Introduction

When we speak of Christian culture, we refer to fruits of Christian theology and of Christian faith. The relationship between the Christian doctrines of justification and sanctification is reflected in Christian faith and its resultant culture. Culture is thus a natural product of a higher creative power. The dictionary defines culture as “improvement or discipline secured by practice or training.” Culture thus results and thrives only when conscious efforts are made to produce and maintain it. In its very nature, culture is historical and social; its values are intangible, and it begins to decline and degenerate the moment man begins to neglect it. It is just as important, therefore, to conserve the values of a culture and to try to raise them as it is to create culture. Permit me to quote briefly from H. Richard Niebuhr’s most recent book, Christ and Culture [1] (Harper and Bros., 1951, p. 37), in which he says:

Let education and training lapse for one generation, and the whole grand structure of past achievements falls into ruin. Culture is social tradition which must be conserved by painful struggle not so much against nonhuman natural forces as against revolutionary and critical powers in human life and reason. —Culture cannot be maintained unless men devote a large part of their efforts to the work of conservation.

You will have noted from the above that no attempt was made to define the essence of culture. The reason is a very simple one: We cannot define it. One can describe culture and write volumes about it, but one cannot define its essence.

I

We are living in a land which has its own culture. Unfortunately, however, American culture is today causing many thoughtful people a great deal of concern. We live in a land whose people care little about traditionalism and the historic past; the masses show little or no interest in trying to maintain the healthiest and most worthwhile elements of our own American cultural heritage. A visitor in a foreign land, on the other hand, discovers quickly that its people take pride in their cultural heritage; but he likewise discovers the ineffectiveness with which we have tried to impose our American culture upon others. In his very recent book, Journey to the Far Pacific [2] (Doubleday and Company, Inc., 1952, p. 54), Gov. Thomas E. Dewey of the State of New York says:

The cultural bars between America and Asia are as numerous as the business bars. The Soviet Union not only suffers none of the handicaps under which we struggle in a business way, they have also outstripped us overwhelmingly in their cultural penetration into the free world. Traveling Soviet ballets, orchestras, singers, and artists, as well as every form of Soviet literature, are turning up all over the world in huge quantities. Much of the music and art is entirely unaccompanied by propaganda, but it is plainly the most powerful propaganda of all. For us to compete with the Soviet in cultural propaganda would probably cost billions; but as I noted the total absence of any sign of American culture in the Pacific, it seemed to me that our defeat in the struggle for the minds of people in this one area alone was so decisive as to require a complete overhauling of our attitude and approach.

Of course an occasional baseball team or boxer makes a triumphant tour of Japan for profit and does some good; American movies and magazines circulate in the Pacific. But more often than not they deal with the ugliest aspect of American life, frequently exaggerating our defects for purposes of sensationalism or entertainment.

What Gov. Dewey says about Asia applies in large measure also to Europe. It has been said repeatedly that America is trying to do with dollars what Russia is doing with her ideas and that in many parts of the world the ideas and not the American dollar are victorious.

A serious problem confronts us today in the Christian Church, particularly here in the United States of America. We see the Church growing and thriving externally. A certain church body which is not so very large sets out to collect ten million dollars and collects fifteen million instead. “Wonderful!” we say. But within that same church body an obscure professor writes a little article on “Church Music for the Church Wedding” (The Lutheran Witness, June 10, 1952), and a veritable revolution takes place. People claiming to be Christians insist that the professor’s ideas are silly, narrow, and extreme, and they insist, too, that it does not matter what type of music is sung or played in a church. Since one cannot very well question the Christianity of such people for the unfortunate conclusions they have drawn, one must put the blame elsewhere. Are these conclusions not due to a lack of Christian culture? Is there not something lacking in the training these Christians have received?

The Christian Church has a great cultural heritage. The heritage is accessible and available. But that does no good, as we heard from H. Richard Niebuhr, if it is not used, taught, and applied while the Church educates her people and functions with them. We Christian people rightly place great stress on God’s grace, mercy, and forgiveness, likewise on Christian faith in the redemptive work of Christ. But this faith again bears its fruits, and among these fruits we find our great cultural heritage. Is it not strange that Christian people reject these fruits of the faith, given us by the Holy Spirit? It is like protecting and preserving a stalwart and productive tree but throwing its delicious fruit into the garbage can.

