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.
- 177 views
Larry,
There are today competing versions of the RPW, differing (wouldn’cha know) primarily over music and church holidays. In the high Puritan era, the Puritans were pretty set against the use of musical instruments and against the use of music outside the Psalms, or at least outside the Bible. One of the reasons for this was that the commandment most often appealed to was Ephesians 5:19, which does not just say “sing,” but “sing psalms” (and they interpreted the three categories there as types of psalms). So, one would not have scriptural warrant for playing instruments, which they viewed as a new element rather than a form, or for singing non-psalms (occasionally room was made for the singing of other scripture texts). We tend to think of music as mere accompaniment or background, but before synthesized sound, it’s a lot of work. Someone has to bring and practice on and play an instrument; a new action is introduced. Most Puritans also refused to celebrate ANY religious holidays, forcefully opposing Christmas and Easter. The reasoning is simple enough: they aren’t commanded. In official Roman Catholic doctrine to this day, failing to attend mass on a number of holidays (known as “Days of Obligation”) is a mortal sin.
I think that you are right that the mere adoption of the RPW does not settle every dispute. I am convinced that nothing has or ever could settle every dispute. And it sure raised some disputes, as any Anglican historian can tell you. And to many of those Anglicans, the cure was more bitter than the disease. You’d make a Cambidge vicar turn even whiter if you offered to remove the bickering over the church calendar by eliminating it entirely.
But I still raise the RPW because it puts the issues at hand in an explicitly theological key, and it raises new questions about what really constitutes Christian liberty at the level of a congregation. It suggests that we might need to protect congregations from the inventions of their leaders and that there is value in uniform simple worship. One of the first actions of the Westminster Assembly after the Confession itself was the drafting of a Directory of Publick Worship to give guidance on these matters. The goal was that one could go from the icy tip of Scotland to the southern shore of England and be able to worship in any church without any infringement of (a well-trained) conscience. As I am about to move to a new town and will have to begin the process of trying out churches all over again, I see some value in that! But of course it raises issues of creativity and expression and such.
My Blog: http://dearreaderblog.com
Cor meum tibi offero Domine prompte et sincere. ~ John Calvin
Mike,
Honest question here, Let’s say a member of your church didn’t draw the lines like you did. Let’s say they themselves would allow for a rock type of worship, but submitted to your leadership on the issue as their pastor and didn’t press the matter in your church. Would you, having heard from them of their position, initiate church discipline because they were disobedient? Why or why not? Would you say they were in sin?
Shayne
[Greg Long]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.
As so often happens on this topic, we’ve got a ton of supbtopics in a pretty short time.
Greg’s post jumped out at me because it was on my short list for the next installment on this topic.
But there are really a whole bunch of issues in the phrase “mandating convictions based on biblical principles as the basis for separation” … all worth thinking about. So I’d like to give them some thoughtful focus… as opposed to having a shouting match.
I appreciate the tone on this so far.
Just got called to supper and it’s not a good idea to be slow on that…
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.
You wrote:
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.
This is precisely where I am at on this issue. I would also add that the ongoing discussions on music at SI have helped me come to this position. Very well said.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
Got a few minutes…
On RPW: I’ve often said that it’s a great concept but can be applied in very different ways. But it may be that it only seems possible to apply it in widely differing ways, much as it seems—to people not really all that familiar with the Bible—like “anybody can make the Bible mean whatever you like” (or the Constitution, or any other document you might want to name).
It may well be that getting everybody more educated on the whole RPW concept truly solves alot of these problems.
“Mandating convictions based on biblical principles as the basis for separation”
So much I want to say about this. A few observations.
Extrabiblical convictions: it beats “preferences,” but it’s still a bit too easy to undervalue these because, after all, they are extrabibiblical. The thing is, it’s really not all that unusual for the wisest and most devoted of Christians through the ages to apply Scripture to relatively “new” scenarios with a great deal of sober conviction—and then to separate over them.
For example, spiritual abuse, legalism, pornography and materialism are all evils that are not so named in Scripture. We derive these categories from Scripture and rightly reject them. In some cases, they’re just modern names for old, old sins or modern variants on old, old sins.
But what the best representatives of cultural conservatism do with music (and a few other culture-entwined things) is not really different in kind from our rejection of materialism, “legalism,” spiritual abuse, etc. The process is the same: principles —> applications.
Separation? That’s another topic. I think it’s possible to isolate the separation question completely from the culture (and music) question. Work through the latter first, then consider how it relates to separation doctrine.
But I’d like to go this far: many of us are skeptical that views on the cultural significance of clothing styles ought to be grounds for separation. But where is the verse that teaches it’s a sin to attend church naked? We’d all separate from any group that taught this was a good idea! But in doing so, wouldn’t we mandating extrabiblical convictions as a basis for separation?
I anticipate “But that’s different! Wearing clothes is a big deal and music styles are… not” Well, that leads us back to one of the real points of disagreement. Are they not?
