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]I’m not sure that punching someone in the face qualifies as non-verbal communication. It seems more like an action to me, which of course certainly communicates something.[Greg Long] We all also understand that non-verbal communication are subjective and is culturally determined.For the most part yes, but probably not entirely. If someone punches you in the face, it probably means the same thing everywhere. But that’s an aside.
[Larry] I am not trying to advance the conservative argument with respect to separation, particularly since as I said, they probably would not agree with what we do here. I was only responding to your comments that you didn’t understand it, so I offered an illustration of I how I see their argument. And I think your interaction with it here shows you do understand it, and how separation is a natural conclusion for those who hold it. I think I understand why they say what they do.I have never seen a situation where I would separate from another church based on music alone.[Greg Long] That’s why I find it really hard to think about using certain genres for praising God.So what would your relationship be with people who use these genres for praising God? Would you join freely with them and encourage them? Would you recommend others join with them? Would you simply not participate with them? What would you do?
-------
Greg Long, Ed.D. (SBTS)
Pastor of Adult Ministries
Grace Church, Des Moines, IA
Adjunct Instructor
School of Divinity
Liberty University
[Jay]I agree with you, Jay. Almost all of the time it is done on a song-by-song basis. I’m just saying there are certain genres that might not even be considered as appropriate for worship because they clearly communicate emotions opposed to normal Christian worship.[Greg Long] 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.
I love SGM music as well!
-------
Greg Long, Ed.D. (SBTS)
Pastor of Adult Ministries
Grace Church, Des Moines, IA
Adjunct Instructor
School of Divinity
Liberty University
[dcbii]EXACTLY.[Don Johnson]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).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?
-------
Greg Long, Ed.D. (SBTS)
Pastor of Adult Ministries
Grace Church, Des Moines, IA
Adjunct Instructor
School of Divinity
Liberty University
[Brenda T]DavidO wrote
I personally think God created music.
Which day?
I think this is worth considering. If the angels sing “Holy, holy, holy …” around the throne of God, did they only do so subsequent to one of the six days of creation? Does this mean there is air carrying musical vibration in heaven or is music there produced differently than it is here? Is the singing in Isaiah 6 metaphorical?
Personal opinion all of this is, but I believe God intended us to make music to Him, so gave us the laws of nature and gave us all that is needed to produce it.
[/rabbit trail of rampant speculation]
[DavidO]Wow, as a former Lostie, I would say you nailed it. :)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.
-------
Greg Long, Ed.D. (SBTS)
Pastor of Adult Ministries
Grace Church, Des Moines, IA
Adjunct Instructor
School of Divinity
Liberty University
[JNoël]+1[Anne Sokol]Are certain forms of music inherently sinful?
Much to the dismay of us lovers of conservatism/haters of CCM, this always seems to be the supreme, unanswerable question. At least, I haven’t heard anyone answer them using specific principles and responsible applications from scripture. And, to me, that is why no one can agree on what the real debate is - is it one of preference/liberty or is it one of conviction based on more than a feeling?
V/r
-------
Greg Long, Ed.D. (SBTS)
Pastor of Adult Ministries
Grace Church, Des Moines, IA
Adjunct Instructor
School of Divinity
Liberty University
[DavidO]Let me beat others to the punch…[Brenda T]DavidO wrote
I personally think God created music.
Which day?
I think this is worth considering. If the angels sing “Holy, holy, holy …” around the throne of God, did they only do so subsequent to one of the six days of creation? Does this mean there is air carrying musical vibration in heaven or is music there produced differently than it is here? Is the singing in Isaiah 6 metaphorical?
Personal opinion all of this is, but I believe God intended us to make music to Him, so gave us the laws of nature and gave us all that is needed to produce it.
[/rabbit trail of rampant speculation]
David, angels are never said to “sing,” only “say.” So obviously God created rap. :)
(Although the four living creatures and people are said to “sing” in heaven in Rev. 5:9; 14:3; 15:3.)
-------
Greg Long, Ed.D. (SBTS)
Pastor of Adult Ministries
Grace Church, Des Moines, IA
Adjunct Instructor
School of Divinity
Liberty University
It may help to get clear that in act of worship you have at least three notable parts:
- the act itself
- the motivation behind it
- the results of it/response to it
It is possible to get any two of these right and still get the third wrong. An act can be wrong and sinful even if it has good results and our heart was in the right place when we did it.
Similarly, the act can be a good thing in itself but have an evil motive, yet a good result, etc.
So we can’t reduce the right and wrong of worship choices to just what’s going on in the heart of the worshiper.
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.
[DavidO]Of course, if we go down this road, it pretty much would point toward CCM being OK, since a tune would then be judged not on its own merit, but by the purpose to which it is put. I believe that judgment of use is necessary, but not sufficient. I just happen to think that further judgment is based on how it interacts with the listener, based on a lot of factors, with many of those being subjective, not based on inherent moral value of the music itself. I just can’t prove that last, one way or the other.I think it’s helpful to realize that the making of a sword is a use of material, but the employment of that sword is still another use. So the first use can be good but the second use is subject to a separate judgement as well. This can be simplified by considering a beautiful silver candlestick. A good use of original material. But as Mr. Plum’s body in the library can testify, a good candlestick may be put to evil use.
There may be some here saying that all music is usable, but it would only be very few. The real disagreement is over where the lines are drawn and how to draw them in the first place, not (in most cases) whether or not lines should exist. Even if everyone completely agreed that music was inherently amoral, I believe most of us would still not want to use “Mary had a little lamb” or “The Star-spangled Banner” as hymn tunes for other reasons.Moving on to music, judgments must be made. They are not always easy, and no one can expect there will be unanimity in those judgments. But I don’t think throwing up our hands and saying all music is “in” is the answer.
