When these are kept out of view, though we may glory in the name of Christians, our profession is empty and vain.

I know how difficult it is to persuade the world that God disapproves of all modes of worship not expressly sanctioned by His Word. The opposite persuasion which cleaves to them, being seated, as it were, in their very bones and marrow, is, that whatever they do has in itself a sufficient sanction, provided it exhibits some kind of zeal for the honour of God. But since God not only regards as fruitless, but also plainly abominates, whatever we undertake from zeal to His worship, if at variance with His command, what do we gain by a contrary course? The words of God are clear and distinct, "Obedience is better than sacrifice." "In vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men," (1 Sam. 25:22; Matt. 15:9.) Every addition to His word, especially in this matter, is a lie. Mere " will worship" is vanity. This is the decision, and when once the judge has decided, it is no longer time to debate.

Charles Garside on Calvin's view of Psalmody Pt.11: the Uniqueness of the Psalms

Throughout this series of posts we have been charting out the course of Calvin’s intellectual development with respect to the role of song and music in worship. With great interest we have watched him scale the rugged terrain of worship and grapple his way up the mount of conviction about the role of Psalms in worship. We have watched him move from the tentative footing of merely commending the Psalms for singing in the church to the very firm ground of commanding the exclusive use of canonical songs in public worship. Along the way up that mountain, it is clear that his thinking about the role of the Psalms in the spiritual life blossomed and grew in some very unanticipated directions. A particularly interesting feature of his progress in thought brought forward to examine is the move to replace all secular songs with the Psalms whether that be within the church or without. In this post, our focus will be on Garside’s argument that this conviction expressed in the Epistle of 1543 is the logical conclusion of the very sharp antithesis forged in Calvin’s understanding between sacred and secular song, the former having the inherent power to raise the soul to joy, while the latter maintain the capacity to unleash the dark power of song which leads men to “disordered delights” and to “obscenity.”  

The story of the journey toward the position that the Psalms alone are to replace all other songs, whether for worship or innocent amusement, begins in 1538. In May of this year he submitted a memorandum to the synod of Zurich which called upon Geneva to adopt the Bernese policy of eliminating certain lascivious songs which were used to accompany dancing that seemed to only promote lewd behavior. As Garside notes, at this particular time, Calvin was not aiming to replace secular songs with Psalms altogether, he simply aimed at eliminating one form of song which appeared to promote unseemly behavior. By 1542 a kind of substitution of one for the other began to be evident. Writing in the preface to the 1542 French liturgy for Strasbourg, Calvin wrote that the Psalms along with their melodies had been published “so that you will have seemly songs instructing you in the love and fear of God in the place of those which are commonly sung which are concerned only with dissipation and all vice” (p.25). Clearly, what is in the forefront of Calvin’s thought here is the binary quality of music which has the capacity to effect the soul either for the good or the evil. However, it seems there is still a reservation that some music may still be suitable for recreational use. A door remains open yet for some kind of non-sacred music which although it may not have the power to edify, would not at the same time be spiritually destructive. With the publication of the Epistle of 1543, all ambiguity is removed, and Calvin takes the very uncompromising stand that sacred music (the Psalms) must replace all other music since it alone has the power to promote Christian spirituality outside the context of public worship (p.26).

What remains to be solved at this point, is how Calvin experienced such a turn of thought. Garside maintains that Calvin’s fully matured position of 1543 owes to his extensive interaction with Bucer in the years between 1538 and 1541. Illustrative of Bucer’s point of view on this matter are the remarks he penned in the Foreword to the Strasbourg Song Book. Here Bucer argued that “no instrumentalizing may be sung or used except by and for Christian spiritual activities” (p.25). In a society ruled by the policies of Bucer, no secular songs are permitted and all children are required to go through an education process which subjects them to “psalms and spiritual songs” exclusively. For Bucer, following such a careful regimen was the key to inoculating a whole generation against the wiles of lewd and lascivious songs.

From all indications, the policy of Bucer became a matter of principle for Calvin, albeit with the exception of one crucial aspect. Throughout the Foreword, Bucer spoke of Psalms and “sacred songs” by which he meant human compositions. He freely admitted the influence of Luther at this point, who may have endorsed the use of Psalms but never considered that other non-canonical songs should be banished from public worship provided that they were of a sufficient spiritual quality. Calvin however took a very different stand. When he argued for the policy of replacing secular song with the Psalms in 1543, he argued for a replacement of all songs not contained in canonical scripture because as Garside argues, “For God and His angels as well now as for the world below, nothing else was, or even could be appropriate” (p.26). Just how successful Calvin’s policy was is indicated in what we will see in future studies, that the signing of the Psalms everywhere from the church, to the battlefield, to the factory, to the home around the table and hearth, became the distinguishing badge of French Calvinists.

In our next post we will examine the singing of the Psalms as we wind down our study.  

