CD Review: DAVID HAAS, God Is Here (GIA Publications, Inc.)

This record is timely.

With a subtitle of ‘Liturgical music for the journey of reconciliation’, the latest offering by Liturgical juggernaut David Haas speaks immediately to the Sacrament of Reconciliation and has all sorts of applications in that sort of setting. In many ways this latest project has a tone that is very reminiscent of Marty Haugen’s 2003 ‘Turn My Heart’ which dealt with similar themes of healing and personal reconciling. This aside, ‘God Is Here’ is important given the current political and religiously charged world we live in. Within all the mess…within all the brokenness…and [as the front cover art suggests] in the desert we find ourselves in [or have created]…God Is Here.

In the liner notes, David Haas pays credit to Bill Huebsch whose many texts feature throughout this recording. Haas even states Huebsch’s texts ‘inspired much of the music on this recording’. This is a welcomed confession, as Bill Huebsch is one very talented and gifted fellow. His three volume book on the Second Vatican Council released a couple of years ago were eloquently written. His first volume’s prologue focusing on Catholic Culture and Memory stands as some of the most evocative observations I have yet to read on the Second Vatican Council…quite brilliant.

So, it was with interest and pleasure I read Bill Huebsch’s name scattered throughout the CD booklet before I even played it. Obviously, David Haas has been similarly taken with Huebsch’s work…and the culmination of the words Huebsch has written with the music of Haas is nothing short of a triumph.

Things begin with the simple – even stark piano phrasing of ‘God Is Here’ with Haas singing solo. The track builds slowly into the refrains which exhibit hinted-at gospel leanings. Subsequent verses are sung by Kate Cuddy, a finely harmonized stanza by up and comings Tony Alonso and Michael Mahler. Lori True lifts things with her beautiful voice accompanied by the first of many key changes [I counted three in total]. Then, Tom Franzak gets all gospel and with the choir hamming it up, handclapping happening everywhere, the song turns into a pulsating gospel tour-de-force! It is a great start to the recording.

‘The God of Second Chances’ is gentle and flowing.

‘You Belong to Us: Litany of Welcome’ is a Huebsch inspired piece and frankly – masterly. I am usually not one to get into spoken pieces with musical tinkerings going on in the background…but in recent times, I have become accustomed…even appreciative. Things began to change for me in this department on David Haas’ 2003 ‘Reach Towards Heaven’ with the track ‘You Can Make Me Whole’ [interestingly with a theme of healing too]…and now we see a similar method being employed here.

The accent of James Bessert takes a few listens to get used to – particularly his early speaking of ‘Are you married with kids, worrying for them?’ Wow! What an accent…I don’t think I’ve ever heard the word ‘worrying’ spoken like that before! I think I am still in a state of wow-ness as I listen to the track for the umpteenth time! Don’t let this put you off – you get over this very quickly and appreciate the beauty of this tack.

The words written by Huebsch are skillfully inclusive and the refrains are joyful proclamations of welcome and elation. This could be easily adapted and used in a parish setting of communal Third Rite of Reconciliation [where it still occurs – it’s been abolished here in Australia!?!] and also in the Second Rite.

‘All Is Ready’ is a song of gathering that borrows the refrain melody of ‘You Belong To Us: Litany of Welcome’ and presents it in a simple-to-sing congregation friendly manner.

Bill Huebsch’s research into Vatican II comes into the fore in the track ‘Abide, O Spirit of Life’. This text is an adapted setting of a prayer that was prayed before each session of both the First Vatican Council [1869-1870] and also the Second Vatican Council [1962-1965] though to be originally composed by St Isidore of Seville [circa 619]. The tradition of this beautiful text continues here in classic Haas style. Gently paced, wonderfully arranged and prayerfully executed, it is a welcome inclusion on the collection.

The joyful bursts of ‘We Will Rejoice’ played in a very tribal African fashion are infectious and uplifting. Lots of percussion at the hands of Marc Anderson add propulsion and movement to the track with a fitting refrain of; ‘We will rejoice with gladness! We will rejoice! All our days we’ll sing to God in praise! We will rejoice’. Oh yes!

‘Come and Dine’ is a feast song for communion which speaks to the theology of Reconciliation in its opening words; ‘Take and eat of my brokenness’. This again is Haas as we have come to know and love: simple, direct, melodic.

The disappointment on ‘God Is Here’ for me is the track ‘God Weeps’. Whenever I read the name Shirley Erena Murray, I tend to get quite excited. Her texts have appeared on recordings by Tony Alonso and Lori True and are in my experience, uplifting and challenging texts. This text doesn’t quite do it for me…perhaps it will grow on me…it surely doesn’t hit you like a clap of thunder like ‘A Place at the Table’ or ‘Fresh As The Morning’…and the arrangement is far too downbeat...too sad. Even the sung phrasing by David Haas lacks conviction, especially at; ‘God Bleeds at women battered and afraid’. The half sung-half spoken ‘afraid’ in this sentence just doesn’t cut it and taints an already less than excellent piece.

