I have tried to avoid writing about Christmas. Perhaps it is my years working retail in the heart of winter that has led me to be an absolute grinch. Seeing all that is wrong with American culture enhanced by permitting it in the name of Christian celebration irks me even more. Greed and consumerism abound. However, the joy of spending time with family and friends will be especially sweet this Christmas. In what has been a tough year for many of us, it seems a more simplistic mindset has come upon those around me and I am thankful for their reminding me of the good of Christmas. A scripture has kept reappearing that is not usually associated with Christmas but I think has a great deal to say to those who love Christ.
Philippians 2:1-11 reads:
"If you have any encouragement from being united with Christ, if any comfort from his love, if any fellowship with the Spirit, if any tenderness and compassion, then make my joy complete by being like-minded, having the same love, being one in spirit and purpose. Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit, but in humility consider others better than yourselves. Each of you should look not only to your own interests, but also to the interests of others.Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus:
Who, being in very nature God,
did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,
but made himself nothing,
taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
and became obedient to death—
even death on a cross!
Therefore God exalted him to the highest place
and gave him the name that is above every name,
that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father."
The first point we see is that continuing from a discussion of the struggle that both Paul and the Philippian church shared, Paul begins to speak of encouragement and unity. The conjunction translated "if" actually assumes the following to be true; a better rendering might be "since". Paul knows that those who have met Christ have been encouraged, have been loved compassionately, and have been united to Him. So Paul encourages the believers to have a like mind: if you have been encouraged, be an encouragement; if loved, be loving; if united, etc. Rather than having hollow opinions of ourselves, we are to think of others and their considerations first. Hollowness and emptiness are a theme that we see unfold in Paul's mind in this chapter. When we think highly of ourselves it is really vain conceit and hollow thinking. We deceive ourselves in pride. Instead of focusing on ourselves we should focus on others; Paul literally says, look to the things of others. Imagine walking down a street where everyone was intently focused on themselves and their own problems and not looking where they were going. This is what happens when we do things out of selfish ambition. In our scenario, people would be bumping into each other, running into buildings or out in front of cars, only compounding their own problems. However, if they are looking after the things of others, they can maneuver safely, and even receive help with their own problems while helping others. Paul gives the antitheses of his wrong motivations: do nothing out of selfish ambition, but rather out of the anti-selfishness, consideration of others. Likewise, do nothing out of vain conceit, but rather out of anti-pride, humility.
You may be asking, what does this have to do with Christmas? I'm glad you asked. You see, Paul knew that humility and consideration are so far removed from our human mentality that we would only truly understand what he meant if we had an example set for us. And boy did we. Paul looked to the One who had a true claim to think highly of Himself and yet decided to act in humility and selflessness. Jesus was in very nature God. The Greek here is transliterated morphe, and it describes essential attributes. If anyone had a right to enjoy the privileges of the throne of God, it was Jesus. He was, and always has been, at His essence, God. However, Christ did not consider this glory something to be taken advantage of. It is interesting to note here the contrast of the first Adam, father of mankind, and the second Adam, firstborn over all creation. In Genesis 3, we see the serpent tell the man and his wife that if they ate of the fruit that they would become like God. Our sinful forefather seized his opportunity to grasp equality with God. And yet, Jesus, our righteousness, deemed it worth sacrificing for our sake. This is anything but selfish ambition.
Instead of taking pride in His divinity and lording it over us, Jesus rather became like us, and not only like us, but even our servant. Worth noting here is that while the Greek schema - describing outward appearance that is subject to change - is used to describe Christ's becoming a man, morphe is used to describe His being a servant (doulos, literally slave, but this might offend our Western European conscience). So while Christ was God who became a man, it was actually essential to Himself to be a servant. In fact, when Paul tells of Christ emptying Himself it brings to mind Isaiah 53:12: "Therefore I will give him a portion among the great, and he will divide the spoils with the strong, because he poured out his life unto death, and was numbered with the transgressors. For he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors." Christ was obedient. Not only that, but God Himself was obedient to death. And not only death, but the most despicable and gruesome death imagined, especially to the Jewish people (for whom death by hanging was a curse). So this is our Jesus, God become weak and insubstantial flesh, the Creator of speech unable to speak a word and having to learn language. The One who designed the human body learning to control his bowels. The One who imagined circulatory systems bleeding out. That is what humility looks like.
But, of course, the story does not end there. Because Christ humbled Himself and was obedient unto death, the Father exalted Him and it will be the duty and honor of every knee to bow and every tongue proclaim that King Jesus is Lord, to the glory of the Father (SOLI DEO GLORIA!)! And if we are like Him in life, and like Him in death, then we too will be rewarded - though to a much smaller degree - by God our Father at the resurrection.
So as we celebrate the birth of our King, we would do well to remember His example. As we exchange gifts with those we love, and work with, and tolerate, and got stuck with in secret santa drawings whom we barely know, we should remember Him whose birthday we celebrate. And perhaps we should give Him the gift of honoring His example. What are practical ways that we can be humble servants who consider others? Doubtless we all have our own circumstance and know how we can best serve the poor, needy, hurting, and sick around us. I will leave you with a video by an organization that offers eye-opening truths and some practical suggestions on how we can honor Jesus as we celebrate His birth. Merry Christmas, and Hallelujah!
11 December 2009
Song
Today I wrote a song for the first time in a long time. It is based on Philippians 2:6-11.
You are in very nature God
But You decided that was not
Something that You should hold onto
You wanted us to live with You
Hallelujah
So You became a man like me
Served all mankind in humility
Oh, Image of the invisible God
You died hanging on a tree
Hallelujah
Jesus, exalted to the highest place
Your name above all other names
Hallelujah
Every knee will bow
And every tongue proclaim
Jesus is Lord
Hallelujah
You are in very nature God
But You decided that was not
Something that You should hold onto
You wanted us to live with You
Hallelujah
So You became a man like me
Served all mankind in humility
Oh, Image of the invisible God
You died hanging on a tree
Hallelujah
Jesus, exalted to the highest place
Your name above all other names
Hallelujah
Every knee will bow
And every tongue proclaim
Jesus is Lord
Hallelujah
18 November 2009
25 September 2009
Open for Discussion
"Therefore, the kingdom of heaven is like a king who wanted to settle accounts with his servants. As he began the settlement, a man who owed him ten thousand talents was brought to him. Since he was not able to pay, the master ordered that he and his wife and his children and all that he had be sold to repay the debt. The servant fell on his knees before him. 'Be patient with me,' he begged, 'and I will pay back everything.' The servant's master took pity on him, canceled the debt and let him go.
But when that servant went out, he found one of his fellow servants who owed him a hundred denarii. He grabbed him and began to choke him. 'Pay back what you owe me!' he demanded. His fellow servant fell to his knees and begged him, 'Be patient with me, and I will pay you back.' But he refused. Instead, he went off and had the man thrown into prison until he could pay the debt. When the other servants saw what had happened, they were greatly distressed and went and told their master everything that had happened. Then the master called the servant in. 'You wicked servant,' he said, 'I canceled all that debt of yours because you begged me to. Shouldn't you have had mercy on your fellow servant just as I had on you?' In anger his master turned him over to the jailers to be tortured, until he should pay back all he owed. This is how my heavenly Father will treat each of you unless you forgive your brother from your heart." Matthew 18:23-35
Are there moral implications here for banks and creditors who have received stimulus money from the federal government?
But when that servant went out, he found one of his fellow servants who owed him a hundred denarii. He grabbed him and began to choke him. 'Pay back what you owe me!' he demanded. His fellow servant fell to his knees and begged him, 'Be patient with me, and I will pay you back.' But he refused. Instead, he went off and had the man thrown into prison until he could pay the debt. When the other servants saw what had happened, they were greatly distressed and went and told their master everything that had happened. Then the master called the servant in. 'You wicked servant,' he said, 'I canceled all that debt of yours because you begged me to. Shouldn't you have had mercy on your fellow servant just as I had on you?' In anger his master turned him over to the jailers to be tortured, until he should pay back all he owed. This is how my heavenly Father will treat each of you unless you forgive your brother from your heart." Matthew 18:23-35
Are there moral implications here for banks and creditors who have received stimulus money from the federal government?
13 September 2009
Worship
The following is my senior thesis from high school. It is a really long post, and is actually more a work in progress, so all the thoughts may not be complete, or I may have changed my opinions on some of the ideas within. However, in order to open discussion, I decided to post it. This is how it read when I turned it in at the end of my senior year in high school. Here goes...
For several decades, the war on worship has waged on in the American churches. The debate ranges from physical expressions of worship to styles of music to be used in the church; from the argument about whether or not to use instruments in the church to the debate regarding the structure of a "worship" service. While the Bible does not say, "Thou shalt sing hymns every Sunday" or "Thou shalt not play the drums in the House of God", it does have much to say about worship. Moreover, while some "restrictions" on worship may not be totally scriptural, some "freedoms" in worship may not be completely biblical, either. Only through an investigation into the Bible in its entire context can this conflict be resolved.
The truest forms and doctrines of worship come not from new, charismatic church doctrine; nor do they stem from conservative, traditional doctrine. True, pure worship can be found in the churches that encourage worship in the light of God’s Word, not in the light of church doctrine. Traditions have suppressed the movement of God in overly conservative churches; lack of foundation has destroyed order and created confusion in extremely charismatic churches. The truest forms of worship found in God’s infallible word lie somewhere along the less conservative lines than today’s extreme traditionalists (namely older denominations as Baptists, Presbyterian, Methodist, etc.).
The key to remember is that worship is not a doctrinal or denominational issue; it is rather a biblical issue. The Bible tells Christians what God’s desires are, not denominational creeds; the scriptures are the infallible word of God, not the official Baptist doctrine. Only if these doctrines agree with the Bible as a whole and within context of itself as a whole are they even worth recognizing. Another key is that not all churches under the “traditional” banner deny freedom in worship; similarly, not all “charismatic” churches abandon traditions rooted in God’s commands for worship. Finally, unity between all believers is a desirable trait. These points being understood, an investigation into worship can begin.
The first question to be resolved is what is worship? In his book What the Bible Teaches, R.A. Torrey proposes that worship is "the soul bowing itself in adoring contemplation before the object worshipped" (472). His evidence for this can be found in verses such as 2 Chronicles 7:3 - "…they knelt on the pavement with their faces to the ground, and they worshiped…" - and Exodus 4:31 - "…And when they heard that the Lord was concerned about them and had seen their misery, they bowed down and worshiped." Torrey writes, "Reading the Bible…is not worship…Praying is not worship…Singing is not necessarily worship…The root of the Hebrew word translated 'worship' in the Old Testament means 'to bow down'"(472). So the first aspect of worship is reverence and bowing down. This is evident throughout the entire Old Testament.
According to several authors and theologians, many people have confused worship with praise. Lewis Chafer writes, "Praise…has the same root as price, meaning to ascribe value and worth to another" (252). In Psalm 22:22, David says to God, "I will declare your name to my brothers; in the congregation I will praise you." In Philippians 1:11, Paul speaks of his desire for the Philippians to be "filled with the fruits of righteousness that comes from through Jesus Christ - to the glory and praise of God." In these two verses, praise is used as giving glory and credit to God for what He has done.
The main difference between praise and worship is the personality of the action. Bob Sorge writes, "praise can sometimes be distant, but worship is usually intimate." (68) Ronald Allen and Gordon Borror write, "To worship someone or something is to attribute supreme worth or to declare supreme value to that one or that thing." (17) While praise is proclaiming God's worth to everyone, worship is proclaiming God's worth to Him. Worship is always communication with God; praise is the outward celebration of one's communion with God. Sorge goes on to say, "praise is always seen or heard; worship is not always evident to an observer." (68) While praise is always going to be an outward outpouring of joy and reverence for God, the intense intimacy of worship allows for personal worship that is not evident to others. "Worship is not a musical activity, but a function of the heart"; it is "often characterized by a quiet and unassumed basking in God's presence" (Sorge 68). While praise is an act of the flesh, worship is an act of the spirit, an intimate unity between a person's spirit and God's.
Oftentimes, the phrase "Worship is a lifestyle" is used by pastors and Christian leaders to emphasize a habit of worship. However, Davin Seay writes, what does the term lifestyle mean? He quotes Reverend Maggi Dawn as saying, "The word 'lifestyle' connotes a choice…But worship is not an option. It is a command of God." This is true. It is not for people to choose whether to worship God or not. Worship involves sacrifice; rather than choosing to stay in one's comfort zone, worship breaks that zone and makes God the absolute center of everything that is done. However, by "lifestyle", would someone mean that everything they do reflects the aspect of that routine? While one's entire life should revolve around bringing pleasure to God, is worship the entire life, or can it be boiled down to times of worship on a consistent basis? Seay quotes Samuel Balentine as saying: "[The Sabbath] is a time set apart from ordinary days." God says to keep the Sabbath holy and separate. This shows that some time should be especially set apart for time with God. Therefore, worship has to be an instance, and exact point in time, or an action, rather than a period of time, or a "lifestyle" in this sense. However, a true worshiper's life will make obvious the time spent with God. In essence, worship is an action that should be habitual, while obedience is a choice of a lifestyle, or how to live.
How does God expect His followers to worship? In John 4:23, Jesus says "Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and in truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks." There has been much speculation and study into what "in spirit and in truth" exactly means. If these are the worshipers God desires, all who aspire to worship Him should follow these guidelines. So what is worship in spirit and in truth?
First, Jesus was showing that worship would not put emphasis on the place (Jerusalem for the Jews, or Mount Gerizim for the Samaritans), but instead it was a function of the spirit of man reaching out to the Spirit of God (Sorge 79). Until the Day of Pentecost, after Jesus left, God's people did not have the Holy Spirit. While before Pentecost, one could commune with God's Spirit in true worship, now it is even deeper because all Christians have the Spirit of God with them. Under the rituals of the past, the Jews had lost sight of true worship. In Isaiah 29:13, God says of His people, "These people come near to me with their mouths and honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. Their worship of me is made up only of rules taught by men." God's people had lost sight of true worship and had chosen simply to go through the motions. Jesus knew this and was emphasizing to this woman that soon the Mosaic sacrifice rituals would pass away, and worship would take place between God's spirit and man's spirit. "Worship in spirit", therefore, is emphasizing communion with God rather than empty rituals.
Worship in truth has three facets to it. As Sorge clarifies, "When Jesus spoke of worshiping in truth, he meant that worship involves the mind." This, he says, is the difference between "intelligent" and "ignorant" worship (80). Many people carry around the misconception that when they attend the "worship service" at their local church on Sunday morning, that God will come and move and when he does, it will be based upon the great feeling that comes in worship. Worship, they fail to recognize, requires great mental application. Jesus commands Christians to "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind". This command does not become limited to only one's heart and soul in worship, but worshipers worship God in their minds. This means that whatever worship takes place must be done with intellectual intelligence. Worshipers must understand all that is going on and only worship in the truth.
A second component of worship in truth is worship with honesty. According to Allen and Borror, "The real factor in worship is a heart desire for God…" (24) One should not come before God and offer hypocritical or false worship. God is not pleased with forms of worship that are actually hypocritical in nature; He wants worshipers to come before Him with hearts that are pure and true (Sorge 82). Sometimes Christians need "to realize we have a form of godliness but have long since lost the power thereof" (Allen and Borror 25). It is one thing to appear that everything is under control; it is quite another to be truly seeking God. The reason true worship does not take place in churches is that is does not take place in the everyday lives of churchgoers (Allen and Borror 24). Mouth worship is false, but heart worship will reveal itself in every portion of the worshiper's life. To worship in truth, one must be following God's commands.
Finally, worship in truth deals with worship in accordance to God's word and His nature. While many today would quickly lump Jesus, Hare Krishna, Allah, and even themselves into the same "deity", there is no doubt that there are great differences. The God of the Bible, Yahweh, in three persons, is inherently different than other gods. Sincerity in worship does not make up for worshiping without truth. Consider the Muslims, arguably the most sincere religious group in the world; however, they do not worship Jesus, but Allah, who is an entirely different entity. Therefore, there are irreconcilable differences, and their worship, no matter how sincere, cannot be accepted by God because it is not in accordance to His Word or His nature. Likewise, all worship must be in accordance to Scripture; if it is not, it is not true worship and is unacceptable.
The effects of worship in spirit and in truth will be myriad and noticeable. Time truly spent with God will show. Davin Seay quotes Dr. Randy Rowland as saying, "…worship demands an investment of the whole person and the whole life." This means that a true worshiper will have obvious effects of being with God. One cannot spend significant amounts of intimate time with anyone - much less the omnipotent God - and not be changed. The time set apart for God will make a great difference. It is a cyclical process. When one worships, he becomes closer to and more like God, therefore making him a better and more complete worshiper. True worship affects the worshiper's life.