Charles Garside on Calvin's view of Psalmody pt.6: The Strasbourg pastorate

Before pressing on to survey Calvin’s pastoral stay in Strasbourg, we should take a moment to set up the context by reviewing  the principles of worship which had prevailed there for the past 15 years or so. In 1524 Bucer spelled out his Protestant understanding of the regulatory principles and practices of Christian worship in a book entitled Justification and Demonstration from Holy Scripture. Two themes emerge from this work which are particularly relevant to our concerns. The first is the emerging concept of the regulative principle of worship. With respect to the content of worship song, Bucer explains that “in the congregation we do not use songs or prayers which are not drawn from Holy Scripture.” It is evident that Bucer makes a concrete connection between theory and practice as he spells out the standard for songs sung in public worship. The second theme which is evident in Bucer’s early views on worship is the use of the church fathers and early church worship as a guide for applying apostolic principles of worship.  This principle is evident as he takes a swipe at Zwingli in these remarks, “those who decry the use of song in the congregation of God know little either about the content of Scripture or about the practice of the first and apostolic churches and congregations, which always praised God with song” (12). Again, in the 1530 Tetropolitan Confession (written by Bucer) Garside notes that “Scripture and the Fathers continued to be the norm for evaluation of the liturgy” (12). So a regulative principle of worship which requires Biblical warrant for worship practices and the use of the early church and the Fathers as a guide to applying this regulative principle mark out two dominant characteristics in Bucer’s theory and practice of Christian worship, which of course were given expression in the Strasbourg liturgy which Calvin encounters as he arrives in 1538.

It was into this context of careful reflection on worship, that Calvin came to serve as pastor to French refugees the latter part of 1538. Calvin’s early correspondence from Strasbourg indicates that the prevailing liturgical practices were shaping and influencing his thoughts on worship. A profound indicator of this influence is the publication of a French psalter in 1539 edited by Calvin himself and modeled on the Strasbourg Psalter. Garside argues for more than a mere editorial role for Calvin in the construction of this psalter, as he makes the case that more than a handful of the psalms had been rhymed by Calvin himself. Another piece of evidence that indicates the influence of the Strasbourg liturgical practices on Calvin's thinking is found in the 1539 edition of the Institutes published there. Garside juxtaposes Calvin’s comments in the chapter on prayer contained in the 1536 edition and those made in 1539, siezing on a slight revision made in the latter version as evidence of a significant advance in Calvin’s thinking about the role of song in worship. In the previous edition (1536) Calvin expressed the opinion that he did not “condemn speaking and singing provided they were associated with the hearts affection and serve it” (hardly a ringing endorsement of congregational singing) while in the 1539 edition he inserted between “singing” and “provided” the following phrase:  but rather strongly commend them (13). Another revision occurs where Calvin deleted the phrase “serve it,” as was expressed in 1536, removing the notion that song had a mere servile role in worship. Garside suggests that these slight modifications in the 1539 Institutes, written as they were in Latin, which means they were available to a wide reading audience, form a permanent record of Calvin’s views on worship song and set in motion the emergence of the liturgical principles of Strasbourg as the standard for the next few hundred years of Reformed worship which would eventually erode and give way under the weight of popular revivalism. 

In our next post we will examine the 1541 Ecclesiastical Ordinances submitted by Calvin to the Genevan council.

Charles Garside on Calvin's view of Psalmody pt. 5: the influence of Bucer

Thus far in our quest to understand the historical development of Calvin’s view of psalmody, led of course by Dr. Garside every step of the way, we have seen that a crucial pivot in Calvin’s views on song in worship occurred somewhere between the middle 1536 and early 1537. The baseline for dating and charting his rather significant change in thinking is the difference in tone and character of the remarks about song in worship in the 1536 Institutes, and the proposal of psalmody in worship to the Geneva Council in the Articles of 1537. Obviously whenever thinkers of Calvin’s caliber make large leaps in their thinking, it presents a problem for the intellectually curious to seek to unravel. In this installment of our series on Calvin’s view of psalmody, we are to going to walk through the unfolding steps in Garside’s analysis of Calvin’s developing views on song in worship in order to get a handle on what led Calvin to experience such a significant change.

At this time in the Reformation era (the 1530’s) there were essentially only a handful of serious players who could have exercised any substantial influence on Calvin’s thought, and, included among those, are Luther, Zwingli, and Bucer. Luther of course, had no objection to song in worship from the outset. It is safe to say that the Lutheran and the Reformed wing of the Reformation really had little in common when it came to public worship, except perhaps a shared common desire to rid worship of the most profane and idolatrous elements of Romish practice. Other than that, there is not much affinity in their respective positions on worship. That means, it is more than reasonable to rule out any influence of Luther on this area of Calvin’s view of song in worship.

