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.
There are 137 Comments
Re: I Timothy 4:4-5-- If the
Re: I Timothy 4:4-5--
If the word "all" is sometimes limited by the context in which it appears, can't the word "everything" also be so limited?
Of course, I realize that this line of argumentation will be effective only with a thin slice of SI readers, but . . .
Andrew K. wrote:Not sure
Andrew,
Fair enough point. Three replies:
http://www.mpriley.com
1 timothy
well, i have a couple thoughts about this:
1. maybe I Tim 4 doens't apply to any of us in this discussion because we are not apostates, fallen away from the faith, nor paying attention to the doctrines of demons. At least, I'm assuming that we are all not in that category.
2. Matthew Henry does open this up to other applications that paul does not make in his overview of the paragraph, and I tend to agree with that, because wow, of all the false religions around us today claiming Christianity, now many of them teach forbidden meats and marriage? not many. So while the language of the passage is particular to Paul's two examples, I don't think it's exhaustive.
Matthew Henry's overview:
MH's particular commentary of this passage:
3. I don't think 1 & 2 Timothy are entirely out of the picture b/c Paul did talk quite a bit (compared to his other epistles) about the conscience in these 2 letters.
4. The music being inherently evil is an interesting issue. The tree and its fruit. need to think about this some more. the evil music is more symptomatic of the evil.
www.annesokol.com
Worship
This is a side note (meta-debate?), but I think it matters that, as Christians, our entire lives revolve around worship, in everything we do, at every moment of time. When we are walking in the Spirit, everything we do can be considered worship. Worship is not only limited to specific, deliberate points of action while sitting in a pew (or padded chair ;)) or while having our personal time of devotions/prayer/study in the Word.
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)
Can we please?
Can we please put an end to the use of proof-texting to validate God's blessing on every style of music under the sun? I agree with Don and others that the construction of 1 Timothy 4, does not allow for the Christian to embrace popular culture wholesale.
For argument sake, though, let's say that we strain long enough that we force that interpretation on the passage. Fantastic. We now have one Biblical reference that just maybe gives us the approval to do this. That's it. One. Are we then going to ignore the overwhelming weight of Scripture that provides precedent and guidance to the believer regarding his/her relationship with popular culture?
As indicated earlier, music communicates to our moods/emotions/affections. There have been some questions about how does music communicate sensuousness/sexuality. Scott Aniol provided a perfect example a week or so ago (http://religiousaffections.org/articles/hymnody/on-the-flexibility-of-form-in-worship/).
Interestingly, when it comes to the senses, there's much more weight in Scripture placed on what we hear versus what we see.
JNoel and Shaynus, The
JNoel and Shaynus,
The argument I made is absolutely an argument from silence, and THE SILENCE IS DEAFENING (sorry...shouting seemed appropriate there).
Let's examine this more closely:
Shaynus, you gave some reasons why this may be so. For example, that God didn't want us to become legalists in this matter by only listing certain musical styles. But God is very specific in listing other things He wants us to do or not do, and yes--people have used those commands for legalistic purposes, but that didn't stop God from listing them. Same thing with the idea that He was more concerned about heart issues. Certainly He is concerned about heart issues with sexuality, but He still tells us to abstain from specific actions.
Let me be very clear: I am not presenting this as an argument for an "anything goes" approach to music. I am presenting this as an argument against the teaching by some for a specificity and emphasis on musical style that goes light years beyond anything the Bible says about the issue, and then using that as a 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 wrote: Let me be
I wouldn't either.
from the bench
I've only made a couple comments in this thread so have done more watching than participating. One of the main points of debate appears to be rooted in differing applications of Sola Scriptura.
I'll provide a quote on the matter from something I've read elsewhere.
Hear, hear, Brenda!
I find it highly ironic that those who point the finger and accuse those who take an explicitly conservative approach to music/culture of being legalistic are the ones to whom the Scriptures have become a set of do's and don't's - by their own definition, legalists.
KD, I'm not really sure what
KD, I'm not really sure what you're saying or who it's addressed to, but it is certainly not my definition of legalism, nor the definition of anyone I've ever read, to say that we should obey the specific commands of Scripture.
