Did the Wesleys Really Use Drinking Song Tunes for Their Hymns?
by Dean B. McIntyre
There is a popular misconception that continues to survive among United Methodists that John and Charles Wesley made use of tavern, drinking, or bar songs, as melodies for their hymns. The same is often heard of the great reformer and musician, Martin Luther. This claim is sometimes made to show the extent of their evangelistic zeal; namely, that they would go out into the secular culture, even into the taverns, saloons, and parlors frequented by the sinners they sought to redeem and make use of the musical language, the familiar drinking song tunes, for their own sacred hymns. The claim continues to be made today by some musicians, pastors, worship leaders, composers, and hymn writers. Unfortunately, this is a misapplication of a historical inaccuracy.
Confusion of Terms
The truth is that the Wesleys and Luther never made such use of saloon songs, nor would they have condoned such use. The misconception stems from confusion over a musical term ‘bar form’. In German literature and music of the Middle Ages, “Bar” was a poem consisting of three or more stanzas. Each stanza was divided into two Stollen (section a) and one Abgesang (section b), which yielded a form of AAB. The term “bar form” is commonly used today to refer to any poem or musical composition in this AAB form, or any variation of bar form, such as AABA. A number of Luther’s hymns and tunes used this form, including “A Mighty Fortress Is Our God.” Other chorales (“Praise to the Lord, the Almighty”) and hymns (“What a Friend We Have in Jesus,” “Come, Christians, Join to Sing,” “When I Survey the Wondrous Cross,” “Rescue the Perishing”) also use bar form. A number of tunes accompanying Wesley texts in the current United Methodist
Hymnal also use bar form, including:
“Praise the Lord Who Reigns Above,” UMH 96
“Thou Hidden Source of Calm Repose,” UMH 153
“Come, Thou Long-Expected Jesus,” UMH 196
“Hail the Day That Sees Him Rise,” UMH 312
“Love Divine, All Loves Excelling,” UMH 384
“I Want a Principle Within,” UMH 410
“See How Great a Flame Aspires,” UMH 541
“Come, Let Us Use the Grace Divine,” UMH 606
“O the Depth of Love Divine,” UMH 627
“Because Thou Hast Said,” UMH 635
“Give Me a Faith Which Can Remove,” UMH 650
“Come, Let Us Join Our Friends Above,” UMH 709
“Lo, He Comes with Clouds Descending,” UMH 718
It is not difficult to understand how the musical term, bar form, also sometimes referred to as bar tune, can become confused in an uninformed person’s mind with barroom tune, drinking song, or some other title to indicate music to accompany the drinking of alcoholic beverages.
The Wesleyan Aesthetic for Hymn Tunes
There is also the deeper issue of whether the importing of secular and drinking songs into the church to accompany congregational singing would be acceptable to the Wesleys. Wesley issued three collections of tunes: the Foundery Collection in 1742, Select Hymns with Tunes Annext (in which first appears his celebrated “Directions for Singing,” reprinted on page vii of The United Methodist Hymnal) in 1761, and his last, Sacred Harmony, in 1780. What we find in these collections yields an important insight into Wesley’s musical aesthetic for hymn tunes. Here we find the simple, traditional psalm tunes and hymn melodies, primarily from Anglican song. A number of these survive in our own 1989 United Methodist Hymnal (nos. 60, 96, 142, 181, 302, 385, 414, 450, 682). However, many of Charles’s texts were in increasing number and complexity of meter and required new sources for tunes to accompany them. John made use of new tunes composed or adapted from folk tunes, sacred and secular oratorio, and even operatic melodies. It should not escape us that whenever Wesley allowed the use of secular music — as from oratorio and opera — he used music of accepted high standard and almost always from classical rather than popular sources. In no instance did Wesley turn to tavern or drinking songs or other such unseemly sources to carry the sacred texts of songs and hymns.
Another help to understanding what Wesley considered appropriate in hymn tunes is to be found in his “Directions for Singing.” Of particular importance is a portion of his fourth direction: “Be no more afraid of your voice now, nor more ashamed of its being heard, than when you sung the songs of Satan.” It is clear that Wesley intends the “songs of Satan” to no longer be sung. Also important is his seventh direction:
“Above all sing spiritually. Have an eye to God in every word you sing. Aim at pleasing him more than yourself, or any other creature. In order to do this attend strictly to the sense of what you sing, and see that your heart is not carried away with the sound, but offered to God continually; so shall your singing be such as the Lord will approve here, and reward you when he cometh in the clouds of heaven.”