True, Christian culture is not only a fruit of the faith created by the Holy Ghost, but also a human product. Because it is a product of the human mind and of human efforts, many reject it. But that, too, is the rankest folly, for God is constantly using human means to manifest His grace and to offer us eternal salvation. In the Holy Scriptures themselves the Holy Ghost employs human words in order to bring us Law and Gospel. We use the radio to bring the Gospel to people, and we use books to bring souls to the Christ. Why should we not use human culture to serve holy ends? Augustine went so far as to say that God Almighty can use even the forces of hell and the degenerate will of man to serve His holy purpose if He sees fit to do so. Why should we, then, object to using the elements of culture, particularly of Christian culture, in order to raise the level of man and to bring man closer to his God?

The suspicious and intolerant attitude towards Christian culture which we find among many nominal Christians rejects some of the most blessed fruits of the Holy Spirit and of the Christian faith. Likewise it actually seeks to curtail the work of the Holy Ghost Himself. Permit me to illustrate. There are many who object to chanting the Word of God; others forbid the use of motets, cantatas, and passions in a church service, especially if accompanied by an orchestra. They permit, of course, the reading of portions of the Word of God, and they insist on the preaching of sermons. In other words, they believe strongly in reading, speaking, and preaching the Word of God, but they object to singing and playing it. But do they not thus seek to shorten the arm of the Lord? Do they not curtail the work of the Holy Ghost? Do they not reject God’s Word itself and replace it with what their limited and perverted minds tell them? Do not their anticultural aversions thus turn them from what the Psalms and St. Paul have to say? These are the very people who have caused the Church to lose vital parts of her precious heritage, who have done much to secularize and desecrate Christian services of worship, and who have negatived the Christian religion for themselves and for their children and children’s children. They condemn the use of musical instruments and at the same time ignore the exhortation of the Psalmist who, in Psalm 150, tells us to praise God with all the instruments of an orchestra, even with the dance, and not once mentions the spoken word, not even song and chorus. We so often warn against teaching for doctrines the commandments of men (Matt. 15:9), and yet that is exactly what is done by many so-called Christian anticulturists.

Rightly has it been said that had the Church concerned herself about her cultural heritage in the past, the secularization of 19th century culture would likely not have taken place. We of the Church have nothing against secular culture. Many of us are very fond of it and make diligent use of it. Our lives would be poorer and less interesting if we could not enjoy it. However, what we do regret is that the Church of the past and of the present has not coordinated her theology with her culture. Theology has isolated itself from its own offspring and has thus driven Christian culture out of Christian churches, schools, and homes into museums, concert halls, archives, and libraries of the world. The Church has thus forgotten the great masters God has sent her and to this day rejects the claims of the relatively few who insist that she has a cultural heritage from God in order that she might use it and benefit from its use. The worst offenders are often found among those who with Luther assert that the sermon is the main thing in a service of worship. Unfortunately, however, they do not listen to what else Luther has to say, e.g., about the use and enjoyment of the arts, in particular, of music.

We have referred repeatedly to music. While we are interested, too, in painting, in sculpture, in literature, in architecture, and in the entire cultural heritage of the Church, it is rather self-evident that Lutherans think first of music when they think of Christian culture. We are happy to claim such famous artists as Albrecht Dürer, the two Cranachs, Matthias Grünewald, and others for our Lutheran Church particularly, and yet we Lutherans have not produced in the other fields of Christian culture what we have produced in the field of music. We take pride in being the Singing Church and are sensitively aware of the fact that we are likewise the Church of the Lutheran chorale. We are most happy to share our heritage with others and find it interesting to discover that by sharing it with others we do not lose, but gain. The fact that we find many within the Lutheran Church who do not appreciate the chorale is due not only to a musical situation which confronts us, but also to a lack of interest in Christian culture in general on the part of many of our people. We are learning every day that the deep interest many non-Lutherans show for the chorale and for the entire musical heritage of the Lutheran Church helps not only to put due emphasis on the ecumenical character of our heritage, but also to get our people to realize that after all there must be something to our chorales.

