Content uploaded by Theo Van Wyk
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Theo Van Wyk on Oct 25, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
127
NAVORSINGSARTIKELS
ThEO VAN wyK
ASSOcIATE PROfESSOR, hOD: UP ARTS
UNIVERSITy Of PRETORIA
MARTIn LUTHER AnD THE PIPE ORgAn:
HIs TRUE sEnTIMEnTs AFFIRMED
Theo van Wyk enrolled for the BMus degree at the
University of the Free State and later obtained the University
Performer’s Licentiate at UNISA in 1998. He completed his
BMusHons and MMus degrees at the University of Pretoria
in 1999 and 2001, respectively, cum laude. His DMus degree
was conferred on him in 2005. His thesis was entitled, ‘The
Harmonische Seelenlust (1733) by G.F. Kauffmann (1679–
1735): a critical study of his registration indications’. In this
regard, Theo became the rst person in South Africa to
receive this instituted degree in performance.
From 2005 to 2015 he was the Director of Music at St Mary’s Diocesan School for Girls (DSG) in
Pretoria. He is currently Associate Professor of Music and the HOD of UP Arts at the University
of Pretoria.
Cell: 072 088 2964 | Work: 012 420 5450 | Email: theodore.vanwyk@up.ac.za
ABSTRACT
Martin Luther’s views on the pipe organ as a functional instrument in the liturgy of the Reformation
have been regarded as controversial for over 500 years. Based on selective research in the past, he
has too often unjustiably been stigmatised as the reformer who fervently rejected the instrument
extensively throughout his lifetime. The main purpose of this research is to afrm empirically Luther’s
insights into music in general, and particularly the pipe organ, by assessing his personal comments, his
change in perceptions that followed in subsequent years, as well as addressing a number of fabrications
attributed to him pertaining to the instrument. The research also endeavours to dismiss ultimately the
tenuous narrative that he was completely opposed to the use of the pipe organ in the liturgy of the
Reformation throughout his life. By focussing on ascribing the correct and proven opinions of Luther
about the pipe organ and its liturgical purpose, it will endorse his position in history as a man of
exceptional musical depth, camaraderie, appreciation and understanding. By applying this methodology,
it becomes possible to re-envision Luther as someone who did not unwarrantedly reject all Roman
Catholic musical traditions; he embraced it as a foundation for the implementation of a reformed
musical liturgy, enhanced by the purposeful employment of the pipe organ in such a setting.
128
KEYWORDS
Martin Luther, pipe organ, organist, Reformation, Roman Catholic Church, Ulrich Zwingli, John Calvin
1. Introduction
Martin Luther (1483-1546) was an accomplished instrumentalist and composer in his own right.
Pietsch (1992:160) surmises that, “[A]s with most music students of his time, Luther had a grounding
in both singing and lute and was recognised as a skilled lute-player with a pleasant tenor voice”. His
music education was based on his sound understanding of its theological framework and impact on the
liturgy, both in theory and in praxis. He used this structure as an effective foundation to affect drastic
changes in the optimal employment of music for the congregation to actively form part of the worship
ceremony (Leaver, 2007:208; Routley, 1979:1). He therefore afforded the idea of community singing
a new and functional purpose, thereby encouraging his congregants not to gather as mere audience
members in the liturgy, but by participating as musically active members.
However, Luther’s views on the pipe organ have been controversial for over 500 years, occasionally
expressing negativities about the organ. He has often been stigmatised as someone who vehemently
disapproved of the instrument extensively throughout his lifetime.
Although several scholars have focused on the writings of secondary authors on the subject, Luther’s
own perception of the instrument in his own words has not always been accurately relayed. Based
on selective and prejudiced research in the past, the narrative was inevitably created that he was
totally opposed to the utilisation of the pipe organ in the liturgy during the Reformation. Some of the
research that was done in the past, mostly seems to focus on interpreting the incorrect attributions
to Luther about the pipe organ rather than holistically evaluating his own rst-hand accounts of
the instrument. In fact, some authors remain silent on this aspect, opting to focus attention on the,
sometimes, misguided ascriptions. Moreover, those opposed to the legacy of Luther during his time –
and even moderately today – doubt the validity and uniformity of his philosophy and dogma on many
focus areas (Santrac, 2017:1).