Wesley’s aesthetic to “above all sing spiritually” simply would not allow drinking songs to accompany hymn texts.
Finally, in no hymn book, tune book, or other publication of the Wesleys can there be found any example of or encouragement to use drinking songs for singing hymns.
What About Today?
The question still remains, “What about today? Just because Luther and the Wesleys didn’t use drinking song tunes and other popular music for their hymns, does that mean we shouldn’t?”
Whether Wesley did or didn’t use drinking songs is not really the issue. Rather, the issue is why Wesley did or didn’t use them. Wesley found the close association of hymn text and tune (even commonly referred to as a “wedding”) to be of such importance that the use of tavern songs was beneath consideration. It was never a possibility. That question remains for us to answer today. Do we find it acceptable, appropriate, and commendable to select the music of drunken sailors or the local tavern for our worship? If Wesley’s reasoning for the Methodists of his time remains valid for our own, then the answer is no; and those who choose to use such music in worship should be able to dispute Wesley’s practice convincingly. Further, those who justify in our day the use of secular culture and influences in United Methodist worship by claiming that Wesley used drinking songs in his own day should be called to account.
For further discussion of this topic, see Dean McIntyre’s article “Debunking the Wesley Tavern Song Myth”, posted August 16, 2002.
http://www.gbod.org/worship/default.asp?act=reader&item_id=5442
For Further Reading
“Bar Form” entry in Harvard Dictionary of Music (2d edition, revised and enlarged) by Willi Apel (Cambridge, Mass.: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1969).
“Bar Form” entry in Encyclopaedia Britannica
Companion to The United Methodist Hymnal by Carlton R. Young (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1993).
“John Wesley’s Choice of Hymn Tunes” by Fred Kimball Graham (1988), The Hymn 39 (4):29-37.
Sing with Understanding: An Introduction to Christian Hymnology by Harry Eskew and Hugh T. McElrath (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1980).
Dean B. McIntyre is the director of music resources for the General Board of Discipleship.
___
This article may be copied, downloaded, and used for local church worship and education use without charge provided this entire copyright clause is included on each copy made.
Copyright — 2001, 2002 The United Methodist General Board of Discipleship, PO Box 340003, Nashville TN 37203-0003; telephone: (615) 340-7073; Worship Website http://www.umcworship.org. All rights reserved. Useb by permission. Posted 4-17-01
Further reading:
http://www.wayoflife.org/database/tavernmusic.html
http://www.wayoflife.org/database/luthertavernmusic.html
http://www.gbod.org/worship/default.asp?act=reader&item_id=2639&loc_id=17,387
Good article, but there is some more to it. Take a look at this article for some interesting quotes from some of the hymn writers themselves: http://apologetix.com/faq/faq-detail.php?faq_q_id=89
Thanks for the link. Very interesting but open to critique. I am always leery of quotes such as this that paint the person in a different light than once believed. Charles Spurgeon for example: did he actually say that it’s a shame that the devil has all the good music? That’s akin to David Crowder and the like and their present mentality competing with the world to come up with the most compelling music.
From what I have read and studied regarding Wesley and Spurgeon and others of this cut, they were big on separation from all things worldly.
Yes, the world has some extremely beautiful music, but the spirit behind it makes it poisonous. I’m sure that these men knew this. As for Booth, well I have never been a fan of the SA, so a quote like this: “Satan would have to be battled within his own strongholds, and any means was justifiable…” Any means justified? Really? Yikes, that sure opens up the proverbial can of worms doesn’t it? Thanks for this information. With Booth and Crosby, I am not surprised, but with Spurgeon and others like him, no…I highly doubt they were so into compromise that it meant emulating the world in order to win some. They were quite the contrary to the point where they feared for their lives on occasion.
Take care and thanks for stopping by.
