Imposing Preferences
In the conflict over fundamentalism and culture, meta-debate seems to have overshadowed debate. Healthy debate is what occurs when two parties look at the real points of disagreement between them and try to support their own position on those points.
Meta-debate is what happens when we debate about matters surrounding the debate. At its best meta-debate may help clarify and focus the real debate when it happens. It may lead to healthy debate. But it is not the debate itself, because the real points of disagreement are not in focus.
But meta-debate quite often breeds confusion and makes the truly differing claims and supporting arguments less clear rather than more clear. This sort of meta-debate takes many forms from trading insults, to assigning ideas to the other side that they don’t really hold, to framing the debate itself in a way that obscures its true nature.
One example of the latter is the phrase “imposing preferences.”
I’ve been hearing this term for years and still hear it quite often. If you’ve used it in communication with me recently, please don’t think I’m targeting you specifically. It’s an expression that has long lived in my “If I’ve heard it once, I’ve heard it a thousand times” file.
But if there is ever going to be progress in the culture and tradition debate, it’ll happen when we get down to the real points of disagreement. And that process begins by identifying what we really don’t disagree about.
“Imposing preferences,” is a classic example of one item we should agree to dismiss as unhelpful meta-debate. To put it another way, Christians on all sides of the culture-and-fundamentalism conflict (which focuses mainly on the styles of music used in worship, along with clothing styles and forms of entertainment) ought to agree that the debate is really not about imposing preferences. Here’s why.
A loaded term
The phrase “imposing their preferences” is heavily freighted. “Imposing” suggests an illegitimate exercise of authority or raw power over unwilling victims. “Preferences” implies that what is being “imposed” is nothing more than personal taste. It’s as though congregational worship is a pizza buffet where random individuals insist that pizzas must be topped only with meat and cheese, not veggies or—perish the thought—fungi. The random preference-imposers make such a stink that even though 99% of those present either love mushrooms or don’t care about toppings at all, the rules of the few oppress all.
But is the debate really about whether random minorities of Christians should bully their churches into conforming to their tastes? Is this scenario really part of the debate (vs. meta-debate) at all?
Let’s take a closer look at “imposing preferences.”
“Imposing”
In local churches, God has ordained that carefully selected leaders have oversight over worship. They are not to be “domineering” (ESV, 1 Pet. 5:3) but are to “rule,” and the congregation’s response is to “obey” (Heb. 13:17). The reason obedience is required is that these leaders are responsible before God for, at the very least, the basic quality and integrity of what the church does. The authority derives from the responsibility.
Further, though these leaders are responsible and authoritative, they remain accountable to some degree to the congregation at large (1 Tim. 5:1, Gal. 1:8-9, 1Tim.3:1-7, etc.). As believers we are all responsible to some degree for our church’s obedience to Scripture.
In that light, it may help to consider two facts, then a conclusion.
- Fact 1: “Imposing” only occurs when authority is used illegitimately.
- Fact 2: Illegitimate use of authority is not a tenet of cultural conservatism or cultural non-conservatism or any of the views in between.
- Therefore, “imposing” is irrelevant to the debate.
Whenever “imposing” something enters the discussion, we have entered into another debate entirely: how authority should be exercised in the church and in para-church ministries. It’s an important debate, to be sure, but a separate one from culture, meaning, styles and worship.
“Preferences”
What exactly is a “preference”? In the phrase “imposing their preferences,” as commonly used, the meaning is usually something like this: what you like or enjoy more than other options that differ in no important way. The term assumes that the options on the table are equal in every way that matters, so all that’s left is your personal taste. To revisit he pizza buffet analogy, who’s to say if pizza is better with or without green peppers and mushrooms? You like (a.k.a. “prefer”) what you like, and I like what I like.
The problem with this way of framing the issue is that those who are particular about music styles used for worship do not see the options as being equal in every way but personal taste. In fact, as they see it, what they like or enjoy is not the issue at all. It isn’t about whether they like pepper or mushrooms; it’s about what sort of buffet this is supposed to be.
Another analogy may be helpful. To those who are particular about the music styles that are suitable for worship—and especially those who favor traditional styles over popular ones—the options on the table differ in ways unrelated to taste and far more important than taste. It isn’t a pizza buffet, it’s an Italian dinner, and the options are lasagna, chicken catetori, and shrimp primavera vs. hot dogs, burgers, and hot wings. Arguably, both menus have their place, but at an Italian Dinner, personal taste is not the decisive factor in choosing between these menus.