The following track ‘God Alone Is Enough’ is a gospel style anthem dedicated to memory of Derek Campbell (1963-2004) – and this came to me as a shock. My enduring memory of Campbell was as a singer on the Glory Day record/video of nearly ten years back now. The text is inspired by the writing of St Teresa of Avila and is an uplifting piece.

‘The Ways of God’ and ‘Be God’ are reflective pieces once again showing the prowess of Lori True as a cantor.

Perhaps the standout track on ‘God Is Here’ is ‘I Am There’. Derek Campbell is yet again honoured posthumously with the liner notes stating that the song was composed at Derek’s piano the day after his funeral celebration. The compositional skills of Joe Camacho are outstanding as he delivers a stirring melody and thoughtful text that speaks of the presence of God in all moments of our lives. Joe Camacho begins the singing and the welcome inclusion of Marty Haugen as added cantor in the second verse is a lovely addition. Camacho’s chord phrasing is truly special, the melody achingly beautiful and hints to much greater things from Mr Camacho in the future…a solo release perhaps? This would be a fine thing indeed. Early Christmas wishes aside – this is an excellent song that would be perfect for Reconciliation services, Lenten celebrations or retreats. Excellente!

Like Shirley Erena Murray, text writer Ruth Duck has emerged in recent years as a powerful Liturgical lyricist. ‘I Will Give You Rest’ shows off her skills in constructing simple and delightful texts which speak of God in inspiring, hope filled ways. The music by David Haas in this instance is light, acoustically driven and inviting. Nice one…and one that will get better with every listen I am sure.

The recording finishes where it began with a derivative of ‘God Is Here’. A ‘Litany for Peace and Reconciliation’ is offered which speaks to need for reconciliation in many places around the world including Darfur, Iraq, Washington – even the Vatican gets a petition for healing and prayer. Cantor Jesse Manibusen sings some freely sung petitions over a gospel driven children’s choir.

‘God Is Here’ by David Haas is an excellent recording and a most valuable resource. It is uplifting to hear so many voices, some old friends [Haugen], but also new ones [Camacho, True, Alonso] who Haas is employing to create such an exciting and rounded sounding record. The texts of Bill Huebsch are a stroke of genius – may it continue on future recordings!

The sentiment in the songs themselves is a call to all of us to return to the beauty and calm of prayer in our daily lives. May we all ‘sing a new song’ in the many happy additions of sung prayer found on ‘God Is Here’.

You need this. You really do.

To be – Or not to be: the Parish Liturgist is the question.

It is an increasing worry to me when I participate at Mass, that by the end of the celebration – I feel as though I haven’t really celebrated.

This is coming from someone who is a student of Theology and Liturgy and has been exposed to the underpinning theology of the Eucharist…and why we gather, what Sunday means to Catholics, the concepts and moments of anamnesis and epiclesis on so on etc.

These are wonderful things to know that have deepened my understanding of the things we do and why we do them. And while this is all great – the lived reality of Parish ‘celebration’ is sometimes in stark contrast. At times, I feel I am being too critical of what I experience at a parish level and these cautionary…perhaps even negative feelings are just a figment of my liturgically charged brain.

But then I find myself talking with 16 year olds in a classroom scenario – and I begin to hear frighteningly similar views to my own. And in the opposite age direction – people are voting with their feet. I have read somewhere very recently [although exactly where escapes me at present] that the largest group who seem to be leaving regular celebrations of Liturgy are the baby boomers [40 to 55 year olds]. So - I am not alone in the way I am thinking and feeling about the celebratory perceptions of liturgy!

What can we identify as possible causes for people’s dissatisfaction?

It is fascinating to talk to young people [and also the young at heart]…but particularly the young, that they find ‘celebrations’ of Eucharist boring. Doubly fascinating that young people I talk with have no interest in the Church, period, because of their ‘boring’ experiences of Mass. They see ‘the Church’ as Mass…and Mass as the only manifestation or expression of Church. This is a shameful tragedy which needs serious attention.

One of the first things that will be said by young people I talk with in regard to how boring the Liturgy is – is the kind of music that is played. They see it as antiquated and not speaking to their lives, their hopes or their lived realities.

They speak of tired, old priests who lack a vitality of faith – which makes it near impossible for people such as themselves sitting in the pews to be inspired and nourished in their own faith journey.

They speak of the sameness of the Liturgy, week in, week out with no adequate explanation to them as to why they say and do the things they do. They see no passion, no zeal and essentially no joy or life in what is meant to be a CELEBRATION.

So they don’t come.