Therefore, worship is the communication and intimacy between the spirit of a person and the Spirit of Almighty God. This worship is always going to be out of reverence and love, out of humility and bowing down. Worship involves man's adoration and contemplation of God. Worship and praise, while similar in origin and meaning, are two separate acts. True worship occurs in spirit and in truth. Worship in spirit is communion between Christians and the Holy Spirit, who guides and directs them. Worship in truth is worship of the mind along with the heart and soul. It is sincere and honest worship of one who understands and obeys God's laws and desires genuinely to know Him more. Finally, it is in accordance to God's word and will.
The next question to be resolved is what kind of people worship. Now that true worship can be understood, true worshipers can be defined. The scriptures give very specific attitudes and attributes that true worshipers act out in their worship. If worship is completely focused on God instead of self, then a true worshiper will be consumed with what God wants from His worshipers.
The first thing to understand is that God’s desire is the worship of every man and woman. The creation of humankind was for relationship with God. Before the creation of man, God said, “‘Let us make man in our image, in our likeness…’” (Genesis 1:26). This is proof of special creation of man. This special creation was for communion with Almighty God. Genesis 3:8 speaks of God walking in the garden in the cool of the day. The assumption that can be made is that God's walking in the garden with Adam and Eve was an everyday occurrence. This personal relationship with God is the reason for the creation of man.
Something else to understand is that worship is a command rather than a request. God says to His people in Exodus 20:3-5, “You shall have no other gods before me. You shall not make for yourself an idol…You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God…” God did not request the worship of His people – He commanded it. God demanded that His people give Him their unadulterated love and attention. To be a child of God necessitates worship of Him alone. Therefore, since God desires all people to be His children, God desires and expects the worship of every person.
So then, what kind of people are true worshipers? Rick Warren writes, “The heart of worship is surrender” (77). The very first attribute of a true worshiper is that of being unselfishly surrendered to God’s will. No one can worship when focused on himself. A true worshiper will be focused on God and doing what He wants. In Romans 12:1, Paul says, “Therefore, I urge you, brothers, in view of God’s mercy, to offer your bodies as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God – this is your spiritual act of worship.” Paul uses the word sacrifice to describe a worshiper. This is evidence of God’s desire for unselfish worshipers.
A true worshiper will be, as Matt Redman writes, “unquenchable” (18). Redman cites as an example Habakkuk, who “decided he would respond to God’s worth, no matter how bleak a season he found himself in” (19). Habakkuk 3:17-18 says
Though the fig tree does not bud and there are no grapes on the vines, though the olive crop fails and the fields produce no food, though there are no sheep in the pen and no cattle in the stalls, yet I will rejoice in God my Savior.
Habakkuk was not limiting his worship of God to times of great comfort and rejoicing. He was not an easily quenched worshiper, but instead worshiped God at all times. This embodies the idea of being an unquenchable worshiper.
Another characteristic of a true worshiper is that of being ruined. No sinful man can worship the Father in spirit and in truth until he realizes his sin and the separation from God, which exists as a result of that sin. When Isaiah saw God in all His glory, he responded by confessing his sin. He says to God in Isaiah 6:5, “‘Woe to me…I am ruined! For I am a man of unclean lips, and I live among a people of unclean lips, and my eyes have seen the King, the Lord Almighty.” Isaiah realized that his sin permeated every facet of his life. He knew that since he was spiritually dead, his physical eyes could not view the Lord. Isaiah was broken before the Lord; only then did God proceed to cleanse Isaiah and allow him to worship. Likewise, a true worshiper does not enter the throne room of God with an air of arrogance, but rather “a broken and contrite heart” (Psalm 51:17). A true worshiper understands that he is doing God no big favor by worshiping Him, but that it is an honor and privilege to worship the Almighty.
The true worshiper will not worship only in song or in church once a week, because he understands that worship is so much more than singing a few songs or listening to a sermon. A true worshiper will be obedient to God’s commands because he understands the importance of obedience. One John 2:6 says, “Whoever claims to live in [God] must walk as Jesus did.” In order to worship personally, obedience to God’s commands is vital. In John 14:15, Jesus says, “If you love me, you will obey what I command.” In order to worship, one must love God and desire to spend time with Him. Those who love God will obey His commands; therefore, a true worshiper will be obedient to what God’s word says.
Matt Redman writes that a true worshiper will be willing to go unnoticed (84). By unnoticed, he means unnoticed by people, not unnoticed by God. God sees everything that happens to everyone. However, in Matthew 6, Jesus warns, “‘Be careful not to do your “acts of righteousness” before men…’” (verse 1). Again, in verse 6, He says, “But when you pray, go into your room, close the door, and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.” Jesus teaches that acts of worship should be done before God, not before men. Jesus expects worshipers to have the faith to believe that their worship is seen and that God will reward them for their worship in secret. The temptation is always present to put on big acts of “worship” for everyone to see. A true worshiper worships the same in secret as he does in front of thousands of other people. There is also an expectation implied by Jesus when He says, “When you pray”, or “When you fast” (Matthew 6:16). Therefore, a true worshiper will do these acts, but is content in worship that goes unnoticed by man.
A true worshiper will also be able to relate to God. A.W. Tozer writes, “…for millions of Christians, God is no more real than He is to the non-Christian. They go through life trying to love and be loyal to a mere principle” (48). Instead of worshiping someone that they know and love, someone they can talk to and have communion with, these Christians worship a standard or an idea. A true worshiper will by definition know God intimately and personally. A true worshiper will not have to hold to an opaque opinion or ideal because he will worship Whom he knows.
One last aspect of a true worshiper is that of purity. A true worshiper will not try to enter the presence of God with the guilt of sin in his heart. The true worshiper understands what God commands in 1 Peter 1:16: “Be holy, as I [God] am holy.” The true worshiper will set himself apart from the world and will lead a pure life. He will also understand that “Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus” (Romans 8:1). The guilt of sin has been taken away, and the true worshiper can worship freely and purely. The true worshiper also understands that he must deal with his sin before entering God’s presence to worship. He understands the principle that Jesus teaches in Matthew 5:23-24, “Therefore, if you are offering a gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there at the altar. First go and be reconciled to your brother; then come and offer your gift.” A true worshiper will not try to offer God the sacrifice of praise until he is completely blameless before God. He makes sure his purity and then will offer God acceptable worship.
These are all attitudes of a true worshiper; however, there are several attitudes that hinder true worship. These attitudes are brought about by man’s sinful nature, attack on Christians’ minds, and Christians’ complacency. The first of these attitudes is pride. Sorge writes, “Pride has ruined far more worship services than all the forces of hell combined” (101). Pride keeps Christians from responding to God the way He wants them to. Because the very nature of worship is God-centered and God-focused, pride can destroy intimate worship from the foundation up. Rather than be prideful or selfish, a true worshiper should follow the Holy Spirit’s lead in worship and follow what God wants. Sometimes that may entail leaving one’s “comfort zone” or doing something that is not socially acceptable, such as a physical act of worship that one does not often practice in his church. Rather than letting pride take over, a true worshiper will let God take over and respond to Him as He moves.
A second attitude that hinders worship is what Sorge calls “reverse hedonism”, or the philosophy of “if it feels good, do it” (102). This attitude goes hand-in-hand with pride. Christians are not free to worship when they feel, how they feel. They are not supposed to worship simply when they feel like it, but rather when God feels like it. A true worshiper will be in humble submission to His will, and respond to Him accordingly.
The last wrong attitude in worship is mere lip service. It is very easy for Christians to become too familiar and comfortable with songs or orders of worship and rather than put their whole hearts, souls, and minds into worshiping God, they simply go through the motions. God addressed this same problem in Amos 5. The Israelites had become too complacent in their worship of God. They followed all the commands of worship set forth to Moses. They followed all the feasts and fasts; however, they did so feebly and unwillingly. He responded by saying: “I hate, I despise your religious feasts; I cannot stand your assemblies. Even though you bring me burnt offerings and grain offerings, I will not accept them” (Amos 5:21-22). God’s response to His people’s self-satisfaction was a warning that He would disregard their half-hearted worship altogether. This lip service is not enough for the Almighty; He demands wholehearted worship from His people. The people of God had forgotten what Samuel speaks of God in 1 Samuel 15:22: “To obey is better than sacrifice.” Worship is not a matter of strict obedience to a set of laws; the essence of the matter is how the worshiper worships, halfheartedly (which is unacceptable) or wholeheartedly (which is what the Lord desires).
Therefore, true worship can be defined as intimate communion and interaction between the heart, soul and mind of man and the Spirit of God. This interaction must be in accordance with God's will set forth in the scriptures. A true worshiper will have the right attitudes and actions in worship. However, a true worshiper will worship not only individually, but also corporately. Therefore, is there any basis in scripture for corporate worship? If so, what kinds and types of worship are scriptural and acceptable? What physical actions, if any, should take place in corporate worship? Should hymns be sung, or are newer praise and worship songs acceptable? All these questions remain to be resolved.
First, there is scriptural basis for corporate worship. There is no doctrine standing against this fact, which is deeply rooted in God’s word. The Israelites gathered every Sabbath to worship God together. Many Christians throughout history have argued that one can worship God just as well in His creation, or by oneself, as in church on Sunday mornings. While this is true on a personal, one-on-one level with God, there is a different facet to worship that must be understood. Worship does not only take place on a one-to-one level, but also on a community level. For example, seven times Moses requested that Pharaoh let the Israelites go into the desert to worship corporately. Psalm 102:22 speaks of a time “when the peoples and the kingdoms assemble to worship the Lord.” In Acts 13, the disciples gather together to worship and the Holy Spirit sets aside Paul and Barnabas for missionary work. These are all examples of corporate worship. God’s people have always worshiped corporately, as well as personally. Jesus says in Matthew 18:20, “Where two or three come together in My name, there am I with them.” God obviously places great emphasis on corporate worship. God moves greatly through corporate worship, and commands it of his people.
A first reason for this community worship is that it creates unity among the body to gather together for the purpose of worshiping together. Psalm 133:1 says, “How good and pleasant it is when brothers live together in unity.” Although there may be doctrinal differences between believers, they can all still come together for worship. In fact, the worship of God is one thing all Christians do have in common. God greatly desires unity in His body. Jesus prays in John 17:23, “May they be brought to complete unity…”; similarly, Paul writes in Romans 15:5, “May God…give you a spirit of unity among yourselves…” Throughout scripture it is obvious that unity is a necessary ingredient for the body of Christ to function properly.
A second reason for corporate worship is, as Sorge writes, the “opportunity to minister to one another” (115). Along with the community of corporate worship, there is a ministry of corporate worship. A corporately worshiping body of believers is much more effective than several solitary believers worshiping alone. The whole is greater than the sum of the parts. The Holy Spirit did not come to earth until all the disciples were gathered together (Acts 2:1). Likewise, the Holy Spirit is more likely to move in a powerful way if He can move among a group of worshipers. God commands corporate worship for legitimate reasons.
Therefore, what should take place when a body of God’s people joins together in order to worship? This is the point on which many divisions of Christ’s body part ways. While the liturgical churches (Presbyterian, Episcopalian, Lutheran, and Catholic, among others) have a set order of worship each time they meet, the less traditional churches may differ in their order of worship from week to week. Which position is right? What does the Bible say regarding this issue? Paul tells the church at Ephesus in Ephesians 5:19, “Speak to one another with psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs. Sing and make music in your heart to the Lord…” Paul clearly states that
music is part of a corporate gathering of believers.
This music serves a twofold purpose. First, of course is to worship God, which is making music to the Lord. However, another reason is to speak to the other believers worshiping there. Paul says to do this through psalms – which are the psalms from the Old Testament - hymns, which are traditional songs written by and for use in the church – and spiritual songs. It is most difficult to give a definition or parameter to the term spiritual songs; however, these are most likely times of spontaneous praise and worship, along with times of personal reflection and communication with God outside an established set of words, such as in a song. In today’s terms, these three items would be the use of scriptures, hymns and praise and worship songs, and times of “free praise”.
The debate has arisen in the church over the past few hundred years over whether or not to include instruments in worship. While there remains no doubt as to the place of music in worship, the negative side of the argument (namely the Church of Christ faction) cites the fact that the New Testament does not mention the use of instruments in worship. Kevin Cauley’s argument, representative of nearly all proponents of anti-instrumentalism, is that the New Testament does not specify instruments for worship. However, Paul reminds us “All scripture is God breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness” (2 Timothy 3:16). Therefore, to rebuke this teaching, Psalm 150 says, “Praise the Lord…in His sanctuary…with the sound of trumpet, with the harp and lyre, with the strings and flute, with the clash of cymbals…” This is just one among many verses (many of them in the Psalms) that are clearly evidence for the use of instruments in the temple of God for worship. No scripture specifically gives the message of not using instruments to praise and worship God; however, there are several instances where this kind of worship is commanded. Therefore, one must conclude that corporate worship of God with the use of instruments is both scriptural and acceptable.
As a rule, traditional churches hold to their own traditional hymnodies – while denying any newer worship songs. For example, the Baptist sub-denominations have several different hymnals they each use, and while there is some dispute over which hymnals are “right”, the general doctrine is that all music for corporate worship must come from these hymnals. In contrast, many of the less traditional churches, particularly those not affiliated with any specific denomination, do not even address hymns in their doctrines, and often do not incorporate the traditional hymns of the Christian faith into their worship services. This has sparked great controversy between churches today.
So then, the problem arises of styles: tradition versus what is “hot”, hymns versus choruses, or, basically, old versus new. The foundational principle to understand in this case is that nothing in worship should ever be done simply because it is the way that it has always been done. However, those traditions with great history and purposeful foundation for their objectives should without a doubt be respected and used under the direction of the Holy Spirit. Likewise, nothing in worship should ever be done simply because it is different or new; there must always be a basis, or a reason for something to be a part of a worship service. Nothing should occur for the sake of occurring. None of the great traditions or laws given to the Israelites was given just for them to have traditions and laws to follow; God always had a reason for His commands. Whether it was the symbolism commanded of the Israelites in sacrifices (which pointed to the Messiah), or whether it was the command of God to ceremonially wash before eating, there was always a purpose. Similarly, there should always be a reason for what is done in worship services honoring the Father today. Dr. Barry Liesch - a longtime worship pastor in California - writes, “We are dependent on God, not forms” (21). The style of music does not define worship; following God’s lead in expressing one’s love to Him does. That being understood, the problem of musical styles can be addressed.
First, hymns should be used in the church for several reasons, the foremost being that they carry an enormous amount of rich history, truth, and doctrine from the days of the Reformation. The original purpose of many hymns was to teach scriptural truths to the body of Christ. During the times of the Reformation period, people were generally uneducated, and therefore, illiterate. Because of this fact, it became hard for church leaders to teach their congregations from the Bible. As a result, church leaders such as Martin Luther began writing hymns to use as teaching tools. In fact, some hymns, such as Luther’s “A Mighty Fortress Is Our God”, were taken directly from scripture. The reasoning behind this was that songs were easy to remember, and could be learned verbally rather than being read. Consequently, great hymns of the past hold and speak deep truths from scripture. However, as Liesch writes, “Our young people are committed Christians, but when it comes to their knowledge of hymnody – they are ignorant!” (21) Hymns are the foundation of all of today’s worship music; without this foundation, the songs of today would fall. Hymns are time-tested reminders of the church’s learning and development, and are still effective for teaching and worshiping today. The words of some of these songs are just as true and relevant today as they were hundreds of years ago. For this reason, hymns should be used in the church.
Some hymns, however, are no longer relevant, or perhaps never were. Some hymns seem to ramble on about several different points with no real theme, thought, or conclusion. Most are written in older language, making them harder to understand and sing from the heart. Most hymns are more intellectual, leaving little room for the communication of emotion. Several hymns are impersonal, not allowing for personalized praise and worship. Most are musically old, and as the church has had access to more technology in the past few years and has opened the doors for more musical creativity, it becomes harder to use these hymns in their original forms. For all these reasons, hymns do not seem to be enough for most churches today. Exclusively used, hymns are acceptable and usable for worship, but seem to fall short in some areas.
On the other hand, praise and worship songs, or choruses, are worded more contemporarily, and thus are easier to identify with for most people. Several times the psalmist encourages his readers to “sing a new song”; if God’s mercies are made new every morning, then should there not be room for new expressions of gratitude? Worship choruses can communicate to people just as hymns did in their original time: clearly and contemporarily. Praise and worship songs have their place in the church for worship as well.