The “preferences” characterization overlooks another important reality: though not everyone is particular about music styles used for worship, everybody is particular about music-style policy. Traditionalists want to limit musical choices to more time-tested forms, but non-traditionalists want to operate free of that restriction. Both strongly “prefer” something and usually want to see their preference become church (or university, camp, school, etc.) policy.
There is no preference-free option here.
So where does all of this lead our thinking? If we define “preferences” as matters of choice among options that differ in no important way, nobody on either side of the music debate is in favor of that. On the other hand, if we define “preferences” as what we believe to be right, everybody in the music debate favors that.
So, just as “imposing” proved to be irrelevant to the real debate, so “preferences” has no place in the debate either. As soon as we go there, we’ve stepped into some aspect of meta-debate and are no longer addressing any points of actual disagreement.
Forward
At this point in the culture conflict, it would be a great step forward if believers of all perspectives were to grant that the best proponents of both views (and those between) are not aiming to force personal whims on anyone (much less everyone), but desire instead to see their churches and ministries do what honors God and truly blesses His people.
To be sure, there are advocates in the conflict who are selfish, mean spirited, and intellectually lazy. Because they haven’t given the matter much thought, they are, by default, imposing their preferences (whether in the form of excluding contemporary styles or including them). But we can easily find people like that on both sides of any debate in human—including Christian—history. If we look at the best representatives of all the views involved we’re on track toward clarity and a much more fruitful debate.
Aaron Blumer Bio
Aaron Blumer, SharperIron’s second publisher, is a Michigan native and graduate of Bob Jones University (Greenville, SC) and Central Baptist Theological Seminary (Plymouth, MN). He and his family live in a small town in western Wisconsin, not far from where he pastored Grace Baptist Church for thirteen years. He is employed in customer service for UnitedHealth Group and teaches high school rhetoric (and sometimes logic and government) at Baldwin Christian School.
- 178 views
Great article especially the last paragraph. Many who avoid contemporary styles of music prefer old gospel songy wishy washiness. And that in of itself is just yesterdays CCM. These same individuals don’t notice when you take a modern CCM song and remove the trap set and electric guitar. Because when one does that their really is no difference between yesterday’s gospel song and todays CCM. This is where, I believe the imposing preferences argument derives from. The way I see it, CCM isn’t an issue about pragmatism or necessarily a new issue at all. It is just a modernized version of an old issue. The use of subjective, insubstantial, emotively formed music in the worship of God.
Well, that is one of the true points of relevant debate, I think. Or pretty close. To the newest leaders of cultural conservatism, the pop music of early 20th century is little better than the pop of today. I think, though that they would not say the same of popular music in, say, 17th century. My understanding of their POV is that this is because “popular culture” really didn’t exist until after certain technologies resulted in mass marketing.
I recall reading this in Bauder. So the theory is that with the advent of mass marketing and mass communication, you have a new kind of culture that is much more vulnerable to lower influences.
I can see some truth in that. But I wonder if the culture dominated by smaller numbers of well educated, more disciplined leaders was really better. I’m inclined to think it would be.
Just listen to a few “random man on the street” interviews and it shouldn’t be all that hard to see why.
If the broad road leads to destruction and that road is the popular road, quite a few implications flow from that.
I’m not sure I’d say there “really is no difference” though, because the culture has a trajectory and it is not in the same place today it was early 20th century or mid 19th century, etc. So “popular then” can be driven by very different values and ideas than “popular now,” at least in some ways. So the assertion that preferring older pop to new pop is just a matter of “preferences” (taste only) is pretty iffy.
It seems to me that by now the points of agreement in the debate ought to include that what’s popular has to be viewed with suspicion, that the culture of mass marketing is markedly lower than the culture that preceded it in the west, and at a more basic level: that styles carry cultural beliefs-and-values baggage for a long time (and may never really be free of it).
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
I suppose I should correct my statement. I don’t necessarily think gospel song and CCM are completely equivalent, as you are correct what drives todays culture is worse then what drove yesterdays culture, the point I was trying to make is that the gospel song movement was driven by the same things the CCM movement is today. The CCM movement, I think, is just a direct result of the Gospel song movement just not “working” anymore, they are both as I said earlier “subjective, insubstantial, and emotively formed” that just looks different in the different cultures, but we should be avoiding those things in the worship of God in all cultures regardless of what it may look like externally.
Also the subject of history of culture, specifically pop-culture is also prevalent to the issue. You got a piece of it in what you said about the invention of mass media, but that is not whole thing. The emergence of pop-culture also has a lot to do with the emergence of youth-culture one could even say they are the same thing. Here is an interesting secular article about the history of Youth-Culture.
http://www.faqs.org/childhood/Wh-Z-and-other-topics/Youth-Culture.html
I agree that the productivity of debate is diminished when we are too invested in ‘winning’ instead of honestly considering another POV.