Dave Barnhart
[Aaron Blumer]It may help to get clear that in act of worship you have at least three notable parts:
- the act itself
- the motivation behind it
- the results of it/response to it
It is possible to get any two of these right and still get the third wrong. An act can be wrong and sinful even if it has good results and our heart was in the right place when we did it.
Similarly, the act can be a good thing in itself but have an evil motive, yet a good result, etc.
So we can’t reduce the right and wrong of worship choices to just what’s going on in the heart of the worshiper.
Aaron,
I’m not quite sure what you meant by the bolded section. The response to worship comes from God, not from us. We can only worship with right motivations and right actions (although I’m not backing down that worship forms can and do vary). While we may feel good after worship - I’ve felt well after delivering a sermon and also walked off the platform feeling like I’d just bombed out on my message as well - that has little to nothing to do with what actually happened in the act of worship. Only God’s response to us (since we’re trying to please him in worship) really matters.
I think what you’re trying to get at is that we don’t allow the ‘warm fuzzies’ of our church services to steer how we worship. Is that right?
"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
[dcbii][DavidO] Of course, if we go down this road, it pretty much would point toward CCM being OK, since a tune would then be judged not on its own merit, but by the purpose to which it is put.There may be some here saying that all music is usable, but it would only be very few. The real disagreement is over where the lines are drawn and how to draw them in the first place, not (in most cases) whether or not lines should exist. Even if everyone completely agreed that music was inherently amoral, I believe most of us would still not want to use “Mary had a little lamb” or “The Star-spangled Banner” as hymn tunes for other reasons.Not exactly. A tune could in itself be unfit, just as a sword could be useless for some purposes. Ideally, one would want a 1)quality tune 2)fit for the purpose 3)used within an appropriate arrangement. The ability/criteria for determining both seem to me to be points of dispute (or simply agnosticism) for some here.
Ture enough. But we are having a hard time pushing through from the fact lines are drawn by some to the actual criteria they would use.
I do note, though, that GregZodFritz’s enumerated criterea violate Sola Scriptura according to Jay. (My evil deed for the day :) )
Jay wrote:
Don - if you’re the one that thinks that 1 Tim. 4:4-5’s reference to ‘everything’ doesn’t mean ‘everything’, then I’d be really interested in hearing why. I know that you and Brenda T keep saying it’s the whole section, but it’s my opinion that Paul is explicitly addressing the doctrines of demons and false teachers in v. 1-3, and flatly contradicts the false errant teaching by claiming that everything created by God is good in verses 4-5. I’ll check my commentaries when I get home tonight. I think that God created music, so that would include music as well.
For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, for it is made holy by the word of God and prayer. (1 Timothy 4:4-5, ESV)
Jay, I’m going push back a little and play devil’s advocate. I would have jumped in here earlier, but I was too busy having a steak dinner with Ed Stetzer last night. <- True story
It is true that everything created by God is good. But nearly everything that God creates can be perverted. He created wood and we can make idols of it. If someone were to say “music in general is wrong” we’d definitely have some verses to say God invented music to a degree. He rejoices with us with singing after all. So the traditional side of this could argue that music can be perverted in some way that would be unclean, but the arguments generally fall very flat to me. To me, this argument is like the Supreme Court’s test for what is pornography: “you know it when you see it.” They know they can’t come up with a long litmus test that would hold in every case, so they don’t try too hard. Christian Death Metal I think is demonic. Can I give you a long drawn out reason for that statement? No.
Shaynus, I’ve heard this argument countless times: “Everything God created can be perverted by Satan—sex within marriage can be perverted into immorality, wine can be perverted into drunkenness, food can be perverted into gluttony, etc.” I don’t deny any of those things, BUT…
Why is music the only thing God forgot to warn us about perverting? He warned us about the perversion of sex, he warned us about the perversion of alcohol, he warned us about the perversion of food, he warned us about the perversion of money, etc., but the perversion of music must have slipped his mind.
Was there was no such thing as “bad music” until jazz and rock-and-roll, so that God couldn’t warn us about those things just like he couldn’t warn us about cigarettes and online pornography? The problem with this answer is conservatives have told us all along that Satan was God’s choir director and so did he not think about perverting music until the 1920s-1950s?
-------
Greg Long, Ed.D. (SBTS)
Pastor of Adult Ministries
Grace Church, Des Moines, IA
Adjunct Instructor
School of Divinity
Liberty University
[Anne Sokol]Are certain forms of music inherently sinful? Yes/why. or No.
I would say Yes, because some music communicates emotions or moods such as unbridled rage or sensual sexuality. Just as there are dirty paintings, there is dirty sound.
[Anne Sokol] Will sin be created in a person just by hearing certain forms of music? Yes/how or No,
No, one has to be an active participant. We live in an environment where we all hear objectionable music fairly frequently. We can’t always control our environment. By active participant, I would mean the creator of the music or the one deliberately choosing it or seeking it out.
[Anne Sokol] What makes your position different from the Amish or Mennonites who only have one style of clothing in their community, for example?
As I understand the Amish etc, their objection is to modernity (along with theological errors that have led most of them into a works-based salvation). My view of music has nothing to do with an objection to modernity or any of the rest of the Amish problems. There are pieces of music written in the classical form that are objectionable as well, or perhaps the way they are performed make them objectionable by the adaptations or stylings of the performer.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
[Greg Long]Why is music the only thing God forgot to warn us about perverting?
Isn’t it usually shaky ground to argue from silence?
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)
Discussion