Nevertheless, there are some objections to these songs. They tend to be repetitive and short. Several of these songs are shallow, not holding deep, theological truths like so many of the hymns. These songs have not been tested by time, and therefore, their worth has not been challenged and proven. However, tradition is a never-ending process (Liesch 30). Soon several of today’s contemporary songs will be considered outdated. The focus should move beyond the style of the music to the point of worship. If a song is scripturally accurate, communicates praise and adoration for God, communicates scriptural truths, and is useful for ministering to one another within the body, then it can be acceptable for worship. Until the body of Christ stops worshiping worship forms and styles and starts worshiping God as He desires, these arguments will continue and will never be resolved. In this case, true worship lies somewhere in between the practices of traditional churches and freer churches.
Furthermore, the worshiper’s body is a medium for worshiping God. The very definition of the word that is translated as “worship” in the New Testament is “to bow down”. Several so-called conservative churches hold to unwritten "standards of worship" that deny most freedom to be demonstrative in worship (McMinn 93). Conversely, several churches allow pure emotion or pure foolishness to drive expressiveness into the realm of ridiculous. Not every time someone worships the Lord will God lead him to express himself in the same way; not every time will God lead him not to be physically expressive.
Don McMinn gives two main reasons for lack of expression in churches that are more conservative. The first is that the church’s heritage teaches that being demonstrative in church is improper (93). Many Christians have been taught not to do anything in church that might make a scene. Their view of the presence of God is one of reverence, meaning quietness, stiffness, and being reserved. Secondly, these people determine appropriateness based upon this heritage rather than scripture. Any Christian who took it upon himself to study God’s word in this area would find that the Bible supports physical expressiveness in worship. However, tradition kicks in and will not allow that person to let go of his inherited inhibitions and freely worship the Lord. He can give no basis for his beliefs, except that he was just taught not to do that. A brief overview of scriptural expression in worship will show the truth.
The first physical expression is the lifting of hands. There are several reasons for lifting of hands, and several scriptures giving the foundation for this practice. Psalm 28:2 says, “Hear my cry…as I lift up my hands”. McMinn writes, “The raising of hands is the international sign of surrender” (98). Christians should lift hands to symbolize surrender to God. Psalm 88:9 says, “I spread my hands out to You every day”. Ronald Allen and Gordon Borror write, “one holds out his hands to receive God’s grace” (123). However, it is more than just His grace; it is also his blessings, and His perfect plan, that raising of hands can signify. The extension of an open hand also suggests honesty and innocence (Gordon and Borror 123). Paul expresses his desire for “all men to lift up holy hands in prayer” (1 Timothy 2:8). McMinn proposes that hands can symbolize the condition of one’s heart, whether innocent or guilty (98). Lastly, the lifting of hands can be symbolic of victory and celebration; just as a national championship basketball team lifts their hands in triumphant celebration, so can the Christian living in God’s grace.
A second form of expression is applause. Clapping is always an action of appreciation or affirmation of someone or something. Sometimes the best that a Christian can do is to appreciate God and reaffirm His goodness. Among several other verses, Psalm 47:1 speaks of this: “Clap your hands, all you nations; shout to God with cries of joy.” Applauding God and His work as a congregation achieves the goal of extolling Him and recognizing His place over all. Applauding the Lord can be an acceptable form of worship. However, Richard Walters, a columnist for a Baptist newsletter writes, “I believe there are severe dangers in this alien practice.” This same “alien practice” is the type of worship commanded of God’s people! Perhaps Mr. Walters is not a Christian, if God’s word is “alien” to Him. His reasons for not applauding in a worship service are that it brings attention to the instrumentalists and preachers rather than God, and that individuals similar to himself receive a “meatless bone” which “cannot strengthen [his] life.” If worship is focused on God, then what relevance does the “meatless bone” argument have in this case? Mr. Walters’s two reasons are mutually exclusive; they cannot both be true. In addition, if God commands clapping, as He does, then how can it be focused on performance? This is not a problem of the action, but rather of the actor. True forms of corporate worship do indeed include applause.
Another physical articulation of worship is kneeling or bowing; even lying prostrate, face down on the ground. This posture is one of submission to the Lordship of Christ. Philippians 2:10 tells Christians that merely at the statement of the name of Jesus, every single knee will bow to his authority. Because of the humility involved in this act, it becomes difficult for stubborn, sinful man to carry this out. However, submission to Christ is a key element of worship, which is why a true worshiper must follow Psalm 95:6, “Come, let us bow down in worship, let us kneel before the Lord our Maker.”
Lastly, and perhaps the most taboo, is dancing before the Lord. Dancing before God is actually in the Bible, but it would never happen in many churches today. However, 2 Samuel 6 tells the story of David dancing before the Lord so joyfully and vigorously that he embarrassed his wife. When she confronted him about it, he simply said, “I will become even more undignified than this, and I will be humiliated in my own eyes” (2 Samuel 6:22). Expression in worship is often a dignity issue. Christians refuse to follow God’s call to be expressive simply out of fear of others’ opinions. This is not the attitude of a true worshiper, but of a self-centered worshiper.
Physical expression in worship can be a beautiful way to honor God. However, as Jack Hayford writes, “it only takes one or two people in a group who flail their arms mindlessly during every song” to cause a disturbance (133). True worship is not a show before other people, but before God. Physical worshipful expression should only be led by Him, and in the context of scripture. Only then can physical expression be a beautiful piece of true worship.
Finally, the order of worship becomes an issue. If a worship service is all about God, should man be able to plan a service and try to fit God into it? Or should there be no order at all, just openness for God to do what He wants? While God should be free to do whatever he wants in His service, he is still “a God of order” (1 Corinthians 14:33). However, should this order be to the extreme of Presbyterian liturgy, which is planned even to the point of what times people are supposed to stand or respond to God in confession? Or should that be the Spirit’s prerogative to lead the worshiper into that form of worship? Since worship is the worshiper responding to God, a service must leave room for God to move in His chosen way. This does not mean that there should be no semblance of order whatsoever; this would lead to chaos. Rather, there should be flexibility in the planning of the service to let God move how He sees fit.
Therefore, true worship is defined as communion between God and man. It requires all of man – his heart, mind, soul, and strength – to take place. A true worshiper will follow God’s commands, because God desires obedience as the highest form of worship. Worship is always God-centered and God-led; nothing in worship can be done out of selfish desires or ambition. The scriptures specifically command corporate worship, and one medium for this worship is music. Instruments are acceptable and desirable in musical worship, as are different styles of music. Physical expression will take place as a mirror of the inward heart and desires of a worshiper. Above all, worship is the chief purpose of man, and he must strive for excellence to honor God through his worship. While this is not an exhaustive dissertation of all forms of worship, it does present a skeleton for biblical worship, desired by the Creator for the benefit of His people. This structure has been suppressed in traditionalist conservative churches. It is time that Christians embrace and rejoice in the worship to which God has called them. “A time has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and in truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks.” (John 4:23) May all of God’s children seek to be these kinds of worshipers.
Works Cited
Allen, Ronald and Gordon Borror. Worship: Rediscovering the
Missing Jewel. Portland: Multnomah Press. 1982.
Caulley, Kevin. “Should We Use Instrumental Music in Worship?”.
www.preachersfiles.com/cauley/bible_lessons/instrumental.htm.
Chafer, Lewis Sperry. Systematic Theology. Dallas: Dallas
Seminary Press. 1969.
Hayford, Jack. Worship His Majesty. Dallas: Word
Publishing. 1987.
Holy Bible, The, New International Version. Colorado
Springs: International Bible Society. 1984.
Liesch, Barry. The New Worship. Grand Rapids: Baker Books.
1996.
McMinn, Don. The Practice of Praise. Oklahoma
City: Word Music. 1992.
Redman, Matt. The Unquenchable Worshipper. Ventura: Regal
Books. 2001.
Seay, Davin. "Is Worship a Lifestyle?" Worship Leader
Magazine. Sept/Oct 2003. pp 20-21.
Sorge, Bob. Exploring Worship. Canandaigua: Bob Sorge.
1987.
Torrey, R.A. What the Bible Teaches. Grand Rapids: Baker
Book House. 1933.
Tozer, A.W. The Pursuit of God. Camp Hill: Christian
Publications. 1993.
Walters, Richard. “Hand Clapping in Worship Service”.
www.baptistpillar.com/bd0363.htm
Warren, Rick. The Purpose Driven Life. Grand
Rapids: Zondervan. 2002.
For several decades, the war on worship has waged on in the American churches. The debate ranges from physical expressions of worship to styles of music to be used in the church; from the argument about whether or not to use instruments in the church to the debate regarding the structure of a "worship" service. While the Bible does not say, "Thou shalt sing hymns every Sunday" or "Thou shalt not play the drums in the House of God", it does have much to say about worship. Moreover, while some "restrictions" on worship may not be totally scriptural, some "freedoms" in worship may not be completely biblical, either. Only through an investigation into the Bible in its entire context can this conflict be resolved.
The truest forms and doctrines of worship come not from new, charismatic church doctrine; nor do they stem from conservative, traditional doctrine. True, pure worship can be found in the churches that encourage worship in the light of God’s Word, not in the light of church doctrine. Traditions have suppressed the movement of God in overly conservative churches; lack of foundation has destroyed order and created confusion in extremely charismatic churches. The truest forms of worship found in God’s infallible word lie somewhere along the less conservative lines than today’s extreme traditionalists (namely older denominations as Baptists, Presbyterian, Methodist, etc.).
The key to remember is that worship is not a doctrinal or denominational issue; it is rather a biblical issue. The Bible tells Christians what God’s desires are, not denominational creeds; the scriptures are the infallible word of God, not the official Baptist doctrine. Only if these doctrines agree with the Bible as a whole and within context of itself as a whole are they even worth recognizing. Another key is that not all churches under the “traditional” banner deny freedom in worship; similarly, not all “charismatic” churches abandon traditions rooted in God’s commands for worship. Finally, unity between all believers is a desirable trait. These points being understood, an investigation into worship can begin.
The first question to be resolved is what is worship? In his book What the Bible Teaches, R.A. Torrey proposes that worship is "the soul bowing itself in adoring contemplation before the object worshipped" (472). His evidence for this can be found in verses such as 2 Chronicles 7:3 - "…they knelt on the pavement with their faces to the ground, and they worshiped…" - and Exodus 4:31 - "…And when they heard that the Lord was concerned about them and had seen their misery, they bowed down and worshiped." Torrey writes, "Reading the Bible…is not worship…Praying is not worship…Singing is not necessarily worship…The root of the Hebrew word translated 'worship' in the Old Testament means 'to bow down'"(472). So the first aspect of worship is reverence and bowing down. This is evident throughout the entire Old Testament.
According to several authors and theologians, many people have confused worship with praise. Lewis Chafer writes, "Praise…has the same root as price, meaning to ascribe value and worth to another" (252). In Psalm 22:22, David says to God, "I will declare your name to my brothers; in the congregation I will praise you." In Philippians 1:11, Paul speaks of his desire for the Philippians to be "filled with the fruits of righteousness that comes from through Jesus Christ - to the glory and praise of God." In these two verses, praise is used as giving glory and credit to God for what He has done.
The main difference between praise and worship is the personality of the action. Bob Sorge writes, "praise can sometimes be distant, but worship is usually intimate." (68) Ronald Allen and Gordon Borror write, "To worship someone or something is to attribute supreme worth or to declare supreme value to that one or that thing." (17) While praise is proclaiming God's worth to everyone, worship is proclaiming God's worth to Him. Worship is always communication with God; praise is the outward celebration of one's communion with God. Sorge goes on to say, "praise is always seen or heard; worship is not always evident to an observer." (68) While praise is always going to be an outward outpouring of joy and reverence for God, the intense intimacy of worship allows for personal worship that is not evident to others. "Worship is not a musical activity, but a function of the heart"; it is "often characterized by a quiet and unassumed basking in God's presence" (Sorge 68). While praise is an act of the flesh, worship is an act of the spirit, an intimate unity between a person's spirit and God's.
Oftentimes, the phrase "Worship is a lifestyle" is used by pastors and Christian leaders to emphasize a habit of worship. However, Davin Seay writes, what does the term lifestyle mean? He quotes Reverend Maggi Dawn as saying, "The word 'lifestyle' connotes a choice…But worship is not an option. It is a command of God." This is true. It is not for people to choose whether to worship God or not. Worship involves sacrifice; rather than choosing to stay in one's comfort zone, worship breaks that zone and makes God the absolute center of everything that is done. However, by "lifestyle", would someone mean that everything they do reflects the aspect of that routine? While one's entire life should revolve around bringing pleasure to God, is worship the entire life, or can it be boiled down to times of worship on a consistent basis? Seay quotes Samuel Balentine as saying: "[The Sabbath] is a time set apart from ordinary days." God says to keep the Sabbath holy and separate. This shows that some time should be especially set apart for time with God. Therefore, worship has to be an instance, and exact point in time, or an action, rather than a period of time, or a "lifestyle" in this sense. However, a true worshiper's life will make obvious the time spent with God. In essence, worship is an action that should be habitual, while obedience is a choice of a lifestyle, or how to live.
How does God expect His followers to worship? In John 4:23, Jesus says "Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and in truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks." There has been much speculation and study into what "in spirit and in truth" exactly means. If these are the worshipers God desires, all who aspire to worship Him should follow these guidelines. So what is worship in spirit and in truth?
First, Jesus was showing that worship would not put emphasis on the place (Jerusalem for the Jews, or Mount Gerizim for the Samaritans), but instead it was a function of the spirit of man reaching out to the Spirit of God (Sorge 79). Until the Day of Pentecost, after Jesus left, God's people did not have the Holy Spirit. While before Pentecost, one could commune with God's Spirit in true worship, now it is even deeper because all Christians have the Spirit of God with them. Under the rituals of the past, the Jews had lost sight of true worship. In Isaiah 29:13, God says of His people, "These people come near to me with their mouths and honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. Their worship of me is made up only of rules taught by men." God's people had lost sight of true worship and had chosen simply to go through the motions. Jesus knew this and was emphasizing to this woman that soon the Mosaic sacrifice rituals would pass away, and worship would take place between God's spirit and man's spirit. "Worship in spirit", therefore, is emphasizing communion with God rather than empty rituals.
Worship in truth has three facets to it. As Sorge clarifies, "When Jesus spoke of worshiping in truth, he meant that worship involves the mind." This, he says, is the difference between "intelligent" and "ignorant" worship (80). Many people carry around the misconception that when they attend the "worship service" at their local church on Sunday morning, that God will come and move and when he does, it will be based upon the great feeling that comes in worship. Worship, they fail to recognize, requires great mental application. Jesus commands Christians to "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind". This command does not become limited to only one's heart and soul in worship, but worshipers worship God in their minds. This means that whatever worship takes place must be done with intellectual intelligence. Worshipers must understand all that is going on and only worship in the truth.
A second component of worship in truth is worship with honesty. According to Allen and Borror, "The real factor in worship is a heart desire for God…" (24) One should not come before God and offer hypocritical or false worship. God is not pleased with forms of worship that are actually hypocritical in nature; He wants worshipers to come before Him with hearts that are pure and true (Sorge 82). Sometimes Christians need "to realize we have a form of godliness but have long since lost the power thereof" (Allen and Borror 25). It is one thing to appear that everything is under control; it is quite another to be truly seeking God. The reason true worship does not take place in churches is that is does not take place in the everyday lives of churchgoers (Allen and Borror 24). Mouth worship is false, but heart worship will reveal itself in every portion of the worshiper's life. To worship in truth, one must be following God's commands.
Finally, worship in truth deals with worship in accordance to God's word and His nature. While many today would quickly lump Jesus, Hare Krishna, Allah, and even themselves into the same "deity", there is no doubt that there are great differences. The God of the Bible, Yahweh, in three persons, is inherently different than other gods. Sincerity in worship does not make up for worshiping without truth. Consider the Muslims, arguably the most sincere religious group in the world; however, they do not worship Jesus, but Allah, who is an entirely different entity. Therefore, there are irreconcilable differences, and their worship, no matter how sincere, cannot be accepted by God because it is not in accordance to His Word or His nature. Likewise, all worship must be in accordance to Scripture; if it is not, it is not true worship and is unacceptable.
The effects of worship in spirit and in truth will be myriad and noticeable. Time truly spent with God will show. Davin Seay quotes Dr. Randy Rowland as saying, "…worship demands an investment of the whole person and the whole life." This means that a true worshiper will have obvious effects of being with God. One cannot spend significant amounts of intimate time with anyone - much less the omnipotent God - and not be changed. The time set apart for God will make a great difference. It is a cyclical process. When one worships, he becomes closer to and more like God, therefore making him a better and more complete worshiper. True worship affects the worshiper's life.