There are many other reasons experts will tell us regarding the reasons for people’s lack of participation at Eucharist i.e.: increase in work demands on weekends, sport commitments, fear of long term commitment etc…and I won’t go into these now…but just say that there are a plethora of reasons for our current predicament.

So what can we do?

To the many reasons for the current crisis we find ourselves in, I would like to throw one idea into the ring as a possible suggestion forward. It is not THE panacea – but simply A way of working towards a better place than we find ourselves in at the moment.

My idea is for parishes to begin employing full time Parish Liturgists.

Let’s stop spending money on buildings and start investing in the pastoral and liturgical welfare of our people! A liturgist employed by a parish would be able to devote their full attention to the way we celebrate and make them uplifting, inspiring and life giving occasions for all who attend and partake.

Our priests aren’t getting any younger; they are stretched beyond their limits and while they try – obviously aren’t translating the celebratory nature of Eucharist as best as they could. But it’s not all up to the priest either – the laity have responsibilities too…but even in conjunction with the priests – people are sill voting with their feet!

We need to take steps NOW. We need to have vision and foresight and use that phrase so often thrown around in Diocesan consultative circles of ‘reading the signs of the times’ and act.

Ordained leadership solving this tricky issue is not where the answer lies. They are stretched enough as it already is – and according to the many young people I speak with, aren’t really doing terribly much to improve the current situation. If not here and now – where?

Do we wait and hope and pray that the conditions for ordination change…that married clergy and women can become priests who will pull us out of the rut? This will be some time coming [some would argue it will be no time coming!]…but we live in hope. Further, this is [in reality] a mid to long term hope…not an immediate short term practical real step we can take to tackle the issue.

But…even this idea has its limitations as is re-enforces this old fashioned idea that only the ordained minister has the ‘power’ to be involved in such liturgical and pastoral endeavours. No…we need to be thinking more broadly than this.

We need to start financially investing in our lay people to receive liturgical, pastoral education…significant qualifications…university standard qualifications which will empower and form them in leadership to help our faith communities to CELEBRATE. This will cost money…significant sums of money…but it won’t do any good in 15 years time to be wallowing in despair because ‘we don’t have a priest anymore and can’t celebrate Liturgy’ [I’m sure this is a reality already for many many parishes…aren’t we reading the signs so clearly in front of our faces??!! Twinning parishes, amalgamating parishes…making super parishes…is a short term solution [and in my view a misguided one] surrounding the shortage of priests…to an ultimately longer term issue of education, empowerment and lay leadership that will take us into [and sustain] the future church.

Employing parish Liturgists will be a step [one step] in the beginning of a process that will start to enhance and make relevant the way in which we celebrate Eucharist…in the way we use Liturgical Music to augment the Liturgy. Parish Liturgists would go a long way in introducing age old [and largely lost] beautiful, wonderful traditions such as the Liturgy of the Hours…which could be ‘re-packaged’ and complimented by contemporary scripturally based music.

The sad reality is – that for many – young and old alike – the first impression of ‘the Church’ in its totality is found in the way we celebrate Liturgy. Let’s make it amazing. Let’s make it relevant. Let’s make it ‘now’. Let’s reclaim the spark. Let’s start employing Liturgists in our parishes!

This debate over employed parish Liturgists has been discussed on the Online Catholics Discussion Board this week – a discussion which I have been a part of. While I am a strong supporter for the idea, others think differently and more cautiously. The following was posted by Maree:

…’I agree that a parish liturgist would be a step in the right direction but my experience has shown me that there are ever increasing obstacles which restrict how the liturgy is 'allowed' to be celebrated. Many of these obstacles are self-appointed "liturgists" on the parish liturgy committee, who, with the best of intentions, control what can and can't be done. There are also restrictions on what is and is not 'liturgically correct' from the hierarchy. I think a more collaborative approach to planning liturgy and openness to what liturgy has the potential to be is necessary before all can be active, joy filled participants in the celebration….’

And there is truth to Maree’s words here. The ‘self appointed liturgists’ who ‘control’ what can and can’t be done exist. They are out there – and they are real. Unfortunately, in my experience, most are so liturgical; there is no space for pastoral tact or vision. Indeed, my experience with one such individual caused such pain and hurt, I actually left the Church for a time. So Maree’s words of wisdom of a more collaborative approach must be listened to – and perhaps even followed.

But there is still something inside of me – suggesting we are on the brink of change – and we need to begin to get ready for it. A collaborative approach is fine – but does it really work in a sustained way if people aren’t getting paid for their efforts? It may have in the past – but people are more skilled now and less accepting of doing something for nothing - especially when they are qualified in the field of Liturgy and Theology.

People see the role of the ordained and laity and what the laity can do in a much more different way today. The laity are more theologically and liturgically trained than ever before in our history of being Church. It seems criminal to me that so many well educated people – even in this moment of our history – are not being utilised in a more pro-active way in our parishes…and being employed.

