Ecclesiasticus I: Introducing Eastern Orthodoxy
Ecclesiasticus II: Orthodox Icons, Saints, Feasts and Prayer
|
Introduction
It
appears on the surface that no uniform conventions or standards are in
place to guide assembly singing in North American Orthodoxy. Numerous
conditions exist, however, from assemblies that stand inaudibly as the
choir/cantors and clergy perform the services entirely, to assemblies
that sing all non-clergy components, to assemblies that limit their participation
to singing the Creed and Lord’s Prayer, and finally to assemblies where
some stand in silence, some sing "everything," and some sing
only the Creed and Lord’s Prayer – often at the annoyance of one another.
Which then, if any of these practices, reflects the true nature and spirit
of liturgical worship, and where does one find the answer?
Liturgical Factors and Determinations
Indeed,
liturgy itself holds the answer and solution to the problem of assembly
singing.1 As a combination of specific related acts which, after
being individually introduced into worship, have evolved and merged over
time, liturgy unifies the collection of the faithful and places them on
an ongoing and focused journey to meet Christ at the chalice. Liturgy
further designates various ceremonial components so that those gathered
may audibly express their presence and, as a result, their spiritual convictions
toward this common Eucharistic goal. Inherent within liturgical structure,
therefore, is the work of the assembly and their essential role at each
ceremonial Orthodox gathering.
That is to say, an assembly’s mere attendance at liturgy is profoundly
inadequate toward fulfilling the mandate of corporate worship, and that
participation is not merely an option, but a liturgical expectation. Members
of the assembly are not the equivalent of audience members at a drama.
But, like the actors, they have a specified role to play at each gathering,
a role which is primarily manifested, by tradition, through singing: the
assembly acts as liturgical respondents to petitions, prayers, statements,
and scriptural verses of faith. By so doing, they affirm and punctuate
each liturgical component, thus allowing liturgy to progress by unanimous
corporate agreement. One could say, as well, that the assembly’s ministry
is to engage at each gathering in a series of liturgical dialogs – hence
the responsorial characterization of their presence – which concludes
at the Eucharist, and restarts again in preparation for the next gathering.
The uniquely responsorial nature of the Christian assembly is evident
in several manuscripts, the New Testament chief among them. Early Christians
were known to respond enthusiastically with acclamations such as "amen,"
"alleluia," and even "hosanna."2 They would also engage in short
formulas of praise, such as doxologies (Glory…).3
The assembly’s responses were brief, emphatic, and they indicated the
interactive and charismatic nature of early Christian worship.4 And, even more importantly, these acclamations and
formulas of praise remain prominently placed throughout liturgy today
with the same intent.
The Orthodox litany is a prime example. Note that the celebrant
does not come forward to recite an uninterrupted series of prayer petitions.
On the contrary, the people are invited to interact with the celebrant
by responding after each petition with "Lord, have mercy," or
the like. When the prayers are concluded, the litany is punctuated with
the doxological acclamation and the entire petitionary event draws to
an end with a unanimous, "amen." The supplicatory role of the
assembly, therefore, is to listen, to ponder briefly, and then to affirm
each petition on behalf of themselves, the church, and the entire universe.
As a result, the litany is alive, expressive of the faithful gathered,
and therefore immediate and in the moment. This, in short, is the charisma
of early Christian liturgy and the charisma which remains.
The Church of Constantine within the Byzantine Empire (beginning
in 313 AD) eventually formalized yet another critical liturgical role
which, modeled after Hebrew practice, had been evolving for Christians
probably since the second century: the ministry of the singers, i.e. the
liturgical choir/cantors.5
The responsorial psalm antiphon, in pristine form, is the popular liturgical
structure which best describes and distinguishes this "new"
role. The foundation of Byzantine liturgy was built on the extensive singing
of Psalm texts. The cantors would announce a psalm, its refrain, and then
chant the verses, to which the assembly as liturgical respondents would
then sing the common response. This ancient practice reveals several things
about the character of Byzantine liturgical execution. First, it underscores
the continuing role of the assembly to listen and to respond as a unified
body in a common dialog of faith. As well, the liturgical singers fulfill
two primary roles as part of their ministerial offering:
1) to prepare and execute those textual and musical
components which change from verse to verse, and furthermore from week
to week, feast to feast, and season to season; and
2) to introduce, to lead, and to support the assembly
in the singing of its own responses.
