Luther is not the one who wrote the words or the music for what Holy Scripture calls the “new song.” On the other hand we must say that where Luther and the work of the Reformation is remembered, there the new song is sung in our own day. For the new song is the Gospel.

Luther’s time was one of sound and song. A tremendous choir of voices could be heard in the days of the Renaissance. Man entered the phase of discovering himself as he discovered the glories of past cultures, arts, and philosophies. Making the beauty and glory of past generations his own, the man of the Renaissance saw himself enabled to rise from the night of ignorance, gloom, and fear to an enjoyment of life that was reflected in song and sound, old and new, precious as gold vessels resurrected by archeologists and polished to new luster. But as we listen, we realize that the song of man, the song of the humanists, is discordant; there is a certain harmony, there is a motif, but it all struggles for a solution in a song of victory and fulfillment. This lack of final truth was experienced on all levels of learning and art. The queen of the sciences, theology, shared in the discords of the new fermenting thoughts of man. There were songs, there were multitudes of sweet notes, there were chords almost, but not quite, in concord with another. Man found himself but did not find his soul. There was that monk, Luther, who probably heard and felt but could not interpret what he knew. The Creed, the Psalms, so dear to him as poetry, the liturgy, the sacraments, the Scripture, actually it was all there, but he didn’t hear the full sound of the song. The life of man, Luther knew, should be in harmony with God. How he struggled to find a gracious God, like a poor composer in his attic listening to himself and not finding himself, so for a time Luther was listening to God’s Word and not having God—till the time came and Luther by God’s grace found God and himself at God’s feet, at the feet of the crucified Redeemer. “The just shall live by faith” came out clearly as the motif of the new song. And Luther tells that when he finally realized that the righteousness of God was that imputed to Luther for Christ’s sake, then it was to him as if heaven itself were open and all the angels were singing.

God had taken Luther and pushed him into the study of Scripture. Appointed to be a doctor of Holy Scripture, he began lectures on the Psalms, partly because he liked poetry, partly because it was the book that he had prayed through in his devotions many a time. At first following ancient rules of interpretation, he soon discovered that Scripture interprets itself, and the Wittenberg Nightingale began to sing the new song.

But why is it called the new song? Was this song never heard before? Was it a novel thing? Was it a new unheard-of rhythm? Was it eccentric in its words and melody? In our day untold attempts are made to give, make, sell, sing, say something new. The new songs of the new generation claim to replace the old songs, melodies, modes, and scales. But is that what the psalmist asks for when he demands: “Sing unto the Lord a new song”?

In the Holy Scriptures, especially in the Old Testament, we find that there is a definite relation between “new” and “holy.” The Hebrew chadash (“new”) may not be related directly to qadosh (“holy”), but there is a theological relation between the two concepts. We could almost say that it was natural for peop1e to connect the ideas “holy” and “new.” In the religions of gentile nations this is found. It was very definitely a part of Hebrew thought. When the Philistines were forced to return the stolen ark of the covenant, they followed certain rules for holiness. They made a new cart and took cows on which “there had come no yoke” and thus transported the ark back to Israel. The same procedure was followed when the ark was taken to Jerusalem. A new cart was used to bring the ark into the city of David. When Samson (Judges 16) tells Delilah that he would be conquered if they bound him “with new ropes that never were occupied,” he was kidding her, but she believed that there was magic strength in the unused ropes.

The sacrifices and gifts brought to the temple by the people of God all were to be sanctified unto the Lord. The sacrifices were to be of the firstfruits, or the firstborn, that is, things which were not used by man previously. New things were to be holy things. Things were to be unsullied, not degraded by the use of sinful man for his purposes, not second-hand, not blemished. It is evident that the concept “new” is not a chronological concept of contrast to old and ancient, it is much more a contrast best exemplified by the Scriptural use of the true idea of the “o1d” and “new” man. Adam after the Fall cannot stay in Paradise. The “old man” must drown and the “new man” be born again in holiness and righteousness. The Old Adam is not fit for the kingdom of God, man must be born anew. The new heaven and new earth are the new and holy creation of God where no unrighteous creature will dwell.

The concept of “new” also includes the idea of being dedicated to God once and for all. It is an exception made for a matter of life and death when David takes back out of the hand of the priest the sword of Goliath, which he had dedicated to God. It was the sin of sacrilege that Achan took of that which had been dedicated to God. It was a jealous God that protected the holy vessels of silver and gold that Nebuchadnezzar had carried away to Baby1on so that they were returned complete and in full count to Jerusalem.

So the New Testament, too, is the testament that is renewed by the holy blood of the Lamb of God. The new creation is that of holiness. The new song is therefore the holy song dedicated to the glory of God. This song is separate from the songs of the world. From the blasphemous song of Lamech to the song of the Philistines over Samson, the world has celebrated its defiance of God. The holy song cannot and must not be confused with the hymns of man’s glory and man’s shame.

The implications for the heritage of song in the church of Luther ought to be clear. The music and words must be new in the sense of holy. They need not be new in the sense of “novel” or “never before heard.” They must be dedicated to God and therefore free of the desecration of man. The songs of the church may not be borrowed from the world, if “borrowed” implies a later return. In the case of the church taking songs and music for worship from the secular realm, there can be no return of them to the world. That which is dedicated to God must not be returned to man. The matters offered as a sacrifice to God are holy and must not be made unholy. The unholy and filthy works of man are not fit for worship.

It should not be hard to draw the conclusions as to what the Lutheran stance should be in regard to that type of music for worship that is also used in hippie joints. There should be a natural and definite reaction among sincere church musicians and composers that look for music for dedication to the praise and worship of God, a reaction that feels and knows that there is no place in worship for the purely secular, no place for the sullied, smuttied, polluted music of the world in the house of God. One should have a feeling for this, that the strains and rhythms that accentuate and accompany the writhings and gyrations of go-go girls, the wailings and moanings of freakishly dressed artists, cannot simply be transferred into a church service. There must be a standard of evaluation, there must be an intuitive appraisal as to whether or not the sacrifice of thanksgiving and praise to the high and holy God is one like that of Abel primarily of faith, who brings, as a German exegete explains, das Erste und Beste (“the first and the best”), or a sacrifice of Cain, who reflects his faithlessness in bringing das erste Beste (“the first best thing”). There must also be a point of no return; if music is given to God, there is a point at which it cannot be used again to satisfy man’s yen for entertainment and stimulation. Luther’s theology sets standards of evaluation for Lutherans:

Songs of the church are new and holy because they are songs of faith in the forgiveness of sins.
Faith is the main source and fountain of the new song; art, too, is a means but never should serve without faith.
Songs of the church are such that flow from faith to faith, flow lovingly and peacefully.
Songs of the church must be poetry and beauty, a worship frame for worship.
Songs of the church must be such that the congregation of the saints recognizes and accepts them as part of the new song, the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

From The Musical Heritage of the Church, Volume VII (St. Louis, Mo.: Concordia Publishing House, 1970). 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.