Personally, I think it is fine to say “I’m not sure, but this is where my conscience leads me.” We are formed by our experiences, and associations are often deeply personal. I can’t always provide concrete Scriptural evidence (although I can provide a connect-the-dots picture) for the choices I make, but I know my own heart and mind well enough to know what to avoid and what to embrace for my own spiritual health and mental well-being. I would, on the surface, fit into Joel’s Type A labeling system, but I have met too many other letters of the alphabet who loved God and earnestly sought to please Him to think that only certain Fundy-approved cultural practices perfected one’s faith or evidenced spiritual maturity.
The bottom line for me is that there is nothing new under the sun. Everything was ‘pop culture’ at some point. Old is not necessarily better- no one who has read a significant number of autobiographies, letters, and memoirs of folks from way back when will think that folks were more virtuous in the olden days. They may have been sneakier because societal norms were more restrictive, but is that really better? Today folks are much more open about what they want and like and do, and quite frankly, I prefer knowing where people stand. It’s a trade-off, for sure.
In any case, I think it would be more helpful to examine culture- clothing, songs, methods, etc… by Scriptural principle and stop using ‘old’ and ‘new’ as measures of propriety. And ditto church culture- “Dr. Samuel J. Snodgrass was a great man of God and he said…” or “we are returning to them there old-fashioned ways” is just as sad an excuse as “it’s new and nifty”.
[Aaron Blumer]It seems to me that by now the points of agreement in the debate ought to include that what’s popular has to be viewed with suspicion, that the culture of mass marketing is markedly lower than the culture that preceded it in the west, and at a more basic level: that styles carry cultural beliefs-and-values baggage for a long time (and may never really be free of it).
Even though I may grasp onto newer culture quicker than some people, I think that all can say here that we have to view all things carefully. With that said, one area where this has translated for me outside of the music debate is around writing. I am watching this in my children. We were taught to write in cursive. My kids are not taught this in school. I can lament (and I have to some degree) that this is a lost art and modern children should appreciate it. But at the end of the day, kids aren’t writing with a paper and pen for the most part anyway. All of my kids projects have to be typed up, and my two oldest kids (11 and 14) are actually faster at typing than writing. So I have to sit back and say why am I lamenting? Is learning to write good grammar, know how to spell things very important? Yes, but are they a necessary? Modern tools and techniques have diminished these things. I see it in their texting, when they use LOL and IDK. The culture has moved from this long drawn out prose, to shorter clips of discussion. At first, I was resistant to it, but finally I said, do I want them to be ready for the world, or to isolate them entirely into a more superior past? Some people would argue that they need to learn to write in the standards of Shakespeare and others. But in the end I will just end up isolating him to some degree if I don’t expose him to the modern culture. I know music carries slightly different issues. But just because LOL is far inferior to the classics in many senses, doesn’t mean it isn’t something we should resist. In some cases the focus on social communication in short burst of text with tagging, can actually be argued to be superior over longer writing in some circumstances, especially the way that communication is being mined fed.
David,
You are following right along the lines Aaron tried to draw out in the article. You have compared a cultural issue that no one sees as a right/wrong issue with another one where one side does see a right/wrong discussion. This is part of the meta-debate, not the real debate. The real debate is not whether we should allow culturally neutral issues to pass by unopposed, but whether music is a culturally neutral issue in the first place.
Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?
Aaron,
It was precisely this sort of reasoning that led the Puritans to adopt the Regulative Principle of Worship. For those unfamiliar, the RPW states that public worship may contain only those those elements that are explicitly commanded in Scripture or necessarily inferred from it. What is not commanded is forbidden. That seems very restrictive. But it was originally championed in the name of Christian liberty. How can this paradox be explained?
In the Reformation, most of the Protestants were not so much being prohibited from worshiping as being forced into worshiping in what they thought were superstitious or blasphemous ways. In medieval towns, one was forced to observe a whole slew of customs and rituals. One of the inciting moments of the Swiss Reformation was when certain Zurichers publicly broke the Lenten fast, for which at least some of them were arrested. They were making a radical claim, that they were free to fast or not to fast because the Bible did not command fasting. This was radical because the medieval church claimed the authority to establish the rules of worship and piety, as well as the authority to enforce them.
Thus one of the Swiss Reformation principles was holding to the ministerial rather than magisterial authority of the Church. The Church has no legislative branch; it can at most interpret and apply the laws it receives from God. The Reformed Churches defined liberty as the freedom to follow the commands of the Bible, and only of the Bible. Thus, liberty can be violated as easily by “You must do this” as by “You may not do this.”