Therefore, worship is the communication and intimacy between the spirit of a person and the Spirit of Almighty God. This worship is always going to be out of reverence and love, out of humility and bowing down. Worship involves man's adoration and contemplation of God. Worship and praise, while similar in origin and meaning, are two separate acts. True worship occurs in spirit and in truth. Worship in spirit is communion between Christians and the Holy Spirit, who guides and directs them. Worship in truth is worship of the mind along with the heart and soul. It is sincere and honest worship of one who understands and obeys God's laws and desires genuinely to know Him more. Finally, it is in accordance to God's word and will.
The next question to be resolved is what kind of people worship. Now that true worship can be understood, true worshipers can be defined. The scriptures give very specific attitudes and attributes that true worshipers act out in their worship. If worship is completely focused on God instead of self, then a true worshiper will be consumed with what God wants from His worshipers.
The first thing to understand is that God’s desire is the worship of every man and woman. The creation of humankind was for relationship with God. Before the creation of man, God said, “‘Let us make man in our image, in our likeness…’” (Genesis 1:26). This is proof of special creation of man. This special creation was for communion with Almighty God. Genesis 3:8 speaks of God walking in the garden in the cool of the day. The assumption that can be made is that God's walking in the garden with Adam and Eve was an everyday occurrence. This personal relationship with God is the reason for the creation of man.
Something else to understand is that worship is a command rather than a request. God says to His people in Exodus 20:3-5, “You shall have no other gods before me. You shall not make for yourself an idol…You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God…” God did not request the worship of His people – He commanded it. God demanded that His people give Him their unadulterated love and attention. To be a child of God necessitates worship of Him alone. Therefore, since God desires all people to be His children, God desires and expects the worship of every person.
So then, what kind of people are true worshipers? Rick Warren writes, “The heart of worship is surrender” (77). The very first attribute of a true worshiper is that of being unselfishly surrendered to God’s will. No one can worship when focused on himself. A true worshiper will be focused on God and doing what He wants. In Romans 12:1, Paul says, “Therefore, I urge you, brothers, in view of God’s mercy, to offer your bodies as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God – this is your spiritual act of worship.” Paul uses the word sacrifice to describe a worshiper. This is evidence of God’s desire for unselfish worshipers.
A true worshiper will be, as Matt Redman writes, “unquenchable” (18). Redman cites as an example Habakkuk, who “decided he would respond to God’s worth, no matter how bleak a season he found himself in” (19). Habakkuk 3:17-18 says
Though the fig tree does not bud and there are no grapes on the vines, though the olive crop fails and the fields produce no food, though there are no sheep in the pen and no cattle in the stalls, yet I will rejoice in God my Savior.
Habakkuk was not limiting his worship of God to times of great comfort and rejoicing. He was not an easily quenched worshiper, but instead worshiped God at all times. This embodies the idea of being an unquenchable worshiper.
Another characteristic of a true worshiper is that of being ruined. No sinful man can worship the Father in spirit and in truth until he realizes his sin and the separation from God, which exists as a result of that sin. When Isaiah saw God in all His glory, he responded by confessing his sin. He says to God in Isaiah 6:5, “‘Woe to me…I am ruined! For I am a man of unclean lips, and I live among a people of unclean lips, and my eyes have seen the King, the Lord Almighty.” Isaiah realized that his sin permeated every facet of his life. He knew that since he was spiritually dead, his physical eyes could not view the Lord. Isaiah was broken before the Lord; only then did God proceed to cleanse Isaiah and allow him to worship. Likewise, a true worshiper does not enter the throne room of God with an air of arrogance, but rather “a broken and contrite heart” (Psalm 51:17). A true worshiper understands that he is doing God no big favor by worshiping Him, but that it is an honor and privilege to worship the Almighty.
The true worshiper will not worship only in song or in church once a week, because he understands that worship is so much more than singing a few songs or listening to a sermon. A true worshiper will be obedient to God’s commands because he understands the importance of obedience. One John 2:6 says, “Whoever claims to live in [God] must walk as Jesus did.” In order to worship personally, obedience to God’s commands is vital. In John 14:15, Jesus says, “If you love me, you will obey what I command.” In order to worship, one must love God and desire to spend time with Him. Those who love God will obey His commands; therefore, a true worshiper will be obedient to what God’s word says.
Matt Redman writes that a true worshiper will be willing to go unnoticed (84). By unnoticed, he means unnoticed by people, not unnoticed by God. God sees everything that happens to everyone. However, in Matthew 6, Jesus warns, “‘Be careful not to do your “acts of righteousness” before men…’” (verse 1). Again, in verse 6, He says, “But when you pray, go into your room, close the door, and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.” Jesus teaches that acts of worship should be done before God, not before men. Jesus expects worshipers to have the faith to believe that their worship is seen and that God will reward them for their worship in secret. The temptation is always present to put on big acts of “worship” for everyone to see. A true worshiper worships the same in secret as he does in front of thousands of other people. There is also an expectation implied by Jesus when He says, “When you pray”, or “When you fast” (Matthew 6:16). Therefore, a true worshiper will do these acts, but is content in worship that goes unnoticed by man.
A true worshiper will also be able to relate to God. A.W. Tozer writes, “…for millions of Christians, God is no more real than He is to the non-Christian. They go through life trying to love and be loyal to a mere principle” (48). Instead of worshiping someone that they know and love, someone they can talk to and have communion with, these Christians worship a standard or an idea. A true worshiper will by definition know God intimately and personally. A true worshiper will not have to hold to an opaque opinion or ideal because he will worship Whom he knows.
One last aspect of a true worshiper is that of purity. A true worshiper will not try to enter the presence of God with the guilt of sin in his heart. The true worshiper understands what God commands in 1 Peter 1:16: “Be holy, as I [God] am holy.” The true worshiper will set himself apart from the world and will lead a pure life. He will also understand that “Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus” (Romans 8:1). The guilt of sin has been taken away, and the true worshiper can worship freely and purely. The true worshiper also understands that he must deal with his sin before entering God’s presence to worship. He understands the principle that Jesus teaches in Matthew 5:23-24, “Therefore, if you are offering a gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there at the altar. First go and be reconciled to your brother; then come and offer your gift.” A true worshiper will not try to offer God the sacrifice of praise until he is completely blameless before God. He makes sure his purity and then will offer God acceptable worship.
These are all attitudes of a true worshiper; however, there are several attitudes that hinder true worship. These attitudes are brought about by man’s sinful nature, attack on Christians’ minds, and Christians’ complacency. The first of these attitudes is pride. Sorge writes, “Pride has ruined far more worship services than all the forces of hell combined” (101). Pride keeps Christians from responding to God the way He wants them to. Because the very nature of worship is God-centered and God-focused, pride can destroy intimate worship from the foundation up. Rather than be prideful or selfish, a true worshiper should follow the Holy Spirit’s lead in worship and follow what God wants. Sometimes that may entail leaving one’s “comfort zone” or doing something that is not socially acceptable, such as a physical act of worship that one does not often practice in his church. Rather than letting pride take over, a true worshiper will let God take over and respond to Him as He moves.
A second attitude that hinders worship is what Sorge calls “reverse hedonism”, or the philosophy of “if it feels good, do it” (102). This attitude goes hand-in-hand with pride. Christians are not free to worship when they feel, how they feel. They are not supposed to worship simply when they feel like it, but rather when God feels like it. A true worshiper will be in humble submission to His will, and respond to Him accordingly.
The last wrong attitude in worship is mere lip service. It is very easy for Christians to become too familiar and comfortable with songs or orders of worship and rather than put their whole hearts, souls, and minds into worshiping God, they simply go through the motions. God addressed this same problem in Amos 5. The Israelites had become too complacent in their worship of God. They followed all the commands of worship set forth to Moses. They followed all the feasts and fasts; however, they did so feebly and unwillingly. He responded by saying: “I hate, I despise your religious feasts; I cannot stand your assemblies. Even though you bring me burnt offerings and grain offerings, I will not accept them” (Amos 5:21-22). God’s response to His people’s self-satisfaction was a warning that He would disregard their half-hearted worship altogether. This lip service is not enough for the Almighty; He demands wholehearted worship from His people. The people of God had forgotten what Samuel speaks of God in 1 Samuel 15:22: “To obey is better than sacrifice.” Worship is not a matter of strict obedience to a set of laws; the essence of the matter is how the worshiper worships, halfheartedly (which is unacceptable) or wholeheartedly (which is what the Lord desires).
Therefore, true worship can be defined as intimate communion and interaction between the heart, soul and mind of man and the Spirit of God. This interaction must be in accordance with God's will set forth in the scriptures. A true worshiper will have the right attitudes and actions in worship. However, a true worshiper will worship not only individually, but also corporately. Therefore, is there any basis in scripture for corporate worship? If so, what kinds and types of worship are scriptural and acceptable? What physical actions, if any, should take place in corporate worship? Should hymns be sung, or are newer praise and worship songs acceptable? All these questions remain to be resolved.
First, there is scriptural basis for corporate worship. There is no doctrine standing against this fact, which is deeply rooted in God’s word. The Israelites gathered every Sabbath to worship God together. Many Christians throughout history have argued that one can worship God just as well in His creation, or by oneself, as in church on Sunday mornings. While this is true on a personal, one-on-one level with God, there is a different facet to worship that must be understood. Worship does not only take place on a one-to-one level, but also on a community level. For example, seven times Moses requested that Pharaoh let the Israelites go into the desert to worship corporately. Psalm 102:22 speaks of a time “when the peoples and the kingdoms assemble to worship the Lord.” In Acts 13, the disciples gather together to worship and the Holy Spirit sets aside Paul and Barnabas for missionary work. These are all examples of corporate worship. God’s people have always worshiped corporately, as well as personally. Jesus says in Matthew 18:20, “Where two or three come together in My name, there am I with them.” God obviously places great emphasis on corporate worship. God moves greatly through corporate worship, and commands it of his people.
A first reason for this community worship is that it creates unity among the body to gather together for the purpose of worshiping together. Psalm 133:1 says, “How good and pleasant it is when brothers live together in unity.” Although there may be doctrinal differences between believers, they can all still come together for worship. In fact, the worship of God is one thing all Christians do have in common. God greatly desires unity in His body. Jesus prays in John 17:23, “May they be brought to complete unity…”; similarly, Paul writes in Romans 15:5, “May God…give you a spirit of unity among yourselves…” Throughout scripture it is obvious that unity is a necessary ingredient for the body of Christ to function properly.
A second reason for corporate worship is, as Sorge writes, the “opportunity to minister to one another” (115). Along with the community of corporate worship, there is a ministry of corporate worship. A corporately worshiping body of believers is much more effective than several solitary believers worshiping alone. The whole is greater than the sum of the parts. The Holy Spirit did not come to earth until all the disciples were gathered together (Acts 2:1). Likewise, the Holy Spirit is more likely to move in a powerful way if He can move among a group of worshipers. God commands corporate worship for legitimate reasons.
Therefore, what should take place when a body of God’s people joins together in order to worship? This is the point on which many divisions of Christ’s body part ways. While the liturgical churches (Presbyterian, Episcopalian, Lutheran, and Catholic, among others) have a set order of worship each time they meet, the less traditional churches may differ in their order of worship from week to week. Which position is right? What does the Bible say regarding this issue? Paul tells the church at Ephesus in Ephesians 5:19, “Speak to one another with psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs. Sing and make music in your heart to the Lord…” Paul clearly states that
music is part of a corporate gathering of believers.
This music serves a twofold purpose. First, of course is to worship God, which is making music to the Lord. However, another reason is to speak to the other believers worshiping there. Paul says to do this through psalms – which are the psalms from the Old Testament - hymns, which are traditional songs written by and for use in the church – and spiritual songs. It is most difficult to give a definition or parameter to the term spiritual songs; however, these are most likely times of spontaneous praise and worship, along with times of personal reflection and communication with God outside an established set of words, such as in a song. In today’s terms, these three items would be the use of scriptures, hymns and praise and worship songs, and times of “free praise”.
The debate has arisen in the church over the past few hundred years over whether or not to include instruments in worship. While there remains no doubt as to the place of music in worship, the negative side of the argument (namely the Church of Christ faction) cites the fact that the New Testament does not mention the use of instruments in worship. Kevin Cauley’s argument, representative of nearly all proponents of anti-instrumentalism, is that the New Testament does not specify instruments for worship. However, Paul reminds us “All scripture is God breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness” (2 Timothy 3:16). Therefore, to rebuke this teaching, Psalm 150 says, “Praise the Lord…in His sanctuary…with the sound of trumpet, with the harp and lyre, with the strings and flute, with the clash of cymbals…” This is just one among many verses (many of them in the Psalms) that are clearly evidence for the use of instruments in the temple of God for worship. No scripture specifically gives the message of not using instruments to praise and worship God; however, there are several instances where this kind of worship is commanded. Therefore, one must conclude that corporate worship of God with the use of instruments is both scriptural and acceptable.
As a rule, traditional churches hold to their own traditional hymnodies – while denying any newer worship songs. For example, the Baptist sub-denominations have several different hymnals they each use, and while there is some dispute over which hymnals are “right”, the general doctrine is that all music for corporate worship must come from these hymnals. In contrast, many of the less traditional churches, particularly those not affiliated with any specific denomination, do not even address hymns in their doctrines, and often do not incorporate the traditional hymns of the Christian faith into their worship services. This has sparked great controversy between churches today.
So then, the problem arises of styles: tradition versus what is “hot”, hymns versus choruses, or, basically, old versus new. The foundational principle to understand in this case is that nothing in worship should ever be done simply because it is the way that it has always been done. However, those traditions with great history and purposeful foundation for their objectives should without a doubt be respected and used under the direction of the Holy Spirit. Likewise, nothing in worship should ever be done simply because it is different or new; there must always be a basis, or a reason for something to be a part of a worship service. Nothing should occur for the sake of occurring. None of the great traditions or laws given to the Israelites was given just for them to have traditions and laws to follow; God always had a reason for His commands. Whether it was the symbolism commanded of the Israelites in sacrifices (which pointed to the Messiah), or whether it was the command of God to ceremonially wash before eating, there was always a purpose. Similarly, there should always be a reason for what is done in worship services honoring the Father today. Dr. Barry Liesch - a longtime worship pastor in California - writes, “We are dependent on God, not forms” (21). The style of music does not define worship; following God’s lead in expressing one’s love to Him does. That being understood, the problem of musical styles can be addressed.
First, hymns should be used in the church for several reasons, the foremost being that they carry an enormous amount of rich history, truth, and doctrine from the days of the Reformation. The original purpose of many hymns was to teach scriptural truths to the body of Christ. During the times of the Reformation period, people were generally uneducated, and therefore, illiterate. Because of this fact, it became hard for church leaders to teach their congregations from the Bible. As a result, church leaders such as Martin Luther began writing hymns to use as teaching tools. In fact, some hymns, such as Luther’s “A Mighty Fortress Is Our God”, were taken directly from scripture. The reasoning behind this was that songs were easy to remember, and could be learned verbally rather than being read. Consequently, great hymns of the past hold and speak deep truths from scripture. However, as Liesch writes, “Our young people are committed Christians, but when it comes to their knowledge of hymnody – they are ignorant!” (21) Hymns are the foundation of all of today’s worship music; without this foundation, the songs of today would fall. Hymns are time-tested reminders of the church’s learning and development, and are still effective for teaching and worshiping today. The words of some of these songs are just as true and relevant today as they were hundreds of years ago. For this reason, hymns should be used in the church.
Some hymns, however, are no longer relevant, or perhaps never were. Some hymns seem to ramble on about several different points with no real theme, thought, or conclusion. Most are written in older language, making them harder to understand and sing from the heart. Most hymns are more intellectual, leaving little room for the communication of emotion. Several hymns are impersonal, not allowing for personalized praise and worship. Most are musically old, and as the church has had access to more technology in the past few years and has opened the doors for more musical creativity, it becomes harder to use these hymns in their original forms. For all these reasons, hymns do not seem to be enough for most churches today. Exclusively used, hymns are acceptable and usable for worship, but seem to fall short in some areas.
On the other hand, praise and worship songs, or choruses, are worded more contemporarily, and thus are easier to identify with for most people. Several times the psalmist encourages his readers to “sing a new song”; if God’s mercies are made new every morning, then should there not be room for new expressions of gratitude? Worship choruses can communicate to people just as hymns did in their original time: clearly and contemporarily. Praise and worship songs have their place in the church for worship as well.
Nevertheless, there are some objections to these songs. They tend to be repetitive and short. Several of these songs are shallow, not holding deep, theological truths like so many of the hymns. These songs have not been tested by time, and therefore, their worth has not been challenged and proven. However, tradition is a never-ending process (Liesch 30). Soon several of today’s contemporary songs will be considered outdated. The focus should move beyond the style of the music to the point of worship. If a song is scripturally accurate, communicates praise and adoration for God, communicates scriptural truths, and is useful for ministering to one another within the body, then it can be acceptable for worship. Until the body of Christ stops worshiping worship forms and styles and starts worshiping God as He desires, these arguments will continue and will never be resolved. In this case, true worship lies somewhere in between the practices of traditional churches and freer churches.
