Resources for your spiritual education
Wow! What a fantastic list of recommended resources is available at the Dead Theologian Society.
I just discovered this site recently and have found it to be well-written and full of wisdom and insight. And it’s written by a pastor to boot. Check it out when you get the chance.
Resources for your spiritual education
Wow! What a fantastic list of recommended resources is available at the Dead Theologian Society.
I just discovered this site recently and have found it to be well-written and full of wisdom and insight. And its written by a pastor to boot. Check it out when you get the chance.
Was Jesus a Calvinist?
In yesterday’s post, Daniel L. Aiken commented on some statements that he has heard recently that he found to be irresponsible. Most of the statements had been made by the new breed of virulent anti-Calvinists. These folks make irresponsible statements regularly on many topics. Ergun Caner of Liberty University is quite likely the leader in this crowd of irresponsible statement makers. I would agree completely with Mr. Aiken that the first four of the statements he listed were irresponsible and hyperbolic.
But the fifth statement he declared as irresponsible was the statement, “Jesus is a Calvinist.” I’d like to consider that statement while discussing what it truly means when someone says, “I am a Calvinist.”
There are at least three ways people respond to the statement, “I am a Calvinist.” They think it means:
- Calvinists adhere to John Calvin the man
- Calvinists adhere to the totality of the teaching of the man John Calvin
- Calvinists adhere to a particular set of doctrines that over time have come to be associated with the name of the man John Calvin
Let’s look at each of these in historic context and determine whether it is irresponsible to say, “Jesus is a Calvinist.”
Calvinists adhere to John Calvin, the man
This may have been true of a few people who lived in Switzerland at the time of John Calvin. Mentors are a good thing and a protegé could be described as adhering to his mentor. However, John Calvin has been dead for a long time. Everyone who hears someone say, “I am a Calvinist” knows that Calvin is not mentoring that person. So I don’t think anyone makes the mistake of thinking this way.
Is Jesus a Calvinist in this manner? Obviously not. In fact, Calvin was a Christian, not the other way around.
Calvinists adhere to the totality of Calvin’s teaching
This is the most common misunderstanding proclaimed by those who want to vilify John Calvin and the people called Calvinists. I think the vast majority of them know that this is not what those who are called Calvinists are proclaiming. But they say it anyway.
Quite often these folks will say, “How can you be a Calvinist? He believed in putting heretics to death,” or something similar to that. These folks will also argue the other side of this coin, saying that those who are “Calvinists” follow the teaching of a man. They often follow this up by saying, “I’m not a Calvinist. I’m not an Arminian. I’m a Biblicist.”
This line of reasoning is completely wrongheaded. First, the vast majority of those who claim to be either Calvinist or Arminian have come to that position because of their understanding of scripture, making them de facto Biblicists. This line of argumentation is actually unscriptural as it is exactly the thing the Apostle Paul was decrying in 1 Corinthians 1:11-13:For it has been reported to me by Chloe’s people that there is quarreling among you, my brothers. What I mean is that each one of you says, “I follow Paul,” or “I follow Apollos,” or “I follow Cephas,” or “I follow Christ.” Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? Saying I follow Calvin or I follow Arminius is this exact thing. This is not what either of those statements mean though.
The reason for saying, “I am a Calvinist” or “I am an Arminian” is theological efficiency. It is no different than saying “I am a Baptist” or “I am southernor.” It is a shortcut, laden with meaning so we don’t have to waste time explaining Baptist distinctives or geographic features of where we’re from. In typical conversation, folks understand that when you say, “I am a Baptist,” you mean: I hold to Believer’s Baptism, I am a Christian, I oppose a state-run church, and other Baptist distinctives. When a person says, “I am a Calvinist,” he is not saying that he holds to every single teaching or activity of the man John Calvin. In fact, he may be strongly opposed to much of John Calvin’s teaching. What he does mean by saying that he is a Calvinist brings us to our next definition.
But first, Was Jesus a Calvinist in this way—did Jesus hold to all the teachings of John Calvin. Of course not.
Calvinists adhere to a particular set of doctrines that are associated with the name John Calvin
Labels are useful shortcuts. They allow us to describe ourselves quickly. I am a Baptist is a useful label. I am a Conservative is a somewhat useful label. I am an American is a useful label. I am a Biblicist is a totally useless label. It means nothing at all. There is not theological shortcut provided by saying that. More likely it means, “I disagree with what you’re saying, but I can’t prove my point with scripture so I’m going to vilify you by implying that you are NOT a Biblicist.” Not a particularly useful way of arguing a theological point.
Labels must be defined by those who use them, not by those who oppose them. So Calvinists must be the ones who define the term Calvinism and Arminians must be the ones who define the term “Arminian.”