-------
Greg Long, Ed.D. (SBTS)
Pastor of Adult Ministries
Grace Church, Des Moines, IA
Adjunct Instructor
School of Divinity
Liberty University
Clarifying an application
The assumption here is that it is an idol. Given that the "idol" could be anything, from conservative music to contemporary music styles, to success in ministry, to an over-exalted relationship, to witnessing, to Bible reading, etc. . . . . everything other than God can become an idol. Especially the good things can easily become idols. Hence, the application of the above quoted principle, applies equally to both cultural traditionalism to cultural progressivism.
Just because one has conservative music, does not mean that he/she is exempt from the idolatry mentioned above.
Brenda, thanks for that
Brenda, thanks for that input. There certainly is a danger of what that writer calls "nuda Scriptura" (not sure I care for that name...I think I prefer "solo Scriptura" as others have called it). But I am absolutely not saying "If it's not in Scripture, we don't have to worry about it. Yay!" I've already mentioned on this thread that because musical style communicates somewhat subjectively, on an emotive level, and is culturally determined, we need to evaluate as such. So obviously we have to go "beyond" Scripture for those evaluations, but always guided by Scriptural principles.
I'm simply reminding us that we must be extremely careful in making our evaluation of the appropriateness of music not to raise it to a level of Scriptural perspicuity and certainty that is not warranted due to the fact that it is simply not addressed in Scripture.
As far as the specific things mentioned in the article you quoted...
-------
Greg Long, Ed.D. (SBTS)
Pastor of Adult Ministries
Grace Church, Des Moines, IA
Adjunct Instructor
School of Divinity
Liberty University
Side track
Just to illustrate a weakness in regards to the drugs argument - the Bible doesn't say "thou shalt not take recreational drugs". It does, however, give plenty of principles that apply to that discussion including the ownership of the body and our responsibility to maintain it, the command not to be enslaved by things, the irresponsible and wasteful use of money, the need to find satisfaction in Christ and not in things of this world, etc. Of course, the blanket command to "obey those who are set over you" trumps all when the drugs are illegal.
I say that because I think there are Scriptural principles that govern music that work in much the same way. In any case...back to the music discussion.
I'd also add a "ditto" to Greg's post at 12:01. And for the record, that's now (I think) the third time in this thread that our position has been misrepresented.
"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
Well, seeing as I didn't
Well, seeing as I didn't write the quote and didn't say "hey, this is referring to _________ (fill in a name)", it is unnecessary to accuse me of being the one to "misrepresent" someone's position. It has been my regular practice on this thread and others to try and draw out further information and clarification.
Greg Long was right, I was simply providing input to further the discussion. Maybe it helped. Greg Long commented after the quote with some further clarification of his position. That is always helpful in understanding each other.
Keeping score and posting the score of perceived hits to one's position is not helpful. Numerous people have had to explain their positions multiple times. That's simply one of the cons of blog discussions; it's not something to take personally -- unless maybe it's a perceived attack against an idol? [insert smiley]
Thanks Greg, for the further clarification/explanation.
Jay wrote: Aaron Blumer
No, there is definitely a response on the part of the worshiper. I guess I'd say I have two things in mind. (a) The response of the worshiper to the medium of worship--that is, the music, the poetry, the prayer, whatever. Especially in the case of singing, there is clearly a medium and the reason we use a medium at all is that, in part, it does something to the worshiper. I believe this is part of God's intent in commanding us to use music: it helps the truth reach the affections of worshipers.
(b) The response of the worshiper to worship itself. The act of bowing heart and mind before God, confessing His excellence and our weakness and wickedness--this produces a response in the worshiper as well. But mainly in the reference above, I'm thinking of (a).
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.
Sola scriptura
Not sure at what point this entered the discussion... but sometimes folks invoke sola scriptura to argue that a particular application should not be made. But sola has never meant that we obey only the letter of the Bible and refrain from using its principles to govern uniquely individual choices or modern temptations.
So, sola is not really relevant here. We all believe in it. And we all believe in at least some firm, emphatic, non-negotiable stands on matters that Scripture does not speak of directly or with absolute clarity. So the line of argument that suggests that either conservative views (or non-conservative ones, either way) are violating sola or giving too much weight to "extrabiblical convictions," kind of assumes what needs to be proved. It distracts... because if the application is sound, it makes little difference if it's extrabiblical or not. It's still obedience or disobedience.
So the question is, is the application sound. The issue can't be dismissed as unimportant simply because it's applicational.
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.
Time flies . . .
sola scriptura entered the discussion on the first day your article appeared when a comment was made that claimed those holding to a conservative stance had
However, I'm the one who brought it up today.
Pages