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

That’s why I find it really hard to think about using certain genres for praising God.

I can’t speak for Greg, but if/when I’m looking for songs - especially for a congregation vs. individual worship or enjoyment - I’m looking for a song at it’s merits, not whether or not it fits into a particular genre. Genre, as a category, is almost completely worthless to me.

As I said before, the first time I heard “Behold Your God” by SGM, my first thought wasn’t “Sovereign Grace Music!” or “Traditional Music!” or whatever. My first thought was “Wow, what a great, doctrinally sound song.” and also “I wanted to sing with it”.

Same with several others by SGM: ‘Plead for Me’, ‘Father, How Sweet’, ‘Our Song From Age To Age’, and ‘All I Have Is Christ’, for starters. It wasn’t that I became a SGM groupie and then went looking to use their stuff everywhere - it’s that SGM songs were songs that were high quality, doctrinally sturdy, and singable/teachable, so I started paying attention to what they were putting out as a result.

"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

songs that were high quality

Hi Jay,

Can you describe what you mean by this?

[Don Johnson]

However, is it possible for some elements of music to communicate inappropriately for worship no matter how far removed from the cultural context?

If yes, how do you determine that?

Don, I think that these two questions are those that people on all sides of this discussion would want to know the answers to.I know you are asking someone from the “modern” point of view to answer this, but I haven’t gotten good answers on these from the conservative/traditional side either, not even from those who are supposedly the most studied. The conservative side is the one I’m on from practice and preference, but to date I’ve heard no really good arguments from that side on *why* only certain traditional music meets God’s standards (or *if*, in point of fact, that certain traditional music truly does meet God’s standards).

Dave Barnhart

[dcbii] (or *if*, in point of fact, that certain traditional music truly does meet God’s standards).
I dont really think God thinks about this the way we are thinking about it.

like, when I was reading some of the conservative music stuff yrs ago, a question stuck with me—“Can you see this (imagine) this music being played before a holy God?” It’s that “meet God’s standards” idea.

it stuck with me at the time, but now, I really don’t think/see that God evaluates our music this way. 1) I mean, what really is good enough for heaven and a holy God? It assumes our ideas of greatness, for one thing. 2) God’s standards, to a large degree, is what is going on in our hearts while we’re singing. 3) there is somehting else I can’t put my finger on.

but my point is that often we have this idea of God’s standard of music or in a way that I don’t think is in Scripture.

FWIW

On the idea that what we use in worship is a different matter from how we handle doctrine… I’m not entirely sure what you mean. Would it be:

  • a. That what we do (even in worship) is not as important as what we believe?
  • b. That what we believe or do when we apply Scripture is not as important as the things Scripture teaches directly?
  • c. That musical form (aka style) is inherently less important than other applications of Scripture?

I suppose other possibilities exist. But I’ll answer all three of these.

In the case of a., I don’t think it’s possible ultimately to separate orthopraxy entirely from orthodoxy. It’s all obedience or disobedience, one in mind and one in action.

In the case of b., there is almost always less certainty. I’m not sure it follows that there is always less importance. Some of the examples I mentioned upthread a ways illustrate the point. A new one: If a pastor gambles a large part of his paycheck away every month, most churches would take that very seriously and discipline him in some way. But where is the chapter and verse on that? Principles have to be derived from multiple passages and applied. But is it less important? Maybe, but it’s sure not obvious that this is the case.

In the case of c., well that’s really what the debate is about. Form, meaning, impact on the mind and affections, the relationship of these to changing culture—all with the goal of determining what is suitable for corporate worship. These are nontrivial questions, so we can’t just assert that they don’t matter. It’s necessary to make a case either that they don’t or that they do and why.

Because the subject is corporate worship, we don’t quite have the luxury of dealing with the question as an individual-liberty situation. It doesn’t precisely fit Romans 14 because there is no way individuals can each do their own thing within a single congregation. There must be some kind of decision about how the entire body will worship when they worship together.

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.

[Jay]

That’s why I find it really hard to think about using certain genres for praising God.

I can’t speak for Greg, but if/when I’m looking for songs - especially for a congregation vs. individual worship or enjoyment - I’m looking for a song at it’s merits, not whether or not it fits into a particular genre. Genre, as a category, is almost completely worthless to me.