Based on liturgy itself, nothing fundamental regarding these key
ceremonial ministries has changed since their initial formulations and
designated purposes. In fact, the structure of the liturgy today often
clearly maintains these models in its primary textual presentation, e.g.
the litany still requires a response after each petition; the prokeimenon
still offers a common refrain to be sung after each verse; the Anaphora
still begins as a dialog, and so on. Yet, various cultures and ethnic
communities, usually while innocently and sometimes unknowingly embracing
non-liturgical influences, have often wandered from these liturgical principles
and adopted practices in fact antithetical to corporate worship.6 In other words, various forms of liturgical neglect
over the centuries have led numerous communities to ignore liturgy’s own
revelation toward the expected participation of the assembly and its ministerial
singers.
For example, Orthodox traditions which celebrate the Beatitudes
as the third antiphon may choose, without changing the text itself, a
more liturgically vibrant and accurate form of its expression. Christ
delivered the Beatitudes, of course, during the Sermon on the Mount.7 While the text was fresh and new to those gathered,
He structured and delivered the words according to an ancient and familiar
psalm formula. Thus, Christ through the Beatitudes underscored the overall
scriptural tone of the event: the old being transformed and fulfilled
in light of the new. That is to say, the psalm formula was old and familiar,
the words being rendered in the psalm were new.
Most musical settings today begin the Beatitudes with "…remember
us, O Lord, when Thou comest in Thy Kingdom." Astute singers will
notice, however, that the phrase is not included in the Sermon on the
Mount, but refers instead to the thief addressing Christ on the cross.8 The Church has given the text
to the Beatitudes as a common refrain for the assembly, sung after each
verse. While most communities now choose to sing the verses without the
repeated refrain, the difference is dramatic. When the choir (possibly
joined by the assembly) sings, "Blessed are the poor in spirit, for
theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are those who mourn, for they
shall be comforted…" the antiphon becomes merely a musical recitation
or recreation of an important historic text; the initial emphasis, without
the benefit of theological amplification and reflection, is on the text’s
meaning as it was articulated to those in attendance at the time. When,
however, the assembly inserts the liturgically intended response in the
following manner: "…Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be
comforted. Remember us, O Lord, when Thou comest in Thy Kingdom…"
each verse is affirmed and therefore transformed into the living and vibrant
expression of faith today for all those gathered. Therefore, the responsorial
mode, among other things, indicates that these words, historically articulated
by Christ himself, exist for the faithful here and now, completely in
the moment.
As a result, belief becomes dynamic.9 And liturgy during its most formative stages has endeavored
to preserve these dynamics in its textural structure and manner of execution.
No theologian should ever have to convince the Orthodox that liturgy is
the essential and vital way for Christians to express their faith; it
should be obvious each time the faithful themselves gather.
Problems with Current Practices
An assembly which stands mute and abdicates its responsorial liturgical
role to the choir/cantors introduces a profoundly illogical element into
worship. Consider the following absurd scenario: a person walking down
the street is greeted by a friend. Rather than responding directly, the
person pulls out a tape recorder, pushes the play button, and the deeply
resonant voice of James Earl Jones is heard saying "Hello" in
response. Likewise, when the celebrant turns toward the assembly and greets
them with "Peace be unto all," it is also absurd to have designated
singing voices only from the side or back of the church respond elaborately,
"And to your spirit." In this manner, the dialog of worship
becomes contrived and removed, and liturgy is reduced to a religious presentation
or performance with the assembly gathered as audience.
Communities which insist on trying to sing all musical settings
with the choir/cantors also violate the spirit of worship by "recruiting
the congregation into hyperactive participation."10 A dialog necessarily requires one to listen and
to ponder, however briefly, in order to respond. Without this, the responsorial
antiphon is lost, and liturgy instead begins to reflect a monologue in
which the assembly turns into the choir. There are several hymns which
engage all gathered, including the clergy, and focus everyone on the event
at hand. Gladsome Light, for instance, is such a hymn. Equally, there
are critical times when the assembly should stand silently and ponder
the text.11
Singing only the Creed, the Lord’s Prayer, and perhaps
a few other select settings, is not only inadequate as aforementioned,
but misses the point. Once again, the centrality of the dialog as the
primary means by which to affirm faith and to travel to the chalice is
neglected in lieu of singing a few favorite hymns. Rather than emphasizing
the actual ministry of the assembly, such reduction implies that they
need to be reawakened and re-engaged every so often, lest they mentally
withdraw from liturgy all together. The point, however, as Justin Martyr
underscores in his invaluable Apologia of circa 150 AD, is that
at the time when the gifts are blessed and transformed, all chime in with
an "amen."12 That response is first and foremost the responsibility
of the unified assembly, serving as witnesses to the holy transformation
of bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ. In other words, that
"amen," rather than the Creed or Lord’s Prayer, is the necessary
point of departure toward fulfilling the assembly’s ministerial role,
which may very well include singing both components when other elements
are in place.
