Answer: It doesn't matter which song is anyone's favorite. It's all about worshiping our Heavenly Father.
What's going on between these two people? There seem to be conflicting opinions about worship, that much is obvious. Look a little deeper and you can see some assumption taken by both individuals. The questioner is assuming that someone will think like they have about worship songs in terms of preference along a sliding scale of personal value and meaning. The answerer may, by context of the forum (in church from an official publication) in which the question was raised, assume that the questioner is looking for a certain type of answer--polling which songs were most popular.
The answerer then reacted to their own assumption (rather than the question itself) by addressing the underlying issue of defining the mysterious quality of worship. Thus, the answerer does not supply in their answer a logical answer formed out of great consideration and weighing of thought. The answerer responds emotionally to an instinctively perceived assumption. Why? I must assume they have already given thought to worship in this context and arrived at an emotional evaluation, which has colored their response with the pigments of truth--not some canned response formulated to be safe, but genuine and heartfelt meaning.
Perhaps they don't want anyone to spend a moment planning or formalizing what is supposed to be an organic gathering of hearts and souls around time dedicated to God. Or perhaps they are afraid that some songs will be taken out of the mix because they aren't popular enough, and they're trying to communicate that it is a waste of energy to spend more time figuring out which songs will be popular than actually working to experience God's power. Whatever the reasons, it's clear that there is perceived conflict of paradigms.
So what should we do in the face of such unexpected, bald-faced responses like this?
(1) First, I think we need to start expecting them. What I mean is we need to foster an environment where honesty and transparency are allowed to exist, then check our own defensive knee-jerk reactions so that we learn to carefully analyze the reasons behind an honest answer. There is truth everywhere if you're willing to work at its excavation, and I believe the rewards are great for those who will invest themselves in putting others ahead of themselves. If I am the questioner in this example, I need to allow the answerer to be right.
(2) Second, I think we need to act on feedback. If people know their feedback is actually considered and implemented in some way, they will be more likely to do any or all of four things:
- Feel valued.
- Feel integrated.
- Provide more feedback.
- Help others to feel valued, integrated, and encouraged to disclose their own thoughts.
A pastor I respect said that we need to look for the truth in what someone's saying, even if we disagree, even if it's just 10%. Then apply that 10% that was true, and let the other 90% of what they said go with a gracious spirit.
ReplyDeleteSo in this scenario, accept the reminder about the greater importance of connecting with God, and let the tone go. Then devote more time to dialoguing with those who actually answered the question.
Easier said than done, however. It's really gross when people respond to a heartfelt question with something that's at best, poorly said, and at worst, spiritually uber-snarky.