So my point is that as a category “extrabiblical convictions” are not necessarily wrong either to “mandate” or to hold to as a basis for separation. I.e., “extrabiblical” is not automatically “not important enough to either mandate or separate over.”
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.
[Shaynus]Mike,
Honest question here, Let’s say a member of your church didn’t draw the lines like you did. Let’s say they themselves would allow for a rock type of worship, but submitted to your leadership on the issue as their pastor and didn’t press the matter in your church. Would you, having heard from them of their position, initiate church discipline because they were disobedient? Why or why not? Would you say they were in sin?
Shayne
FWIW, I would not. When I was a pastor (still sounds weird to write that), I believed myself responsible for what we used in worship. We did use a bit music I thought to be of inferior quality but that I knew blessed many in the congregation. So there was a degree of compromise between my personal ideals and the feelings of the congregation. Not very much though. I think most would have liked a good bit more contemporary music. But in any case, what they believed on the issue was of interest to me as a teacher, but I saw it as a matter of conscience (aka what we call “liberty”) between them and God. So in practice, it was a matter for persuasion not coercion. (We never had a worship war)
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.
[Shaynus]Mike,
Honest question here, Let’s say a member of your church didn’t draw the lines like you did. Let’s say they themselves would allow for a rock type of worship, but submitted to your leadership on the issue as their pastor and didn’t press the matter in your church. Would you, having heard from them of their position, initiate church discipline because they were disobedient? Why or why not? Would you say they were in sin?
Shayne
Or what if your church planted a daughter church, and they decided they wanted to use songs like “Behold Our God” or “All I Have Is Christ” in their services. They’re SGM songs but do not have a ‘rock’ sound to them (listen to the T4GL2 CD clips from Amazon to see what I mean).
"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
Jay, are you sure you haven’t visited my church?
[Mike Harding]Mike, forgive me if you have already detailed this before, but could you help me understand where you find the Scriptural support for separation from the disagreeing brother (disagreement, of course, based not on clear Scripture teachings but rather based on convictions built upon biblical principles)? Obviously there is the case of Paul and Silas separating from Barnabas and John Mark over a disagreement, but this passage seems more descriptive than prescriptive or permissive. In other words, although it was obviously part of God’s will of decree that these brothers should separate and he used it to further the spread of the Gospel, I don’t believe God was pleased (in the sense of his revealed will) by their “sharp disagreement” and separation.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.
-------
Greg Long, Ed.D. (SBTS)
Pastor of Adult Ministries
Grace Church, Des Moines, IA
Adjunct Instructor
School of Divinity
Liberty University
[Aaron Blumer]Aaron, I understand what you are trying to get at, but your analogy is not valid. We are commanded in Scripture to wear modest clothing (well, at least women are!), which, logically, would include the wearing of clothing in the first place.Got a few minutes…
On RPW: I’ve often said that it’s a great concept but can be applied in very different ways. But it may be that it only seems possible to apply it in widely differing ways, much as it seems—to people not really all that familiar with the Bible—like “anybody can make the Bible mean whatever you like” (or the Constitution, or any other document you might want to name).
It may well be that getting everybody more educated on the whole RPW concept truly solves alot of these problems.
“Mandating convictions based on biblical principles as the basis for separation”
So much I want to say about this. A few observations.
Extrabiblical convictions: it beats “preferences,” but it’s still a bit too easy to undervalue these because, after all, they are extrabibiblical. The thing is, it’s really not all that unusual for the wisest and most devoted of Christians through the ages to apply Scripture to relatively “new” scenarios with a great deal of sober conviction—and then to separate over them.
For example, spiritual abuse, legalism, pornography and materialism are all evils that are not so named in Scripture. We derive these categories from Scripture and rightly reject them. In some cases, they’re just modern names for old, old sins or modern variants on old, old sins.
But what the best representatives of cultural conservatism do with music (and a few other culture-entwined things) is not really different in kind from our rejection of materialism, “legalism,” spiritual abuse, etc. The process is the same: principles —> applications.
Separation? That’s another topic. I think it’s possible to isolate the separation question completely from the culture (and music) question. Work through the latter first, then consider how it relates to separation doctrine.
But I’d like to go this far: many of us are skeptical that views on the cultural significance of clothing styles ought to be grounds for separation. But where is the verse that teaches it’s a sin to attend church naked? We’d all separate from any group that taught this was a good idea! But in doing so, wouldn’t we mandating extrabiblical convictions as a basis for separation?
I anticipate “But that’s different! Wearing clothes is a big deal and music styles are… not” Well, that leads us back to one of the real points of disagreement. Are they not?
So my point is that as a category “extrabiblical convictions” are not necessarily wrong either to “mandate” or to hold to as a basis for separation. I.e., “extrabiblical” is not automatically “not important enough to either mandate or separate over.”