And there's that little voice inside me again, now yelling at me and saying that WE ARE READY AND THE TIME IS NOW!

Here is one little vegemite who will gladly put his hand up for the job.

Prisoners of a Sound Cage: changing trends in acceptable sound quality of recorded Liturgical Music and its pastoral and liturgical effects.

I recently read a 2 part article called ‘Sing a New Song’ written by Jim McDermott that appeared in the Jesuit US Publication America.

The article tracked the rise and enduring legacy of the St Louis Jesuits and was a fascinating insight into the development of Liturgical Music since Vatican II.

Upon reading the article, I went and found myself a vinyl copy of the first St Louis Jesuit record – Neither Silver Nor Gold – which was released way back in 1974 [a year before I was born!].

I listened and was amazed at what I was listening to.

Many of the selections I was familiar with – others were new to me. But this wasn’t what caught my ears. What struck me was not so much the songs – it was the sound quality and production that immediately hit me. And from a sound quality/ production point of view, the record was very basic and what I would consider below average.

Early on in Part 1 of McDermott’s story, he mentions that…‘songs on their first album [Neither Silver Nor Gold] were recorded in a church basement or someone’s dorm room. On some songs you can hear a refrigerator door clicking shut in the background when the room’s occupant go for a drink…’

Indeed, the sound was very raw and what I might even consider amateurish.

But to leave the discussion at such an accusing level – is not to acknowledge the full picture of why it sounds the way it does.

We know, through McDermott’s article that the St Louis Jesuits were under pressure from people all over the world to actually get their songs ‘out there’. St Louis University was frequented from people all over the world who went there to study, who while there, were exposed to the music of the St Louis Jesuits and took with them unpublished hand written copies of music. Essentially, their music was in circulation and popular even before it was distributed in recorded format! The title of the release speaks to the ideology and circumstances surrounding its conception and construction. It takes its name from the Acts of the Apostles: ‘I have neither Silver nor Gold, but what I have I offer to you’. (3:6). Further, many of the group were approaching the end of their studies at St Louis University and would soon be ordained and sent off into pastoral ministries.

So there seems to be various mitigating factors that contributed to such a seemingly slap dashed effort: lack of money and resources, lack of time and the huge demand that was coming in from all over the world.

Yet, their efforts as far as poor sound quality was concerned – had no apparent effect on people’s hunger for new and relevant liturgical music. It didn’t stop people buying the record and it didn’t stop people using the music for liturgical celebrations. Perhaps way back in 1974 – the rawness of what people were hearing didn’t matter at all – because it was new, fresh and exciting.

But times change…as does what people consider to be acceptable sound quality.

What was released in 1974 and recorded amateurishly would, frankly, not see the light of day in 2005…which raises all kinds of interesting questions. We’ll explore some of these shortly.

By way of contrast, I have recently purchased the latest offering by Marty Haugen – ‘That You May Have Life’ which is a musical setting of stories taken from the Gospel of John. This recording is technically flawless. The production techniques are pristine, the musicians are the cream of the crop on the GIA roster. The mixing of various instruments and different voices is superb…and there certainly isn’t the sound of refrigerator doors closing shut in the background!!!

You could go as far to say that in 30 years, the professionalism that has evolved with audio recording in many instances has similarly created a culture of perfectionism that leaves no room for even the slightest musical deviation or irregularity. What one might call the ‘earthiness’ of recordings produced in a bygone era are now what would be labeled as un-releasable market product.

I myself have spoken with store managers of religious bookshops who play Liturgical Music in the store – who refuse to play recordings of some local Liturgical musicians, not so much because the songs are bad – but because they sound terrible.

How have we arrived at this point where we have such high expectations of the way our Liturgical Music [in recorded format] must sound? Firstly, technology has significantly improved over the last 30 years. Recording programs such as Pro-tools have lifted the bar on not only how we record, but the quality in which we hear it when we listen to it. Gone are the days when recording a song in a studio, you had to get the song in one take – and if you dropped a note, you had to start all over again. No! If mistakes are made today in the studio, a studio engineer/ producer simply goes back to the point of error, deletes the mistake and ‘drops’ the artist in at that point to re-sing or re-play that particular section of music. Purists might call this cheating. Others will call it a God-send and time [and ultimately money] saver.

How else might we have arrived at this point?

Record companies such as OCP and GIA, who have capitalised on the success and popularity of artists such as the St Louis Jesuits have cornered and captured a niche in the music market place where people expect quality product for the money they fork out to purchase music. Just because we’re dealing with Liturgical Music doesn’t mean it needs to sound lousy! On the contrary, I’m sure the large companies would think that precisely because we are dealing with Liturgical Music – which ultimately is used to praise and worship God – it needs to sound perfect and deserves nothing less!! So, it seems, the big companies such as GIA and OCP have a fairly legitimate agenda for the way in which Liturgical Music sounds – which includes its production techniques.