It has not always been conclusive whether Luther regarded the pipe organ in its totality as a non-
liturgical instrument. According to Leaver (2010:4), Luther’s alleged notion of describing the undesirable
characteristics of the pipe organ should rather be viewed within the context of the developmental
state of the pipe organ during his time as opposed to an outright denunciation of the instrument
on principle. Moreover, his attitude toward the pipe organ was rooted decisively in a theological
foundation rather than an aural viewpoint – its employment in the Roman Catholic liturgy certainly
had much to do with Luther’s utterances on the subject. As we will observe later, it appears that in
subsequent years he even promoted and encouraged the appropriate utilisation of the instrument in
the divine service.
Therefore, the main purpose of this research is to investigate and afrm factually Luther’s views about
music in general, and specically the pipe organ, by evaluating his personal observations, his subsequent
129
change in perceptions, as well as speaking to a number of misconceptions. The study also seeks to
dispel ultimately the notion that he was entirely against the use of the pipe organ in the liturgy of the
Reformation throughout his entire life.
2. Luther’s appreciation of music
According to Pietsch (1992:161), Luther had “a tendency to accommodate renaissance thinking, to
value music humanistically as a performance and as art … rather than … [as] a mathematical science
valued for its theoretical content”. Luther’s method of interpreting the Bible from a tropological
(moral) point of view, which focuses on the spiritual and the existential part of Christianity, reached its
zenith between 1516 and 1519. All his subsequent writings on the immeasurable value of music in the
Reformation liturgy occurred after this era (Barber, 2006:2). It is clear that he had an unpretentious
and rational approach to music in general, and how to utilise it optimally in the service of praising God
in particular. Luther’s view was that music was secondary to the function of theology, but he never
underestimated music’s role in imparting the knowledge of theology (Knight, 2010:38).
Luther, unlike his Reformation contemporaries, did not condemn everything that was deemed
Roman Catholic. His fellow reformers rebelled among other issues against the music tradition of
the Roman Catholic Church, which they regarded as overtly extravagant and dramatic. Based on
Luther’s exegetical believe and principles, it was his view that any form of worship was appropriate in
the Reformation liturgy as long as it was not in contrast with the teachings of the New Testament. In
other words, what was not prohibited in the New Testament was permitted (Barber, 2006:1-2; Leaver,
2007:298). In fact, Luther’s hermeneutic approach was paramount in his holistic conceptualisation of
music worship in the New Testament and considered it as authoritatively more signicant to that of
the Old Testament. In his preamble to the Bapstsche Gesangbuch of 1545, Luther outlines that (Barber,
2006:3):
… in the Old Testament, under the Law of Moses, the church service was very
cumbersome … The people had to offer many and varied sacrices of all that
they possessed at home and in the eld. They did this unwillingly for they were
lazy and avaricious and did these things only to obtain some temporal benets. If
there is such an unwilling and lazy heart, nothing, at least nothing worthwhile can
be sung. Where one would sing, heart and mind must indeed be happy and full
of joy. Therefore, God has dispensed with such an unwilling and lazy service …
The worship of the New Testament is on a higher plane than that of the Old…
In his foreword to Georg Rhau’s (1488-1548) Symphonaie Iucundae (1538), Luther unambiguously
relays his attitude toward music as a direct spiritual gift from God that was to become a cornerstone
of his ideological framework (Barber, 2006:5):
I, Doctor Martin Luther, wish all lovers of the unshackled art of music grace and
peace from God the Father and from our Lord Jesus Christ! I truly desire that
all Christians would love and regard as worthy the lovely gift of music, which is
130
a precious, worthy, and costly treasure given to mankind by God. The riches of
music are so excellent and so precious that words fail me whenever I attempt to