Zwingli had for about the space of ten years made the most public noise about Reformation among those who would later become known as the “reformed.” Clearly, Zwingli was opposed to much of what passed as worship, at least as he understood Roman worship from his experience in the church. As early as 1519, Zwingli altered liturgical practice by making expository preaching the center piece of worship in Zurich. By 1523, he had come to the conclusion that song was to be subsumed under the rubric of prayer. Reasoning from Jesus’ criticism of the Pharisees’ model of public prayer recorded in Matthew 6:6, Zwingli argued that prayer was to be silent. It is evident from his Apology on the Canon of the Mass that he found further support and confirmation of his view of silent prayer from Ephesians 5:19 where Paul commands prayer from the heart. His conclusion was that since song was to be made in the heart, then it certainly could not be audible (a view that Bucer will challenge). In 1525, Zwingli’s views on worship song were formally instituted in Zurich and the “barborous mumbling” (worship song) was removed from the churches (p.11).

Turning from Zwingli to Bucer, we see a slightly different understanding of song in worship. It is fair to say that Bucer was not too keen on Zwinlgi’s argument about silent prayer.  Instead, Bucer defended the role of song in worship as early as 1524 in his Justification and Demonstration from Holy Scripture. This work not only proposes suggestions for where song is to be appropriately used in the course of the liturgy, it also defends congregational singing in the final chapter. Bucer takes his stand on the Pauline corpus and argues that it would absurd for Paul to command Christians to edify one another by following prescribed rules in worship, if those very rules commanded worshipers to sing and pray silently in their hearts! Beyond that, the center piece of Bucer’s argument for singing in worship is found in his appeal to the model of Christ who sang the Psalms out loud with the disciples after instituting and partaking of the first Lord’s Supper. Scripture not only commended singing in worship, it virtually commanded it since Jesus established the New Covenant sacrament of the Supper as a permanent ordinance, commanding its regular use; so, who then could reasonably argue against singing the Psalms in response to the Supper, if Jesus himself sang them at the conclusion of the first celebration of the Supper? In addition to making a purely Biblical defense of song in worship, Bucer added to it the practice of the early church and the testimony of the Fathers. Not that the Reformed church was bound to follow every practice of the Fathers and the ancient church, but, the church legitimately could receive guidance and direction in matters of worship from the early church and the Fathers when and where their practices conformed to the Biblical model. And for Bucer, it was clear that in this particular matter they did.

The question which now needs to be asked, and, in turn, answered, is did Calvin have access to the views and practices of Zwingli and Bucer, and whether his writings betray an influence of their views upon his own thinking? As a matter of fact, it is difficult to establish a clean paper trail here which would provide a definitive answer, but Garside takes the very strong position that Calvin indeed had either read Zwingli and Bucer, at least in translation, or, had at least been informed about their practices through word of mouth testimony. It may just be a real possibility that each had influence upon Calvin in their own turn. Garside points out that the 1536 Institutes show an inclination towards  Zwingli’s view of prayer, especially in his exposition of Matthew 6:6, while the Articles of 1537 betray the hand of Bucer.

What then, caused the change from a decidedly more Zwinglian approach to a more Bucerian view of song in worship. At this point, my read of Garside is that he claims the pivot was not as much intellectual as it was experiential. When Calvin arrived in Geneva in the autumn of 1536, he complained that the prayers of the Genevan’s were “cold.” Garside explains that Calvin is probably reacting to the fact that when he arrived in Geneva there was no music worship at all since Farel had abolished it from the liturgy (p.14). It seems like Calvin experienced a sort of renaissance in his thinking by actually experiencing what life would be like without worship song, and he found it lacking indeed! After enduring several months of songless worship Calvin submitted a proposal for change in worship practice in the Articles of 1537. What Calvin proposed would not, at least at this time, be approved in Geneva. By early 1538, not only would Calvin not yet be enjoying the proposed change in worship, he also found himself in the position of being banished from Geneva by the city council. On account of his refusal to endorse the arrangement which would cement political ties between Geneva and the Swiss city of Bern by implementing liturgical reform that would make these two cities uniform in their worship, Calvin and Farel were given their "pink slips" and were bounced out of Geneva (p.14).

In spite of the turbulence experienced by Calvin and Farel, a silver lining would emerge in the clouds as a result of their banishment from Geneva.   Upon their dismissal from Geneva, both Calvin and Farel went straight to Bern in order to give an account of the fallout in Geneva. From there, they went on to a local synod meeting at Zurich in early May of 1528 where something of a tectonic shift occurred. There, Calvin and Farel presented 14 articles for consideration, and among those, article 13, was a requirement to sing psalms in public worship. The synod unanimously approved these articles, including article 13, and just a couple of months later the city of Bern changed course from a Zwinglian policy of no congregational singing to one of exclusive psalmody in June of 1538. Ironically the unintended consequences of the Bernese political arrangement with Geneva left Calvin without a pastoral call, while at the same time, it triggered a massive change in policy among the Swiss churches which signaled a decisive shift away from the policies of Zwingli toward the new views of Calvin (Bucer!) on worship song.

Next time, we will survey Calvin’s pastorate in Strasbourg.