Finally, communities which allow members of the congregation to
do as they please in these regards emphasize Christian individuality at
the expense of the unity of the assembly. As a result, worship becomes
disorganized, even chaotic. By responding at the appointed times in one
unified musical voice under the guidance of the choir/cantors, liturgical
organization and focus, as well as the spirit of unity, is restored.
The Assembly’s Voice
The sound of an assembly fully engaged in liturgical singing will
differ from the sound of the choir or the cantors. The assembly is its
own unique musical instrument with the allowance to vary greatly depending
on the size and make-up of the community. To expect polished artistic
presentations of sacred music from them would overshoot the goal. At the
same time, the words of the assembly much be elevated, understood, and
absorbed. Therefore, to the extent that intonation, articulation, and
concise rhythm and flow contribute to this goal, they must be well-accounted
for. The nuances of expressive singing, however, such as subtle crescendos
and decrescendos, or intended tempo fluctuations, are probably outside
the scope of the assembly’s general abilities and beyond the call of their
ministry. Indeed, those gathered to proclaim their worship in congregational
song may sound beautiful and be profoundly moving, but in a different
way than one would expect from the choir/cantors.
Inevitably, the execution of assembly singing will evolve during
any given setting through repetition, which is part of the liturgical
formula. Also, they will likely catch on more quickly to short acclamations,
as opposed to longer troparion refrains, which became popular around the
middle of the first Christian millennium. Finally, they will sing with
greater confidence music already familiar to them, although, in accordance
to human nature, they also will tire of the same melody repeated service
after service, year after year. Patience with the assembly, coupled with
polished, accurate, well-prepared, and confident musical leadership from
the choir/cantors, will yield the best results.
Consider, for example, the festal third antiphon (a responsorial
antiphon) which consists of psalm verses and a common troparion refrain,
eventually during which the little entrance takes place. After the choir/cantors
introduce the first verse, the assembly should just listen and attempt
to memorize the first utterance of the troparion refrain, which will likely
consist of several textual lines. On subsequent reiterations, the assembly
may and should join in, each time with greater confidence and accuracy.
The better the musical setting and polish with which the choir/cantors
lead the singing, the quicker the assembly will catch on. Handing out
music to the assembly, therefore, should be unnecessary.
Musical Settings for the Assembly
Just as the sound of assembly will differ from the sound of the
choir/cantors, so should the assembly’s music. Simply turning to those
gathered and beckoning them to sing the choir’s repertoire is often problematic,
as choir music or cantorial chant is written for a different "instrument"
than the congregation.
Groups of relatively or fully untrained singers primarily rely
on two musical qualities to enable them to sing together: structured melody
and rhythm, both of which should serve the natural enhancement of the
syllabification and stress of the text. Consider popular secular songs
such as Happy Birthday or My Country ‘tis of Thee. A group
of Americans anywhere at anytime can energetically launch into either
setting at a moment’s notice. Yet, Orthodox congregations continue to
fail to sing with the same vitality and accuracy much simpler settings
of litanies or various hymns which contain lines of extended text over
one or two fundamental tonal chords. What these unimaginative liturgical
settings lack is melodic contour, rhythmically shaped, for the ear and
voice to grasp and reiterate. That is not to imply that congregational
music should become trite in the style, say, of a bad singable nursery
rhyme. On the contrary, the point is to infuse the ingredients of structural
integrity into the song of the assembly to ease their ministerial expression
of faith.