discuss and describe them…In summa, next to the Word of God, the noble art
of music is the greatest treasure in the world. It controls our thoughts, minds,
hearts, and spirits…Our dear fathers and prophets did not desire without reason
that music be always used in the churches. Hence, we have so many songs and
psalms. This precious gift has been given to man alone that he might thereby
remind himself that God has created man for the express purpose of praising
and extolling God. However, when man’s natural musical ability is whetted and
polished to the extent that it becomes an art, then do we note with great surprise
the great and perfect wisdom of God in music, which is, after all, His product and
His gift; we marvel when we hear music in which one voice sings a simple melody,
while three, four, or ve other voices play and trip lustily around the voice that
sings its simple melody and adorn this simple melody wonderfully with artistic
musical effects, thus reminding us of a heavenly dance, where all meet in a spirit
of friendliness, caress and embrace. A person who gives this some thought and
yet does not regard music as a marvellous creation of God, must be a clodhopper
indeed and does not deserve to be called a human being; he should be permitted
to hear nothing but the braying of asses and the grunting of hogs.
The thoughts above undeniably afrm Luther’s spiritual importance and regard for music, which he
also links to good and proper art. This typical narrative of his portrays the inuence that he asserted,
not only in the religious and cultural spheres of his time and beyond, but more so in the liberation of
liturgical music from the authoritarian control of the Roman Catholic Church.
In his emphasising of the moving quality and impact of music, Luther also wrote the following as
part of the preface to Rhau’s Symphoniae (St-Onge, 2003:1):
Whether you wish to comfort the sad, to terrify the happy, to encourage the
despairing, to humble the proud, to calm the passionate, or to appease those full
of hate – and who could number all these masters of the human heart, namely,
the emotions, inclinations, and affections that impel men to evil or good? – what
more effective means than music could you nd?
Luther, like his reformer contemporaries such as John Calvin (1509-1564), was very cognisant of the
ideology that music had the power to corrupt his fellow man easily. However, Luther was resolutely
more mindful of the sacred effect of music, in particular congregational hymnody, as a means to bring
the gospel closer to the people (Wren, 2000:69).
131
3. Luther and the pipe organ
3.1 The pipe organ “demonised”
During the Calvinist period, the pipe organ was labelled, among others, as the “Devil’s Bagpipe”, the
“Pope’s Bagpipe”, the “Devil’s Trumpet”, as well as the “Seducer to the Worship of the Roman Anti-
Christ” (Engle, 2011:113; Harper, 1991:183). According to McClintock and Strong (1894:762), Luther
proclaimed that “the organ in worship is the ensign of Baal … The Roman Catholics borrowed it from
the Jews”. What is quite controversial, however, is that various sources incorrectly replace the term
“ensign” with “insignia”. The dilemma with this statement generally directly attributed to Luther is that
scholars are unable to locate this quote in any of his writings.
The demolition of icons during the sixteenth century was a hallmark of the Calvinist Protestant
movement in response to anything that was associated with Roman Catholicism, including ceremonial
rites, the liturgy, images, choirs and instruments (particularly the pipe organ) (McGrath, 2007:5; Pietsch,
1992:161). Ulrich Zwingli (1484-1531), Luther’s fellow reformer, even went as far as to sanction
the complete desecration of pipe organs in places of worship (St-Onge, 2003:4). This disapproval
manifested itself in a highly emotional milieu with the religious doctrinal battles in the late Middle Ages
as backdrop.
Initially, Luther himself seems to have been totally opposed to pipe organs and their ubiquitous
presence. Some of his extremely critical observations that allude to the instrument are quite
condemning. A few examples follow.
In his An Exposition for the Lord’s Prayer for Simple Laymen of 1519, Luther’s scathing comments on
insincere prayers proclaim that (Leaver, 2007:7):
[T]hese people utter this prayer with their lips, but contradict it with their hearts.
