Sacred Music Should Be Worthwhile Music-Part 1

       Sacred Music Should Always Be Worthwhile Music-Part 1 

 

 We are beginning a series of posts on the worth of music.  Remember that there will be no attempt to draw definite conclusions at the end of each post.  Therefore, it will be necessary to read a ny posts that you have missed before continuing.

       Richard DeVinney once said, “Try talking less about “good” music and “bad” music and talk more about profound, rich, powerful, dynamic, intense music and pale, trite, banal, obvious, weak, tired music.  Talk about what music can offer that goes beyond a tickling of the eardrums or a tug at the memory” There’s More to Church Music than Meets the Ear, p. 53.  I believe that there is merit in what he was saying about sacred music. However, in his book, he did not define just what each of the terms mean in terms of what is “good” and “bad” music.

        I have often said that it is much more productive to first find out what is right about sacred music before one identifies the elements of a particular music that are a hindrance to sacred musicing.  Studying musical error first is much like studying comparative theology before one has studied the fundamental doctrines taught in the Bible.  Unless the Christian musician has an understanding of the basic Bible principles of musicing unto a holy infinite God, he or she is not equipped to evaluate sacred music in terms of what is good, bad, appropriate, or inappropriate.  Along with a thorough study of what the Bible teaches about music, one also needs to study music history, music theory, and the history of church music (both ancient and modern) before attempting to evaluate the formal properties of church music.