The chorale has done much to develop among Lutherans throughout the world a spirit and a feeling of unity. Singing hymns of non-Lutheran origin in the Lutheran service helps to remind us of the fact that we are members of the Christian church at large. Moreover, singing our chorales with fellow Lutherans, especially when away from home or in foreign lands, reminds us of the universal character of our glorious Church. It is impossible to measure the integrating force of the chorale. And when, in addition, we bear in mind that from the chorale came a very large percentage of our classical organ music, countless motets and cantatas, plus the rich spiritual values that have come to the Church through our musical heritage wherever it has been used, we must realize more and more that very salutary and exalted reasons should impel us to make diligent use of our cultural heritage. Let us not forget that the cultural heritage of the Church is the cultural heritage of a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, and of a peculiar people. This being the case, we use this cultural heritage, according to 1 Peter 2:9, “to show forth the praises of Him who hath called us out of darkness into His marvelous light.” Though this heritage serves as a bearer and as an interpreter of the Word, we should never seek to use it to replace the Word, for God’s Word cannot be replaced; the Word is always needed, also, and perhaps particularly, by our culture. When music serves as the bearer, interpreter, and proclaimer of the Word, it animates the precious texts we use and helps us to enjoy and understand them. In his interpretation of the last words of David, recorded 2 Samuel 23:1, Luther says (St. Louis Ed., III: 1888, trans. W. E. B.; cf. The Musical Quarterly, G. Schirmer, Inc., January, 1946, page 92):

Since it proclaims and sings of the Messiah, the Book of Psalms is for such hearts a sweet, comforting, and lovely song; this is the case even when one speaks or recites the mere words and does not employ the aid of music. Nevertheless, music and notes, which are wonderful gifts and creations of God, do help gain a better understanding of the text, especially when sung by a congregation and when sung earnestly.

According to these words of Martin Luther, church music is indeed the viva vox evangelii, the living voice of the Gospel. That is the character not only of a good sermon, but also of our liturgies, our music, our hymns, our Christian art, and of all elements of real Christian culture.

What the Word of God, and particularly the Gospel of Jesus Christ, can mean to the Christian musician and to the man and woman of culture, we can learn effectively and beautifully from the life and work of Johann Sebastian Bach. The character of his personality and of his compositions points out to us that he was a man of God and a man who had absorbed the deep spirit of Christian culture at its best. It is not difficult to understand why those who are averse to our finest Christian culture and also to the chorale are so often averse particularly to Bach. The greater his works and the deeper his spirit, the more do they dislike his music. On the other hand, we can understand, too, why Bach was so averse to certain unchristian influences of his day. It is well known that in 1728 Bach had difficulties with Gottlieb Gaudlitz, the subdeacon of St.Thomas Church at Leipzig. Bach insisted, in keeping with practices of the past, that he, as cantor, select the hymns for the service of worship. It is believed by many that Bach here showed a rather petty spirit. However, Bach was merely trying to defend a practice of the Church which had been observed from the sixteenth century down to his day. In recent years investigations have been made to determine what type of person this Gottlieb Gaudlitz was. It has been discovered that he leaned heavily toward rationalism and was not interested in the good, old sturdy chorales, with their staunch melodies and sound Christian doctrine. Gaudlitz wanted to hear hymns sung which bespoke a watered-down type of theology and failed to express properly the truths of the Bible. There lay the real reason for Bach’s objections. The Word meant so much to him that he was willing to make life unpleasant for himself in its defense. And with that love for the Word we find also a great love for the cultural heritage of the Church, for to this day we believe that the foremost chorales and chorale tunes of the Church are the oldest chorales, those of the 16th and l7th centuries, the very chorales preferred by Bach to all others. Christian culture and the Word were not separated from each other in the life of Bach; on the contrary, he integrated them with each other and fostered their joint use. Need we wonder that Luther and Bach belong together and that the two are the two most illustrious men of the Lutheran Church?