When a Calvinist claims that label he means, “I hold to the peculiar doctrines that over time have come to be associated with the man John Calvin.” Those doctrines are:
- Total Inability, sometimes called “Total Depravity
- Unconditional Election
- Particular Redemption, sometimes called Limited Atonement
- Effectual Calling, sometimes called Irresistible Grace
- Perseverance and Preservation of the Saints, sometimes inaccurately described by the phrase “once saved, always saved”
These doctrines are scriptural and would require a great deal of time to explain in detail, thus the reason for the theological shortcut—I am a Calvinist. But is it appropriate to use this theological shortcut to describe Jesus Christ. I guess the answer to that question is to determine whether or not Jesus holds to those doctrines.
The main doctrines under contention in this list are Unconditional Election, Particular Redemption, and Effectual Calling. So to determine whether Jesus can be described as a Calvinist, we should look at what Jesus himself taught:
John 6:44
No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day.
In this verse Jesus teaches Total Inability (“no one can come”) and Unconditional Election combined with Effectual Calling (“unless the Father … draws him. And I will raise him up”). They can’t come (Total Inability), the Father draws and those he draws (Election) will be raised up (Effectual Calling and Perseverance of the Saints).
So Jesus believed in Total Inability, Unconditional Election, Effectual Grace, and Perseverance of the Saints. He’s pretty close to being a Calvinist. But the most hotly contested doctrine is Particular Redemption. Where did Jesus stand on that one?
When he prayed his High Priestly prayer in the Garden of Gethsemane, Jesus was fulfilling the role of the High Priest. When he sacrificed a lamb, the Jewish high priest would pray for God’s chosen people—Israel. He did not pray for the Hittites, the Jebusites, the Amonites, or any of the other people around. The sacrifice was not made for them. In fact, God has specifically told some people that they would not receive the offer of atonement for their sins (the very defnition of “Limited Atonement”). For example: Isaiah 22:14 – The Lord of hosts has revealed himself in my ears: “Surely this iniquity will not be atoned for you until you die,” says the Lord God of hosts. So the high priest prayed for a specific group of peope who were to recieve atonement for their sins based on the sacrifice.
As Jesus prepared to become that sacrificial lamb, he prayed: “I am praying for them. I am not praying for the world but for those whom you have given me, for they are yours (John 17:9). Jesus knew who he was going to the cross to make atonement for. He was doing it for the chosen ones—the elect. Jesus believes in Particular Redemption. And just in case anyone might not completely get the point, he said, “I am not praying for the world….” There was no doubt in Jesus mind for whom he would be making atonement.
So what is the answer to the question: Is Jesus a Calvinist? I think the answer quite clearly is a resounding yes.
Jesus is a Calvinist
Was Jesus a Calvinist?
In yesterday’s post, Daniel L. Aiken commented on some statements that he has heard recently that he found to be irresponsible. Most of the statements had been made by the new breed of virulent anti-Calvinists. These folks make irresponsible statements regularly on many topics. Ergun Caner of Liberty University is quite likely the leader in this crowd of irresponsible statement makers. I would agree completely with Mr. Aiken that the first four of the statements he listed were irresponsible and hyperbolic.
But the fifth statement he declared as irresponsible was the statement, “Jesus is a Calvinist.” I’d like to consider that statement while discussing what it truly means when someone says, “I am a Calvinist.”
There are at least three ways people respond to the statement, “I am a Calvinist.” They think it means:
- Calvinists adhere to John Calvin the man
- Calvinists adhere to the totality of the teaching of the man John Calvin
- Calvinists adhere to a particular set of doctrines that over time have come to be associated with the name of the man John Calvin
Let’s look at each of these in historic context and determine whether it is irresponsible to say, “Jesus is a Calvinist.”
Calvinists adhere to John Calvin, the man
This may have been true of a few people who lived in Switzerland at the time of John Calvin. Mentors are a good thing and a protegé could be described as adhering to his mentor. However, John Calvin has been dead for a long time. Everyone who hears someone say, “I am a Calvinist” knows that Calvin is not mentoring that person. So I don’t think anyone makes the mistake of thinking this way.
Is Jesus a Calvinist in this manner? Obviously not. In fact, Calvin was a Christian, not the other way around.
Calvinists adhere to the totality of Calvin’s teaching
This is the most common misunderstanding proclaimed by those who want to vilify John Calvin and the people called Calvinists. I think the vast majority of them know that this is not what those who are called Calvinists are proclaiming. But they say it anyway.