They are like lead organ pipes which fairly drawl or shout out their sounds in
church, yet lack both words and meaning. Perhaps these organs represent and
symbolize these singers and petitioners.
Elaborating on 1 Corinthians 14 in his De votis monasticis (1521), Luther espouses yet another negative
reference to the pipe organ (Leaver, 2010:6):
If now (as Paul says) some unbeliever were to enter into the midst of these men
and heard them braying, mumbling, and bellowing, and saw that they were neither
preaching nor praying, but rather, as their custom is, were sounding forth like
those pipe organs (with which they have so brilliantly associated themselves, each
one set in a row just like his neighbour), would this unbeliever not be perfectly
justied in asking, “Have you gone mad? What else are these monks but the tubes
and pipes Paul referred to as giving no distinct note but rather blasting out into
the air?”
In 1522, Luther criticised (according to him) the superuous histrionics of the Roman Catholic Church
132
rites and applications - mentioning the pipe organ as well (Leaver, 2007:7):
[St. Paul] perceives with great clarity what great fools they all are who want to
become pious through works, and he will not give one penny for all the tonsures
of priests, monks, bishops, and popes nor for cowls, incensing, ringing of bells,
burning of candles, singing, organs, and reciting prayers with all their external
performance.
3.2 A change in perception
Researchers acknowledge that, as the one reformer who did not follow the instructions of Zwingli
and Calvin by allowing instrumental music in the Reformation liturgy, Luther did not oppose the use
of instruments in the church as such (St-Onge, 2003:3). It is ironic that Zwingli as reformer would
oppose the use of instruments in the liturgy – he was a well-trained musician and composer in his own
right who played a number of instruments (Wren, 2000:50). Luther, in stark contrast, approved of using
instruments to enhance the music of the reformed liturgy, including the use of the pipe organ. However,
his reformer contemporaries did not appreciate the presence and use of pipe organs prevalent in the
churches and perceived them as overly useless in a functional liturgical structure, regarding them as
remnants of Roman Catholicism (Barber, 2006:1). There is a general quasi-fundamentalist perception
among some scholars that whatever Luther pronounced at a certain time during his tenure as
reformer, that these sentiments were cast in stone, never to be altered or reconsidered by him in later
years. However, in his writings it is apparent that his theological foundation remained unchanged, but
as reformer he was in a constant evolving state. He personally stated (Santrac, 2017:3), “I did not learn
my theology all at once, but had to search deeper for it, where my temptations took me”.
While attending the University of Erfurt, Luther continued his intense training in music by focussing
on the study of polyphony and composition. It follows therefore that he had a keen sense of what good
music should entail and the subsequent effect it should advocate to the listener. His natural inclination
to appreciate good music, coupled with his sound theoretical knowledge and his own performance
prowess, made him a credible and respected critic among his peers. According to Leaver (2007:31),
Luther became notorious for airing his adverse opinions of second-rate music and performances
– a trait that he was infamously remembered for throughout his life. For example, when he was
probed about his observations of the composer Lukas Edemberger’s choral canons, he remarked that
“they were neither enjoyable nor pleasing because the composer seemed more interested in writing
counterpoint than writing interesting music. He has enough skill, [Luther declared,] but is lacking in
warmth” (Schalk, 1988:14&24).
It is interesting to note another incident that prompted Luther to be quite scathing in his criticism.
When Georg Planck, an organist from Zeitz, performed in public in the 1540s, Luther wrote the
following about him in one of the so-called non-Aurifaber Table talks (Leaver, 2007:101): “That lexi iram
operator [the Law works wrath] is evidenced by the fact that Georg Planck plays better when he plays
for himself than when he plays for others…”
133
Therefore, Luther’s negative comments about pipe organs must be seen from a musical point of view
that have more to do with the employment of the instrument in a non-theological musical manner
than the actual sound of the instrument – put plainly, the improper use of the pipe organ in a non-
reformed liturgical music setting. A prominent point to deliberate on is that Luther’s initial negative
assertions on the pipe organ date from the very commencement of the Reformation, before he himself
altered the musical liturgy in Wittenberg – a period when his mission was to rid religious ceremonies
of all non-reformist traditions (Leaver, 2010:7).
