I read with keen interest your articles in the Fall issue, 1990, on music. I found it informative but somewhat disingenuous. The claim by Dr. Hamel that "jazz, rock, and their variants are the music that is used almost exclusively in night clubs, taverns, discotheques, brothels, etc.," makes light of the fact that our own church hymnal carried tunes taken from songs originally sung in exactly such places 100 years ago. And, as even Dr. Hamel will attest, many classical pieces now played in church were taken from secular works which were just as damning as any modern day rock group. (How would Richard Wagner feel to know that excerpts from his very unchristian Lohengrin made it to the top of the charts in Christian wedding services!)
The Torres's article was, I believe, an honest attempt to explore the subject of music. But, again, one comes away with the idea that the only kind of music in heaven will be a white, Anglo-Saxon Protestant (and Catholic) Bach/Beethoven/Handel cantata. Any beat which is syncopated, or anything other than one found in the church hymnal, must be from the devil.
While I was at Andrews, one Sabbath at Pioneer Memorial, I remember listening to Dr. C. Warren Becker play a song while the congregation filed out. I sat spellbound. By the time of the grand finale, all the organ stops were open. It seemed like the whole building was vibrating. While it was only a feeling, I felt like I was in heaven. And frankly, looking back, I don't recall what the sermon was about (actually, I can't recall many sermons there, anyway). And yet, the majority of the people just kept on filing out of the church, missing the blessing—or so I thought, when in fact, what "turned me on" didn't affect them the same way. Who is to say that they should have stayed? For the record, most of the sanctuary music I found—well, uninspiring to say the least. But I found a great blessing listening to the black gospel choir, Chapter One, and the Heritage Singers. And yet, I have heard conservative Adventists put down music groups like the Heritage Singers because they figured they used drums and bass guitars, and had a "worldly" sound. And the criticism is all done in the name of Jesus (and Handel, and Bach).
While at Andrews, I asked an Ethiopian friend, who was a student in the seminary, to sing me a Christian song from his country. He said, "You won't understand." He was right. The melody line didn't fit my western tastes. Nor does the music from many of the other cultures. But, judging from the Torres's argument, music with rhythms not found in the hymnal are suspect. One cannot but recall the debacle in India when the architects for the new college church at Spicer College were instructed to have the building patterned after Pioneer Memorial Church, instead of anything indigenous to India.
"Praise God in His sanctuary; praise Him in His mighty heavens. Praise Him with the sounding trumpet, praise Him with the harp and lyre, praise Him with tambourine and dancing, praise Him with the strings and flute, praise Him with the clash of cymbals, praise Him with resounding cymbals. Let everything that has breath praise the Lord. Praise the Lord" (Psalm 150, NIV).
H. Schubert Palmer, M.D.
Pasadena, California
Dr. Palmer correctly notes that some of our traditional hymn tunes were taken from secular sources. For instance, Martin Luther used folk-song tunes for a few of the hymns sung in the Reformation era. Luther intended Christians to sing—a new experience for former Catholics, whose church had not fostered congregational singing. In fact, untrained people could not sing polyphonic music, the dominant church music of the time. A hymn style and familiar (secular) tunes made it possible for the formerly mute Christians to sing.
Luther, however, refined the music he found and often provided new harmonizations, thereby helping to neutralize the original secular associations. Certain folk-like melodies might be used today under some circumstances, but our situation is not the same as Luther's, and such songs ought not to be a part of a formal worship service.
The implied analogy between 19th century secular music being brought into the church and the tendency of some today to bring in contemporary music overlooks an important distinction. The emotional and physical impact of popular secular music in the 19th century was not nearly as compelling as are the extremes in contemporary popular music. Today rock groups effectively use high electronic amplification, synthetic tone production, and the complex rhythms of which modern percussion instruments are capable. Perhaps no melodic line is inherently wicked nor four-part harmonization unacceptable. Nor can I conceive of a series of chords that would be objectionable in themselves. But practically any melody with chordal progressions can be adapted and modified by modern jazz, "pop," and rock groups to a style associated with unacceptable, un-Christian kinds of behavior. That style of performance would be out of place in church, regardless of how orthodox the words might be.
This is the issue to which my article was addressed, and it should not be clouded by references to other kinds of music.
But I will comment on a couple of the examples Dr. Palmer cited. When the wedding march from Lohengrin is played, probably 99% of those at the wedding ceremony do not know that the libretto is based upon concepts far from Christian ideals. Those few who might know the story of the opera could have a problem of association when hearing the music in a church setting. Some Seventh-day Adventist church musicians object to its use, but others are willing to perform it in a wedding ceremony. Though it was not created for a sacred purpose, it is music that was artistically composed, in contrast to what is occasionally heard in our churches today.
Many Protestant hymnals include hymns with music selected from serious (i.e. classical) secular musical sources. For example, "My Jesus, As Thou Wilt" is set to music from Carl Maria von Weber's overture to Der Freischütz, the libretto of which is almost totally pagan. The hymnal editors were surely aware of this, but correctly assumed that only a tiny minority in any church congregation would be acquainted with the original words and would be offended. The music itself is totally innocent; its style resembles any number of sacred (and secular) compositions from the same era.
I cannot agree with Dr. Palmer that the use in church of the music he mentioned, or any comparable compositions, is "just as damning as any modern day rock group." Melody, nor even harmony, is not the issue, but rather the manner in which the music can be performed and the moods or emotions evoked.