I actually found Crosby’s quote (and it was sited) to be the most interesting. She has written a fair amount of hymns and she clearly states that she put lyrics to “secular tunes” or beats. Some of those were specifically Scottish or Welsh and we know their history with “pagan” practices… so who knows where the tunes or “beats” originated. In some cases, at the time, when people were going to church and hearing these hymns, they were hearing tunes and beats that they recognized and that appealed to their flesh. How is that any different than a David Crowder or Hillsong song appealing to our natural likes or dislikes? Are lives being changed through these songs? Yes? Are lives being changed through hymns? Yes? So, let’s praise God and not judge too harshly. I love hymns and I also love any song which gives glory and worship to God. Who are we to think that our “tunes” or “beats” are the only pure thing musically out there. Crosby tells us plain and simple that she put her songs to popular tunes of the day. I’m not calling for musicians to just copy secular songs, but if someone wants to play the drums during a worship song… if someone wants to come up with something original that’s not in a hymnal… if someone wants to sing a hymn with a modern beat, then who cares? Apparently not some of the writers of the original? And there is no Biblical basis for an argument that only traditional hymns are allowed in church. They hymns we have now weren’t even around when the Bible was written? If we want to be “by the book”, then let’s rediscover the beats and tunes of the songs the Israelite and the 1st century Christians used to sing songs to God and only use those…. but that’s not the point… and it never was.
And you said, “Yes, the world has some extremely beautiful music, but the spirit behind it makes it poisonous.” So I guess you are making the argument that any music that is not directly praising, worshiping, or speaking directly of Jesus in a positive light should not be allowed to enter a Christians ears. Again, there’s no Biblical argument for that. You’re saying that classical music is bad to listen to? Or is it only if there are lyrics? So, a Christian could not write a nice, clean, poem or love song for their wife and sing it to them? No songs about love? No songs about family? No songs about life in this world?
There is certainly nothing wrong with listening to only-Christian music, but to say that that’s the only right thing to do…. well it’s a shame to put something like that on to someone else, when it’s not a necessarily Biblical practice. And I know that it’s said that Satan was the worship leader, but again, let’s take a look at the Bible…. when we do, it’s clear that those arguments are very thin; it’s taking quite a leap. And even if He was… okay? What does that have to do with a person listening to a clean, non-christian song today? The beats? ….okay how can we positively ID which beats are or aren’t “pagan”? Is there a formula to do so, or is it subjective? Were the beats that Crosby set her tunes to (which were “taken” from the world) originally from the Devil?! I honestly don’t think so, but if you are going to argue that case with today’s music, then you have to argue it for the traditional hymns as well. And one more thing, if Crosby did such with her songs, then who’s to know which other writers did the same with their songs and just didn’t say so? So, which hymns can we or can’t we sing now? Which ones have even a hint of “poison” in them? Again, I don’t think that any of them do, but let’s not judge other musicians so harshly either.
What always matters is that we give God the glory. We live, pray and breathe for His glory. Everything is for His glory. We have to be so careful that we don’t become spiritual narcs in order to win some over. We will end up becoming like the world and allowing too much compromise in. Hells Bells has a message, perhaps we can put some nice words to it? How about Thunderstruck? I used to love that song, could we say we are Thunderstruck by God’s love? Hmmm, it’s funny how we can so quickly say no to those songs, but to the less harsh songs, the softer songs, we have no problem. It always boils down to our own preferences, doesn’t it? We must always be conscious of what honours God, not pleases our ears or the ears of the lost.
I completely agree!! Right on man. However, you failed to address the main topic and replied only to the part about listening to secular music (which was a side point).
I am glad that you said, “What always matters is that we give God the glory. We live, pray and breathe for His glory. Everything is for His glory.” because I believe that David Crowder, Hillsong, Jesus Culture, etc are attempting to do this just as much as an original hymn writer did (of course we’re all fallible, but so were the original writers as well).
To speak to your point about secular music. I don’t think it should be about our own preference at all. Something is either right or it’s wrong. For me, I don’t have any more problem listening to the Beatles sing “I Wanna Hold Your Hand” than I do watching The Andy Griffith Show, Fox News, clean shows on the Discover Channel, or having a conversation with a fellow human about the weather. All of those options are clean, although I would argue that it’s probably better to listen to “I Wanna Hold Your Hand” than watch too much Fox News.
If the argument is that the content is “poison”, then you are saying that non-Jesus-exaulting words should not enter a Christian ear. If that’s the case then you cannot listen to any of the above, or even have a conversation with your wife about who’s driving the kids to school. If it is that the clean words are being put to a “poison” or “pagan” beat and those beats some how allow the same words to infect someone differently than of they were delivered without any music, then somehow we have to devise a formula to determine which beats are poisoned and which are not? I am not up to that task, and I don’t think any humans are. Who are we to judge? Who’s to say if any particular music beat or tune is demonic in the first place? Humans are evil enough in their nature to create bad… we don’t need the devil’s help to do it. If “secular beats” do happen to be any beats that are pagan, then I fully believe that those beats can be taken back from the world and used for God’s glory just like Fanny Crosby did with her traditional hymns which are in every western hymnal.