If we desire to contrast a very great master with Bach, we may think of Beethoven. Beethoven was aware of the religious values of musica sacra, as witness many statements he made as well as his music. In his music we find spiritual struggle, spiritual longing, and also victory over adversity. But his victories are not rooted in the Word of God as are those of Johann Sebastian Bach. On the contrary, they are rooted in his great but tragic and limited ego. Hence his victories are not complete; they do not settle his strife and striving once and for all. His ego does not permit him to link up his longings with the longings of the Church. He is isolated and speaks the language of the isolationist who insists: Selbst ist der Mann. Even his monumental Missa Solemnis, like Bach’s Mass in B Minor, is really not a part of the musico-cultural heritage of the Church. According to Beethoven’s own words it was not written for the Church, but for the concert hall. Despite his sacred works, Beethoven plays a relatively insignificant role in the musico-cultural history of the Church. The same would have to be said of Bach had he written only his otherwise monumental Mass in B Minor and a few other sacred works which might well be put aside of the sacred works of Beethoven. Beethoven could hardly have written Bach’s Passions According to St. Matthew and St. John, because he lacked, to mention only one reason, the faith and the ecclesiasticism that were needed to create them. For non-Christians and the unchurched it is, of course, very difficult, if not impossible, to understand why the Word of God found in the Bible is so indispensable for the development of ecclesiastical musical culture, but the problem is not a difficult one for those who themselves are aware of the creative character of the Christian faith based on the Word, notably on the Gospel of Christ Jesus.

When we think of great sacred choral music growing directly out of the Holy Bible, we think, too, of the astounding Word-bound music of Heinrich Schütz. With some justification many affirm that Schütz was even more adept than was Bach at setting Biblical texts to music. Be that as it may, the fact remains that today Schütz excites our profound admiration through the skillful way in which he treats Bible texts in his remarkable compositions. Many other composers of the era between Luther and Bach could be cited to illustrate the fact that a great musical culture grew directly out of the Word. How different are the texts we must hear in churches so often today! And how different is their music! Again, it is not merely a matter of music, it is also a matter of culture, Christian culture, its refinement and discipline.

Before proceeding to considerations regarding the cultural values of liturgical worship, something ought yet be said about the church organ and its music. We are all aware, I am sure, that a great renaissance in organ building is taking place today. While in America the movement is still in its initial stages, it is quite established in Europe, particularly in Germany. Unfortunately a rather tragic situation confronts us in America. Knowing that the movement has a future, all American organ builders express their willingness and desire to build classical organs, which some rather unfortunately refer to as “baroque” organs. Taking into serious consideration the great difference which exists between the orchestral and romantic type of organ and the classical organ, how, we ask, is it possible for a builder who for decades has built enclosed organs with a sensuous and sentimental type of organ tone and which may be played multa con espressione suddenly qualify himself for building classical organs? This is as impossible, I believe, as it is to change and raise the culture of a people within a very brief period of time. There is a certain amount of lack of artistic and commercial integrity involved in much of the movement. If classical organs are built, they should be built out of conviction and with a thorough understanding of all that is involved and not merely to make more money or keep up with the times. Many today believe that building a classical organ means only to include fewer eight-foot and more four- and two-foot stops, plus some mixtures. However, there is far more involved, and if you desire proof, then listen to some of the shrieking organs that have been built in America (and even in Europe!) since World War II. I am very happy that tomorrow we shall have the opportunity to visit Mr. Holtkamp’s establishment in Cleveland. Mr. Holtkamp has built classical organs for many years. He has done this out of conviction, as may be seen from the fact that he built them despite the fact that he was for a number of years America’s only builder of classical organs. For this very reason the nature and character of his excellent work are by no means unknown in Europe. When his praises are sung by men like Albert Schweitzer, Christhard Mahrenholz, and Wilibald Gurlitt, the very men who initiated the classical organ movement in Europe, then we ought most certainly give serious thought not only to what he has done, but also to what he stands for. We here have another issue which involves cultural values. It does matter whether or not an organ is intrinsically a classical organ or whether its name is a pseudonym, for pseudoculture is one of the most vicious forces endangering the Church today. I invite you to draw your own conclusions as to what kind of organ culture has its toots in the Victorian romantic organ. Look at the compositions that were written for it, and look at the organists who are imbued with its spirit and impressed by its weaknesses, and you will soon discover the type of church-music culture they represent. You will likewise understand why the electronic organ is finding its way into so many churches today. The moment people identify sentimentalism and miscreated prettiness with worship, they lower the standards of Christian culture and produce an aesthetic of a low order. It is this type of unbridled and unpalatable aestheticism that Richard Kroner objects to in part when he says in his recent publication Culture and Faith (the University of Chicago Press, 1951, page 132):

Aestheticism refuses to respect the boundaries of art and tends to expand art over the whole range of culture, making it the consummation, the absolute. Such a transgression necessarily violates all the other realms of culture, invades their legitimate territory, and distorts the meaning of their contributions. It creates the semblance of an absolute reconciliation achieved by art, whereas, in reality, this reconciliation itself is distorted by enlarging it beyond its prerogative. Aestheticism would like to make art a religion and religion an aesthetic contemplation.