-------
Greg Long, Ed.D. (SBTS)
Pastor of Adult Ministries
Grace Church, Des Moines, IA
Adjunct Instructor
School of Divinity
Liberty University
Thanks Charlie. Helpful
Although it may surprise many on SI, I am actually sympathetic to the conservative music argument. I was raised and educated in that environment. I prefer a balance of contemporary and traditional music. As I have taught my class on Church History this quarter at church I have had us sing a song from each era we have studied.
And to be fair to Aaron, I think he is absolutely correct that all of us have “extra-biblical convictions” we would be willing to separate over. Although I didn’t think your nudity example (that looks a little funny as I type it) was valid, I’ll give you one I do think is valid, Aaron. If I were in Colorado, I would consider very, very carefully whether I could fellowship/partner with a church that publicly and clearly taught it was acceptable for Christians to smoke marijuana.
It’s just that, as Jay has pointed out, the conservative music argument (again, the militant type, or as Joel T calls them the BGs) seems to be based on a whole series of extra-biblical and, in some cases (IMHO), UNbiblical arguments. I have no problem for someone personally coming to that point of conviction. But as I’ve said before, I can’t understand how (it seems to me) it rises to a level of a fundamental doctrine of Scripture and used as a clear basis of separation.
-------
Greg Long, Ed.D. (SBTS)
Pastor of Adult Ministries
Grace Church, Des Moines, IA
Adjunct Instructor
School of Divinity
Liberty University
[Greg Long]Although it may surprise many on SI, I am actually sympathetic to the conservative music argument.
I prefer…
I have no problem for someone personally coming to that point of conviction.
This reveals that you are a preference towards music person rather than a conviction about music person. It shows just why it is difficult to debate these issues, just like the Version issue.
I suppose the real skill lies in getting both sides to agree upon what the Healthy Debate really is. I think prefer-ers are those who are generally comfortable with the Imposing Preferences argument and would have a tendency to use it. The other side would tend away from the Imposing Preferences argument because they are convinced it is a matter of sin, not of preference. Prefer-ers probably believe they are personally presenting a godly, balanced position. The others see that balance as compromise.
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)
Aaron, I understand what you are trying to get at, but your analogy is not valid. We are commanded in Scripture to wear modest clothing (well, at least women are!), which, logically, would include the wearing of clothing in the first place.
My example was intentionally extreme. But the point was to show a point about a category. Matters of conscience or application are not, as a category, improper bases for separation… though I would hasten to add that they are not usually bases for separation.
I think the analogy works for that particular point because just as we reason that if women are commanded to wear modest clothing we must therefore all wear clothing (the case against going about unclothed—or very close to it—is actually a bit more complex, and might seem ridiculous but I think it might not in 20 years, depending on geographical factors).
Anyway just as women are commanded to dress modestly, so all believers are commanded to worship appropriately. Where? Mainly the OT, but passages such as Coloss. 3:16 in the NT communicate that these principles still apply. And just about everyone accepts that, in theory, there is such a thing as inappropriate/just plain wrong worship.
So then the usual question is, where is the passage that says there is inappropriate music for worship? And then where’s the passage that says “style” is what makes it inappropriate?
Those arguments have been made, but we’ve strayed from the point. The point was that it’s often argued “we should not mandate or separate over extrabiblical convictions” … But this argument fails because we all believe in doing that in some cases.
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.
Anyway just as women are commanded to dress modestly, so all believers are commanded to worship appropriately. Where? Mainly the OT, but passages such as Coloss. 3:16 in the NT communicate that these principles still apply. And just about everyone accepts that, in theory, there is such a thing as inappropriate/just plain wrong worship.
So then the usual question is, where is the passage that says there is inappropriate music for worship? And then where’s the passage that says “style” is what makes it inappropriate?
See, this is almost exactly my whole argument. I don’t think we have merit to argue that dressing modestly must necessitate long dresses and high heels (for example) in today’s church. It would not be possible to argue that God has ordained one specific dress style for women to use in part because the cultures and times continually change (hence the quote in my signature).
Even if one could argue that the style is fixed in Scripture - what happens when the culture changes? It used to be that short hair on women was a reproach and a sign of prostitution (1 Cor. 11:1-16). Yet that entire pericope closes with an admonition to not be contentious with each other over this matter (11:16); Paul also says explicitly in v. 13 that we are to ‘judge for ourselves in this matter’. In any case, now the short hair / long hair discussion isn’t something we think about unless she shaves her head entirely (like Sinead O’ Connor from a couple of years ago). Now, maybe there’s someone here who has disciplined a woman from a church for having short hair, but I think we’d all be pretty amazed if that were the case.
If people want to argue that there are songs inappropriate for worship - great. Let’s discuss that; I agree with that argument to a point. But I do not see where Scripture says that all acceptable church worship must use songs that sound like something produced by SoundForth or whomever. I don’t think that it’s acceptable to use driving rock music as the basis for congregational performance (as opposed to congregational singing), but that’s a different discussion as well.
"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