If I had a dollar for every time I have heard someone say that Luther used tavern music for his hymns and that “A Mighty Fortr

Luther and Bar Song—The Truth, Please!

by Paul S. Jones, D. M.

If I had a dollar for every time I have heard that Luther used tavern music for his hymns and that “A Mighty Fortress Is Our God” was a drinking song, I would be a wealthy man. However, such assertions are simply not true. These are falsehoods perpetrated on the evangelical world in an effort to support the CCM (Christian Contemporary Music) industry. Supposedly Luther’s hymn was a “bar song” which evidences use of secular music in church. This purportedly corresponds with a question attributed to Luther, “Why should the Devil have all the good music?” On this basis many have championed the use of popular music in the church provided it is “sanctified” by adding sacred text. Their conclusion: as long as the words are Christian, the music is of little consequence; and worse yet, the world’s music is the best way to win people to Christ. The careless acceptance of these errant ideas has done great damage to the integrity of church music and worship in our time. There are at least four errors to counter.

First, Luther’s battle hymn, A Mighty Fortress Is Our God, is NOT a tavern song, nor is it based on one. Luther composed both the text (based on Psalm 46) and the original tune for this chorale in 1529. Luther was a fine composer and none of his tunes can be traced back to drinking songs. While some were derived from Gregorian chant or other pre-existing compositions, only one was even based on a secular folk song—his Christmas hymn, “From Heaven on High I Come to You” (Von Himmel Hoch). And this tune was replaced after a time because “Luther was embarrassed to hear the tune of his Christmas hymn sung in inns and dance halls.”[1] Perhaps this is the source of some of the confusion.

Overall, Luther was careful in his choice of music for the church. And his purposes for composition are completely other than secular and as confirmed by his own words:

Therefore, I too, with the help of others, have brought together some sacred songs, in order to make a good beginning and to give an incentive to those who can better carry on the Gospel and bring it to the people. . . .And these songs were arranged in four parts for no other reason than that I wanted to attract the youth (who should and must be trained in music and other fine arts) away from love songs and carnal pieces and to give them something wholesome to learn instead. . . .[2]

The primary mistake made was confusing tavern music with “bar form.” Bar form is a standard form from German music and literature of the Middle Ages consisting of three or more stanzas. Each stanza was divided into two Stollen (the “A” lines) and one Abgesang (the “B” section). This resulted in an AAB structure, or other variations such as AABA. Bar form is used for many strophic hymns, perhaps most commonly in hymns from Germany and the British Isles. For example, in the famous tune by Beethoven from the fourth movement of his Symphony No. 9 in D Minor, the “Ode to Joy”, to which we often sing the words “Joyful, Joyful We Adore Thee,” the “A” melody line is repeated forming the first half of the hymn. The “B” line follows contributing further melodic and harmonic development. Then the “A” section is repeated to close the piece. Such is also the case with Luther’s ‘Ein’ Feste Burg (A Mighty Fortress) although the repeat of “A” at the end is modified slightly. Bar form has nothing to do with drinking.[3]

The second error is in believing that the statement “Why should the Devil have all the good music?” (as applied to Luther) has anything to do with pop music, or for that matter has anything to do with Luther. Pop music did not even exist in Luther’s time; it is a phenomenon of the twentieth century. Did secular music exist? Of course it did. There was music of the courts, music of the bards and troubadors, and folk/dance music of the common people. But this music was not mass-produced with the intention of making vast amounts of money, and it was not used in the church. The only association the statement has with pop music is that Larry Norman wrote a song by that very title. He and others used this song as a means of championing their music within the Christian church.

The third error has to do with the statement’s attribution. It was actually the Rev. Rowland Hill (1744-1833), a London pastor and evangelist, who said, “Why should the Devil have all the good tunes?”[4] Hill was concerned over the lamentable quality of music in his church (Surrey Chapel, built for him in 1783) and he wanted do something about it. So Hill wrote hymns and compiled/published five collections of psalms and hymns, three of which were specifically for children and schools. In spite of readily available documentation, the statement has been misattributed to Luther as well as to both Wesley brothers, Isaac Watts and even D. L. Moody.[5] In the January 1997 issue of Concordia Theological Journal, James L. Brauer offered a $25 reward to any Luther scholar who could find the quote in Luther’s works. No one met the challenge.

