I was recently sent the following Donald Hustad quote from a friend working on a paper.
Music intended for congregational use should be popular (i.e. non-professional) because the intent is for participation by the congregation, which requires forms that the common person can sing/participate with. I don't think he is saying "professional" music can't or shouldn't be used in church (i.e. as solos, etc), just not as elements we would expect everyone in the body to participate in. (NOTE: when I say "professional" music I mean music that typically requires being sung or played by someone who has professional training due to it's complexity & difficulty).
After that I think he is also saying that when music is used in church (of any style/genre, etc) it takes on in peoples minds a "sacred" or religious connection because of its use in church. Incidently, I think this is why it is always important to carefully think through all the elements we use in our worship services. Because, simply by using them in church many people will attach to it religious symbolism and/or see its use as an endorsement of the element. An example might be like using a movie clip as a sermon point. The clip from the movie might be very relevant for the sermon, but some will perhaps see using the clip as the church endorsing the entire movie (theme, content, etc), which may not really be the case.
The rest of the quote basically says that what we consider "traditional"
today was, in its day, contemporary & popular and not always accepted as appropriate at the time. But after time goes by what once was contemporary music gets surpassed by something more contemporary until it eventually becomes "that good old stuff we used to sing". And so we have an endless cycle.
"'Common' church music - that which is intended for congregational participation - must always be 'popular', that is to say, simple and non-professional. When used in worship, this music assumes by association a sacral symbolism. It becomes 'sacred' music language. In any period of spiritual renewal, old symbols frequently lose their meaning and new ones must be sought. Obviously, they will be found outside the church, and because they must be 'common' or 'popular,' they will come from secular folk song and even from commercial entertainment music. In the evangelistic thrust of renewal, the fresh 'secular-becomes-sacred' song becomes an effective vehicle for witness to the uncommitted. The newly adopted secular language eventually gains a new sacrilization and becomes the norm for divine worship. It remains so until another spiritual revival displaces it. In the theological rational, one might say that this process demonstrates the church's willingness to be forever incarnational, to identify with "the world" and to transform it for Christ."I thought I'd post my best shot at interpreting (and perhaps adding a few things to) the quote. After re-reading it I think there is much more to be mined from this quote than my few comments, so feel free to add any additional thoughts you might have. Here goes:
Music intended for congregational use should be popular (i.e. non-professional) because the intent is for participation by the congregation, which requires forms that the common person can sing/participate with. I don't think he is saying "professional" music can't or shouldn't be used in church (i.e. as solos, etc), just not as elements we would expect everyone in the body to participate in. (NOTE: when I say "professional" music I mean music that typically requires being sung or played by someone who has professional training due to it's complexity & difficulty).
After that I think he is also saying that when music is used in church (of any style/genre, etc) it takes on in peoples minds a "sacred" or religious connection because of its use in church. Incidently, I think this is why it is always important to carefully think through all the elements we use in our worship services. Because, simply by using them in church many people will attach to it religious symbolism and/or see its use as an endorsement of the element. An example might be like using a movie clip as a sermon point. The clip from the movie might be very relevant for the sermon, but some will perhaps see using the clip as the church endorsing the entire movie (theme, content, etc), which may not really be the case.
The rest of the quote basically says that what we consider "traditional"
today was, in its day, contemporary & popular and not always accepted as appropriate at the time. But after time goes by what once was contemporary music gets surpassed by something more contemporary until it eventually becomes "that good old stuff we used to sing". And so we have an endless cycle.