A contemporary of Luther and an avid European traveller conrmed the excellent pipe organs of
the time. Travelling through Germany in 1517 and 1518, the Italian Antonio de Beatis recorded in his
journal his views on the splendid stops and sounds of the organs of southern Germany (where Luther
was active) and lyrically proclaimed how these instruments were more impressive than their northern
German counterparts of the time (Leaver, 2007:8).
Luther’s colleague at Wittenberg, the anti-Catholic theologian, Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt
(c. 1482-1541), has been proven to be the progenitor for the cause to ban instruments, and specically
pipe organs from the reformed liturgy in the Wittenberg area. Karlstadt was a devoted disciple of
the radical reformer, Thomas Münzer (d. 1525). When Luther was summoned by the Roman Catholic
Emperor, Prince Frederick III (1463-1525), Elector of Saxony (also known as Frederick the Wise) to
attend the Diet of Worms (1521) for his notorious believe system, Karlstadt deputised for Luther
(who went into hiding in Wartburg Castle after the summons, fearing for his life). The absence of
Luther in Wittenberg offered Karlstadt the ideal opportunity to institute fundamental changes to
Luther’s methods and applications in the reformed liturgy, including forbidding the use of the pipe
organ. Luther was duty-bound to return to Wittenberg to overturn these unconsented changes –
proof that his attitude to liturgical musical reform, and by implication the utilisation of the pipe organ
in this context, was quite conformist and conservative (Knight, 2010:36; Leaver, 2010:7-8).
3.3 Encounters with pipe organs and organists
In the fteenth and sixteenth centuries, the differentiation between professional and amateur musicians
was not as patently striking as it is in our epoch. Luther certainly came into contact with the pipe
organs and organists of the vicinity wherever he found himself at a particular point in his life. As
a passionate appreciator of the arts and in his surroundings as a scholar and theologian, he would
have been acutely cognisant of instruments and composers of a high calibre, even during this actual
era of relatively and comparatively conservative engineering and creative advances. During his early
musical training in the late 1480s, he surely experienced the pipe organs of Mansfeld (Magdeburg)
and Eisenach. He would also have become accustomed to the aesthetic sound of the instruments in
the district of Erfurt where he was active in the local school choir and later became a monk in the
Augustinian monastery of the town in 1505. When he completed his doctorate, he accepted a teaching
post in theology at Wittenberg University in 1512, which has had a university church since 1502 and
undoubtedly housed an appropriately sufcient pipe organ (Knight, 2010:34-35).
134
The founder of the university in Wittenberg, Frederick the Wise (referred to earlier), had a tendency
to secure the services of only the best musicians and organists of the time to serve in his chapels.
Leaver (2010:8) advocates that these musicians in the service of Frederick the Wise certainly had to
be highly trained to function at the same level as those of the Holy Roman empire of the Harbsburger,
Maximillian I (1459-1519), where notable composers and musicians such as Heinrich Isaac (1450-
1517), Ludwig Sen (1486-1543), Heinrich Fink (1444-1527) were active.
During Luther’s time at the university in Wittenberg, the most prominent musician of the period
who was appointed by Frederick the Wise during 1498 and 1499, was the Austrian organist, Paul
Hofhaimer (1459-1537), who was also employed in the Maximillian hofkapel in the late fteenth
century. Luther must denitely have experienced and heard this sought-after musician performing on
the pipe organ, using the instrument to its full capacity at one of the ofcial ceremonies in Wittenberg.
