Deciding who has the burden of proof can sometimes be a dicey task. By calling for fairness, equal time, or a spirit of mutual acceptance, this question can be twice complicated because it works on our feelings. And in the same category as asking who must prove their case is determining exactly who is on the offensive in a given argument. If a given side is on the offensive, then they are labeled as the pugnacious ones who struggle with unity, tolerance, and generally being nice. Several examples come to mind readily.
Advocates of homosexual marriage make their case based on fairness. “We’re not trying to take away any good heterosexual marriage rights. We just want to add more societal norms to what we already have.” If you follow this line of argument, then those who support traditional marriage are the hate-mongers. These haters are on the offensive.
Pro-choice activists argue the same way. “Babies are good for some people, but we just want the right to also choose. We’re not taking away your right to have children.” Again, the conservative position is mocked as the fearful, unfair meanies.
Charismatics argue that they are not trying to take away anyone’s spiritual gift, but they are trying to give others freedom to practice their own spiritual gifts. Cessationists could thus be categorized as being on the offensive while those who want to practice the sign gifts are merely defending freedom as best they can.
Historically, Baptists were perceived as introducing dangerous schism to the church. In a footnote of John Owen’s catechism (Chapter 23, question 2) he said that he wasn’t sure if the Catholic error on baptism was worse than the Baptists’ or the other way around. The argument levied against the Baptists came from the fear of other denominations that this group would influence society and possibly grow in popularity. Well, their fears were well-founded. The Presbyterians, Lutherans, and Anglicans who weren’t happy with the dippers were clearly on the offensive; they wanted to restrict the liberty of some even in their private homes and worship. Yet weren’t the Baptists on the offensive in a very real sense? Weren’t they actively trying to add more people to their churches to the necessary shrinking of the other assemblies?
Working out the idea of homosexual marriage: by redefining marriage, they are not merely adding some extra freedoms that are totally independent of a heterosexual couple’s choices. They are intentionally and radically attacking cultural sensibilities about the nature of morality, family, gender roles, and even the goodness of children. Like cold seeps into a house on a winter morning, society’s cultural norms creep into the shared consciousness at the very least by dulling our ability to hate sins that have been accepted on a broad scale.
Alexander Pope’s classic lines still carry currency,
Vice is a monster of so frightful mien,
For to be hated, needs but to be seen,
But seen too often familiar with her face,
We first endure, then pity, then embrace.
The homosexual agenda is to work through each of Pope’s three phases until the society at large actually embraces what they previously had seen as monstrous. They want to so condition the next generation that either choice is seen as valid and all moral stigma is removed.
And now, to apply my illustrations. The worship wars can fit in here as well. (If anyone is outraged over this comparison, please read this first.) I have heard those who advocate contemporary styles say that we should just stop fighting because all styles can glorify God. As if, the ones who are fighting this battle are the dreary, 1950’s-loving conservatives. From the contemporaries’ viewpoint, we are the problem because we are the ones fighting to exclude certain styles from worship. “You conservatives can keep your music, but we also want the privilege to continue with ours. We’re not denying anything to you or changing your freedoms at all, but we want those same freedoms.”
Are the worship wars, therefore, one-sided? Does the blame for musical tension fall on the conservatives alone? I think not any more than the tension over the definition of marriage comes from the traditional side. In each of the four examples above, both sides have an agenda. Both sides want to create particular likes and dislikes in the larger society. Both sides want their views to prevail. It is propaganda to promote the idea that only your opponent is on the offensive because he desires some restrictions. Rather, both sides have weapons drawn or they would allow the other side to gain the ascendency.
I have not made any arguments regarding the material issues involved in the worship wars. Rather, I’m trying to arrange the presuppositions that should govern the discussion. If there are ever calls for abandoning the worship wars, then the one making that call, should be willing to give up his style of music and accept his opponent’s. If he claims that he is merely advocating the right to continue his own personal freedom, then he is still on the offensive in this discussion because music (like every area of culture) will certainly effect the mood of all the people involved. He is trying—even if unwittingly—to be able to make his impact on the atmosphere while claiming to not be impacting the atmosphere.