If you will but look at the church art you find in most churches, you will soon discover that it is very much in keeping with the romantic type of organ. The same may be said, of course, of nineteenth-century hymnody and choral music and of all the theatrical Effekthascherei which has found its way into much worship life of our day. We still have much of this, and the majority of our organists still prefer a four-manual organ to one that has only three; they still prefer having the entire organ enclosed and under expression, and they still desire as many mechanical devices as possible. Try to tell them that a three-manual organ is altogether sufficient, that at most only the swell should be under expression, and that too many mechanical devices endanger the real artistic quality of music and mechanize its performance, and you will be looked upon either with a blank stare or as an outdated simpleton. We need not even go as far as does Dr. Kroner in the words quoted above, for he objects not so much to the pseudoaesthetics which we object to, but rather to the extravagant claims made by aesthetes who worship beauty as a religion.

II

We all are aware, I am sure, of the cultural character and worth of liturgical service. If we insist, as we do, that the arts are bearers of religion and of religious reaction, then we are certainly most willing to say the same of our liturgies. Furthermore, if we likewise insist that in great religious music and art man objectivizes his religiosity, then we are willing to say this also of corporate liturgical worship. There exists, therefore, a very close relationship between liturgics and the other areas of Christian culture. And just as good church music is the bearer of the Word, so are our liturgies not only bearers of the Word but likewise bearers and promoters of Christian culture.

There is something timeless about liturgies, church music, and Christian culture in general. Christian culture is thus a symbol of eternity. To the expert church musician as well as to the liturgist it does not matter much whether a creation of Christian culture comes from the 14th, 16th, 18th, or 20th century. If it is intrinsically good, it is always good, regardless of the time of its creation or origin. Great works of art, great music, and the great liturgies really never become obsolete; in fact, they usually improve with age. For this very reason many of the arguments advanced by sincere but unknowing Christians are invalid. However, even among church musicians you will hear intrinsically good church music condemned and ridiculed because it dates from the 16th century or from the 20th. Even the 19th century, in which church music descended to low depths of sentimentalism and tawdry subjectivism, produced some good church music. I firmly believe that there exists no better indicator of the cultural insights and standards of a church musician than his choice of music. There is no better way to discover a church musician’s awareness or unawareness of the relationship which must of necessity exist between the liturgy and its music than to observe and hear what type of music he selects for the liturgical service and for the individual parts of the liturgy. But we should not stop here. I believe, too, that the character of the liturgical culture of a clergyman is revealed not only by his choice of appointments, vestments, rubrics, rites, and ceremonies, but also by his choice of hymns, by the content and style of his sermon and by the manner in which he works together with his organist and choirmaster as well as by the suggestions he offers. When people, including church musicians and clergymen, object that they cannot enjoy Luther’s Deutsche Messe, or the music of J. S. Bach and Heinrich Schütz, or 16th-century hymns, or the art of an Albrecht Dürer, or Gregorian chant, and that for this reason these should not be used in the worship of God, they thereby reveal not only a lack of understanding and an undeveloped and undernourished taste, but they likewise reveal, as a rule, that there is something fundamentally wrong with their whole concept of worship. The problem is likely not one of faith, but it is most certainly a problem of worship culture.