Quite often these folks will say, “How can you be a Calvinist? He believed in putting heretics to death,” or something similar to that. These folks will also argue the other side of this coin, saying that those who are “Calvinists” follow the teaching of a man. They often follow this up by saying, “I’m not a Calvinist. I’m not an Arminian. I’m a Biblicist.”
This line of reasoning is completely wrongheaded. First, the vast majority of those who claim to be either Calvinist or Arminian have come to that position because of their understanding of scripture, making them de facto Biblicists. This line of argumentation is actually unscriptural as it is exactly the thing the Apostle Paul was decrying in 1 Corinthians 1:11-13 (seen in the callout box to the right.
—1 Cor. 1:11-13
Saying I follow Calvin or I follow Arminius is this exact thing. This is not what either of those statements mean though.
The reason for saying, “I am a Calvinist” or “I am an Arminian” is theological efficiency. It is no different than saying “I am a Baptist” or “I am a southernor.” It is a shortcut, laden with meaning so we don’t have to waste time explaining Baptist distinctives or geographic features of where we’re from. In typical conversation, folks understand that when you say, “I am a Baptist,” you mean: I hold to Believer’s Baptism, I am a Christian, I oppose a state-run church, and other Baptist distinctives. When a person says, “I am a Calvinist,” he is not saying that he holds to every single teaching or activity of the man John Calvin. In fact, he may be strongly opposed to much of John Calvin’s teaching. What he does mean by saying that he is a Calvinist brings us to our next definition.
But first, Was Jesus a Calvinist in this way—did Jesus hold to all the teachings of John Calvin? Of course not.
Calvinists adhere to a particular set of doctrines that are associated with the name John Calvin
Labels are useful shortcuts. They allow us to describe ourselves quickly. Baptist is a useful label. Conservative or Liberal are somewhat useful labels. American is a useful label. Biblicist is a totally useless label. It means nothing at all. There is not a theological shortcut provided by claiming to be a Biblicist. More likely it means, “I disagree with what you’re saying, but I can’t prove my point with scripture so I’m going to vilify you by implying that you are NOT a Biblicist.” Not a particularly useful way of arguing a theological point.
Labels must be defined by those who use them, not by those who oppose them. So Calvinists must be the ones who define the term Calvinism and Arminians must be the ones who define the term “Arminian.”
When a Calvinist claims that label he means, “I hold to the peculiar doctrines that over time have come to be associated with the man John Calvin.” Those doctrines are:
- Total Inability, sometimes called Total Depravity
- Unconditional Election
- Particular Redemption, sometimes called Limited Atonement
- Effectual Calling, sometimes called Irresistible Grace
- Perseverance and Preservation of the Saints, sometimes inaccurately described by the phrase “once saved, always saved”
These doctrines are scriptural and would require a great deal of time to explain in detail, thus the reason for the theological shortcut—I am a Calvinist. But is it appropriate to use this theological shortcut to describe Jesus Christ? I guess the answer to that question is to determine whether or not Jesus holds to those doctrines.
The main doctrines under contention in this list are Unconditional Election, Particular Redemption, and Effectual Calling. So to determine whether Jesus can be described as a Calvinist, we should look at what Jesus himself taught:
John 6:44
No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day.
In this verse Jesus teaches Total Inability (“no one can come”) and Unconditional Election combined with Effectual Calling (“unless the Father … draws him. And I will raise him up”). They can’t come (Total Inability), the Father draws and those he draws (Election) will be raised up (Effectual Calling and Perseverance of the Saints).
So Jesus believed in Total Inability, Unconditional Election, Effectual Grace, and Perseverance of the Saints. He’s pretty close to being a Calvinist. But the most hotly contested doctrine is Particular Redemption. Where did Jesus stand on that one?
When he prayed his High Priestly prayer in the Garden of Gethsemane, Jesus was fulfilling the role of the High Priest. When he sacrificed a lamb, the Jewish high priest would pray for God’s chosen people—Israel. He did not pray for the Hittites, the Jebusites, the Amonites, or any of the other people around. The sacrifice was not made for them. In fact, God has specifically told some people that they would not receive the offer of atonement for their sins (the very defnition of “Limited Atonement”). For example: Isaiah 22:14 – The Lord of hosts has revealed himself in my ears: “Surely this iniquity will not be atoned for you until you die,” says the Lord God of hosts. So the high priest prayed for a specific group of peope who were to recieve atonement for their sins based on the sacrifice.
As Jesus prepared to become that sacrificial lamb, he prayed: “I am praying for them. I am not praying for the world but for those whom you have given me, for they are yours (John 17:9). Jesus knew who he was going to the cross to make atonement for. He was doing it for the chosen ones—the elect. Jesus believes in Particular Redemption. And just in case anyone might not completely get the point, he said, “I am not praying for the world….” There was no doubt in Jesus mind for whom he would be making atonement.