Every cultural form sends a message whether it be the definition of marriage, or the style of music. Admittedly, some messages can do greater damage than others, but the fact remains that our customs communicate. All of them—not only the conservative, traditional ones. So, let’s stop asking to do away with the worship wars, and start asking questions about the message of any given style so that we can grapple with which of the offensive sides in this scrimmage is right.
Would you agree that the “conservative side” needs a bit of freshening? An examination of its existing forms of worship and liturgy (which simply means “work of the people”). And if a conservative congregation decides to pursue new forms, whatever that might mean, won’t this immediately put it at odds with “others of like mind”? As you said, dicey! I wonder if it might be best to allow each independent congregation to decide for itself. If it goes over the cliff, then over it goes. Adhering to a “mind your own business” template, the wars end.
Which side goes on the offensive is not the real issue as much as how aggressive a side may get with limited Scriptural authority. Depending on what you mean by “worship war”, I may agree with your overall conclusion, but if it means, for example, abolishing all snare drums, this is when the other side starts taking up arms because it will be hard to show this from Scripture. Further, among the examples you gave to establish your point were (1) abortion, (2) homosexuality, both clear abominations from Scripture.
So again, to make my point clear, I don’t think the issue necessarily is who goes on the offensive but what they use to substantiate their points. Bob can be happy singing hymns AND modern worship songs that glorify Christ, while the latter make Jake sick to his stomach. When Jake begins to tell Bob he should not participate in the new–thus, going on the offensive, Bob will be listening very closely to his reasoning, weeding out preference and noting sound biblical argument. If the latter fails to come, its Bob who will start to use the word propaganda.
For the purpose of my introduction here, the issue IS “Who is on the offensive?” Are both sides actually very charged and contemplating conclusions that will dramatically affect the other side, or is only one?
I’m arguing that neither side is neutral. The tension created by discussions of musical style cannot be adequately categorized as one side’s lop-sided attempt to press their own values. No, both sides have values that they are pressing–and make no mistake, the values that each side cares about will have effects on the entire group whether that group is a single church, or denomination, or even a society.
But I do get your point: Let’s examine the Scriptural evidence that undergirds someone’s argument. That’s a great topic for discussion, but that is not what these preliminary comments were treating. Hopefully though, that will come up again in future posts.
I think another major ingredient that dictates who is “on the offensive” is the particular institutional position that is held at that particular time.
The Smiths at church are adamant that women should never wear pants… that goes for their daughter and yours too. The Petersons have no problems with the Smiths perspective, doesn’t bring up the issue to them but at the same time have no problem with modest pants on their daughters. Who is on the offensive? Doesn’t it depend on the church’s position? If the church holds the Petersons position, I can’t see how they would have any need to be aggressive. They’ll go on their merry way. The Smith’s must turn the ship. But if the church was on the Smith’s side, I can see the Peterson’s more aggressive in their position to wear pants.
I think this is a similar situation with your above issue with music or anything. Orthodox Christians, who are saying you MUST do this and NOT that, are much more aggressive and on the offensive regarding homosexuality these days because our institutional structures have accepted their position.
I think that one of the issues that we must put into this mix is that this whole issue is not new. We are acting as if the conservative’s concern over worldliness is something new and is merely like the issue over how to define modesty. Frankly, most Christian agree that we should be modest, but we may differ on what is modest, etc. The issue over music is different, seeing that many argue that music is amoral. This view –or something akin to it on a spectrum of assimilation to it –aggressively opposes the older view of the morality of music.
Historically the church has rejected this; its main leaders from the earliest of writers, including Augustine, Ambrose, Basil, etc, have spoken of it moral influence, warned of its danger, and condemned the church’s imitation of the world’s techniques. The vast majority of the ancient church rejected the world’s music and influence in the church so much that turned to sole psalmody and a capella music. While the modern church may have reason to question this, and it has since the time of Watts in the Evangelical churches, it has maintained a vehement distance from the world’s sounds. In this sense, the modern infatuation of the world’s sounds is an offense against this historic position.
It would be a nice addition to the store of knowledge to have someone document the historic argument more. Kind of like the historic argument against charismaticism–history does not have much of the charismata; it would be interesting to see how worship fared through the ages.