Selling our birthright for a mess of pottage
June 29, 2008
John Stott writes in the introduction to his Canticles and Selected Psalms in the Prayer Book Commentaries series:
Christian worship would be almost inconceivable without singing. During the service of Morning Prayer, for instance, the average Anglican congregation sings at least seven times - three hymns, three canticles, and a psalm.
I have written elsewhere why I am an Anglican, but as a matter of personal testimony, it was the liturgy which reintroduced me to Anglicanism when I was seventeen or eighteen. After squash on a Wednesday afternoon, I got in a little before four o’clock, and one week I tuned in to Radio 3 and heard a broadcast of Choral Evensong. For the first time I heard the Psalms properly sung. I dug out an old Prayer Book from my mother’s wardrobe and followed along. And I just kept listening, week after week. When I came up to university, I went to an Anglican church where I discovered that the Church of England wasn’t entirely dead but that there were still evangelicals in it, and that they were the ones who stood in direct succession to the Reformers.
However, it is a lamentable fact that the evangelicals who insist most loudly that they are the true Anglicans theologically tend to be those who have strayed most of all from the great, profound, Biblical, Anglican liturgical heritage. All we are left with is a pick-and-mix approach to the Anglican liturgy: one week we might say the Lord’s Prayer, another week we might say the Apostles’ Creed. The closest we get to a canticle is occasionally singing “Tell out my soul” by Timothy Dudley-Smith. I would suggest that forsaking the liturgical inheritance which we have received from men like Thomas Cranmer is to our detriment. I have written repeatedly elsewhere about singing the Psalms in corporate worship, and so I want to focus on the canticles, specifically the Benedictus (Zechariah’s Song: Luke 1.68-79) , the Magnificat (Mary’s Song: Luke 1.46-55) and the Nunc Dimittis (Simeon’s Song: Luke 2.29-32).
Over the past couple of months, I have been following the pattern of the Book of Common Prayer in my devotional times. It has a lot to commend it - the BCP lectionary suggests a pair of Bible readings in the morning and evening, taking one through the Old Testament and Revelation once in a year, and the rest of the New Testament twice, and going through the Psalter once a month. The canticles occupy the place of songs of praise in response to God’s word. What has particularly struck me is how helpful the canticles are in developing a biblical theology: these Scriptural songs celebrate the pattern of God’s salvation seen in the person and work of the Lord Jesus Christ, patterns which echo throughout the whole Bible. Reading, saying or singing the canticles regularly attunes one to these patterns which find their ultimate fulfilment in the Christ. I am sure there are more examples of this than there are grains of sand on the seashore, but here are some recent examples to illustrate my point.
In the Benedictus, we praise God for how ‘he has raised up a horn of salvation for us’ that ‘we should be saved from our enemies and from the hand of all who hate us.’ At the beginning of the book of Judges, we read that ‘the LORD raised up judges, who saved them out of the hand of those who plundered them’ (2.16) and ‘whenever the LORD raised up judges for them, the LORD was with the judge, and he saved them from the hand of their enemies’ (2.18).
In the Magnificat, we read how God ‘he has filled the hungry with good things’, and in the story of Ruth, we learn that God has visited his people (also echoing Luke 1.68: ‘He has visited and redeemed his people) and provided food for them. We also sing “he has brought down the mighty from their thrones and exalted those of humble estate” and in 1 Samuel, we see how God removes the kingship from Saul who rebels against his word, and instead chooses David, the youngest son of Jesse, the one who keeps the sheep, to be his anointed king. In the book of Esther, too, Mordecai’s elevation and Haman’s execution are more examples of God bringing down the mighty from their thrones and exalting those of humble estate, and although God is not directly mentioned in the book, the preservation of the Jews in the book as a whole makes the point that “He has helped his servant Israel in rememberance of his mercy, as he spoke to our fathers, to Abraham and his offspring forever”, saving them from the hand of their enemies and showing them “the mercy promised to our fathers and to remember his holy covenant”.
The Nunc Dimittis beautifully ends the day, and can be a fitting response to readings such as Romans 3.21-26 as it was at Evensong a few months ago now. Simeon was able to depart in peace in the sense that he could die happily because he had seen the Lord’s Christ as he had been promised. We too may sing it at the end of the day in that we can sleep happily having seen God’s salvation in the Lord Jesus Christ if we’re Christian believers, with our sleep being both a picture of death, and also the time of greatest vulnerability where it is the knowledge of the salvation that we have in Christ which enables us to sleep peacefully, whatever may potentially befall us.