But even if Luther uttered such a statement, it would not have been in an effort to bring tavern or folk music into the church. It would have been directed at the Roman Catholic Church and its pope to whom Luther frequently referred as “the Devil.” In other words, “Why should the pope (i.e., the Roman church) have all the good church music? Our Protestant churches should have it too.” The music that Luther loved and redeemed for the Lutheran church was music written for Rome by Josquin des Prez, Orlando di Lasso, G. P. da Palestrina, and other master composers of the day admired for their musical skill and attention to text. In other words, if the question was Luther’s, it would support the idea that artistic music of great composers should be employed in worship—the polar opposite of what many would like it to mean.

The fourth error is the belief that adding sacred text or Christian words to a tune makes it worthy of use in worship. Adding scriptural text to a ‘heavy metal’ tune does not make it any more appropriate for worship than sprinkling confectioner’s sugar on moldy bread will make it suitable for communion. Its potential for harm remains undiminished. While some people will be fooled and will put themselves or their congregations in harm’s way, careful consideration will uncover the truth. A related error is the notion that as long as the words are inoffensive the music is of little consequence. The music used in worship is of great consequence because it communicates at a level deeper than words. In fact, the musical message may be more powerful than the verbal message in a particular song.

Text and music should match each other well. If the text is trite and meaningless, it has no place in worship. Yet, at times, profound texts are wed to music with inferior structure or harmony, so that “the aesthetic form communicates fun and good times to most people rather than the worship of Almighty God…”[6] This does not mean that all light or popular music is “bad”; rather, it suggests that not all music is appropriate to worship or to particular thoughts and ideas about God.

Our heavenly Father deserves and demands the best we have to offer. Our lives are to be living sacrifices (Romans 12). We are told to think on whatever is good, lovely, and virtuous (1 Thessalonians 5). This requires making choices about what is good, lovely and virtuous. As literature or art can be critiqued according to certain standards, so music can be judged according to objective parameters, specifically melody, harmony, rhythm and form. While some judgments will be subjective, absolute principles governed by the laws of science and nature and born out in human experience inform our knowledge of good form, artistic content, and musical excellence. Our relativistic, pluralistic society says otherwise, of course, in direct opposition to the gospel and to biblical standards for godly living.

Everyone will have an opinion about music and will know what they like, but a trained church musician with theological understanding will be best equipped to make decisions about what is “good” church music. One of the primary responsibilities of the church musician is to be a steward and protector of the church’s praise. This points to our need for musically educated, theologically astute church musicians who will care for us in this regard. It also points to our need for congregations and pastors who will search for and value these kind of musical leaders. Such is the kind of person Luther commended, and such is the quality of music that he sought for the church. Any other myth that abuses Luther and others in support of trivial, commercial, ‘pop’ music in worship should be put to death. Spread the word.

[1] Paul Nettl, Luther and Music, (trans. F. Best and R. Wood) Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press, 1948, p. 48.

[2] Martin Luther, from the foreword to the first edition of Johann Walter’s Geistliches Gesangbüchlein, 1524.

[3] This does not mean, however, that Luther did not enjoy good beer.

[4] See John Bartlett, Bartlett’s Familiar Quotations, 10^th ed., (Boston: Little, Brown & Co., 1919), p. 861 as well as the Oxford Dictionary of Quotations, 3^rd ed. (New York: Oxford University press, 1979) and E. W. Broom’s 1881 biography of Hill, The Rev. Rowland Hill: Preacher and Wit, all of which attribute the quote to the famous preacher.

[5] Mark Nabholz, “Give Luther a Rest” in The Journal of the Church Music National Conference, Fall 2002.

[6] Leonard Payton, Reforming Our Worship Music, Wheaton: Crossway, 1999, p. 14.