Some try to defend liturgy against the accusation that it is mere preference by bragging about how they personally would prefer rock or jazz, etc. This is only half the argument. Countering that the church’s worship must not be dictated by personal prefernce is only half the argument. It is a good argument, since we do not want to leave unchallenged the assumption that what happens in church should be dictated by personal or even congregational preferences. However, leaving it at that is letting the opponent define the terms of the debate.
The accusation that those who use liturgical (historic Lutheran) forms of worship do so because of stylistic preference needs to be clarified. This argument is either: - Ad hominem - Or they must argue that music is style and only style - Or that any difference is insignificant for church life
- The first is a fallacy: those who prefer to listen to Bach and those who prefer to listen to Biance can both be equall right or wrong, thoughtful or thoughtless, about anything, including worship of the Most High.
- The second is difficult to make
- Lewis, experiment in crit., distinction between reading-listening and using (Perhaps really a digression)
- Gordon, why J. can’t sing
- The entire advertising industry knows that certain styles of music should be employed for certain (usually manipulatively so).
- The last is the only feasible route for the oppent’s arguments
- Defeaters needed
- IN the end a boredom with the word
- Word focused or listener focused
- Teaching
- All the other points of Bean, et al., now apply