James B. Jordan’s words remind us of the significance of liturgy in enabling us to understand the Bible correctly:
Ancient and medieval literature abounds in numerical symbolism, large parallel structures, intricate chiastic devices, astral allusions, sweeping metaphors, typological parallels and symbolism in general… When the Psalms were at the center of the Church’s worship, Biblical symbolism was much better understood because the Psalter abounds in it… The traditional liturgies of the Church, being thoroughly grounded in Scripture, communicated Biblical symbolism… This has disappeared from the modern… Church, and the result is that it is much harder for us to read the Bible accurately. - Through New Eyes pp. 14-15
June 29, 2008 at 6:44 pm
The Prayer Book has the best liturgy IMO. I too use the BCP for devotionals, usually the confession from Morning Prayer, the relevant Collects as well as random Collects. Though I use Robert Murray M’Cheyne’s bible reading plan.
June 29, 2008 at 11:13 pm
Thank you, thank you, thank you.
June 30, 2008 at 2:19 am
Yes! An excellent post.
“I believe there is no Liturgy in the world, either in ancient or modern language, which breathes more of a solid, scriptural, rational piety than the Common Prayer of the Church of England.” - John Wesley
If the gospel is to go forth once more and conquer England - as I pray daily it will - the BCP is an invaluable tool for winning and keeping it that way. I too never knew Anglicanism - beyond the pseudo-Quakerism (alas without the silence) of modern improvised charismatic services - till one fateful November 1662 Evensong.
It is so scripturally drenched and meticulously organised as to cover the genuine duties of Church - communal repentance, forgiveness, absolution, profession of faith, etc - with the most remarkable depth and efficiency. Too often in modern evangelical services all that true business of Church must be done rapidly under one’s breath in whatever spare moments one can find. I think it’s primarily *there*, for me, that the BCP satisfies where all the (often admirable) strivings of an innovating priest fail (for it is a tall order to expect in effect a brilliant improvised new liturgy each week).
But you’re so right, too, about the depth of thought and truth conveyed in how it is composed. You only have to follow through something like the Holy Communion service to see how the structure itself imparts thorough, orthodox theology at every point - preaching automatically, as it were, the gospel, whilst conducting the faithful properly through the sacrament. It is a rich gift of the Holy Spirit, and we are extraordinarily blessed to have it.
Numerous other practical reasons recommend it to our faithful brethren, too, I think. Wouldn’t it also lift a heavy burden from the shoulders of those in some of the most important work of planting new churches and leading them? And also - as it once did - reserve the vicar or leader’s intellectual and spiritual efforts each week for his sermon and other ministerial duties? I’m sure there are other things too.
July 1, 2008 at 5:19 pm
Hi Daniel,
Thanks for another great post! I have been reading and enjoying you blog for a while now, particularly because you flesh out some of what it is like, experientially, to be a part of the Anglican tradition. I must confess that some of it seems quite alien, though is now much more familiar after reading some of these liturgies and reading about them myself (and even having a go at writing one for a Eucharist service). Given my low/new church background this was quite a new experience for me!
It has been said elsewhere and much more eloquently than I may write here, that the charismatic movement, of which (with a seat-belt) I would count myself a part, did throw a baby or two out with the bathwater in its reaction against certain forms of liturgy. As you may be aware there is a move in many places to recover this rich heritage and as appropriate to retain room for the spontaneous.
I wondered if you were aware that Psalms are fairly often sung in a certain charismatic church not so far from you where a member of the congregation may sing out the Psalm spontaneously, or with some preparation beforehand, as the music group provide accompaniment (he or she will often have checked whether the time is appropriate for such a contribution with the ‘meeting leader’ so that things may be done in a orderly and comprehensible manner).
Of course, you will be able to see that the downside of this is that it is not possible to join in and yet there is a very fresh and raw quality to this form of Psalm-singing which is quite striking.
Can I ask a potentially cheeky question and ask, is more important to you that the Psalms and the Canticles are sung in any musical style or is a particular style important also in your experience of and connection with these beautiful and rich pieces of Scripture?