Furthermore, the worshiper’s body is a medium for worshiping God. The very definition of the word that is translated as “worship” in the New Testament is “to bow down”. Several so-called conservative churches hold to unwritten "standards of worship" that deny most freedom to be demonstrative in worship (McMinn 93). Conversely, several churches allow pure emotion or pure foolishness to drive expressiveness into the realm of ridiculous. Not every time someone worships the Lord will God lead him to express himself in the same way; not every time will God lead him not to be physically expressive.
Don McMinn gives two main reasons for lack of expression in churches that are more conservative. The first is that the church’s heritage teaches that being demonstrative in church is improper (93). Many Christians have been taught not to do anything in church that might make a scene. Their view of the presence of God is one of reverence, meaning quietness, stiffness, and being reserved. Secondly, these people determine appropriateness based upon this heritage rather than scripture. Any Christian who took it upon himself to study God’s word in this area would find that the Bible supports physical expressiveness in worship. However, tradition kicks in and will not allow that person to let go of his inherited inhibitions and freely worship the Lord. He can give no basis for his beliefs, except that he was just taught not to do that. A brief overview of scriptural expression in worship will show the truth.
The first physical expression is the lifting of hands. There are several reasons for lifting of hands, and several scriptures giving the foundation for this practice. Psalm 28:2 says, “Hear my cry…as I lift up my hands”. McMinn writes, “The raising of hands is the international sign of surrender” (98). Christians should lift hands to symbolize surrender to God. Psalm 88:9 says, “I spread my hands out to You every day”. Ronald Allen and Gordon Borror write, “one holds out his hands to receive God’s grace” (123). However, it is more than just His grace; it is also his blessings, and His perfect plan, that raising of hands can signify. The extension of an open hand also suggests honesty and innocence (Gordon and Borror 123). Paul expresses his desire for “all men to lift up holy hands in prayer” (1 Timothy 2:8). McMinn proposes that hands can symbolize the condition of one’s heart, whether innocent or guilty (98). Lastly, the lifting of hands can be symbolic of victory and celebration; just as a national championship basketball team lifts their hands in triumphant celebration, so can the Christian living in God’s grace.
A second form of expression is applause. Clapping is always an action of appreciation or affirmation of someone or something. Sometimes the best that a Christian can do is to appreciate God and reaffirm His goodness. Among several other verses, Psalm 47:1 speaks of this: “Clap your hands, all you nations; shout to God with cries of joy.” Applauding God and His work as a congregation achieves the goal of extolling Him and recognizing His place over all. Applauding the Lord can be an acceptable form of worship. However, Richard Walters, a columnist for a Baptist newsletter writes, “I believe there are severe dangers in this alien practice.” This same “alien practice” is the type of worship commanded of God’s people! Perhaps Mr. Walters is not a Christian, if God’s word is “alien” to Him. His reasons for not applauding in a worship service are that it brings attention to the instrumentalists and preachers rather than God, and that individuals similar to himself receive a “meatless bone” which “cannot strengthen [his] life.” If worship is focused on God, then what relevance does the “meatless bone” argument have in this case? Mr. Walters’s two reasons are mutually exclusive; they cannot both be true. In addition, if God commands clapping, as He does, then how can it be focused on performance? This is not a problem of the action, but rather of the actor. True forms of corporate worship do indeed include applause.
Another physical articulation of worship is kneeling or bowing; even lying prostrate, face down on the ground. This posture is one of submission to the Lordship of Christ. Philippians 2:10 tells Christians that merely at the statement of the name of Jesus, every single knee will bow to his authority. Because of the humility involved in this act, it becomes difficult for stubborn, sinful man to carry this out. However, submission to Christ is a key element of worship, which is why a true worshiper must follow Psalm 95:6, “Come, let us bow down in worship, let us kneel before the Lord our Maker.”
Lastly, and perhaps the most taboo, is dancing before the Lord. Dancing before God is actually in the Bible, but it would never happen in many churches today. However, 2 Samuel 6 tells the story of David dancing before the Lord so joyfully and vigorously that he embarrassed his wife. When she confronted him about it, he simply said, “I will become even more undignified than this, and I will be humiliated in my own eyes” (2 Samuel 6:22). Expression in worship is often a dignity issue. Christians refuse to follow God’s call to be expressive simply out of fear of others’ opinions. This is not the attitude of a true worshiper, but of a self-centered worshiper.
Physical expression in worship can be a beautiful way to honor God. However, as Jack Hayford writes, “it only takes one or two people in a group who flail their arms mindlessly during every song” to cause a disturbance (133). True worship is not a show before other people, but before God. Physical worshipful expression should only be led by Him, and in the context of scripture. Only then can physical expression be a beautiful piece of true worship.
Finally, the order of worship becomes an issue. If a worship service is all about God, should man be able to plan a service and try to fit God into it? Or should there be no order at all, just openness for God to do what He wants? While God should be free to do whatever he wants in His service, he is still “a God of order” (1 Corinthians 14:33). However, should this order be to the extreme of Presbyterian liturgy, which is planned even to the point of what times people are supposed to stand or respond to God in confession? Or should that be the Spirit’s prerogative to lead the worshiper into that form of worship? Since worship is the worshiper responding to God, a service must leave room for God to move in His chosen way. This does not mean that there should be no semblance of order whatsoever; this would lead to chaos. Rather, there should be flexibility in the planning of the service to let God move how He sees fit.
Therefore, true worship is defined as communion between God and man. It requires all of man – his heart, mind, soul, and strength – to take place. A true worshiper will follow God’s commands, because God desires obedience as the highest form of worship. Worship is always God-centered and God-led; nothing in worship can be done out of selfish desires or ambition. The scriptures specifically command corporate worship, and one medium for this worship is music. Instruments are acceptable and desirable in musical worship, as are different styles of music. Physical expression will take place as a mirror of the inward heart and desires of a worshiper. Above all, worship is the chief purpose of man, and he must strive for excellence to honor God through his worship. While this is not an exhaustive dissertation of all forms of worship, it does present a skeleton for biblical worship, desired by the Creator for the benefit of His people. This structure has been suppressed in traditionalist conservative churches. It is time that Christians embrace and rejoice in the worship to which God has called them. “A time has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and in truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks.” (John 4:23) May all of God’s children seek to be these kinds of worshipers.
Works Cited
Allen, Ronald and Gordon Borror. Worship: Rediscovering the
Missing Jewel. Portland: Multnomah Press. 1982.
Caulley, Kevin. “Should We Use Instrumental Music in Worship?”.
www.preachersfiles.com/cauley/bible_lessons/instrumental.htm.
Chafer, Lewis Sperry. Systematic Theology. Dallas: Dallas
Seminary Press. 1969.
Hayford, Jack. Worship His Majesty. Dallas: Word
Publishing. 1987.
Holy Bible, The, New International Version. Colorado
Springs: International Bible Society. 1984.
Liesch, Barry. The New Worship. Grand Rapids: Baker Books.
1996.
McMinn, Don. The Practice of Praise. Oklahoma
City: Word Music. 1992.
Redman, Matt. The Unquenchable Worshipper. Ventura: Regal
Books. 2001.
Seay, Davin. "Is Worship a Lifestyle?" Worship Leader
Magazine. Sept/Oct 2003. pp 20-21.
Sorge, Bob. Exploring Worship. Canandaigua: Bob Sorge.
1987.
Torrey, R.A. What the Bible Teaches. Grand Rapids: Baker
Book House. 1933.
Tozer, A.W. The Pursuit of God. Camp Hill: Christian
Publications. 1993.
Walters, Richard. “Hand Clapping in Worship Service”.
www.baptistpillar.com/bd0363.htm
Warren, Rick. The Purpose Driven Life. Grand
Rapids: Zondervan. 2002.
30 August 2009
Thoughts on What Church Do
It is no secret that membership in evangelical American churches in on the severe decline. Depending on which survey you read, no more than 40% of American adults indentify themselves as affiliated with any church at all. This mass exodus from the pew has been going on for two and a half decades and there is no promise for the reversal for that trend. The obvious question is why? Why in a country with so proud a religious heritage and a history of strong national faith are more than half of the adults outside of the church? Why is the body of Christ failing so badly to reach this nation? While inquiry into this subject would lead to no simple answer, a simplification of the issues at hand is that the church in America no longer looks anything like the church founded by Jesus and His apostles.
The book of Acts tells the history of the founding of the early church. Picking up at the ascension of Jesus into heaven, the author of the book (Luke) describes the mission of the disciples as they preached the gospel in Jerusalem, in Judea, in Samaria, and to the ends of the earth. As the word of God reached those who had not believed in Jesus, powerful transformations occurred in the lives of converts. Perhaps the most clear description of the practice of the early church is found in Acts 2:42-47:
And they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers. And awe came upon every soul, and many wonders and signs were being done through the apostles. And all who believed were together and had all things in common. And they were selling their possessions and belongings and distributing the proceeds to all, as any had need. And day by day, attending the temple together and breaking bread in their homes, they received their food with glad and generous hearts, praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to their number day by day those who were being saved. (ESV)
A similar description is found in Acts 4:32-35:
All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they shared everything they had. With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and much grace was upon them all. There were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned lands or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales and put it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to anyone as he had need. (NIV)
These descriptions seem to mirror the exhortation of Peter to the dispersed church in 1 Peter 4:
The end of all things is at hand; therefore be self-controlled and sober-minded for the sake of your prayers. Above all, keep loving one another earnestly, since love covers a multitude of sins. Show hospitality to one another without grumbling. As each has received a gift, use it to serve one another, as good stewards of God’s varied grace: whoever speaks, as one who speaks oracles of God; whoever serves, as one who serves by the strength that God supplies—in order that in everything God may be glorified through Jesus Christ. To him belong glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen. (vv 7-11 ESV)
The passage in Acts 2 mentions that the believers met in the temple daily; this presumably would have been similar to our corporate worship services (in theory, definitely not in culture or practice). However, the modern American church stops there as the end-all be-all of church function. Occasionally a potluck will bring a shared meal, or a revival or evangelism night will be an opportunity for inviting those outside the church to run a "trial membership" in the club. But rarely do we see true dedication to study of the apostles' teachings (scripture). How many sermons are "4 steps to financial freedom" or "5 rules for being a good parent" rather than explicit study and proclamation of the truth of the Bible? How many Sunday school classes are good for business networking and figuring out what our purpose is or that our heart is wild or captivated or broken or free rather than being edifying expositions of God's truth in His holy word? The early church had no mere peripheral interest in what truth was being presented to them. They devoted themselves to studying the teachings. They pursued truth and knowledge. It is true that practical applications exist for the Christian life, but when you don't know what the word says - and more importantly, what it means - application is useless, and powerless.
One of the fundamental problems in the American church is the abandonment of true fellowship and community for superficial relationships and a country club atmosphere with weekly meetings. The believers of the early church had a passion for community that is almost non-existent in the 21st century Western world. While technology has increasingly made the world smaller, it has also increasingly isolated the members of our society. We can hide behind social networking sites and websites (and blogs!) and communicate through text messages rather than by voice or face-to-face in order to avoid any real human contact. We put up facades and smiles and assure everyone that we are "good" when they ask "how are you" (even though they don't care). One can walk into a church service, give the hand of fellowship, the sign of peace, or the fist bump of brotherhood and leave having made no real connection with a fellow human being. When Peter says to show hospitality, does he mean to provide donuts and coffee, or a greeter at the door, or smile at each other during the greeting time? Peter's idea of the church obviously has nothing to do with a Sunday morning song and lecture service. Sometimes I wonder whether we should not follow Paul's command to greet each other with a holy kiss if for no other reason than that it forces us out of our comfort zone into real (if forced) interaction. Fellowship consists of so much more than what we have accomplished in the American church. It is hard to do. It is difficult to let people see you as you are; to appear broken and weak is against our nature, especially in Western culture. We ignore the command to bear each others' burdens. But until we are genuine and open and care about others more than ourselves, we as the church cannot be the image of Christ's bride that God desires.
The major complaint against modern Christianity is that Christians fight and bicker and hate each other. This is not a new issue. Nearly every epistle affirms the need to show kindness and patience and love for one another. Jesus Himself knew that our actions towards each other as His followers would be the loudest witness when He said in John 13:34-35: "A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another." (NIV) Why does the world disregard Christians? Because we do not love one another. Jesus said to love each other as He loved us. He died for us. Peter demands that we love earnestly. We have to try. Hard. We have to cover over each others' sins with love. Don't forget that this writing comes from the man who once thought he was doing good to forgive his brother seven times. What kind of dedication did these people have that they shared all of their possessions with one another to take care of any who had need. How foreign this must seem to us, especially in a time of economic hardship in our country, to sell property because someone else is in need. To sacrifice because someone else was hurting. And yet, perhaps, it is precisely because we do not understand what it is truly to suffer and to need that we cannot bring ourselves to be generous. Becoming a Christian for many of the Jews in the early church meant becoming anathema to their families. Or losing their jobs and livelihoods. Or being outcast by their friends and peers. To many of these people, their new brothers and sisters in Christ were their only real family. And maybe since we don't have the same necessity, we can't bring ourselves to the same devotion to fellowship. The early church lived life together and depended on each other for survival. Not that this family wasn't dysfunctional. Like any family, friction existed between sinners. This is why Peter must insist on love that covers sin. But such a dedicated love would present itself in many forms, and is evidenced by sacrificing for one another and putting someone else's needs ahead of one's own. Whether because of the "get-ahead" mindset, or because of sheer disregard for the commands of Christ, or for some other reason, we have failed to love each other more than ourselves. And this fact cannot and never will be hidden from those on the outside looking in to see if we live up to our own standards.
The breaking of bread seems significant for its symbolism of the fellowship among the believers. Family and esteemed guests eat together. Discussion over (and after) dinner reaches levels of familiarity (dare I say intimacy) that occur very few other places and instances (except for over cigars and beer, of course). To invite someone into one's home is a deep sign of kindness and courtesy, and sharing food seems to reach the most primal nerves within us. It may mean giving up a night after work, but how much quicker can fellowship be built than when sharing meals at the end of the day? To live life together in unity and to bear each other's burdens demands love and sacrifice, and sharing meals is one way to build those connections necessary to live in true fellowship.
Can you imagine what our witness would be if we took care of our brothers and sisters in need to the point that not one wanted? If we could put aside our own selfish desires for useless crap, fueled by consumerist mentality? I have referenced before James 1:27: "Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world." (NIV) I pray that we have not become so polluted by the world and its temporal desires that we ignore the orphans and widows (and single moms and homeless and starving and those without clean water, etc.) in their distress. If we do not take care of our family - i.e. our brothers and sisters in Christ - we will never be willing to do what it takes to reach those that do not yet belong to God's family.
There are some Christians in America that are earnestly seeking community and generosity. They seek to show love and forgiveness above all else to each other. However, there are many among these groups that would water down the truth of God's word so as not to be offensive and to appeal to those who need God's love. While they are to be commended for their attempts at living life the way God intended in fellowship, there is no need to sugarcoat or change the gospel to reach others. It is fascinating to me to back up and read the first part of Acts 2 where Peter preaches to many people in Jerusalem. Peter boldly and clearly proclaims Jesus as Christ, the Son of God. Peter maintains Jesus's innocence, and claims that the same men to whom he was speaking were responsible for the death of the Messiah (v 23). Then the men ask what they should do and Peter tells them to repent. There was no dilution of the gospel; Peter only proclaimed the truth. And three thousand believed that day (v 41). It was these who were transformed by God's grace and learned to love each other and are our examples in verses 42-47. There is no reason to dismiss any part of God's word in order to live in harmony. In fact without it, there is no true banner to fly over ourselves as Christians. We should be wary of those who would delete part of the gospel in order to be peaceful.