Therefore, when assigning dialogic responses for the assembly to
sing – as found in litanies, the prokeimenon, the alleluia before the
gospel, the opening of the Anaphora, the communion antiphon, and so on,
one should choose settings with identifiable melody, well-shaped by rhythmic
patterns, variation, and flow, and well-set to the text. Also, remember
that assemblies rarely will have the ability or even the desire to sing
in four-part harmony (otherwise they should train musically and join the
choir). Therefore, in homophonic choral settings, the melody should not
only be prominent and musically unobstructed, but, assuming it resides
in the soprano voice, the melody may be doubled an octave lower by tenor
and bass congregational voices. The more that structural integrity is
composed into the anatomy of the melody, the better it will sustain octave
doublings without effecting the choir’s harmony. As well, the melody and
its setting should be written and pitched in a generally singable range
for the mixture of voice types present in the congregation.
One should also consciously choose assembly-friendly settings which
maintain consistency from one response to the next. For instance, a Great
Litany which boasts up to eleven different and independent melodic responses
of "Lord have mercy" is not only potentially unfriendly to the
assembly – unless they know it exceptionally well, but liturgically unnecessary
and confusing. The idea is that "Lord have mercy" is the common
response to the changing petitions; this should be reflected, not contradicted,
in the music.13
All things being equal, an assembly will probably do
best to sing only what it hears, i.e. a single or double melody likely
in both octaves. This by no means suggests that the church should abandon
good harmony or polyphony, rather that musical elements of greater intricacy
such as these should be reserved for the choir/cantors as they render
verses or other liturgical segments legitimately within their charge.
Adapting Current Repertoire
There is a relatively small selection of published settings and
several more that are unpublished or about to be published – that address
fully the needs of the assembly’s singing ministry. Modifying current
repertoire from whatever Orthodox style or period of influence is necessary,
therefore, at least temporarily. Music harmonized in four parts from the
western-influenced Slavic church is perhaps the most challenging. To begin,
choose a setting which features well-structured melody, as previously
described. When performing the prokeimenon, or any similar psalm antiphon,
the chanter should intone the actual melody during the introduction, thus
teaching it to the assembly. In extended settings such as Holy God, the
choir/cantors can sing the first time through themselves, perhaps the
melody only. The assembly may join in the second time and thereafter.14 In It is Truly Meet, the choir/cantors in the
same manner should sing the opening verse, to which the assembly can answer,
More honorable…
The Ministry of Choral or Cantorial Singing
An in depth discussion of the musical and liturgical role of the
assembly also has profound implications for the liturgical role of the
choir/cantors. Members of the church’s singing ensemble are responsible,
as aforementioned, for the preparation and polished execution of special
and changing musical settings, e.g. psalm verses in responsorial antiphons,
as well as for leading the assembly in the singing of their own liturgical
components, e.g. refrains attached to verses in responsorial antiphons.
The musicians of the ensemble therefore are engaged in the vocation of
the word, its elevation and communication. And with any vocation, the
singer should feel the unquenchable need to train and sustain such a music
ministry – that one would not be fully human if he or she did not sing
for the church.15
Each choir member or cantor is vocationally engaged
in church leadership, therefore, and carries the weight of that constant
and rewarding responsibility. Rehearsal preparation and attendance, liturgical
awareness and dedication, vocal and diction training, are all indisputable
activities which the singer should welcome, let alone commit to. As the
assembly looks to its clergy for spiritual and theological guidance so
should it be able to look to its choir members and/or cantors for musical
guidance and insight into the sacred texts of worship.
Practical Issues
The distance between ideal liturgical practice and a community’s
current mode of worship can be enormous. Movement toward the ideal, which
inevitably involves change, must be slow and incremental. A thoroughly
considered step by step progression toward fuller and more meaningful
assembly participation is the only way to prevent a parish community from
going into spiritual shock over the suggestions of this article. Perhaps
the next Great Lent, for instance, can provide an opportunity to engage
the assembly in the singing of litanies. As Pascha appears, the assembly
can also be engaged more vibrantly in the singing of common refrains,
such as the troparion Christ is Risen. And so forth.
Another indisputable factor toward achieving dynamic worship is
that any "new" practice must be designed for immediate success.
The assembly has to enjoy and be able to sing what they are given as a
refrain and response. Likewise, the choir/cantors must sound articulate,
polished, and beautiful on their verses. Finally, the assembly should
be informed on the principles which govern these changes, realizing above
anything else that they too have an essential ministerial role in the
act of worship. There are several strategic and sensitive approaches,
therefore, that church leaders should simultaneously cultivate to guide
a community as it migrates toward more meaningful assembly participation.