It is not always supremely important that we understand great art, or a great liturgy, or great music. Nor is it of supreme importance that we possess a highly developed aesthetic appreciation of our great culture. Christian culture is greater than its aesthetic, and the very fact that it so often surpasses human understanding only proves that it is the product of a Word which is as eternal as it is divine. True, it is a human product, but it is more so the creation of people whose genius and skills have been given them by God Almighty and who obediently put themselves at the disposal of the Holy Ghost that He may guide them and unfold before their minds and their hearts the great mysteries of life and eternity. That is what we, too, must learn as worshipers. Great liturgical culture, like great hymns and great music, should be enjoyed because it is a gift of God; and if our finite minds cannot grasp it, we ought still to remember that

God moves in a mysterious way
His wonders to perform;
God is His own Interpreter,
And He will make it plain.
      William Cowper, 1774

In other words, Christian culture, as a tool of the Holy Ghost, can temper our conceit and humble us in our thinking. What happened liturgically, musically, culturally in the 19th century is but a manifestation of what happens when man goes his own way and insists upon being guided not by faith, but by human reason. What we are suffering in our worship life today is but an aftermath of the ages of Pietism, Rationalism, and romanticism. It is the aftermath of two centuries of base egotism which rejected great traditions of the Church, which sought to drown her great culture in the depths of man’s corruption. True culture could not thrive amidst such surroundings, for true culture is self-effacing, and modesty is one of its foremost virtues. True Christian culture is not the product of a proud and opinionated ego; it is rather a benefit derived from a dedication of one’s self to God and to His Christ. This the 19th century did not understand, and this many of our 20th century do not understand. It is basically for this reason that they object to liturgical worship, ecclesiastical tradition, fitting church music, and noble Christian hymnody.

Cultural activity, whether religious or secular, always involves human society. Culture cannot thrive in the den of the recluse, just as it will not be propagated by the hermit of the desert. However, for this very reason, too, it cannot flourish when in the hands of the basically self-centered and intolerant romanticist and sentimentalist. As an element of the Christian cultus, liturgics cannot flourish and prosper amongst those who are completely and romantically wrapped up in their own personal ideas and who cannot fit themselves into the wholesome traditional thinking of the Christian Church. It is ordinarily the cultured type of Christian who can think objectively, liturgically, ecclesiastically. It is the Christian who is imbued with the spirit of the cultural heritage of the Church who can derive great strength and inspiration from the great objective liturgies of the Church and who can best appreciate those majestic objective hymns of the Church which have withstood the ravages of time and which are still the Church’s greatest hymns. On the other hand, it is among people who do not appreciate Christian culture that we find those who reject the great liturgical, musical, and hymnological heritage of the Church and who find in it little or no worship value, perhaps only coldness, aloofness, and mere formalism. The liturgical movement of our day would experience better growth and enjoy a much wider following if the Christo-cultural life and thinking of nominal Christian people were more selfless, normal, and healthy. The fault lies not only with those who are subjectively intolerant towards liturgical tradition, but also with those whose liturgical interest and activity are as subjective as they are indiscreet. There is much unfortunate sentimentalism and romanticism also among those who are liturgically overindulgent. To ascertain the intensity of liturgical heat or coldness, one can, perhaps, best apply the thermometer while the person in question does some chanting. I am sure we have all heard Gregorian chant sung with much of the “feeling” which ordinarily accompanies Schumann’s “Träumerei” or Malotte’s “Lord’s Prayer.” Liturgical practice soon loses its cultural value when its societal, its ecclesiastical, its objective character and tradition are ignored. We emasculate liturgical worship the moment we attempt to fuse and blend straightforward and virile liturgical culture with a type of worship culture whose very nature is foppish, weakly affectionate, and languishing. A healthy type of Christian culture cannot possibly thrive under such circumstances. It becomes a hybrid, for it has a mixed parentage which is incapable of producing a full-blooded, normal offspring. That this fact applies to much of our liturgical activity today we all know only too well. We need not think only of what emanates ordinarily from the organ and choir loft, but likewise from the nave, the chancel, the sanctuary, the altar, and the pulpit. Many of the liturgical difficulties we experience within the Church today are due to the fact that our ecclesiastical culture is no longer purebred and unalloyed, but is motley, composite, and heterogeneous.

