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.

Discussion

Preferential Imposition transcends culture, of course, and can include any number of other issues like KJV-onlyism. That topic should be much easier to honestly debate because there are (should be?) far more Bible scholars than there are expert Christian Musicians (and by expert, I don’t mean the common names in the Fighting Fundamentalist Top 40). I think what might make the music conversation more difficult to debate is that many Christian musicians aren’t the best at verbal and written communication - they are experts at music.

But, that being said, Satan has continued to use the preference versus conviction nature of KJV-onlyism to fuel fighting with which neither side should be content. Even us lay-people could probably make a list, if we thought about it hard enough, of what in the Bible Versions Debate is mere meta-debate. Or could we?

V/r

Ashamed of Jesus! of that Friend On whom for heaven my hopes depend! It must not be! be this my shame, That I no more revere His name. -Joseph Grigg (1720-1768)

[Jay]

[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.

I think that no matter where you sit on the fence of the cultural issues of music, we can all agree that the words need to be theologically, doctrinally correct and God exalting. So then it comes down to musical styles and whether one is better than the other. Which comes down to culture, its impact and so on. I think what I have always had a struggle with was whether something “new” or something “culturally inferior” is morally wrong, or even preferentially wrong, or if we try to find arguments that fit our comfort zone. I tried to use language, since that is dramatically undergoing a culture shift much more than music is. While, personally, I am frustrated that my kids communicate using LOL, or only in tidbits of texts, can I really turn to them and say it is bad? I don’t like it. I might even think it is bad. But is it really? I lead a fairly large IT organization for a fairly large company, and I can tell you there is a dramatic shift in how we communicate and consume information. And while LOL and texts are poor and maybe even inferior communication tools compared to the prose of the past, they also have significant advantages when used in conjunction with how we are moving toward communication as an organization. I think all of us can agree that we feel more connected with our friends on facebook when we get a daily photo or a 8 word comment from them, than in the past when they wrote our a two page letter that was placed in their families Christmas card once a year. The two page letter for all intents and purposes was far superior in terms of communication style, prose, content….. But the poor english and inferior tidbits we see on facebook are actually superior in other ways.

An argument was made years ago that a dress was superior to a pair of pants on a women. That argument is now long gone. We have many examples of when a dress actually looks inferior or doesn’t work well for today compared to a nice business suit. Doesn’t mean we throw out the dress. Is the pop music style of today technically inferior to a large Symphony from one of the great composers. Probably. But does that make it bad. We could argue that our best that we bring forth is infinitely inferior to God’s standards. But I digress.

So, does the debate change, and is it more accurately described, if instead of “imposing preferences” we use the phrase “mandating extra-biblical convictions as the basis for separation”? Or, perhaps to be more charitable, “mandating convictions based on biblical principles as the basis for separation”?

I think that is what is meant by the shorthand “imposing preferences.” But I agree that “imposing preferences” is not accurate.

-------
Greg Long, Ed.D. (SBTS)

Pastor of Adult Ministries
Grace Church, Des Moines, IA

Adjunct Instructor
School of Divinity
Liberty University

Greg Long,

You know what the word mandate means, right? Who’s mandating anything? Who even recommmends separation based on music? Music differences separate. It happens naturally. There’re a ton of people in my town who go to churches that use progressive music. One reason they go to their church instead of my church is that my church uses much less progressive music than theirs do. I don’t think they’re marking and avoiding our church. It’s not that kind of separation. Our disagreements just lead us different ways.

Let me give a handy label: Conservative. Conservatives urging the Church to reconsider the wholesale assimilation of pop culture/revivalist/charismatic forms in their worship. How insidious.

Also, there’re too many Gregs and Daves here. We need alternate nomenclature. Where’s Tetreau when you need him.

Let me give a handy label: Conservative. Conservatives urging the Church to reconsider the wholesale assimilation of pop culture/revivalist/charismatic forms in their worship. How insidious.

Sigh.

This is exactly why this issue is so maddening. Greg and I are not ‘assimilating wholesale’ pop culture in our churches. DavidO, you know this.

You want to disagree with us, great. You think our exegesis is flawed - ok, let’s examine that. But until you stop arguing that we’re doing something we aren’t, the conversation is worthless and goes nowhere.

I agree with you, though, about the need to change Greg’s name. In a nod one of the old Superman movies, let’s call Greg “Zod”. I think that name is not in use here on SI, and it’s certainly unique enough for everyone to use. :)

"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

Good, we both have made and have gotten Aaron’s point. :D

Although, I wasn’t singling you and Greg out, and my slashes nuance my statement beyond what you object to. Furthermore I said the Church, not your church.

“Wholesale” was probably hyperbolic. But, broadly speaking in the church? There’s some significant ingress, no?

Zod it is!

I’d prefer:

  • Gregory the Great (Although to be honest, Greg Linscott is probably “Gregory the Great” on SI. Maybe “Gregory the Decent” or “Gregory the Above Average”?)
  • GBL (Gregory Brock Long…with the assumption that Greg Linscott’s middle initial is not “B”)
  • Fritz (my name in German class in high school)
  • The White Mamba

-------
Greg Long, Ed.D. (SBTS)

Pastor of Adult Ministries
Grace Church, Des Moines, IA

Adjunct Instructor
School of Divinity
Liberty University

[DavidO]

Greg Long,

You know what the word mandate means, right? Who’s mandating anything? Who even recommmends separation based on music? Music differences separate. It happens naturally. There’re a ton of people in my town who go to churches that use progressive music. One reason they go to their church instead of my church is that my church uses much less progressive music than theirs do. I don’t think they’re marking and avoiding our church. It’s not that kind of separation. Our disagreements just lead us different ways.