I suck at praying. Personally, I find my own communications with God tend to be so whiny and self-centered that I can only dream of the effective prayer of a righteous man that avails much. I think I am not alone. But how much of the American mindset of prayer is framed by those who teach us to ignore the example of Jesus and to pray "my will be done". We hear all the time that if we tell God what we want, then he will make it happen without any regard for our discerning what He wants, and what He might want us to pray for. We have reduced Him to the genie beyond the sky, old grandfather waiting on our requests so he can spoil us with the desires of our heart. What would our brothers in the Sudan say if they knew we were praying for a new car as they die for their faith? Or the girl forced into prostitution in India? Or the orphan whose parents both died of AIDS? Prayer is about finding the heart of God in order that our hearts may be broken and formed into mirror images of Christ's. It is about lifting up others and pleading with God for justice or mercy for ourselves and our brothers and sisters. God tells us to offer requests for our needs, and He desires to take care of us according to His will. But we abuse this privilege when we use prayer in the name of the only risen Son of God to make known our wish lists and nothing else. I wonder whether it is not blaspheming the Holy Spirit to focus our prayers on ourselves rather than on God and communing with Him. The early church devoted themselves to prayer. So much so that when they petitioned God, He sent an angel on a jailbreak mission to rescue Peter and return him to the church (Acts 12). They knew that prayer was not a public spectacle for human attention or a display of pseudo-righteousness, but rather a supplication to God in times of need, a way to grow nearer to Him and commune with Him. These people, who are clear-minded as Peter desires, will benefit from growing close to God, so that when they speak it is as though God were speaking. And they would not seek any credit but desire above all that God be glorified. There is so much more to be said on the subject of prayer, but as I am admittedly a novice, I will leave such discussions to those who know what they're talking about. Suffice it to say that if the American church were devoted to true prayer, we would see mighty movements of God that we cannot fathom and would be more effective in spreading the news of His Kingdom.
In the passage from Acts 2, we see that when the church devoted itself to the apostles' teachings, to fellowship, to the breaking of bread, and to prayer that God moved among them, they had the favor of the people, and many joined their number. If the American church returns to its roots; if it is filled with people who seek after God's truth, who are genuine and not pretentious, are kind and tender-hearted, forgive each other, who serve each other, who eat meals together, who live life together, and who pray not for their own storehouses to be filled, but for God to reign in all of earth; if the church is filled with those seeking that God may be glorified through Jesus Christ, perhaps we may regain the favor of the people. They, seeing Christ alive in us, will join with us in proclaiming Him as Lord, and God will move powerfully among us.
The book of Acts tells the history of the founding of the early church. Picking up at the ascension of Jesus into heaven, the author of the book (Luke) describes the mission of the disciples as they preached the gospel in Jerusalem, in Judea, in Samaria, and to the ends of the earth. As the word of God reached those who had not believed in Jesus, powerful transformations occurred in the lives of converts. Perhaps the most clear description of the practice of the early church is found in Acts 2:42-47:
And they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers. And awe came upon every soul, and many wonders and signs were being done through the apostles. And all who believed were together and had all things in common. And they were selling their possessions and belongings and distributing the proceeds to all, as any had need. And day by day, attending the temple together and breaking bread in their homes, they received their food with glad and generous hearts, praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to their number day by day those who were being saved. (ESV)
A similar description is found in Acts 4:32-35:
All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they shared everything they had. With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and much grace was upon them all. There were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned lands or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales and put it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to anyone as he had need. (NIV)
These descriptions seem to mirror the exhortation of Peter to the dispersed church in 1 Peter 4:
The end of all things is at hand; therefore be self-controlled and sober-minded for the sake of your prayers. Above all, keep loving one another earnestly, since love covers a multitude of sins. Show hospitality to one another without grumbling. As each has received a gift, use it to serve one another, as good stewards of God’s varied grace: whoever speaks, as one who speaks oracles of God; whoever serves, as one who serves by the strength that God supplies—in order that in everything God may be glorified through Jesus Christ. To him belong glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen. (vv 7-11 ESV)
The passage in Acts 2 mentions that the believers met in the temple daily; this presumably would have been similar to our corporate worship services (in theory, definitely not in culture or practice). However, the modern American church stops there as the end-all be-all of church function. Occasionally a potluck will bring a shared meal, or a revival or evangelism night will be an opportunity for inviting those outside the church to run a "trial membership" in the club. But rarely do we see true dedication to study of the apostles' teachings (scripture). How many sermons are "4 steps to financial freedom" or "5 rules for being a good parent" rather than explicit study and proclamation of the truth of the Bible? How many Sunday school classes are good for business networking and figuring out what our purpose is or that our heart is wild or captivated or broken or free rather than being edifying expositions of God's truth in His holy word? The early church had no mere peripheral interest in what truth was being presented to them. They devoted themselves to studying the teachings. They pursued truth and knowledge. It is true that practical applications exist for the Christian life, but when you don't know what the word says - and more importantly, what it means - application is useless, and powerless.
One of the fundamental problems in the American church is the abandonment of true fellowship and community for superficial relationships and a country club atmosphere with weekly meetings. The believers of the early church had a passion for community that is almost non-existent in the 21st century Western world. While technology has increasingly made the world smaller, it has also increasingly isolated the members of our society. We can hide behind social networking sites and websites (and blogs!) and communicate through text messages rather than by voice or face-to-face in order to avoid any real human contact. We put up facades and smiles and assure everyone that we are "good" when they ask "how are you" (even though they don't care). One can walk into a church service, give the hand of fellowship, the sign of peace, or the fist bump of brotherhood and leave having made no real connection with a fellow human being. When Peter says to show hospitality, does he mean to provide donuts and coffee, or a greeter at the door, or smile at each other during the greeting time? Peter's idea of the church obviously has nothing to do with a Sunday morning song and lecture service. Sometimes I wonder whether we should not follow Paul's command to greet each other with a holy kiss if for no other reason than that it forces us out of our comfort zone into real (if forced) interaction. Fellowship consists of so much more than what we have accomplished in the American church. It is hard to do. It is difficult to let people see you as you are; to appear broken and weak is against our nature, especially in Western culture. We ignore the command to bear each others' burdens. But until we are genuine and open and care about others more than ourselves, we as the church cannot be the image of Christ's bride that God desires.
The major complaint against modern Christianity is that Christians fight and bicker and hate each other. This is not a new issue. Nearly every epistle affirms the need to show kindness and patience and love for one another. Jesus Himself knew that our actions towards each other as His followers would be the loudest witness when He said in John 13:34-35: "A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another." (NIV) Why does the world disregard Christians? Because we do not love one another. Jesus said to love each other as He loved us. He died for us. Peter demands that we love earnestly. We have to try. Hard. We have to cover over each others' sins with love. Don't forget that this writing comes from the man who once thought he was doing good to forgive his brother seven times. What kind of dedication did these people have that they shared all of their possessions with one another to take care of any who had need. How foreign this must seem to us, especially in a time of economic hardship in our country, to sell property because someone else is in need. To sacrifice because someone else was hurting. And yet, perhaps, it is precisely because we do not understand what it is truly to suffer and to need that we cannot bring ourselves to be generous. Becoming a Christian for many of the Jews in the early church meant becoming anathema to their families. Or losing their jobs and livelihoods. Or being outcast by their friends and peers. To many of these people, their new brothers and sisters in Christ were their only real family. And maybe since we don't have the same necessity, we can't bring ourselves to the same devotion to fellowship. The early church lived life together and depended on each other for survival. Not that this family wasn't dysfunctional. Like any family, friction existed between sinners. This is why Peter must insist on love that covers sin. But such a dedicated love would present itself in many forms, and is evidenced by sacrificing for one another and putting someone else's needs ahead of one's own. Whether because of the "get-ahead" mindset, or because of sheer disregard for the commands of Christ, or for some other reason, we have failed to love each other more than ourselves. And this fact cannot and never will be hidden from those on the outside looking in to see if we live up to our own standards.
The breaking of bread seems significant for its symbolism of the fellowship among the believers. Family and esteemed guests eat together. Discussion over (and after) dinner reaches levels of familiarity (dare I say intimacy) that occur very few other places and instances (except for over cigars and beer, of course). To invite someone into one's home is a deep sign of kindness and courtesy, and sharing food seems to reach the most primal nerves within us. It may mean giving up a night after work, but how much quicker can fellowship be built than when sharing meals at the end of the day? To live life together in unity and to bear each other's burdens demands love and sacrifice, and sharing meals is one way to build those connections necessary to live in true fellowship.
Can you imagine what our witness would be if we took care of our brothers and sisters in need to the point that not one wanted? If we could put aside our own selfish desires for useless crap, fueled by consumerist mentality? I have referenced before James 1:27: "Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world." (NIV) I pray that we have not become so polluted by the world and its temporal desires that we ignore the orphans and widows (and single moms and homeless and starving and those without clean water, etc.) in their distress. If we do not take care of our family - i.e. our brothers and sisters in Christ - we will never be willing to do what it takes to reach those that do not yet belong to God's family.
There are some Christians in America that are earnestly seeking community and generosity. They seek to show love and forgiveness above all else to each other. However, there are many among these groups that would water down the truth of God's word so as not to be offensive and to appeal to those who need God's love. While they are to be commended for their attempts at living life the way God intended in fellowship, there is no need to sugarcoat or change the gospel to reach others. It is fascinating to me to back up and read the first part of Acts 2 where Peter preaches to many people in Jerusalem. Peter boldly and clearly proclaims Jesus as Christ, the Son of God. Peter maintains Jesus's innocence, and claims that the same men to whom he was speaking were responsible for the death of the Messiah (v 23). Then the men ask what they should do and Peter tells them to repent. There was no dilution of the gospel; Peter only proclaimed the truth. And three thousand believed that day (v 41). It was these who were transformed by God's grace and learned to love each other and are our examples in verses 42-47. There is no reason to dismiss any part of God's word in order to live in harmony. In fact without it, there is no true banner to fly over ourselves as Christians. We should be wary of those who would delete part of the gospel in order to be peaceful.
I suck at praying. Personally, I find my own communications with God tend to be so whiny and self-centered that I can only dream of the effective prayer of a righteous man that avails much. I think I am not alone. But how much of the American mindset of prayer is framed by those who teach us to ignore the example of Jesus and to pray "my will be done". We hear all the time that if we tell God what we want, then he will make it happen without any regard for our discerning what He wants, and what He might want us to pray for. We have reduced Him to the genie beyond the sky, old grandfather waiting on our requests so he can spoil us with the desires of our heart. What would our brothers in the Sudan say if they knew we were praying for a new car as they die for their faith? Or the girl forced into prostitution in India? Or the orphan whose parents both died of AIDS? Prayer is about finding the heart of God in order that our hearts may be broken and formed into mirror images of Christ's. It is about lifting up others and pleading with God for justice or mercy for ourselves and our brothers and sisters. God tells us to offer requests for our needs, and He desires to take care of us according to His will. But we abuse this privilege when we use prayer in the name of the only risen Son of God to make known our wish lists and nothing else. I wonder whether it is not blaspheming the Holy Spirit to focus our prayers on ourselves rather than on God and communing with Him. The early church devoted themselves to prayer. So much so that when they petitioned God, He sent an angel on a jailbreak mission to rescue Peter and return him to the church (Acts 12). They knew that prayer was not a public spectacle for human attention or a display of pseudo-righteousness, but rather a supplication to God in times of need, a way to grow nearer to Him and commune with Him. These people, who are clear-minded as Peter desires, will benefit from growing close to God, so that when they speak it is as though God were speaking. And they would not seek any credit but desire above all that God be glorified. There is so much more to be said on the subject of prayer, but as I am admittedly a novice, I will leave such discussions to those who know what they're talking about. Suffice it to say that if the American church were devoted to true prayer, we would see mighty movements of God that we cannot fathom and would be more effective in spreading the news of His Kingdom.
In the passage from Acts 2, we see that when the church devoted itself to the apostles' teachings, to fellowship, to the breaking of bread, and to prayer that God moved among them, they had the favor of the people, and many joined their number. If the American church returns to its roots; if it is filled with people who seek after God's truth, who are genuine and not pretentious, are kind and tender-hearted, forgive each other, who serve each other, who eat meals together, who live life together, and who pray not for their own storehouses to be filled, but for God to reign in all of earth; if the church is filled with those seeking that God may be glorified through Jesus Christ, perhaps we may regain the favor of the people. They, seeing Christ alive in us, will join with us in proclaiming Him as Lord, and God will move powerfully among us.
23 August 2009
A Christian View of Justice?
I don't typically pay world politics much attention, but the recent release of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi - better known as the Lockerbie bomber - by a Scottish judge brings some interesting topics to light. The only pertinent details in my opinion are that he was convicted of mass murder in what seems to be a fair trial, he has terminal prostate cancer, and he is being released to return to his home country of Libya to die in the presence of his family.
I have come across several discussions on various Christian websites which looked at this situation as a great lesson of mercy and grace and how it can be applied today. Indeed, this situation has produced many emotional responses from those who agree as well as those who disagree with the ruling. There may be something to be learned of mercy. The judge who decided to free al-Megrahi spoke of his country's tradition of humanity and argued that the fact that al-Megrahi showed no compassion on his victims and their families was not enough reason to prohibit compassion from being shown to him. Taking the high road and releasing the criminal is supposed to be a gesture of compassion and grace that mirrors what Christ has done for us. And indeed we can learn quite a bit, even from the outrage of those who disagree with the ruling. There was no legal requirement for the release of this man, just as there was no requirement for Christ to die for our sins. Yet compassion prevailed. As we can do nothing to change this present legal situation, we would do well to at least glean from it what we can in regards to mercy.
However, there is a vastly more pertinent issue to be discovered, and it seems to come at a poignant time with regards to the current situation in the Supreme Court of the United States. The major issue here is not whether compassion is good. Jesus told us as His followers to exact no vengeance on our enemies, but to turn the other cheek, offer to walk the extra mile, and give up our cloak (Matthew 5:38-40). Paul wrote that vengeance belongs to the Lord, and showing kindness to our enemies will heap coals on their heads (Romans 12:19-20). Rather, the most imperative issue at hand is whether compassion is in the power of the judicial system at all. Above the Supreme Court, the motto is written "Equal Justice Under Law", in accord with the 14th amendment to the constitution, where we find that no state can "deny to any person within its jurisdiction equal protection under the laws". On the eastern facade of the Supreme Court, Justice is represented by a statue holding scales with a blindfold wrapped around her eyes. The implication is that true justice pays no mind to race, socio-economic status, gender, age, or anything else (health?) except the law and the facts of the matter at hand (I recently heard a comedian state that the statue actually represents that the courts weigh whoever has the most money, and they win. Given the increased bureaucracy of our legal system and the subsequent need for good lawyers and rise in legal fees, I wonder whether he is right). This idea of equality in justice pervades God's law (Exodus 23, Leviticus 19).
This is a year in which our president has insisted that empathy was important to him when selecting a justice to serve on the Supreme Court. This is a year in which that nominee agreed and stated that her experience as a minority woman would enable her to do a better job in deciphering the law. Is this good and noble? Is the function of the government to take the moral high road? The heart of the issue is a discussion on the role of government, particularly its courts. Is government in place to punish the guilty and protect the innocent? Or is it there to show empathy and display humanity? Were the words of Jesus and Paul meant specifically for private citizens or for governments to follow as well? And did the New Testament do away with the governmental concepts of an eye for an eye (Deuteronomy 19) and that any man who kills others will be put to death (Genesis 9:6)? Goverment is necessary because of sin and injustice. All are equal as sinners, and all deserve equal treatment in legal matters. If an American government official made a judgement that compassion should be shown, it could only be substantiated by appeal to morals. This would have to be decried by those who have attempted to keep religion out of the government of the United States. We have been told that our government cannot prescribe morality to us; so be it. Just be consistent. If that is the case, our judges should do nothing more and nothing less than carrying out the law as it is written. I can only conclude that to be consistent and true, the judicial system's function is to provide equal rights under the law, and that the only way to do so is to examine the law and the facts of the matter at hand. If justice is not blind, then she is not just.
No discussion of justice and Christian standards can avoid the fact that Christians (namely, Americans) have failed their neighbors in terms of social justice for many years. There exist human trafficking, exploitation of children and poor workers, extreme poverty and hunger, child prostitution, and many more evils to which we have turned a blind eye in order to enjoy our own comforts. This is an entirely different concept than when we discuss our judicial system, although the majority of these issues fall under legal justice as well. It is about personal (and, in terms of the church, corporate) moral responsibility. When Jesus gave the parable of the good Samaritan, He was not talking about governmental philosophy. He was giving specific guidelines to those who wish to be His disciples. We are to treat those around us with the utmost respect and love. Jesus himself told many of His parables to emphasize kindness to the poor. While we can mourn and denounce the exploits of evil people, the injustices of this world are just as much the fault of Christians failing to bring the world under the conquest of the kingdom of God. As Edmund Burke wrote, "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." We would do well to remember that true religion is to take care of the widow and the orphan (James 1:27) and thus honor God.
I have come across several discussions on various Christian websites which looked at this situation as a great lesson of mercy and grace and how it can be applied today. Indeed, this situation has produced many emotional responses from those who agree as well as those who disagree with the ruling. There may be something to be learned of mercy. The judge who decided to free al-Megrahi spoke of his country's tradition of humanity and argued that the fact that al-Megrahi showed no compassion on his victims and their families was not enough reason to prohibit compassion from being shown to him. Taking the high road and releasing the criminal is supposed to be a gesture of compassion and grace that mirrors what Christ has done for us. And indeed we can learn quite a bit, even from the outrage of those who disagree with the ruling. There was no legal requirement for the release of this man, just as there was no requirement for Christ to die for our sins. Yet compassion prevailed. As we can do nothing to change this present legal situation, we would do well to at least glean from it what we can in regards to mercy.