There are other practical factors to consider as well. In Hagia
Sophia, the great church and center for Christian worship in the Byzantine
empire, the cantors sang from a raised platform located near the center
of the church. This prominent position allowed them to lead that assembly
with audible and visible clarity. Wherever the singers and their leader
reside in the worship space today, they must be accessible. To have the
choir tucked away in the choir loft,16
for instance, is as illogical as expecting a symphonic conductor to direct
a performance while only being visible to half the orchestra. While today’s
cantor or conductor need not stand in the middle of the church per se,
his or her presence somewhere in the front of the church – preferably
in an uncovered kliros, is essential.
Summary
Standards and conventions which guide and encourage the Orthodox
assembly to embrace their ministerial role through singing do indeed exist
and matter. They originate from within the structural shape and content
of liturgy, and they survey the past for the most vibrant and dynamic
means of worship in the present. If early Christians in the face of daily
persecution and martyrdom had the conviction to worship charismatically
through acclamation and dialog, then that same spirit of faith should
logically exist today. To bring worship into the moment as the living
expression of those gathered surprisingly avoids intensive liturgical
revision, but simply calls on the church to honor the integrity and essence
of corporate worship which never really disappeared from liturgy in the
first place.
_______________________________________________
Endnotes
1.
First articulated by the author in his lecture and subsequent article
entitled, "Choir and Congregation: Liturgical Components and Discrepancies
as They Relate to the Restoration of Congregational Singing in Orthodox
Worship," presented at St. Vladimir’s Seminary Institute (Crestwood,
New York, 1991, 1993).
2.
Edward Foley, Foundations of Christian Music: The Music of Pre-Constantinian
Christianity (Collegeville: The Liturgical Press, 1996) 77.
3.
Ibid., 71.
4.
Ibid., 77.
5.
Choirs and Cantors, though linked to contrasting Orthodox traditions,
perform the same liturgical function and, therefore, are considered synonymous
for the purposes of this article.
6.
Many blame western influences exclusively for these liturgical departures.
Aspects of neglect also occurred during indigenous periods of church existence,
reflecting a fascinating and complex issue far too large for the scope
of this article.
7.
Matthew 5:3-12
8.
Luke 23:42 with "me" having been changed, logically, to "us."
Note the similarity to Psalm 106:4. Also used as the closing phrase (refrain)
of the communion prayer, "Of Thy Mystical Supper."
9.
Words emphasized by Metropolitan Theodosius of the Orthodox Church in
America, as delivered during his commencement day liturgical sermon at
St. Vladimir’s Orthodox Seminary, Crestwood, New York, May 16, 1998.
10.
Borrowed from William Fr. Buckley Jr. discussing Roman Catholic congregational
singing after Vatican II in an interview by Raymond Arroyo, Eternal
World Television News, Faith and Values Network, 1997.
11.
See David Drillock, "Liturgical Song in the Worship of the Church,"
St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly, 41:2-3 (19997), 192-193.
12.
Justin of Samaria, First Apology, as cited in The Early Liturgy
to the Time of Gregory the Great, Josef A. Jungman, SJ (University
of Notre Dame Press, 1962) 42.
13.
See the author’s article entitled, "Liturgical Singing as Icon,"
Psalm Notes (Spring, 1998).
14.
The verse, "Glory…now and ever…" should be sung by the choir/cantors
only, to which the assembly will respond on the refrain melody "Holy
Immortal…" to maintain the responsorial integrity of the text.
15.
Borrowed from Sister Wendy Wendy Beckett speaking on the nature of vocation
in an interview with Bill Moyers. Conversations with Bill Moyers,
WGBH Boston (Public Broadcasting System), 1997.
16.
In relative terms, the choir loft is a recent and uninformed addition
to Orthodoxy, and in many ways it directly opposes the functional requirements
of liturgy.
+
Mark
Bailey teaches composition and choral leadership at St. Vladimir’s Seminary.
He also directs the New Haven Oratorio Choir and Orchestra, as well as
the Yale Russian Chorus and the New England Benefit Orchestra.
From Jacob's
Well
Newspaper of the Diocese of New York and New Jersey
Orthodox Church in America
Spring/Summer 1998
|