Let me give a handy label: Conservative. Conservatives urging the Church to reconsider the wholesale assimilation of pop culture/revivalist/charismatic forms in their worship. How insidious.

Also, there’re too many Gregs and Daves here. We need alternate nomenclature. Where’s Tetreau when you need him.

Ok, I’m willing to concede that “mandating” might not be the best word. Perhaps “arguing for,” but now the phrase is getting longer and longer.

But if you actually believe that no one recommends separation based on music, David, I really don’t know what to say to you. I’m really surprised at that statement, as I have seen separation based on music for my entire Christian life. There are churches and an institution in our area that our church would be more than willing to partner with in Gospel endeavors (and have actually tried to do so) because we share EXACTLY the same doctrinal beliefs, but they are unwilling to do so primarily because of two factors: 1) We don’t have Baptist in the name, and 2) Our music is contemporary.

One might argue that (1) is the most important factor, but I believe even if (1) were removed, (2) would still result in some churches separating from us.

-------
Greg Long, Ed.D. (SBTS)

Pastor of Adult Ministries
Grace Church, Des Moines, IA

Adjunct Instructor
School of Divinity
Liberty University

[Shaynus]

http://www.desiringgod.org/resource-library/sermons/each-one-should-be-…

This is a great sermon on this issue. In determining what’s a preference, and what actions are impositions, look at what the issue is doing to your relationships.

Shaynus, are you trying to impose your preference for my nickname on the rest of us?

You know, I’ve never had a nickname before. It’s kind of exciting. Of course, I always imagined it would have more to do with my athletic prowess, but I guess I’ll take whatever I can get.

-------
Greg Long, Ed.D. (SBTS)

Pastor of Adult Ministries
Grace Church, Des Moines, IA

Adjunct Instructor
School of Divinity
Liberty University

[Charlie]

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.

I would like to thank you as well, Charlie, for this informative post, as I had not understood the purpose of the RPW in this light before.

-------
Greg Long, Ed.D. (SBTS)

Pastor of Adult Ministries
Grace Church, Des Moines, IA

Adjunct Instructor
School of Divinity
Liberty University

[Greg Long]

[Shaynus]

http://www.desiringgod.org/resource-library/sermons/each-one-should-be-…

This is a great sermon on this issue. In determining what’s a preference, and what actions are impositions, look at what the issue is doing to your relationships.

Shaynus, are you trying to impose your preference for my nickname on the rest of us?

You know, I’ve never had a nickname before. It’s kind of exciting. Of course, I always imagined it would have more to do with my athletic prowess, but I guess I’ll take whatever I can get.

As long as I merely propose a nickname, and not add an “or else” at the end of it, I’m completely within my right of asking my preference to become yours. It’s when I tell you that you shall thus be known as Zadok the Priest, and not Greg Long that I’m overstepping my bounds.

[Greg Long] But if you actually believe that no one recommends separation based on music, David, I really don’t know what to say to you.

Dear Zed the Great and Powerful,

Yeah, I should qualify that. I know there are some that rather militantly call for marking and avoidance. I was really saying that the primary voices in our SI neck of the woods don’t seem to me to be saying that.

Greg,

If we put music in the disagreement category as opposed to the departing or disobedient category, then churches can have restricted levels of cooperation based on the nature of the disagreement, its intensity, and its practical impact on our congregations. It does not have to be labeled necessarily as disobedient brethren. Perhaps, it can be called a wisdom issue in many situations. In the field of music and its relationship to worship, there will be many gradations between black and white. Personally, I have drawn the line of cooperation for our own church and my relationship to other churches on this specific topic based on a clear use of the rock genre in the public services of the church. On the positive side I encourage our worship music to be melodic, beautiful, harmonious, of good reputation, truthful, doctrinally accurate, admirable, excellent, appropriate to the message, respectful, reverent, joyful, enthusiastic, unifying, singable, and free of any clear identification with something sinful. To me these qualities are beyond mere preferences. I am willing to bend when it comes to other ministries, but I would rather not break. I do not think ill of some pastor who disagrees with me regarding applications of these principles, as long as I know they sincerely believe and practice these principles. When it comes to biblical insight into music and worship, I lean more heavily toward authors like David Wells, Paul Jones, John Makujina, Millard Erickson, T. David Gordon, Doug O’Donnell, and Gary Reimers. Their scholarship and insight on this issue make more sense to me than do the arguments from the other side. When I recently observed the music videos of the Fox River Church overseen by Pastor Guy Conn or the video musical celebration to a large donation in the congregation of Providence Bible Church overseen by Pastor Jason Janz, those examples appeared in egregious violation of these principles and any reasonable application thereof. I use those instances as clear examples of turning from a conservative/serious minded approach to music/worship to something very different.

Pastor Mike Harding