Applications are not as important as Philosophy
Scott AniolI have strong convictions about worship philosophy. I also have strong opinions about certain applications of that philosophy.
But these are not the same thing. Neither are they equally important.
Philosophical convictions are judgments based on clear, biblical principles. Notice that I did not say that the convictions themselves are necessarily clear, but they are based upon clear principles.
Applications, however, are methodological opinions with much less clear, objective basis. They are based (hopefully) on wise consideration of the philosophy and how it works in real life. This means that although I think strongly about these particular applications, they are not as important as the philosophy, and I certainly do not insist that all churches should adopt them.
On the local church level it is important that all of the leadership agree philosophically when it comes to worship. It is also fairly important that the leadership come to agreement about how that philosophy will be applied in that ministry. This has been true of both churches in which I’ve served. The pastors under which I’ve served and I have agreed completely on philosophy and, through continual discussion, came to a consensus on how that philosophy would be applied (although the exact applications differ between churches somewhat). It seems clear to me that this must be how it works on a local church level.
Beyond that, however, agreement on particular applications becomes less important dependent upon the situation.
This is why, for example, when I am preaching in churches, I never make direct applications for those churches. I focus primarily on biblical principles and the important philosophy we should draw from these principles. It is not my job to make applications for autonomous churches; that is the job of the leadership of that church. When I’m preaching at a pastors’ conference (or writing on this site!), I sometimes express my opinions about applications, but never in church meetings. This actually frustrates some folks who wish I would come right out and name names, styles, or other specifics.
I think that it is important to distinguish between these two categories as we discuss worship and music. Both are important, but my biggest concern is always philosophy rather than particular applications.
I know some pastors with whom I share convictions about both philosophy and general applications. There are other pastors I know with whom I agree philosophically but who make applications of that philosophy that I woudn’t. I can find sufficient ground for most levels of cooperation with men in both of these groups. Differences in particular ways of applying a similar philosophy don’t necessarily affect much.
It is fundamental philosophical differences that will often limit cooperation. Differences in philosophy often result in significant differences in application, and it is usually these differences in application that are most apparent and that appear to be the primary reason for limiting cooperation. Yet in reality, it is the more important philosophical differences that are the real reasons for cooperation limits.
The ministry commitments of Religious Affections Ministries illustrate some of what I consider important philosophical principles.
It is not always easy to keep these categories separate in discussions, but I’d like to urge us all (including me!) to make the effort.
Scott,
I’m not sure how you can separate the philosophy from the application. There are, to be sure, principles which are not disputable and about which people must agree to cooperate in ministry. However, any difference in application must come from either a philosophy or personal inconsistency with stated belief.
In my opinion, a person who agrees with me on the principles but differs on their applications has a different philosophy, even if the difference is minor. Through careful communication, I am sometimes able to distinguish nuances in the philosophy which cause the differences in application.
In any case, I think that the agreement over major components of a philosophy is much more important than agreement over nuances. However, I don’t think it’s a split between philosophy and application as it is between major and minor differences in philosophy.
I understand what you’re saying, Jeremiah. Let me see if I can be clearer.
1. The reason I allow a little more flexibility in applications is that how to apply a philosophy is not as clearly obvious as the philosophy itself.
2. Also, it is possible to apply one philosophy is several different, legitimate ways.
3. Now, I do agree that we must be sure that our applications do indeed flow from our philosophy. So I think you’re right that philosophy and applications are connected. I do believe that we can look at someone’s applications and discern their philosophy. All I’m saying is that there are more than one way to make applications of the same philosophy.
4. And I am not implying that we cannot disagree with each other whether certain applications truly flow from a right philosophy or whether certain applications are actually better than others. I think that’s a healthy discussion to have. But I don’t think I can have that discussion with church members of another church. I have that kind of discussion here, and I have that kind of discussion when I’m asked at pastors’ conferences. But it’s not my responsibility to make applications for autonomous churches.
Is that clearer?
Scott,
Thanks for adding clarity in an arena where many of us would rather focus on the differences between us rather than on what unites us — the principles of God’s Word. Let’s defend the autonomy of the local church in making applications without broadcasting those applications and implying that they should be precisely replicated in every church and in every culture, now and forevermore. No one would argue that our applications are the same now as they were fifty years ago. The point is that we keep making responsible applications based on something that does not change — God’s Word.
There is room for differences in application, and even changes in application over time, as long as we are are careful to maintain the integrity of the original principle.
Kevin Suiter