Fortunate ties and relationships do exist between the liturgical and musical heritage of the four great liturgical branches of the Christian Church which have also given us a good ninety per cent of the greatest music of the Christian Church. I refer, of course, to the Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Anglican Church, and the Lutheran Church. However, even within the total heritage of these groups there exist differences and varieties of types which represent various cultures. Thus much of the liturgical music of the Eastern Orthodox Church, despite its many excellencies, cannot very well be blended with the liturgical music of the other three bodies. It is the product of a unique and distinctive type of Christian culture. Much Anglican chant of the 19th century is altogether alien to Gregorian chant or Lutheran chant of the 16th and 17th centuries. But even within each of the four bodies we find divergences representing cultures that are actually at war with one another. Much Roman Catholic church music of our day is hardly in keeping with the decrees of the Council of Trent and cannot very well be put beside Gregorian chant and the music of a Palestrina. Similar situations exist within the Anglican and the Lutheran Church. As previously stated, this is in large part a cultural problem rather than a liturgical or musical problem. Various cultures have developed within each of these bodies which are often irreconcilable with one another; a forced and heterogeneous intercourse can produce only an illegitimate, crossbred offspring. An uncultured and untrained or poorly trained liturgist and church musician will likely not be aware of the difficulties involved, and many of us here present have undoubtedly had many severe headaches and spent many a sleepless night, not only because those whom we serve are not aware of the incompatibilities involved, but also because we ourselves have often been insensible and even impervious to the reality and dangers of said problem and its solution. There can be very little if any homogeneity and singleness of purpose in liturgical worship when it is the outgrowth of a mingled and chaotic culture. Even a casual perusal of the cultural and liturgical problems which confront us in America today should help to drive home the meaning of what has been said.

Although time does not permit that we extend our discussion of the cultural values of liturgical worship much further, attention should be called to a difficulty which is closely related to the one we have just discussed, a difficulty of paramount significance, a difficulty which confronts and vexes us all. In many areas of culture we Americans have no indigenous culture of our own. The field of liturgics is definitely one of these areas. Our liturgical culture is actually a foreign culture which does not appeal to the temperament of many American people. Though conditions are improving, American Protestantism is still quite unliturgical and antiliturgical in the conduct of its services of worship. Is this, perhaps, due to the fact that we have sought and still seek to transplant and superimpose a liturgical culture which is not indigenous and which still remains foreign to wholesome American culture and to the American way of life and worship?

The problem is acute also because much American thinking is very shabby, untrue, and superficial. Modernism has made great inroads into many churches and church bodies of America. The Word has been brushed aside and its truthfulness denied; the holy Sacraments are mere ceremonies to many; and finally, the Christian Church as an institution is not held in high regard by much of American Protestantism. The church building is not regarded as a place where God’s honor dwells, and the church service is often no more than a program or a scenario. When wedding and funeral services take place, people think it is altogether self-evident that they take over completely and do exactly what they please. They insist that the paraments be changed, that the church be decorated to suit their taste, the organist should play what they want him to play, they select the solos which are to be sung, and they frequently engage soloists who never attend church services otherwise and whose faith is anything but the Christian faith. Not infrequently they select the text for the officiating clergyman, brides and bridesmaids trip and waltz down the center aisle, and so forth. We have all seen such abuse. Things have become so bad that, fortunately, we are today experiencing a reaction. This reaction is gaining strength from day to day.

If liturgical culture is to thrive among us as it should, then we must begin to teach our people, particularly the youth of the Church, to think Christo-culturally and ecclesiastically. If we desire no longer to transplant and superimpose a foreign culture, then, too, we must teach and inspire our people to see and experience the effectiveness of a true, God-centered Christian culture. If we do this, then will we also become creative liturgically and produce a liturgical and musical heritage which is native and indigenous. While conditions are improving in many circles, we still cannot think of producing a sufficient amount of liturgical worship materials which will serve our purpose exaltedly and nobly. Too many among us are still too “corny” and sentimental, too prosaic and uninformed, to be able to produce what will live and lead on to greater heights. But we can make a start, and if we will but regard ourselves as humble pioneers and not as messiahs of a great movement, then this movement will proceed onward as well as upward. We here have a great task before us, a task which imposes upon each and every one of us great responsibilities toward a people who, I repeat, are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, and a peculiar people. In ministering to these people and developing among them the great cultural heritage of the Christian Church and a deep-seated appreciation of it, we also, to quote again from 1 Peter 2:9, “show forth the praises of Him who hath called us out of darkness into His marvelous light.”

From The Musical Heritage of the Church, Volume IV (St. Louis, Mo.: Concordia Publishing House, 1954). Copyright Concordia Publishing House. Printed by permission. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior permission of Concordia Publishing House.