(It is unfortunate that Luther never recorded his impression of Hofhaimer and his performance
technique.) Undoubtedly, the pipe organs in these venues were of a highly regarded level of organ
building prociency and workmanship, as well as being concomitantly maintained to ensure their
optimal functioning in the liturgy and other related ceremonies (Leaver, 2010:8).
Of interest is to note that, although Luther denounced the heretical doctrine of the Catholic
Church, he never outright condemned its music traditions as opposed to his reformer contemporaries
(Knight, 2010:34-36). In 1510, Luther was obliged to travel to Rome as an Augustinian monk. It is here
that he had a rst-hand account of the nest musical traditions in Europe, including the vast cathedrals
accommodating ne pipe organs. It was in Rome where he also heard the music of Josquin Desprez
(1440-1521) for the rst time in his life – a composer he regarded as unparalleled and whom he
revered for the rest of his life. His journey to the south also took him to noticeable cities such as
Neurenberg, Ulm, Milan and Florence. Naturally, Luther would also have seen and heard the pipe organ
in St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome.
Upon his return to Wittenberg, he travelled past regions such as Mantua, Augsburg and Innsbruck.
Most of these cities had cathedrals or huge churches with a rich and dynamic culture of liturgical
music. Here, too, Luther in all probability got to hear extraordinary pipe organs, including the iconic
Venetian-styled instrument in the Domkirche of St. Jakob in Innsbruck, which is still extant (Knight,
2010:36; Leaver, 2010:8). Williams and Owen (1988:87) remark that the sound of the pipework of
these types of pipe organ had a mild tone that was round, rich and had a singing character. They also
mention in particular the extremely strong tone of the Innsbruck instrument, which is considered the
oldest extant two-manual-and-pedal pipe organ in the world. In his journal, Antonio de Beatis (referred
to earlier), wrote of the Innsbruck pipe organ (Leaver, 2007:8):
In the chief church [in Innsbruck] there is an organ which, while not particularly
large is most beautiful, with many stops which produce the purest tone
representing trumpets, fes, utes, cornets, crumhorns, bagpipes, drums and the
… songs of various birds …; indeed, of all the many organs we saw in the course
of our whole journey, this was pronounced the most perfect.
135
Luther as reformer and musician himself collaborated and worked closely with organists. One such
example is the connection dating from 1506 with Johannes Weinmann (c. 1477-1542), the esteemed
organist of the Castle Church in Wittenberg. Another one of Luther’s organist acquaintances was
the theology student, Wolfgang Dachstein (1487-1553), who became organist of the Thomaskirche in
Strassburg. He was responsible for spearheading the introduction of Lutheran chorales in the churches
of the area (Leaver, 2010:9). In the 1530s, Luther also had regular interaction and contact with the
organist and court ofcial from Freiberg (Saxony), Matthias Weller (1507-1563). In writing to Weller,
who at some point was very downhearted and dejected, Luther encourages him (Courey, 2015:118):
When you are sad, therefore, and when melancholy threatens, to get the upper
hand, say: ‘Arise! I must play a song on my regal’ [a portable organ] … Then begin
striking the keys and singing in accompaniment, as David and Elisha did, until your
sad thoughts vanish. If the devil returns and plants worries and sad thought in
your mind, resist him manfully and say, ‘Begone, Devil! I must now play and sing
unto my Lord Christ.’
According to Leaver (2010:10), Luther’s appreciation and reverence for organists are conrmed by
one of his pupils, Erasmus Alber (c. 1500-1553) in his writings of 1556 declaring: “Die edle Kunst der
Maler und Organisten…hat [Luther] lieb” [The noble art of the painter and organist … is loved by Luther].