The Puritans merely carried this idea the farthest. They operated under two additional assumptions: 1) that laity were normally obliged to obey their church leaders; and 2) that people were obligated to participate in public worship. Thus, the RPW is addressed to church leaders, but designed to protect the laity from church leaders. It tells church leaders they MAY NOT do anything in public worship that is not in Scripture, because that would place the laity in the position of either acquiescing to “strange fire” or resisting the authority of the Church leaders.
Now, my purpose here isn’t to defend the RPW, but to show how it arises from similar considerations to the ones expressed in the OP. There is no “preference-free” option, in the sense that some things will be done and other things not done. How then to choose which preference? The Puritan answer is to eliminate it entirely.
My Blog: http://dearreaderblog.com
Cor meum tibi offero Domine prompte et sincere. ~ John Calvin
How then to choose which preference? The Puritan answer is to eliminate it entirely.
But even this doesn’t work. Here is an exchange between John Frame and Darryl Hart about the RPW and what exactly it means. Frame is a proponent of contemporary music and Hart is not. Both claim the RPW and they disagree about how it applies.
Which is simply to say that even appealing to the RPW does not necessarily answer the question of preference.
I think Aaron is right that talk about “preference” is missing the point since it assumes the conclusion. This may not be a matter of mere preference. Those who hold their position (whichever it is), do so out of conscience.
I’m not trying to instigate anything by re-igniting the music discussions here, but I wanted to point out something here that I think Aaron didn’t deal with or glossed over.
As someone who came from a musically conservative culture early on (I still have my WILDS, Northern Lights, and SoundForth CDs; I also still have Fisher, Makujina, Aniol, and other authors as well - and do listen to / re-read them occasionally), I eventually started to feel like a lot of the argumentation for the ‘conservative’ music style was a series of unspoken and strung together logical principles, with very little appeal to Scripture directly.
Here are some of the major talking points for the ‘conservative’ side:
- We need to be separate from the world (I agree with this)
- Separation from the world applies to music, especially music in a church setting, but there is little discussion of how that principle would apply in other spheres (dress, movies, books, etc)
- We need to avoid ‘rock’ music (with little definition of ‘rock’ and a seeming inability to discuss other forms of music like country music, jazz, big band, alternative, etc)
- We need to avoid current musicians with doctrinal issues, but we’re OK now to use hymns written by people who had doctrinal issues from years ago
- The ___________________ form is that which best communicates Biblical truth (without Scriptural support)
- An avoidance of how conservative musical principles in the US / Canada would vary (if they do) from other cultures that do not have an British / American background
- A tacit disregard for Sola Scriptura (well, the Bible is good, but you really need to hear Dr. Snodgrass’ presentation on chord structures in music to understand why it’s sinful)
- The consistent appeal to ‘what I want’ or ‘my rights’ in corporate worship settings
- The consistent arguments to separate from men that are doctrinally sound due to the musical style they enjoy (contra 1 Cor. 1, 3; Jas 4)
- The consistent argument that ‘modern’ music guys are either ignorant or selfish (It has been argued that we’re the ones that are ‘imposing our rights’ on the conservatives or that because we aren’t musicians, we can’t know what we’re talking about)
- An appeal to ‘separate’ from music or musicians in an extra-relational setting (how does separation work when all I know of some men is what they’ve published, sung, or written?)
So if I’m right and a lot of those points are separated from Scripture, then at what point does it become legitimate to say that some of these arguments are, indeed, preferential and imposed on congregations that are simply following what their leaders are saying either because they believe in and trust their pastor, because they can’t/won’t ask questions that they have about how this works, or because they haven’t really thought deeply enough to engage with either side’s arguments? Especially when most of the men in this discussion are pastors or elders?
I completely agree with Aaron that the Pastor/Elder of a congregation is responsible for guiding a church in corporate worship. I completely agree that music communicates. I completely agree that worship is primarily offered by the congregation, as directed by the Pastor, and is aimed at the Lord (and should not be driven by what the congregation themselves want or what is appealing to ‘seekers’. Several of us ‘modern’ advocates have written (rather extensively, IMO) to build a scriptural framework for what we do on SharperIron. Yet it seems like that doesn’t matter at all - the ‘conservative’ position is the correct one and therefore the ‘modern’ position must be in error even though several of the exegetical posts we have made have been bypassed. We’re the ones dealing with Colossians 3, Ephesians 5, Romans 14, etc.
Again, I’m not trying to stir up the music debate, but I do think that there is a time to play the ‘imposition of preferences’ card, especially since we all, in theory, do believe in the individual priesthood of the believer. If you’re prepared to separate over something without a solid Scriptural basis for the sin that they are committing, then you aren’t ‘separating’ - you’re dividing the Body, and there’s a difference there.