From where I stand [!] – it seems as though in 30 years there has been a big change in the way Liturgical music has been recorded - and the way it sounds when we ultimately hear it through our speakers…and this has changed the way people use recorded liturgical music – but also what they expect to hear when they go to Sunday Mass. I think we have become so used to the excellence of sound production that it has begun to taint our appreciation for the real life music ministers hard at work in our parishes and that we have become prisoners of a ‘sound cage’. Let’s explore this.

As common as it is for there to be real people playing Liturgical music at any given Mass on a Sunday in my parish [and I’m sure this is the same in many other parishes all over the place] – it is as equally common for there to be not a Liturgical Music Minister – but a new breed of individual who we might like to called The Minister of the Play Button. [!]

This fascinating bunch of people either find themselves in their position due to last minute cancellations of Music Ministers – and desperately feel the need to present something to the gathered assembly. Still, others may even offer to simply select pre-recorded music to play at Mass – not because of any last minute apologies given by the real life musicians – but because they want to contribute in some way to the celebration [which is a very lovely and admirable thing to do]. And while they may choose hymns that gather a sung response from the assembly – there are issues going on when this happens that need to be raised.

More often than not, the music that is played on CD by these Ministers of the Play Button is taken from such sources as ‘As One Voice’ [in Australia] or other hymnals that have accompanying volumes of CDs (As One Voice is the best example). Without getting all political, [but let’s face it], the bulk of material in these hymnals [particularly Gather Australia] is comprised of (particularly) GIA and to a lesser extent OCP compositions. While the songs are excellent for worship purposes, the fact they are artists signed to the rosters of GIA and OCP means that they have been recorded and produced brilliantly and sound perfect to the ear. David Haas gets thrashed. Bernadette Farrell’s ‘Everyday God’ is seemingly an eternal endurance and new comers such as Lori True and even local Australian John Burland get a spin too. People are happy to select and play this stuff because it sounds so good. People are happy to sing along with it [even if it’s not the same as singing along with real musicians] because it similarly, sounds really good.

On the surface, there seems to be no issue. Great music being played that sounds great – what’s wrong with that?

I think there are serious ramifications at play in such scenarios that threaten to undermine the integrity of the liturgy. The 1982 document ‘Liturgical Music Today’ issued by the Bishop’s Committee on the Liturgy of the National Conference of [US] Catholic Bishops says this about the issue pre-recorded music:

‘The liturgy is a complexus of signs expressed by living human beings. Music, being preeminent among those signs, ought to be “live”. While recorded music, therefore, might be used to advantage outside the liturgy as an aid in the teaching of new music, it should, as a general norm, never be used within the liturgy to replace the congregation, the choir, the organist or other instrumentalists.’

…But we know that it does. And as a result, I would argue that such music played at liturgy through the sound system, that has been produced and sounds absolutely flawless, has the very real potential to raise the standard of what the assembly expects to hear from other music presented to them by the real life musicians…and in a way that is impossible for the average Liturgical Music Minister cannot hope to replicate.

More and more – I speak to people, students and even other Music Ministers who speak of Liturgical Music being played live that ‘doesn’t sound good’ or is a distraction and hindrance rather than a liturgical aid. Has our reliance on pre-recorded music at Liturgy contributed to occasionally dismissive views on the quality of our Liturgical Music Ministers? Are we judging the musicality and the sound of musicians playing at weekend Masses against the impossible perfection of pristine sounding recordings?

The effects are Liturgical but also pastoral – as the welfare and encouragement of Liturgical Music Ministers may well be being compromised. Encouragement rarely comes in my experience if things don’t sound good. Unfortunately, people in the pews are happy to say how much they don’t like the sound of a Liturgical Music Minister to others, but rarely say this to the face of the artist in question in case those involved have their feelings hurt. And while I’m not solely blaming the changing trend of CD sound production as the only reason for this, I do believe it is one of many contributing factors.

In our pursuit of ‘good liturgy’…have we gone too far? Are our hopes for a perfect sounding Liturgy given way to unreasonable expectations of our Music Ministers?

Perhaps we should start making Liturgical records that once again have compulsory ‘refrigerator doors clicking in the background’ and see what comes out in the wash!

Did Jesus Sing? Implications for Music Ministry Today

There are many ways in which Jesus is thought about and perceived. Some of us might look upon Jesus and see him as the Suffering Servant. Other points of view steer towards the Messianic Liberator and model of peace and justice for all. Still, other points of view see Jesus as the High Priest, or, the perfect manifestation and incarnation of Love.

There are, of course, many other ways we view Jesus.