Luther was very impressed with the organ performance technique of one Wolff Heinz (Wolf Heintz),
a composer and organist from Halle. In 1541, Luther gave Heinz a German Bible as a gift wherein he
penned a personal handwritten inscription with Psalm 149:1. It reads (Hendrickson, 2005:242):
… The stringed instruments of the following psalms are to help in the singing of
the new song; and Wolf [organist in Halle, 1541] an all pious, Christian musicians
should let their singing and playing to the praise of the Father of all grace sound
forth with joy from their organs and whatever other beloved musical instruments
there are (recently invented and given by God), of which neither David nor
Solomon, neither Persia, Greece, nor Rome, knew anything. Amen.
3.4 The pipe organ and reformed liturgy
Leaver (2007:209) advances that the congregation’s participation in Luther’s reformed liturgy consisted
of a wide range of vocal and instrumental music, including organ music. It is Schalk’s (1988:41) believe
that “Luther’s desire for the active participation of the congregation through hymnody was a result of
his concern that the people participate actively in the singing of the liturgy”. His motivation for suitable
congregational music stems from three basic sources: Gregorian chant, medieval unison hymns and
traditional folk songs (St-Onge, 2003:2). According to Ferguson (1972:81), “[W]hen introduced in the
Middle Ages, the organ was still not part of the liturgical proper. That is, it did not initially accompany
the hymn service, but was a separate item in the service. The type of chant employed left no place for
instrumental accompaniment until new styles of music developed”.
For Luther, musical instruments in general played a fundamental part in worshipping God. Despite
136
the initial criticism, organ music in the Reformation liturgy was not totally discarded – in re-evaluating
its use the instrument was assigned specic functions for particular sections in the liturgy. For instance,
in 1525, the provisions for the liturgy for the Schloßkirche in Wittenberg proposed, in conjunction with
Luther, the active employment of the organ in specied detail (Leaver, 2007:8&345). During the period
of Luther’s reformed liturgy, the pipe organ was used in alternatum with the hymns’ sung verses by
either the congregation or the choir, a practice that dates as far back as the fteenth century (Harper,
1991:185; Snyder, 2007:100). The use of the pipe organ as an accompaniment instrument in the liturgy
only developed and manifested during the mid-seventeenth century. In a relatively new development
in 1685, for example, the organist of St. Laurens in Alkmaar (Netherlands) requested the main organ
division to be lowered closer to the congregation in order for them to hear the instrument better
during congregational accompaniment (Williams & Owen, 1988:137). Leaver’s (2007:209) opening
sentences of his chapter on liturgical chant summarises that:
[T]he widely-accepted concept is of strong congregational singing with organ
accompaniment. While it has almost universal currency, this understanding of the
Lutheran chorale is nevertheless a fairly late development, a construct based
largely on the practice of the later eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries,
when the effects of the twin forces of Rationalism and Pietism had reduced
Lutheran church music almost exclusively to congregational song.
4. Conclusion
The aim of this research was to ascertain empirically Luther’s views on music in general, including
his spiritual ideology as perceiving it to be a direct gift from God. The literature in his own words
indisputably illuminates his appreciation of music that occupies a foundational role in his personal
regard of its impact and effect, both physiologically and spiritually.
Luther’s opinions of this art form within the context of the Reformation liturgical environment
were also highlighted. Unlike his fellow reformers, he did not totally denounce the musical tradition
of the Roman Catholic Church, but rather endeavoured to adjust it to allow the congregation of the
Reformation to become optimally part of the liturgy, instead of being mere inactive spectators.
The script then focused specically on Luther’s sentiments pertaining to the pipe organ by
identifying and evaluating his initial and subsequent personal observations. In discussing these aspects,
the study analysed his ensuing change in perceptions of the instrument and its function within the
reformed liturgy. This consequently lead to addressing a number of misconceptions and misattributions
commonly ascribed to Luther. It concentrated on his possible encounters with pipe organs during his
years as a chorister, university student, Augustinian monk, on his travels, and as a reformer himself.