So what is the answer to the question: Is Jesus a Calvinist? I think the answer quite clearly is a resounding yes.
Jesus is a Calvinist
Hyperbole in action
The President Daniel L. Akin of Southeastern Theological Seminary sent a letter to the students recently. It is an outstanding letter calling for evangelicals to bridle their tongues—to refrain from making outlandish and foolish statements. He lists in his letter a few recent statements that he considers foolish. It’s a good list as many of these are beyond belief in their vindictiveness, their avoidance of the truth, and their sheer stupidity in some cases. This is the list along with a few of his comments:
A Plea For Theological Responsibility And Integrity
In recent days it has become painfully evident that many Southern Baptists do not “do theology” very well. Some are apparently ill informed and sloppy. Others trying to be cute, are bombastic and irresponsible. Despite our rhetoric to be “people of the Book”, we do not know the Book very well. We do not grasp its rich theology. We are failing, and failing miserably, to obey 2 Timothy 2:15-16: “Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who doesn’t need to be ashamed, correctly teaching the word of truth. But avoid irreverent, empty speech, for this will produce an even greater measure of godlessness.”
–SNIP–
If you are wondering what are some of the careless theological statements I have in mind that has moved me to put this challenge before you, let me note just a few that I have heard coming from a number of different directions.
-
You cannot attract a crowd and build a church on expository preaching.It is true you can build a crowd without biblical exposition, but you will never build a Christ-honoring New Testament Church without faithful exposition of the whole counsel of God’s inerrant Word. Further, a number of churches in our Convention have built both a growing church in terms of breadth and depth. It does not have to be an either/or scenario.
-
Evangelical Calvinism is an oxymoron.Anyone who knows church and Baptist history knows how irresponsible this statement is. William Carey, Luther Rice, Adoniram Judson, Jonathan Edwards, George Whitfield, Charles Spurgeon, James Boyce, Basil Manly Jr., and John Broadus are just a few of the great missionaries, pastors, and theologians who embraced a Reformed Theology. You may be convinced that Calvinism is wrong. However, do not make yourself look foolish by saying there are no passionate, evangelical Calvinists.
-
Five-point Calvinism is the same as Hyper-Calvinism.This statement again demonstrates historical ignorance. Hyper-Calvinism is a particular movement that appeared in the mid 1700’s that rejects the mandate to share the gospel, denies man’s responsibility to repent and believe the gospel, and in some instances runs perilously close to making God the author of sin. The overwhelming majority of five-point Calvinists would reject each of these positions. Spurgeon, himself a five-point Calvinist denounced in the strongest measure these errors in Spurgeon and “hyper-Calvinism.”Now, those of you who know my theology know I am not a five-point Calvinist. I believe Unconditional Election is not incompatible with “the free will and responsibility of intelligent creatures” (Abstract of Principles, art. IV), I affirm a Universal Provision with a Limited Application as it pertains to the Atonement, and I believe Effectual Calling to be a much better way to describe a significant aspect of the salvation process than Irresistible Grace. Further, anything that weakens the missionary passion of the church and the evangelistic favor of an individual is both dangerous and useless to the Church. Perhaps what some mean by “hyper-Calvinism” is extreme Calvinism or Calvinists with an attitude. I have met more than a few in my lifetime and to be sure, they were not of much value when it comes to the health of the church and reaching the lost. Still, we need to be honest with history and accurate with the facts. Mischaracterizations are of no value on any level.
-
Calvinists are worse than Muslims.The irresponsibility of this statement is tragic. It is one thing to disagree with your brothers and sisters in Christ on a point of theology. It is incredible that you would place them in the category of unbelieving militants who murder innocent victims in the name of Allah.
-
Jesus was a Calvinist.Theological foolishness is not limited to one theological perspective. In a Pastor’s Conference a few years ago one of my pulpit heroes made this statement. Recently a friend of mine wrote a book with one of the chapters entitled, “Christ, The Calvinist.” Such statements are wrongheaded, and yes, again irresponsible, at several points. First, the statement is historically anachronistic. Second, it is Christologically disrespectful. Jesus is the Lord. He is the King. He is God. Our Savior is the grand subject of Christian theology. So whether it is Whitefield, Boice (men I greatly love and admire), or whomever, to call Jesus a Calvinist is theologically misguided and pastorally dangerous. Yes, Jesus believes God is sovereign but He also taught man is responsible. Yes, Jesus taught, “No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him” (John 6:44), but He also gave us the Great Commission (Matt 28:16-20).