But how often do we stop and think of Jesus as a singer? As a Liturgical Music Minister, I have often thought about this and wondered if in fact Jesus actually sang. If he did, what did he sing? How does this idea of a singing Jesus have any relevance or impact on how we live our lives as Music Ministers…and as a Church? With this image of Jesus in mind, are we able to construct a spirituality for the Music Minister?

Scriptural reference to a singing Jesus is fairly limited. There is explicit mention of Jesus and his disciples singing the evening hymn at the Last Supper prior to them going to the Mount of Olives (Matt 26:30; Mark 14:26). In his introductory commentary on the Gospel of Mark, Michael Fallon msc, suggests what we are witnessing in this particular instance is a singing of the final three Hallel psalms (psalms 113-118) of the Mishnah (the Mishnah being the first written recording of Jewish oral law composed and redacted about the year 200CE). It is possible, Fallon suggests, that at the time of Jesus, such psalms were sung which speak about the wonder of God in creation and history and are perhaps part of the evening hymn which is mentioned in the Gospels.

This singing Jesus we see in this particular scene, occurs in the context of a meal. But this example of ritual meal, commonly held and understood to be a Passover Meal [although many scholars dispute and question this], is but one of many kinds of ritual meal that occurs in Judaism – and which Jesus would have been involved in.

By looking at the different kinds of meal rituals that were custom in time of Jesus, we get an insight as to what was, or could have been celebrated by Jesus, but perhaps more importantly for our discussion on the idea of a singing Jesus; whether or not these meal rituals involved singing, how this was done and the implications for us today.

All meals in Jewish lived experience are considered as sacred, and in the time of Jesus, this was also the case. Throughout the Gospels we watch Jesus using meal times as a place to teach, which in turn gives all a glimpse into what and who God is and how we come to know Love. Some commentators such as David R. Holeton have suggested that the Eucharist which we celebrate today, [which draws upon varied Jewish meal customs], is an ‘antipasto’ to the Eschatological Banquet!

So what are these different meals?

Three forms will be examined here. They are the Paschal Meal, the Habburah and also the Todah Meal.

The Paschal Meal [Passover] has many ritual moments throughout, but essentially has three major sections: the Haggadah (the narrative story which gives the meal’s relation to salvation of the people of Egypt), the Berekah (which is a thanksgiving for the things that have been narrated) and also an explanation of the symbols used in the meal. Towards the end of the Paschal Meal is a moment of song and singing accompanied by the consumption of wine. This moment is known as the Hallel which involves the chanting/ singing of psalms 113-118, more often than not on joyous and festive occasions. Is this what Jesus was singing with his disciples as the ‘evening hymn’ at the Last Supper? Whether the Last Supper was a Paschal Meal or not [as many scholars dispute]; it is certain that Jesus did celebrate the Paschal Meal during his life as a Jew…and consequently, would have sung the Hallel.

Another form of ritual meal is the Habburah. This type of meal was principally celebrated in the Synagogue. In Luke 4 we witness Jesus at work in such a Habburah where he reads from the scroll and explains the fulfillment of the scripture as himself. In such situations, people gathered in communion at the synagogue, usually around the scriptures, with various teachings given from the Rabbi. This was usually done around a table as a sign of religious companionship of those gathered where additional prayers and psalms were offered. Interestingly, these occasions were bread-alone celebrations, often celebrated without wine. For our purpose of discussion, this is an aside. The recitation of scripture and in particular, the psalms in the Habburah is a given. The chance of those psalms being chanted, intoned or sung is a given. As a practicing Jew, who frequented the Synagogue, Jesus would have been exposed to the Habburah, partaken in it and prayed and sung the psalms.

Many scholars see the synagogue celebration and elements of the Haburrah as the ancestor of the Liturgy of the Hours. With such heavy usage and emphasis on the psalms, one can easily make the connections to this line of thought.

The Todah is another ritual meal which involved singing of the psalms. It was principally a form of Jewish Liturgy that occurred in the Temple and was experienced with others present, and involved offering animal sacrifices to God. While the idea of burnt offerings and sacrifices may be familiar to us from our reading of the Hebrew Scriptures (see Genesis 22:9-14 and Leviticus 7:12-15), these forms of worship and praise to God can be traced back to and resembles the thanksgiving offering given to God by Melchizedek and shared with Abraham in thanksgiving for the rescue of the people of Salem (Genesis 14: 18-20).

In the Gospels, the Todah occurs as seen at the Canticle of Simeon (Luke 2: 22-38).

Usually, the Todah would be offered by someone who had been delivered from great danger, such as the recovery from a grave illness. The person giving thanks would gather family and friends to the Synagogue where a lamb would be sacrificed along with bread and wine which were consecrated and shared with all present (including the wider community/ the poor who were also in the Synagogue at the time). Accompanying these ritual actions were the recitation of prayers and songs of thanksgiving, such as psalm 116.