However, there is a vastly more pertinent issue to be discovered, and it seems to come at a poignant time with regards to the current situation in the Supreme Court of the United States. The major issue here is not whether compassion is good. Jesus told us as His followers to exact no vengeance on our enemies, but to turn the other cheek, offer to walk the extra mile, and give up our cloak (Matthew 5:38-40). Paul wrote that vengeance belongs to the Lord, and showing kindness to our enemies will heap coals on their heads (Romans 12:19-20). Rather, the most imperative issue at hand is whether compassion is in the power of the judicial system at all. Above the Supreme Court, the motto is written "Equal Justice Under Law", in accord with the 14th amendment to the constitution, where we find that no state can "deny to any person within its jurisdiction equal protection under the laws". On the eastern facade of the Supreme Court, Justice is represented by a statue holding scales with a blindfold wrapped around her eyes. The implication is that true justice pays no mind to race, socio-economic status, gender, age, or anything else (health?) except the law and the facts of the matter at hand (I recently heard a comedian state that the statue actually represents that the courts weigh whoever has the most money, and they win. Given the increased bureaucracy of our legal system and the subsequent need for good lawyers and rise in legal fees, I wonder whether he is right). This idea of equality in justice pervades God's law (Exodus 23, Leviticus 19).
This is a year in which our president has insisted that empathy was important to him when selecting a justice to serve on the Supreme Court. This is a year in which that nominee agreed and stated that her experience as a minority woman would enable her to do a better job in deciphering the law. Is this good and noble? Is the function of the government to take the moral high road? The heart of the issue is a discussion on the role of government, particularly its courts. Is government in place to punish the guilty and protect the innocent? Or is it there to show empathy and display humanity? Were the words of Jesus and Paul meant specifically for private citizens or for governments to follow as well? And did the New Testament do away with the governmental concepts of an eye for an eye (Deuteronomy 19) and that any man who kills others will be put to death (Genesis 9:6)? Goverment is necessary because of sin and injustice. All are equal as sinners, and all deserve equal treatment in legal matters. If an American government official made a judgement that compassion should be shown, it could only be substantiated by appeal to morals. This would have to be decried by those who have attempted to keep religion out of the government of the United States. We have been told that our government cannot prescribe morality to us; so be it. Just be consistent. If that is the case, our judges should do nothing more and nothing less than carrying out the law as it is written. I can only conclude that to be consistent and true, the judicial system's function is to provide equal rights under the law, and that the only way to do so is to examine the law and the facts of the matter at hand. If justice is not blind, then she is not just.
No discussion of justice and Christian standards can avoid the fact that Christians (namely, Americans) have failed their neighbors in terms of social justice for many years. There exist human trafficking, exploitation of children and poor workers, extreme poverty and hunger, child prostitution, and many more evils to which we have turned a blind eye in order to enjoy our own comforts. This is an entirely different concept than when we discuss our judicial system, although the majority of these issues fall under legal justice as well. It is about personal (and, in terms of the church, corporate) moral responsibility. When Jesus gave the parable of the good Samaritan, He was not talking about governmental philosophy. He was giving specific guidelines to those who wish to be His disciples. We are to treat those around us with the utmost respect and love. Jesus himself told many of His parables to emphasize kindness to the poor. While we can mourn and denounce the exploits of evil people, the injustices of this world are just as much the fault of Christians failing to bring the world under the conquest of the kingdom of God. As Edmund Burke wrote, "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." We would do well to remember that true religion is to take care of the widow and the orphan (James 1:27) and thus honor God.
21 August 2009
Things you think about at 4 in the morning when you can't sleep
A topic for discussion (although probably trivial and admittedly hypothetical):
Since Jesus had no inherited sin nature through Adam, and since death is the consequence of sin, had Jesus not taken on mankind's sin, would he have been mortal in the flesh?
Since Jesus had no inherited sin nature through Adam, and since death is the consequence of sin, had Jesus not taken on mankind's sin, would he have been mortal in the flesh?
16 August 2009
15 August 2009
I'm pro-choice, but it's not what you think
Politicians use the word "rhetoric" when they think the opposite side is using unfair language to describe them and their positions. However, rhetoric itself is not necessarily bad. It helps us to frame debates around the central issues by using effective and persuasive language. The debate regarding abortion has been framed by rhetoric from both sides. Those against abortion call themselves "pro-life"; the obvious inference is that their opposition would be "anti-life" or "pro-death". While this moniker may be true, I highly doubt many that support abortion would accept this point of view. They prefer the term "pro-choice", implying that their opposition would be "anti-choice". Here is where I would like to focus our discussion.
I am pro-choice. But not in the sense that anyone would have you believe. And I would say that the majority of those opposed to abortion will agree with me. You see, we all (or almost all) agree that a woman's rights should be protected. She has the right to choose with whom to engage in sex. No one I know would suggest that any woman can justly be coerced into having sex with anyone she doesn't want to. Any person is to be protected in the same way, as innocent people (regarding the law), so this would include all people, adult or not. Her choice is correctly and justly protected in that sense by laws regarding rape, sexual assault, etc. The other way is also true; it is her right to engage in consensual sex with any other adult she chooses (remember, I am not making moral equivocations). This would technically apply to adolescents as well as regarding legal matters, but children are easily preyed on by perverse adults, and laws protecting children are necessary. I would generally agree that laws about sex in our country are just and fair, and I see no reason to discuss them further at this point. So I am pro-choice for women when it comes to when and with whom to engage in sex.
Second - and fewer pro-lifers will agree with me here - I believe that women have the right to prevent pregnancy with preventative birth control. Science has produced many methods, and there are additionally many other natural methods of preventing pregnancy that are highly effective and do not need to be described in detail. Obviously none of these methods are fool-proof, but the exceptions tend to prove the rule. I would not grant the same rights to children or adolescents that are still under the protection of responsible adults. Sex is a moral issue regardless of whether one believes that to be true or not. As such, the parents or guardians have a legal right to enforce the morality in their family, so teens still living at home - not providing for themselves - do not have claims to all the rights that adults do. We do not grant them other privileges (driving, alcohol, voting, etc.) even though those issues effect them. If those adolescents are functioning as adults, providing for themselves, then so be it. They can be granted the same rights to contraceptives medically. But the government owes them no access simply because their bodies are capable of engaging in sex.
As I read back over what I have already written, I am afraid that I have gone too far into detail and perhaps convoluted my message. However I deem it necessary to show in as great of detail as I can that my position is not, as some pro-abortionists would suggest, sexist toward women. I believe that every right a woman can exercise in order to prevent pregnancy is her right - not the least of which is the most effective birth control, namely abstinence. In this sense - and I want this to be perfectly clear - I am in agreement with the pro-choice argument: a woman has the right to do with her own body what she thinks is best. The rhetoric of calling me anti-choice fails when held up to scrutiny, and I refute anyone who would criticize my stance as anything other than fair and beneficial to women. Now for the hard part.
The difference lies now in how my view of abortion differs from that of its proponents. If, as they would say, a fetus is a non-person, then an abortion is a medical and scientific matter. The argument that it is an attempt to dodge responsibility and consequence of sex is not valid here, because the same could be said for the use of birth control. The fundamental argument boils down to whether a fetus is a human life or a growth equivalent to a benign tumor. I highly doubt that any proponent of abortion would remain so if they honestly believed it killed a person. But no matter how many times it is repeated that this is a medical issue the fact remains that it is a moral and philosophical question.
What makes a human? A fetus carried to term, born as a baby, is obviously accepted as a human being. Our society places a special emphasis on the protection of babies and young children. We would be (and are, when it happens) appalled by a mother or father killing their own children. We despise those who hurt the innocent and defenseless. Why is it any different in the womb? Because it is smaller than a human living outside the womb? Humans come in all sorts of sizes. Is someone with dwarfism less human than a normal sized person? Is Yao Ming intrinsically more of a person than Tom Cruise? Where is the line of size difference that says, ok it's this big, now it's a person?
What about developmentally? In the first trimester, a fetus looks very little like a human being at all. Is there a dividing line of development that we can show where it becomes a human at a certain stage? We certainly do not look at prepubescent children and declare that they are inhuman. And yet a newborn is obviously undeveloped in comparison with a twelve year old, which in turn is undeveloped in comparison with a 40 year old. Again, what is the standard? There is an argument that until a fetus can sustain life outside the womb, it is not a person. The main problem with this argument is the concept behind the sustenance of life. A newborn cannot sustain life outside the womb alone any more than a baby in the second trimester. A fetus growing in the womb needs nutrition and protection in order to develop and live. A child must have someone else to feed it and care for it or it will die. What is the fundamental difference? This does not make it less human. Are only adults who can care for themselves worthy of being considered human? Where objectively is the line where we can say that a fetus has grown to the point that it can live in the outside world without aid from an adult?
Is a fetus human when it can feel pain? There are disorders of the nervous system and paralysis that cause even adults not to feel pain. Is it when there is a beating heart present? There are those with pacemakers; they need an artificial heart to survive. Are they subhuman?
You see, any of these standards for humanity or personhood quickly become nothing but arbitrary rules imposed by an unobjective observer. I submit to you that there cannot be an argument against a fetus's personhood which is not arbitrary. We have no acceptable standard to differentiate between an incompletely developed human and a completely developed human that is not arbitrary and subjective. Any argument that says a fetus is not a person from the instant of conception to the last breath begs the question whether there is such a thing as being a person at all. This subjectivism leads to relativism. A person is whatever I want it to be. At this point the argument breaks down, as there is no guiding principle as to how to apply it. We cannot accept arbitrary conditions placed on an idea by a person. We surely cannot imagine a worldview which denies such a thing as humanity. That position is inconsistent with our nature, our actions, and what we understand about the world. There is, unequivocally, no philosophically tenable viewpoint that a fetus is not a person. And we believe that innocent, defenseless (which babies certainly are) people are worth protecting. And, in fact, our government does just that. In all manners outside abortion, an unborn baby is treated as human. If someone accidentally causes the death of a fetus, that person can be charged with manslaughter (and murder if it is intentional). Why in this one issue is there a difference?
Not only does logic lead us to this position, but so also does the word of God. I have until this point tried to show that this issue is just as much an ethical, philosophical debate as it is religious. However, God undeniably has something to say on the subject and deserves to be heard. Psalm 139:13-16 is used popularly to show God's work in unborn babies, who are knit together in their mother's womb. Luke 1 is also useful in showing that the baby inside Elizabeth had a spirit and even recognized when Mary who was carrying Jesus in the womb was present.
The pro-choice argument almost always includes the emotional appeal to the plight of women who are victims of rape and incest or who may die by carrying their pregnancies to term. I would agree that these are very pertinent issues worthy of discussion. But without coming to an agreement that abortion kills a defenseless human being, we cannot grasp the gravity of these situations, and discussion will be insubstantial. There can be no meaningful dialogue regarding abortion without the mutual realization that killing a child is killing a child no matter what box the argument comes wrapped up in.
So I am pro-choice. I believe that we should protect the right of women to make their own decisions, whether morally correct or not. I have common ground with those who argue for the woman's right to choose what to do with her own body. But I am unashamedly pro-life. We cannot fail to protect the innocent lives that are being lost every day.
A couple of final points. A much more powerful proclamation of these truths was done recently by John Piper and I wholeheartedly recommend visiting desiringgod.org and listening to the entire message entitled "The Baby in my Womb Leaped for Joy". More information regarding abortion, statistics regarding "necessary" or "emergency" abortions, and racial abortion issues can be found at abort73.com. Also, the argumentation and reasoning behind the ruling of Roe vs. Wade make a mockery of our legal system and of reason itself. Whether you agree with the ruling or not, you would be hard-pressed to agree that the ruling makes any sense in light of the reasoning provided for the ruling. It is insulting to our intelligence that we have been forced to agree that Roe v. Wade is a good example of due process. Even I could have written a better argument for decriminalizing abortion.
Finally, to my fellow people who consider themselves pro-life: we need to take a long look at ourselves. I truly believe that being anti-abortion does not make us pro-life. This is an enormous issue, and a very important one; however, unless and until we are willing to face the other life issues, we cannot live up to our self-imposed description. To be pro-life means fighting disease, poverty, genocide, unnecessary war, violence, and death in all of its forms. We cannot give up the fight on abortion, but we cannot stop there and pretend that we are contending for life to the best of our abilities.
I am pro-choice. But not in the sense that anyone would have you believe. And I would say that the majority of those opposed to abortion will agree with me. You see, we all (or almost all) agree that a woman's rights should be protected. She has the right to choose with whom to engage in sex. No one I know would suggest that any woman can justly be coerced into having sex with anyone she doesn't want to. Any person is to be protected in the same way, as innocent people (regarding the law), so this would include all people, adult or not. Her choice is correctly and justly protected in that sense by laws regarding rape, sexual assault, etc. The other way is also true; it is her right to engage in consensual sex with any other adult she chooses (remember, I am not making moral equivocations). This would technically apply to adolescents as well as regarding legal matters, but children are easily preyed on by perverse adults, and laws protecting children are necessary. I would generally agree that laws about sex in our country are just and fair, and I see no reason to discuss them further at this point. So I am pro-choice for women when it comes to when and with whom to engage in sex.
Second - and fewer pro-lifers will agree with me here - I believe that women have the right to prevent pregnancy with preventative birth control. Science has produced many methods, and there are additionally many other natural methods of preventing pregnancy that are highly effective and do not need to be described in detail. Obviously none of these methods are fool-proof, but the exceptions tend to prove the rule. I would not grant the same rights to children or adolescents that are still under the protection of responsible adults. Sex is a moral issue regardless of whether one believes that to be true or not. As such, the parents or guardians have a legal right to enforce the morality in their family, so teens still living at home - not providing for themselves - do not have claims to all the rights that adults do. We do not grant them other privileges (driving, alcohol, voting, etc.) even though those issues effect them. If those adolescents are functioning as adults, providing for themselves, then so be it. They can be granted the same rights to contraceptives medically. But the government owes them no access simply because their bodies are capable of engaging in sex.
As I read back over what I have already written, I am afraid that I have gone too far into detail and perhaps convoluted my message. However I deem it necessary to show in as great of detail as I can that my position is not, as some pro-abortionists would suggest, sexist toward women. I believe that every right a woman can exercise in order to prevent pregnancy is her right - not the least of which is the most effective birth control, namely abstinence. In this sense - and I want this to be perfectly clear - I am in agreement with the pro-choice argument: a woman has the right to do with her own body what she thinks is best. The rhetoric of calling me anti-choice fails when held up to scrutiny, and I refute anyone who would criticize my stance as anything other than fair and beneficial to women. Now for the hard part.
The difference lies now in how my view of abortion differs from that of its proponents. If, as they would say, a fetus is a non-person, then an abortion is a medical and scientific matter. The argument that it is an attempt to dodge responsibility and consequence of sex is not valid here, because the same could be said for the use of birth control. The fundamental argument boils down to whether a fetus is a human life or a growth equivalent to a benign tumor. I highly doubt that any proponent of abortion would remain so if they honestly believed it killed a person. But no matter how many times it is repeated that this is a medical issue the fact remains that it is a moral and philosophical question.
What makes a human? A fetus carried to term, born as a baby, is obviously accepted as a human being. Our society places a special emphasis on the protection of babies and young children. We would be (and are, when it happens) appalled by a mother or father killing their own children. We despise those who hurt the innocent and defenseless. Why is it any different in the womb? Because it is smaller than a human living outside the womb? Humans come in all sorts of sizes. Is someone with dwarfism less human than a normal sized person? Is Yao Ming intrinsically more of a person than Tom Cruise? Where is the line of size difference that says, ok it's this big, now it's a person?
What about developmentally? In the first trimester, a fetus looks very little like a human being at all. Is there a dividing line of development that we can show where it becomes a human at a certain stage? We certainly do not look at prepubescent children and declare that they are inhuman. And yet a newborn is obviously undeveloped in comparison with a twelve year old, which in turn is undeveloped in comparison with a 40 year old. Again, what is the standard? There is an argument that until a fetus can sustain life outside the womb, it is not a person. The main problem with this argument is the concept behind the sustenance of life. A newborn cannot sustain life outside the womb alone any more than a baby in the second trimester. A fetus growing in the womb needs nutrition and protection in order to develop and live. A child must have someone else to feed it and care for it or it will die. What is the fundamental difference? This does not make it less human. Are only adults who can care for themselves worthy of being considered human? Where objectively is the line where we can say that a fetus has grown to the point that it can live in the outside world without aid from an adult?