Matt
July 1, 2008 at 6:09 pm
Matt,
Surely it would stand to reason that the music fit the Psalm? It would hardly be appropriate for Ps. 137 to be sung to a up beat tune, nor should Ps. 150 be sung to a slow tune. If musical instruments are used, (and why bother with them) they should help the whole congregation make a noise to YHWH.
Ideally the psalms ought be chanted, ideally as we find here.
July 1, 2008 at 6:18 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNcYbrTgscc
July 1, 2008 at 10:25 pm
Matt,
It’s great to hear from you. I hope you’re well. I should confess to looking at your ‘blog quite frequently too.
Your question isn’t cheeky at all. I think the Psalms and canticles can be sung in a number of appropriate styles. Metrical Psalm singing is perhaps the most familiar, in that it’s like singing hymns, and some of the more traditional tunes (particularly from the Genevan Psalter) can be quite upbeat. Syncopation was not invented in the last ten years! There are also through-composed Psalms and Canticles (i.e. there is one tune for the song considered as a whole, without subdivisions into verses). Perhaps best is the style known as Anglican chant. Although there’s a strong personal aesthetic component, this is a very versatile way of singing Scripture, in that any text can be sung, and there’s no need to convert it into metre or rhyme. It allows the text to control the music, not the other way round. It’s also not that difficult, once you know what to do. As I say to people, seven year-olds in the cathedral can do it. Listening to Psalms chanted has been the most effective way I have found of memorising the Psalms. In each of the categories, there are plenty of tunes available to fit the mood of the text. I’m sure there’s plenty of scope for future composition as well, although the past shouldn’t be neglected. What is important is that we recover the singing of the Psalms and canticles in our corporate worship, in order that our spirituality may be shaped Biblically, our fallen emotions redirected, and our priorities reordered.
For what it’s worth, I don’t think the Psalmists had a problem with musical instruments. Obviously the pipe organ is best…
Daniel
July 1, 2008 at 11:42 pm
@ Matt Finn:
While I can’t speak for Daniel I can speak as a chorister who regularly sings the Psalms and canticles in Anglican services.
I’m not sure how familiar you are with the Anglican choral tradition but in this tradition the canticles are sung to a variety of musical settings in quite diverse styles from across the centuries. So while the words may be the same from service to service the music certainly won’t be. A musical setting by a 16th century composer (say Gibbons) will sound very different in style from that of a 20th century composer (say Howells). Just taking the Magnificat as an example, there are literally thousands of different musical settings of this canticle.
When it comes to the Psalms there tends to be less variety in the musical setting for each Psalm than is the case with the canticles. Eg Psalm 121 tends to be sung to the chant which rjs1 posted or maybe only one or two others. As with hymn texts and hymn tunes the same is true of the Psalms and Anglican Psalm chants: while the same text can be sung to a variety of tunes/ chants, some tunes/ chants are far more popular than others and have ’stuck’. But there are still other tunes/ chants out there and there is always room for composers to come up with new ones. Moreover, there are far more Psalms than the other canticles used in Anglican worship which means that as a practical matter there is less need for musical variety with respect to the Psalms than with the canticles.
Admittedly, most services of choral evensong (Evening Prayer) or choral matins (Morning Prayer) in the Anglican context operate within certain parameters (choir, organ, musical directors schooled in the Western classical tradition generally and the Anglican choral tradition specifically) which tends to place some practical limits on the style of music used in singing the Psalms and canticles. So while there is a diversity in the musical settings of the Psalms and canticles there are nevertheless some practical limits to what you’ll hear if you attend a service at a cathedral or college chapel. But it should be stressed that these limits are practical and not theoretical. There is no reason why you couldn’t have an Anglican service in which the Magnificat were sung in a completely different style. In fact I would encourage it. For example I would like African Christians to be singing the Magnificat in a language and musical style appropriate to their context. And by the same token singing the Magnificat backed by keyboard, guitars and drums and led - à la Pop Idol - by a singer with a microphone may be appropriate in modern Western churches where that kind of music is the norm. One thing I would insist upon, however, is that whatever musical ’style’ we adopt the music must still fit the text. As rsj1 indicated you can’t really sing Psalm 137 to an upbeat happy tune or Psalm 150 to a slow or mournful tune.
July 3, 2008 at 1:18 pm
Incidentally: why did your mother keep a BCP in her wardrobe, of all places?!