So yet again, we see the use of sung psalmody in Jewish liturgy, which would have been unavoidable for Jesus to not experience in some way. Was he a leader in such song? Was he an active participant in such ceremonies? It seems unlikely that Jesus brought up as a Jew and portrayed even as a Rabbi in the Gospels as previously discussed in Luke 4, would have not partaken in singing in some form or another. Ritual practice and structure expected people to sing Hallel (as seen in the structure of the Passover for instance).

The Last Supper scene depicts the group (including Jesus) singing the evening hymn; ‘When they had sung the hymn…’ We see from this that Jesus did sing and wasn’t afraid to sing. Further, one can confidently say that he wasn’t ideologically opposed to singing, or even that he felt self conscious about singing and decided for the benefit of his disciple’s aesthetic sensibilities, he would politely decline from singing. No! Jesus’ sung involvement was communal and participatory and it most definitely is shown by the use of the word ‘they’.

Establishing this willingness to sing is a solid foundation to assert that Jesus’ openness to sing in other Jewish Liturgical settings is highly likely, if not certain.

But still, are there further, (perhaps less explicit, yet plausible) references in the Gospels which suggest that Jesus did actually sing? To explore this idea, we need to look at a most defining moment of Gospel narrative: the Crucifixion.

At three o’clock Jesus cried out with a loud voice, “E’loi E’loi lema sabachthani?” which means, ‘My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?’ – Mark 15:34

The scene of the Crucifixion is not a place where one would think or associate the use of singing. However, what we see here is Jesus from the depths of his being, crying out to God. Crying out! This is no mere verbal utterance or under-the-breath type of statement. Crying out implies a raising of pitch, other than a normal tone of voice…but can it be viewed as singing per se? To open this question up further, we need to look at precisely at the words Jesus is saying.

It is fascinating and not really surprising that Jesus’ final words ‘E’loi E’loi lema sabachthani’ are the opening words to Psalm 22. And while these words suggest extreme despair and anguish not only on the part of Jesus but also the Psalmist, to only think that Jesus in his agony on the cross is somehow connecting his own suffering to the suffering of the Psalmist in Psalm 22 – is to not see the entire picture of what is happening in this moment.

As was the custom in the time of Jesus, very often the citing of the first words or verse of a particular text or scripture passage was a way of identifying an entire passage or body of text.

In this instance, we see Jesus calling out the opening lines of Psalm 22; a plea to God for deliverance. But for us to leave this scene with only the first few lines of psalm text is not sufficient. For if we continue to read the rest of the psalm, the text moves through a stage of misery and hopelessness at the beginning and then suddenly turns to become a psalm ending on a note of optimism and hope.

Out of seeming despair comes triumph.

Is this what Jesus was doing while dying on the cross? Was he crying out in despair – and only despair? Or was he alluding to the rest of Psalm 22 and acknowledging that his Crucifixion was not a failure and defeat – but a triumph that would give rise to a new creation through his resurrection?

We have already touched on the psalms being used in Jewish liturgical practice. We know that many were composed as songs by David to be played with instruments and singing before King Saul. As Judaism developed, in many instances, the psalms were sung, chanted and intoned. With such a musical origin and connection applied to the psalms, is it possible in this final moment of Jesus’ life – the moment, in which he fully fulfilled the scriptures, that the crying out of Jesus does in fact become the penultimate Song of Jesus?

So what does all this mean for us today? In particular, what does this mean for musicians who are actively involved in a ministerial capacity in the Church? Is there scope here for us to construct an underpinning spirituality for music ministers that helps and propels us deeper into our ministerial calling?

Absolutely.

The act of speaking words said by Jesus himself for many is a powerful experience. The Lord’s Prayer, the prayer taught by Jesus to his followers has remained with us through the centuries and remains a unifying prayer for all Christians. It is powerful as it is a prayer we all know and can say [or sing] to form communion with each other and God. It is powerful too, because they are the words which Jesus spoke himself. This idea of actually speaking words that Jesus himself spoke is a holy and sacred thing – that leads itself beautifully to prayer and a deepening into Love.

The words of Institution in the form of the anamnesis, which priests and those ordained speak to recall the words of Jesus at the Last Supper at Eucharist are also powerful words we can speak (or sing/chant), that connect us to what Jesus actually spoke himself. And while there is great drama and prayerfulness in hearing these words spoken, not all of us actually get the chance to speak/sing/chant these words. This seems to be a grace filled pleasure reserved only for the ordained!

Where else are there words and phrases which Jesus spoke which we too can say and pray that will help form us in the prayer of our lives? The Psalms are clearly the answer.