Is a fetus human when it can feel pain? There are disorders of the nervous system and paralysis that cause even adults not to feel pain. Is it when there is a beating heart present? There are those with pacemakers; they need an artificial heart to survive. Are they subhuman?
You see, any of these standards for humanity or personhood quickly become nothing but arbitrary rules imposed by an unobjective observer. I submit to you that there cannot be an argument against a fetus's personhood which is not arbitrary. We have no acceptable standard to differentiate between an incompletely developed human and a completely developed human that is not arbitrary and subjective. Any argument that says a fetus is not a person from the instant of conception to the last breath begs the question whether there is such a thing as being a person at all. This subjectivism leads to relativism. A person is whatever I want it to be. At this point the argument breaks down, as there is no guiding principle as to how to apply it. We cannot accept arbitrary conditions placed on an idea by a person. We surely cannot imagine a worldview which denies such a thing as humanity. That position is inconsistent with our nature, our actions, and what we understand about the world. There is, unequivocally, no philosophically tenable viewpoint that a fetus is not a person. And we believe that innocent, defenseless (which babies certainly are) people are worth protecting. And, in fact, our government does just that. In all manners outside abortion, an unborn baby is treated as human. If someone accidentally causes the death of a fetus, that person can be charged with manslaughter (and murder if it is intentional). Why in this one issue is there a difference?
Not only does logic lead us to this position, but so also does the word of God. I have until this point tried to show that this issue is just as much an ethical, philosophical debate as it is religious. However, God undeniably has something to say on the subject and deserves to be heard. Psalm 139:13-16 is used popularly to show God's work in unborn babies, who are knit together in their mother's womb. Luke 1 is also useful in showing that the baby inside Elizabeth had a spirit and even recognized when Mary who was carrying Jesus in the womb was present.
The pro-choice argument almost always includes the emotional appeal to the plight of women who are victims of rape and incest or who may die by carrying their pregnancies to term. I would agree that these are very pertinent issues worthy of discussion. But without coming to an agreement that abortion kills a defenseless human being, we cannot grasp the gravity of these situations, and discussion will be insubstantial. There can be no meaningful dialogue regarding abortion without the mutual realization that killing a child is killing a child no matter what box the argument comes wrapped up in.
So I am pro-choice. I believe that we should protect the right of women to make their own decisions, whether morally correct or not. I have common ground with those who argue for the woman's right to choose what to do with her own body. But I am unashamedly pro-life. We cannot fail to protect the innocent lives that are being lost every day.
A couple of final points. A much more powerful proclamation of these truths was done recently by John Piper and I wholeheartedly recommend visiting desiringgod.org and listening to the entire message entitled "The Baby in my Womb Leaped for Joy". More information regarding abortion, statistics regarding "necessary" or "emergency" abortions, and racial abortion issues can be found at abort73.com. Also, the argumentation and reasoning behind the ruling of Roe vs. Wade make a mockery of our legal system and of reason itself. Whether you agree with the ruling or not, you would be hard-pressed to agree that the ruling makes any sense in light of the reasoning provided for the ruling. It is insulting to our intelligence that we have been forced to agree that Roe v. Wade is a good example of due process. Even I could have written a better argument for decriminalizing abortion.
Finally, to my fellow people who consider themselves pro-life: we need to take a long look at ourselves. I truly believe that being anti-abortion does not make us pro-life. This is an enormous issue, and a very important one; however, unless and until we are willing to face the other life issues, we cannot live up to our self-imposed description. To be pro-life means fighting disease, poverty, genocide, unnecessary war, violence, and death in all of its forms. We cannot give up the fight on abortion, but we cannot stop there and pretend that we are contending for life to the best of our abilities.
Praise God
The past couple of months have been difficult for us. It seems that most anything that could have gone wrong did. It led me to question whether the move here was the right one. But God has remained faithful. Every time it seems that we are at the end of our rope, He sends unexpected blessings our way, and He did it again today. So I will choose to continue trusting Him because He keeps proving Himself faithful. I'm trusting that He will continue to provide for our needs, and hope that He will provide a job for me soon.
“Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or drink; or about your body, what you will wear. Is not life more important than food, and the body more important than clothes? Look at the birds of the air; they do not sow or reap or store away in barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not much more valuable than they? Who of you by worrying can add a single hour to his life? “And why do you worry about clothes? See how the lilies of the field grow. They do not labor or spin. Yet I tell you that not even Solomon in all his splendor was dressed like one of these. If that is how God clothes the grass of the field, which is here today and tomorrow is thrown into the fire, will he not much more clothe you, O you of little faith? So do not worry, saying, ‘What shall we eat?’ or ‘What shall we drink?’ or ‘What shall we wear?’ For the pagans run after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them. But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well. Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own." (Matthew 6:26-34 NIV)
“Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or drink; or about your body, what you will wear. Is not life more important than food, and the body more important than clothes? Look at the birds of the air; they do not sow or reap or store away in barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not much more valuable than they? Who of you by worrying can add a single hour to his life? “And why do you worry about clothes? See how the lilies of the field grow. They do not labor or spin. Yet I tell you that not even Solomon in all his splendor was dressed like one of these. If that is how God clothes the grass of the field, which is here today and tomorrow is thrown into the fire, will he not much more clothe you, O you of little faith? So do not worry, saying, ‘What shall we eat?’ or ‘What shall we drink?’ or ‘What shall we wear?’ For the pagans run after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them. But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well. Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own." (Matthew 6:26-34 NIV)
13 August 2009
Rejoicing in Romans 8 in light of Romans 9
Before I was born, my mother knew me and loved me. Before I caused her pain - in childbirth (and thankfully thereafter), by disobedience, by spitefulness - she committed to love me unconditionally as her child. This is the nature of motherhood, a natural attachment to her offspring. My father likewise loved me before he saw me and has never wavered from it. It is marvelous the design God has to preserve the family, and it is beautiful to see his work in action through imperfect human love. Sometimes though, this can lead to a wrong mindset about God, His purposes, and His plan.
I was recently studying Romans chapter 9, and though I had read it many times before, I reverted emotionally to an old response when I read the words: "Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated". You see, Paul writes, "Rebekah's children had one and the same father, our father Isaac. Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad - in order that God's purpose in election might stand: not by works but by him who calls - she was told: 'The older will serve the younger.'" (vv 10-12, NIV - a quote from Genesis 25:23) From the context, Paul is very clearly using this story as a prooftext to show God's unconditional election of His own people before their birth. Our immediate human response is "That can't be! A loving and just and merciful God choosing our fate for us before we have done anything good or bad! Shouldn't God leave it up to us? Surely He has an obligation to justice that He must leave this up to us!" And yet Paul anticipates this very thinking - it is after all the natural response - as he immediately writes "What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! For He says to Moses, 'I will have mercy on whom I have mercy...' It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy." (vv14-16, NIV - a quote from Exodus 33:19) The New King James Version reads, "So then, it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy." (v 16) Paul, himself being human and very justice-minded knew the knee-jerk reaction that sinful man would have when reading these words. A man's will cannot and will never bring the mercy of God. Only God has the prerogative to show mercy or not. Indeed, fallen sinful man standing before God and demanding justice or mercy would be similar to (yet still an infinitely weaker case than) an ant demanding anything of a human. Paul goes on to write "For the Scripture says to Pharoah: 'I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display My power in you and that My name might be proclaimed in all the earth.' Therefore God has mercy on whom He wants to have mercy, and He hardens whom He wants to harden." (vv 16-18 NIV - a quote from Exodus 33:19) To my brothers and sisters who would argue that Pharoah hardened his own heart, or that Pharoah was "too far gone" so God decided He could make an example of the ruler, I submit that that is not what Paul is saying here, nor is it consistent with what Paul is saying to be true in this passage. The fact is that God took a man's heart into His own hands and hardened it, turned it against Himself for His own purposes. It is clear from Paul's argument that God is the one doing the action, not Pharoah. God does what He wills and we are powerless to do anything about it. That is the true Christian view of the condition of man. And yet Paul sees the next argument coming, as it tries to rise up in my heart every time I read this passage. "One of you will say to me: 'Then why does God still blame us? For who resists His will?'" (v 19 NIV) Admit it. That's the same thought you had when you read through Romans 9 up to this point, and it is the same feeling I have as well. Paul knows exactly who he is talking to and what he is talking about. God has placed in us a natural desire for justice, but it is corrupted by our sinful pride. So much so that we will question God on His sense of justice. Paul knows this and gives his response. "But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? 'Shall what is formed say to him that formed it, "Why did you make me like this?"'" (these are quotations from the book of Isaiah) "Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use? What if God, choosing to show His wrath and make His power known, bore with great patience the objects of His wrath - prepared for destruction? What if He did this to make the riches of His glory known to the objects of His mercy, whom He prepared in advance for glory" (vv 19-23 NIV) Wow. What if God wanted to do that. Surely the omnipotent Creator of the universe can do whatever he likes with His creation. My dad used to say (quoting Bill Cosby I believe) "I brought you into this world, and I can take you out." Well, God brought this world into being and created music and gravity and quadratic formulas and grammar and logic and you and me and He can do whatever He pleases with it. You see, God is not bound by any law of goodness or justice. If these things transcended Him, He would cease to be God. Rather, He has by His nature defined for us what justice and goodness are, and anything He does would be just and good. I think I sense a hint of sarcasm when Paul says "Who are you, O man..." (v 20). O man, great explorer of the planet and the moon, who cannot go to the nearest planet, of which there are millions in the universe God has created. O man, who has found DNA and can clone animals and people, yet cannot add information to the proteins necessary for life, while God created all ex nihilo - out of nothing - and created you, O man, from dust and His breath. O man, who can calculate the angle of an isosceles triangle and the speed of light, yet cannot approach infiniteness, which God is. Who are you, O man, who kill, steal, covet, profane, and boast, who are you to approach God demanding satisfaction? The potter has the freedom to do what he will with the clay, and the clay has no argument against the potter.
Now, as we look into Romans 9, which is the more miraculous and absurd fact? Is it that God would choose to let sinners receive the punishment they deserve ("for all have sinned, and fall short of the glory of God" (Romans 3:23 NIV) "For the wages of sin is death" (Romans 6:23 NIV)). Is it so far-fetched that God would let these people - dead in sin, haters of God, perverters of the truth - take their natural course in order that His justice and wrath be magnified and glorified? Is it so beyond the scope of imagination that before they were born and had done anything good or bad that God hated Esau? No, my friends. The wondrous, miraculous, supernatural message of Romans 9 can be summed up as this: "But God demonstrates His own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us" (Romans 5:8 NIV). While we were the enemies of God, before we were born, God said of us "These are mine, and I will die to protect them".
So then, how much more powerful now, in the light of God's unfailing sovereign grace and love when we read:
"And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love Him, who have been called according to His purpose." Romans 8:28 (NIV)
"What then shall we say in response to this? If God is for us, who can be against us?" Romans 8:31(NIV)
"No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through Him Who loved us. For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord." Romans 8:37-39 (NIV)
When I read the promises of Romans 8 in the light of Romans 9, they are more powerful, more beautiful, and more glorious. I can anew agree with Paul when he says in Ephesians 3:20-21, "Now to Him who is able to do immeasurably more than all we ask or imagine, according to His power that is at work within us, to Him be the glory in the church and in Christ Jesus throughout all generations, for ever and ever! Amen."
I was recently studying Romans chapter 9, and though I had read it many times before, I reverted emotionally to an old response when I read the words: "Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated". You see, Paul writes, "Rebekah's children had one and the same father, our father Isaac. Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad - in order that God's purpose in election might stand: not by works but by him who calls - she was told: 'The older will serve the younger.'" (vv 10-12, NIV - a quote from Genesis 25:23) From the context, Paul is very clearly using this story as a prooftext to show God's unconditional election of His own people before their birth. Our immediate human response is "That can't be! A loving and just and merciful God choosing our fate for us before we have done anything good or bad! Shouldn't God leave it up to us? Surely He has an obligation to justice that He must leave this up to us!" And yet Paul anticipates this very thinking - it is after all the natural response - as he immediately writes "What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! For He says to Moses, 'I will have mercy on whom I have mercy...' It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy." (vv14-16, NIV - a quote from Exodus 33:19) The New King James Version reads, "So then, it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy." (v 16) Paul, himself being human and very justice-minded knew the knee-jerk reaction that sinful man would have when reading these words. A man's will cannot and will never bring the mercy of God. Only God has the prerogative to show mercy or not. Indeed, fallen sinful man standing before God and demanding justice or mercy would be similar to (yet still an infinitely weaker case than) an ant demanding anything of a human. Paul goes on to write "For the Scripture says to Pharoah: 'I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display My power in you and that My name might be proclaimed in all the earth.' Therefore God has mercy on whom He wants to have mercy, and He hardens whom He wants to harden." (vv 16-18 NIV - a quote from Exodus 33:19) To my brothers and sisters who would argue that Pharoah hardened his own heart, or that Pharoah was "too far gone" so God decided He could make an example of the ruler, I submit that that is not what Paul is saying here, nor is it consistent with what Paul is saying to be true in this passage. The fact is that God took a man's heart into His own hands and hardened it, turned it against Himself for His own purposes. It is clear from Paul's argument that God is the one doing the action, not Pharoah. God does what He wills and we are powerless to do anything about it. That is the true Christian view of the condition of man. And yet Paul sees the next argument coming, as it tries to rise up in my heart every time I read this passage. "One of you will say to me: 'Then why does God still blame us? For who resists His will?'" (v 19 NIV) Admit it. That's the same thought you had when you read through Romans 9 up to this point, and it is the same feeling I have as well. Paul knows exactly who he is talking to and what he is talking about. God has placed in us a natural desire for justice, but it is corrupted by our sinful pride. So much so that we will question God on His sense of justice. Paul knows this and gives his response. "But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? 'Shall what is formed say to him that formed it, "Why did you make me like this?"'" (these are quotations from the book of Isaiah) "Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use? What if God, choosing to show His wrath and make His power known, bore with great patience the objects of His wrath - prepared for destruction? What if He did this to make the riches of His glory known to the objects of His mercy, whom He prepared in advance for glory" (vv 19-23 NIV) Wow. What if God wanted to do that. Surely the omnipotent Creator of the universe can do whatever he likes with His creation. My dad used to say (quoting Bill Cosby I believe) "I brought you into this world, and I can take you out." Well, God brought this world into being and created music and gravity and quadratic formulas and grammar and logic and you and me and He can do whatever He pleases with it. You see, God is not bound by any law of goodness or justice. If these things transcended Him, He would cease to be God. Rather, He has by His nature defined for us what justice and goodness are, and anything He does would be just and good. I think I sense a hint of sarcasm when Paul says "Who are you, O man..." (v 20). O man, great explorer of the planet and the moon, who cannot go to the nearest planet, of which there are millions in the universe God has created. O man, who has found DNA and can clone animals and people, yet cannot add information to the proteins necessary for life, while God created all ex nihilo - out of nothing - and created you, O man, from dust and His breath. O man, who can calculate the angle of an isosceles triangle and the speed of light, yet cannot approach infiniteness, which God is. Who are you, O man, who kill, steal, covet, profane, and boast, who are you to approach God demanding satisfaction? The potter has the freedom to do what he will with the clay, and the clay has no argument against the potter.
Now, as we look into Romans 9, which is the more miraculous and absurd fact? Is it that God would choose to let sinners receive the punishment they deserve ("for all have sinned, and fall short of the glory of God" (Romans 3:23 NIV) "For the wages of sin is death" (Romans 6:23 NIV)). Is it so far-fetched that God would let these people - dead in sin, haters of God, perverters of the truth - take their natural course in order that His justice and wrath be magnified and glorified? Is it so beyond the scope of imagination that before they were born and had done anything good or bad that God hated Esau? No, my friends. The wondrous, miraculous, supernatural message of Romans 9 can be summed up as this: "But God demonstrates His own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us" (Romans 5:8 NIV). While we were the enemies of God, before we were born, God said of us "These are mine, and I will die to protect them".
So then, how much more powerful now, in the light of God's unfailing sovereign grace and love when we read:
"And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love Him, who have been called according to His purpose." Romans 8:28 (NIV)
"What then shall we say in response to this? If God is for us, who can be against us?" Romans 8:31(NIV)
"No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through Him Who loved us. For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord." Romans 8:37-39 (NIV)
When I read the promises of Romans 8 in the light of Romans 9, they are more powerful, more beautiful, and more glorious. I can anew agree with Paul when he says in Ephesians 3:20-21, "Now to Him who is able to do immeasurably more than all we ask or imagine, according to His power that is at work within us, to Him be the glory in the church and in Christ Jesus throughout all generations, for ever and ever! Amen."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)