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
[Larry]How then to choose which preference? The Puritan answer is to eliminate it entirely.
But even this doesn’t work. Here is an exchange between John Frame and Darryl Hart about the RPW and what exactly it means. Frame is a proponent of contemporary music and Hart is not. Both claim the RPW and they disagree about how it applies.
Which is simply to say that even appealing to the RPW does not necessarily answer the question of preference.
A few things:
1. Arguments over interpretation and application do not undermine validity in principle. Otherwise, arguments over interpreting and applying the Bible would invalidate sola scriptura. (This is in fact the claim of Christian Smith, The Bible Made Impossible and Brad Gregory, The Unintended Reformation.)
2. Frame disagrees with the Puritan RPW, and he is aware of this fact. He goes into lengths on this in his book Worship in Spirit and Truth. So the debate you reference is not really about the RPW, but about whether one should prefer the traditional teaching vs. Frame’s modification.
3. My point is that the Puritan method is an eliminative one. Many (probably not all) of the arguments we have over public worship concern things not explicitly commanded or necessarily inferred from Scripture. These things can more easily be labeled “preference.” The Puritan tendency is to eliminate areas where preference comes into play. The goal is to have a worship service that contains no elements than any reasonable Christian would object to.
I offer the RPW as an example of one way a group of Christians tried to deal with the issues at hand. That’s all. I think it’s important to bring it up because the Protestant tradition has been aware of this issue of imposing preferences since its very founding. Indeed, most contemporary scholars think that the primary aim of the Swiss Reformation was not justification by faith, but restoring purity of worship and casting out idolatry. See Heiko Oberman, The Two Reformations and Carlos Eire, War Against the Idols.
My Blog: http://dearreaderblog.com
Cor meum tibi offero Domine prompte et sincere. ~ John Calvin
Thanks, Charlie. I am relatively underinformed about the RPW which is a caution to me to speak carefully (if at all). I have read Hart and Meuther on worship and Frame (but CWM and WST), along with some other stuff, but I know next to nothing. So all, please understand my comments are very tentative.
1. I agree. My point was not that the RPW wasn’t valid (I think it is), but that people apply it differently. Some RPW folks even use it to argue for exclusive psalmody; Hart seems to come close to this, but doesn’t fully espouse it, though it seems he prefers it (not sure about that). So there seems disagreement about what exactly the RPW does.
2. Yes. Frame goes to some length early in that debate to compare the historical formulation with the normative. Hart seems unpersuaded by the relevance of this. Frame seems to be arguing that his view is merely another iteration of the RPW which already underwent many interations.
3. Yes. But isn’t the debate not over elements, but over forms or circumstances? Both Frame and Hart agree that music is an element, which is mandated by Scripture; we have to sing. However, the particulars of music choices (including style according to Frame; limited primarily to texts according to Hart) is a form or circumstance which is not mandated by Scripture; we have freedom of variety on that. The exclusive psalmodists would disagree with Hart, and likely with Frame though I am not sure.
So here’s my question: Does an appeal to the RPW solve as much as some people think it does, at least practically? Could people on all sides (contemporary, traditional/conservative, exclusive psalmodists) agree on the principle of the RPW while maintaining legitimate differences in application?
I am not sure, but I tend to think they can, at least to some degree.
Also, does a strict RPW require exclusive psalmody? It seems that it should, but I know that most do not. Any insight on that?
[Chip Van Emmerik]David,
You are following right along the lines Aaron tried to draw out in the article. You have compared a cultural issue that no one sees as a right/wrong issue with another one where one side does see a right/wrong discussion. This is part of the meta-debate, not the real debate. The real debate is not whether we should allow culturally neutral issues to pass by unopposed, but whether music is a culturally neutral issue in the first place.
Chip, I would argue that there is a decent amount of people who view this as a right or wrong issue. You have those who hold to the Classical education system, who would view this as a real issue. My English college professors would argue that there is a right or wrong here as well. Is Shakespeare really better than LOL, or different? To me the deeper argument as well is whether even culturally inferior is morally wrong.
This post has no value I suppose other than to say that I’m no ignoring you all. It’ll be a while before I have a chance to respond as I’d like. Probably not until this evening.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
[dgszweda]To me the deeper argument as well is whether even culturally inferior is morally wrong.
Yes. The “CCM” / “anti CCM” issue is surface in many ways - we have to go much deeper than that if this is ever going to be resolved. Of course, you have to be able to argue from Scripture what is and isn’t ‘culturally inferior’, too.
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
Discussion