The meetings and exposure to world-class musicians, composers and performers within this context
proved that Luther was a man who was privy and witness to some of the best European music culture
of his time. Various incidents of his personal correspondence with organists were underlined, shedding
light on the high reverence with which he regarded these artists and their instruments, including
empathising with some of them and being concerned with their spiritual well-being in executing their
137
tasks. The study then concentrated on the narrative to dispel ultimately the notion that he was entirely
against its use in the liturgy of the Reformation throughout his life. This was conrmed by citing
numerous instances where Luther displays his relatively conservative approach to the transformation
of the Reformation liturgy.
It is hoped that this study will contribute to the fair and just acknowledgement of Luther’s
sentiments toward the pipe organ as a functional instrument in the Reformation liturgy of his time and
that future research on the subject be approached from this viewpoint. Conversely, narratives that
contradict these sentiments need to be equally supported with proper research and evidence-based
analysis.
REFERENCES
Barber, J. 2006. June-July. Luther and Calvin on Music and Worship. Reformed Perspectives Magazine. Vol.
6(26). Retrieved from www.thirdmill.org/articles/joh_barber/PT.joh_barber.Luther.Calvin.Music.
Worship.htm1
Courey, D.J. 2015. What has Wittenberg to do with Azusa? Luther’s Theology of the Cross and Pentecostal
Triumphalism. United Kingdom: Bloomsbury T&T Clark.
Engle, R.D. 2011. A Devil’s Siren or an Angel’s Throat? The Pipe Organ Controversy among the
Calvinists. In: A.N. Burnett, (ed.). John Calvin, Myth and Reality: Images and Impact of Geneva’s
Reformer. Papers of the 2009 Calvin Studies Society Colloquium, Eugene, Oregon: Cascade Books.
Ferguson, E. 1972. A Capella Music in the Public Worship of the Church. Abilene, Texas: Biblical Research
Press.
Harper, J. 1991. The Forms and Orders of Western Liturgy from the tenth to the eighteenth century: A
Historical Introduction and Guide for Students and Musicians. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Hendrickson, M.L. 2005. Musica Christi: A Lutheran Aesthetic. New York: Peter Lang Publishing, Inc.
Knight, J.T. 2010. Conservative Radical: Martin Luther’s Inuence on Congregational Singing. Musical
Offerings: Vol. 1(2). Retrieved from www.digitalcommons.cedarville.edu/musicalofferings/vol1/iss2/1
Leaver, R.A. 2007. Luther’s Liturgical Music: Principles and Implications. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B.
Eerdmans Publishing Company.
Leaver, R.A. 2010. ‘Mit allen Orgeln pfeyffen’ – Maarten Luther en het orgel. Het Orgel. Vol. 106(3),
4-10.
McClintock, J. & Strong, J. 1894. Cyclopaedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature. Vol. VI.
Retrieved from www.garynorth.com/public/9254.cfm
McGrath, A.E. 2007. Christianity’s Dangerous Idea: The Protestant Revolution – A History from the Sixteenth
Century to the Twenty-First. New York: HarperCollins Publishers.
Pietsch, H. 1992, December. On Luther’s Understanding of Music. Lutheran Theological Journal. Vol. 26(3),
160-169.
138
Routley, E. 1979. A Panorama of Christian Hymnody. Collegeville, Minnesota: The Liturgical Press.
Santrac, A.S. 2017. The Legacy of Martin Luther’s Sola Fide. In Luce Verbi. Vol. 51(1), a2275. doi: https://
doi.org/10.4102/ids.v51i1.2275.
Schalk, C.F. 1988. Luther on Music. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House.
Snyder, K.J. 2007. Dietrich Buxtehude: Organist in Lübeck (Revised edition). Rochester, New York:
University of Rochester Press.
St-Onge, C.P. 2003. Music , Worship and Martin Luther. Retrieved from www.citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/
viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.494.587&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Williams, P. & Owen, B. 1988. The New Grove Musical Instruments Series: The Organ. London: Macmillan
Publishers Limited.
Wren, B. 2000. Praying twice: The music and words of congregational singing. Louisville, Kentucky:
Westminster John Knox Press.