But for music ministers, there is added significance for us using the Psalms as a ‘backbone’ to our prayer life. For the Psalms are simply not words alone that Jesus spoke – they are also texts that were sung and became the songs that Jesus himself was to fulfill. This knowledge is enormously empowering.

What opportunities and situations present themselves in our Catholic liturgical tradition where we can actually sing the Psalms? The first place, which is probably most accessible, is to be found at any given Eucharist celebration in the form of the Responsorial Psalm. As music ministers this is an important responsibility to prepare and sing the psalm at Eucharist and encourage antiphonal participation by the congregation. The psalm is vital in the Liturgy of the Word as it forms the link of the Hebrew Scriptures to the Christian Scriptures and further highlights Jesus as the fulfillment of the Psalms. It also presents us with a small sliver of the bigger story of salvation, from which we draw inspiration and hope.

Many scholars have commentated on how one should go about preparing for the delivery of the Responsorial Psalm at Mass. Many speak of a prayerful study of the text in the days leading up to a given Eucharist celebration so that the Cantor can lead the psalm in a prayerful manner that hopefully is catching to others in the assembly.

Prompted by the wisdom of Joseph Gelineau, Kathleen Harmon in her recent book ‘The Ministry of Cantors’, suggests that one who sings a psalm, becomes for God [and I would further add here - for all of creation] that psalm.

While initially, the idea of ‘becoming a psalm’ may seem fanciful and an outrageous statement to bolster a spirituality for the psalmist/ music minister/ assembly, given the fact that in a similar way, we speak of becoming a ‘Eucharistic people’ through the consumption of consecrated bread and wine – the initial suggestion does have a ring of truth to it that is worth pursuing. From another perspective, we can call upon the wisdom of St Augustine where he suggests that instead of a Eucharistic Minister administering Communion and saying ‘The Body of Christ’ to which the recipient says ‘Amen’, one could simply offer the bread saying ‘Receive who you are’.

Obviously, this idea never caught on and became standard liturgical practice…but it does have a lovely sentiment which speaks to what Harmon is getting at when she suggests that we ‘become the Psalm’. It stands to reason that, we who receive the richness of the psalms, particularly via singing them, are transformed by their beauty and in just the same way we aspire to become a Eucharistic or even a ‘Gospel’ people…we can become a ‘Psalm’ people, who like Jesus, not only sing the psalms, but like Jesus too, find our fulfillment and discover our own story of salvation within their words. Here lies the foundation of a spirituality for any music minister…which includes the assembly who are of course the primary singing voice of any Liturgical celebration!

But singing the responsorial psalm at Mass isn’t the only place where the Psalms can be sung. The Liturgy of the Hours is perhaps a far more concentrated place where one can be exposed to the psalms…to the songs of Jesus.

For many parishes in Australia [if not elsewhere], the Liturgy of the Hours is a foreign Liturgical practice. If it is celebrated, it often doesn’t include singing, but instead, involves a small group of people speaking a series of psalms, Canticles and responses. Is it possible for this limited experience of the Liturgy of the Hours to change? Is it possible for the number of people exposed to this beautiful and powerful tradition of our Church to increase? Is it possible for the way in which the Liturgy of the Hours is currently celebrated [by and large, in a spoken capacity] to become a Liturgy that is predominately sung?

Sacrosanctum Concillium states that the Liturgy of the Hours is composed and performed by the church but because of the Church’s union with Christ, the Head, he claims the prayer as his own, so that when the Church sings the Liturgy of the Hours, he himself is wholly engaged before God. “It is the very prayer which Christ himself together with his Body addresses to the Father” (CSL 84). The extension of this is that we become the body of Christ in offering and becoming the Psalms to God.

Elsewhere, in the General Instruction of the Liturgy of the Hours, we read the Hours is the counterpart of Jesus “singing his divine song of praise” throughout eternity (GILH 16).

Can the Liturgy of the Hours become a staple part of Parish liturgical life? My previous post ‘Evening Prayer: Reclaiming and living our Liturgical Tradition’ speaks to this question and offers some practical steps as to how this might be played out [not just in a parish setting, but school and domestic settings too]. Essentially, I feel change will not come, unless people are exposed to the Hours in a positive and well organised way.

Do we dare take the risk and rise to the challenge of singing the songs of Jesus? Walking in the steps of Jesus is often a hard thing to do…actually singing the Psalms that Jesus sang and fulfilled through his incarnation, likewise, is a challenge. But the gauntlet is down. Before us we have a treasure trove of psalmody that is the gateway to a spirituality that we can claim as our own to further and sustain our faith journey and ministry. The avenues to pursue the psalms lie in the form of the Responsorial Psalm and the Liturgy of the Hours.

The idea and image of a singing Jesus is hopefully now more real. We too, can sing the songs of Jesus [in the form of the Psalms] and become empowered and enriched by his song.

What a song to sing!