As I said before, the first time I heard “Behold Your God” by SGM, my first thought wasn’t “Sovereign Grace Music!” or “Traditional Music!” or whatever. My first thought was “Wow, what a great, doctrinally sound song.” and also “I wanted to sing with it”.

Same with several others by SGM: ‘Plead for Me’, ‘Father, How Sweet’, ‘Our Song From Age To Age’, and ‘All I Have Is Christ’, for starters. It wasn’t that I became a SGM groupie and then went looking to use their stuff everywhere - it’s that SGM songs were songs that were high quality, doctrinally sturdy, and singable/teachable, so I started paying attention to what they were putting out as a result.

Every time that I listen to and sing “Behold Your God” my mind goes straight to Isaiah 40. It is as if the song comes straight from the text there. I love how awesomely incomparable God is! And when people call that music bad or evil and want to separate from it; it just makes me cringe and very sad.

Every time that I listen to and sing “Behold Your God” my mind goes straight to Isaiah 40.

Interestingly, when I hear it, my mind goes straight a theme from Lost. But that’s mostly my own fault.

[Anne Sokol]

but my point is that often we have this idea of God’s standard of music or in a way that I don’t think is in Scripture.

I certainly can’t say that God thinks of music in the same terms we do. However, one argument that is often used is that certain music is not proper for use when worshiping a holy God. If we are going to use any music at all then, that implies that some music must then be proper, and that implies (though it might not be thought of this way by those making the argument) that such music meets God’s standards, or we could not present it to him as acceptable worship.I suppose someone could make an argument that the things we are to think upon (from Phil 4:8, things that are true, honest, just, etc.) could not include anything done by man, since nothing we do could be true, honest, just, etc. in an absolute sense.But if anything we do can be presented to God as acceptable worship, there must be a way to determine its level of propriety (otherwise, we are back to using the RPW and including nothing that is not directly commanded, and as was discussed in this thread or another, even that is not a perfect solution).So I still think that Don’s questions apply to all believers. For me, his questions about music lead to a more general question: How do we prove that what we present God (in music or any area) is acceptable to him?

Dave Barnhart

[DavidO]

songs that were high quality

Hi Jay,

Can you describe what you mean by this?

You took the words right out of my mouth. Not only is “high quality” subjective, but, in the case of SGM, rather questionable with regards to musical excellence.

Not at all saying I don’t appreciate or even like various SGM productions, mind you. Just fascinating to see someone blanket SGM with the term High Quality. :)

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)

[DavidO]

Every time that I listen to and sing “Behold Your God” my mind goes straight to Isaiah 40.

Interestingly, when I hear it, my mind goes straight a theme from Lost. But that’s mostly my own fault.

And every time I hear John Petersen’s “Coming Again” I’m in high school at the roller skating rink hoping no one from church finds out I’m there.

"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan

Me, I think of ice skating. My mother had a Dutch friend so the two stay at home moms would take us kids to the ice rink.

[Ron Bean]

And every time I hear John Petersen’s “Coming Again” I’m in high school at the roller skating rink hoping no one from church finds out I’m there.

Hoping to shed more light than heat..

[Ron Bean]

And every time I hear John Petersen’s “Coming Again” I’m in high school at the roller skating rink hoping no one from church finds out I’m there.

You give 3/4 and 6/8 a bad name ;)

In terms of worship, I think it’s easier than we make it out to be: the function of everything in the church is to edify, right? How well does music that drowns out meaningful lyrics (or has ridiculous or heretical lyrics) with loud or distracting music edify? Communicating to the emotions is a quick fix; a temporary buzz. Communicating to the spirit through the mind, encouraging reflection and thought with deep, meaningful lyrics married to appropriate music with a supporting function , that will last a long time and grow, organically creating emotions that are far richer, far more powerful and more profound, than anything a “Jesus is My Girlfriend” song set to a fast-moving pop tune could ever hope to accomplish.

I do think the extremes are pretty easily eliminated this way. Some don’t see how even the extremes are eliminated, but those kinds of commitments tend to narrow the field a good bit. But for a lot of us, it’s not enough because those principles take us to far more conservative applications than the same principles do for others.

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.