THE extensive use of music in all facets of life today has left many with differing opinions and confused standards as to what music is acceptable for church and other sacred usage. Can there be some definite principles to define these areas? I am happy there are so many questions regarding sacred music; it indicates a sincere desire to evaluate and choose what is right in the sight of God.
It has been shown in previous articles that certain kinds of music lumped together under the heading "jazz" have no place in the life of a Christian. Logically therefore, this type of music could have no legitimate place in religious services. I am sure all of my readers have noticed the invasion of Christian music by certain techniques of the entertainment world. This is deplorable! Gospel music and its performance have been infiltrated by musical devices of Hollywood and the night club. To dress up gospel melodies in the garments of show business simply debases and cheapens the gospel.
There should be a clear distinction between the secular and the sacred in music. Using popular music devices, such as guitars amplified loudly, discords, gliding effects in singing, crooning, operatic style, excessive rhythmic devices, imitating popular singers and styles, does nothing to enhance the worship service.
Common sense dictates that sacred association be quite separate and distinct from secular. Language is different, architecture is generally distinguishable, even the seats are different. Practically no one would walk into a church, look at the pulpit, and think he was in a theater. So it should be with the music. There is a great danger in making no distinction between the secular and the sacred, or in introducing secular methods in our religious music. There are traditional features about religious music that any educated man recognizes as belonging to the church, while there are secular qualities that the world recognizes as having no place inside a church or at a religious meeting.
Some performers of religious music leave a great deal to be desired. Crooning in the popular style brings the music down to a mundane level. Sometimes the only indication of the music being religious is the words. The dignity of religion calls for a higher type of song. Gospel songs should not be sung like sentimental love songs. Some religious records are sold in which the precious doctrines of redemption are unequally yoked with movie theater music or sung in the mood of cocktail hour ballads or accompanied on the organ, piano, or guitar as if in a night club.
The fact that TV and radio entertainers often sing religious music has helped to break down the line of demarcation between the sacred and secular. Therefore, we should be all the more careful to keep out of all our religious meetings these definite influences which belong to the entertainment world rather than to worship.
To play hymns and gospel songs without embellishment is sufficient. Attempts at bizarre effects may tickle the ear, but are hardly devotional. Sacred music is ideally best when far removed from secular suggestions.
It is right that we should enjoy music, such as Beethoven's symphonies and Strauss's tone poems, and it is also right that we should enjoy a lighter type of music, provided that it does not weaken our love for spiritual things. The danger lies in making no distinction between the secular and sacred, or introducing secular methods in sacred music.
The King James Bible has never been surpassed as literature because its style has none of the mannerisms of cheap, colloquial literature. So true religious music, both in itself and in the manner of performance, should never make use of the passing devices and mannerisms of the currently popular music of the world.
Paul's statement in Romans 12:2 is very appropriate today: "Don't let the world around you squeeze you into its own mold" (Phillips).*