Music Spotlight! (Sunday, Nov. 21, 2021)

Now Thank We All Our God: Traditional or Not?

(by Hannah Cruse, Music Director & Organist)

Every year around Thanksgiving time, congregations sing the seemingly obligatory hymn, Now Thank We All Our God. Organists play lively postludes on the tune... Praise bands arrange it for modern instrumentation... Everyone is doing it (and so are we)! Why? 

We can all surely appreciate the sound theology, encouraging message, and rousing melody of this particular hymn. Lots of hymns--not sung nearly as often as this one--meet the aforementioned criteria though. I believe what really cements Now Thank We All into our lexicon is its "traditionalism." 

We often ascribe value to tradition--rightly so in many cases. Tradition connects us to the saints who built the Church, reminds us of fond childhood memories, marks our unique identity within culture, and comforts us through shared ritual. 

In one sense, Now Thank We All is "traditional"; it has been passed on from one generation to another since its authorship in the 17th century. However, assuming it is a traditional hymn because "we've always done it this way" would be incorrect. The version of Now Thank We All sung by our particular congregation now is, in fact, only loosely related to the original. In that way, Now Thank We All is not "traditional," but rather a respectful nod to history through a contemporary lens. 

How do we typically expect to experience Now Thank We All in worship? Well, most likely, we expect bombastic organ accompaniment, four-part choral singing, a brisk tempo, and the melodic interpretation provided by the hymnal. Our modern expectations, however, are not exactly traditional.

First, Now Thank We All may not have always been accompanied by organ or four-part singing. The text-writer of the hymn, Martin Rinckart (1586–1649), and tune-writer Johann Crüger (1598–1662), were influenced by the burgeoning Lutheran culture of early 17th-century Germany. Martin Luther (1483–1546), himself a musician, had some strong thoughts on the nature of music in church. He actually found the organ quite distasteful, preferring a cappella singing whenever possible. 

We may read through all Luther's writings without finding a single place where he speaks of the organ as the instrument accompanying congregational singing. Moreover he, the admirer of true church-music of any kind, gives no directions as to how the organ is to co-operate in the service. It really is incredible, however, that in the few places where he mentions the organ at all, he speaks of it almost scornfully: he does not look on it as necessary or even desirable in the evangelical service, but at most tolerates it where he finds it already. ["J. S. Bach" by Albert Schweitzer, 1911, p. 94]

John Calvin (1509–1564), father of Presbyterianism, generally agreed with Luther that a cappella singing was more pure and enriching than accompanied singing. Historian Erik Routley summarizes Calvin's points: "Music is for the people, so it must be simple; Music is for God, so it must be modest; These objects are best attained by the music of the unaccompanied voice." [The Church and Music by Erik Routley, 1967, p. 125]

The organ was not entirely eliminated from Reformed worship, however, due to the high level of respect given to accomplished composers and organists of the day. "The Lutherans managed to hold a precarious balance between the congregational singing characteristic of the early Church and an expression of faith through the art-music of experts," writes historian Andrew Wilson-Dickson. For example, an observer during a 1659 service recounts how "the first verse [of a particular hymn] is sung by the congregation, the second is sung as a solo by the cantor, the third is performed by four girls unaccompanied, the fifth is sung by the congregation, the sixth by the schoolboys in the choir, and the last is taken by the congregation, the organ, and all the singers." [The Story of Christian Music by Andrew Wilson-Dickson, 1996, p. 81]

Now Thank We All was probably not, like today, sung at a brisk tempo. If 17th-century congregations were indeed singing a cappella, the tempo would have surely lagged. Large reverberant worship spaces, like cathedrals or halls, would have exacerbated the tempo retardation even more.

The melodic interpretation found in our hymnal is a result of many, many revisions over the centuries. The tune we know diverges from Crüger's 1653 publication in Praxis Pietatis Melica. See below that the original version contains dotted rhythms (instead of straight quarter notes), a few pitch differences, and no particular conformity to time signature. (Melody/soprano line marked S and figured bass marked B.)

Praxis Pietatis Melica (1653)

In 1730, J. S. Bach composed a chorale to the tune NUN DANKET. He embellished the melody and added intricate moving choral parts, which would have slowed down the overall performance tempo considerably. 

Nun danket alle Gott, BWV 192 by J.S. Bach (1730)

Jump ahead to 1804 and notice how a hymnal editor has tried to simplify the melody by removing its dotted rhythms, adding bar lines, altering a few notes, and stretching out the lengths of pitches.

Ein Unpartheyisches Gesang-Buch‎ (1804)

Below is the first appearance of "Nun danket alle Gott" in English, with a translation by Catherine Winkworth (1827–1878). This version comes complete with a modern time signature, key signature, new harmonization, and deliberately augmented phrase conclusions.

The Chorale Book for England (1865)

Not all hymnal editors through the ages simplified the original melody. This version from 1886 attempts to maintain some of the authentic dotted rhythms. In my opinion, though, the editor inserts way too many historically-inauthentic and unpragmatic rests and fermatas. 

Hymns of the Evangelical Lutheran Church (1886)

Even 21st-century editors (the following example hailing from a 2021 hymnal) attempt to return the melody to its historically-authentic roots. I would be very curious to know how well this version (which would sound rather strange to us) goes over with modern congregations. 

Christian Worship: Hymnal (2021)

Finally, we arrive at the version found in our 2013 hymnal, Glory to God. What historical aspects are retained; what changes are made for the sake of modern audiences; what changes are helpful or unhelpful for singing? Do your own investigating and comment below! 

Glory to God: the Presbyterian Hymnal (2013)

I hope this article has challenged you, positively, to reflect on what "traditional" means. Some things we do in church, like the hymn Now Thank We All Our God, are not as traditional as we first imagine. We have put our own spin on this hymn while simultaneously respecting its heritage.

Honoring tradition does not necessarily mean doing things the exact same way that they were done at a specific time and place in history. Putting beloved things in a time capsule for future observation or use does not always bear fruit. In the Gospel of Matthew, the servant who invests and multiplies his talents, instead of burying them, receives adulation from the Master. [Parable of the Talents] I believe that we honor God and our ancestors most when we build on foundations, adapt old practices for modern needs, and create new beauty as life on earth renews. 

(Pictures sourced from Hymnary.org.)