The list continues, but I will end it there in order to comment on statement number 5 “Jesus was a Calvinist.” I will comment concerning this statement in a post on this blog tomorrow. I will deal with a few potential views about what it means to be a Calvinist—that Calvinists adhere to John Calvin the man; that Calvinists adhere to the totality of the teaching of the man John Calvin; or that Calvinists adhere to a particular set of doctrines that over time have come to be associated with the name of the man John Calvin.
Where is God when things go bad?
I stood a mendicant of God
before His royal throne
And begged him for one priceless gift,
which I could call my own.
I took the gift from out His hand,
but as I would depart
I cried, “But Lord this is a thorn
and it has pierced my heart.
This is a strange, a hurtful gift,
which Thou hast given me.”
He said, “My child, I give good gifts
and gave My best to thee.”
I took it home and though at first
the cruel thorn hurt sore,
As long years passed I learned at last
to love it more and more.
I learned He never gives a thorn
without this added grace,
He takes the thorn to pin aside
the veil which hides His face.
Steve Saint is the son of Nate Saint, one of the five missionaries slaughtered by the Auca Indians of Ecuador in the 1950s. He and his family continued to take the gospel of Jesus Christ to the Aucas (now known as the Waodani) and the resultant changes to this people group are amazing.
I recently listened to a recording of a message that Steve Saint gave at a conference on worldwide evangelism. His talk was convicting and motivating. He has a wonderful sense of the total sovereignty of God—even in the midst of such terrible things as the murder of his father.
Steve read the poem at the right to help explain the concept of God’s love and goodness shining through even the seemingly bad circumstances of our lives.
"Loving God and Neighbor Together" – Piper responds
Professor Peter Schikele of PDQ Bach fame once said, “Truth is truth. You can’t have opinions about truth.” That’s the concept that comes roaring out of this video in torrents. May the evangelical world wake up to the truth of what John Piper presents here:
Gimme that feel good religion
I just wouldn’t be doing the right thing if I did not point you to this delightfully tongue-in-cheek, but right-on-the-money post. I especially like this verse (to be sung to the tune of “Give Me That Old Time Religion:
Chorus
Gimme that feel good religion
Gimme that feel good religion
Gimme that feel good religion
It’s good enough for meFun and teary thumping Praise songs
keep repeating all those praise songs
praise songs praise songs praise songs
praise songs praise songs praise songs
praise songs praise songs praise songs
praise songs praise songs praise songs
its good enough for me
Gimme that feel good religion
I just wouldn’t be doing the right thing if I did not point you to this delightfully tongue-in-cheek, but right-on-the-money post. I especially like this verse (to be sung to the tune of “Give Me That Old Time Religion:
Chorus
Gimme that feel good religion
Gimme that feel good religion
Gimme that feel good religion
It’s good enough for meFun and teary thumping Praise songs
keep repeating all those praise songs
praise songs praise songs praise songs
praise songs praise songs praise songs
praise songs praise songs praise songs
praise songs praise songs praise songs
its good enough for me
Watch the Pope
I’m not sure that I get why there is a web cam aimed at a dead dude, but here it is—watch the Pope. This web cam is aimed at the tomb of Pope John Paul II. Since there are regular visitors to his tomb, at times you won’t even get to see the tomb—just the backs of the visitors.
Hmmm.
Watch the Pope
I’m not sure that I get why there is a web cam aimed at a dead dude, but here it is—watch the Pope. This web cam is aimed at the tomb of Pope John Paul II. Since there are regular visitors to his tomb, at times you won’t even get to see the tomb—just the backs of the visitors.
Hmmm.
Losing by seeking too hard
Michael S. Horton of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church made a statement that I found greatly encouraging:
The paradox of seeker orientation seems to be that while its watchword is evangelism, its effect has quite generally been the opposite. Instead of reaching the lost, we’re losing the reached. Having been taught themselves, our members would be the first to admonish us if our elders decided to exchange catechesis for Christian versions of MTV and Disneyland. If we transformed our Sunday-evening catechetical preaching into entertainment, we would have a mutiny on our hands
Those who have been taught properly from the Word of God, who have experienced the majesty and solemnity of true worship in liturgical or non-liturgical assembly, will revolt when new methods are introduced that lose a sense of the majesty and holiness of God. This transcends the simplistic arguments for “which style (genre) of music we should sing in church” and gets to the heart of worshiping God in spirit and in truth.
“Perhaps some of the confusion in the worship wars would be lessened if careful consideration were given to the subversion of purpose that can take place when the underlying assumptions of various social structures are mixed. When churches begin to look at the congregation as consumers and the programs of the church as products, when worship services begin to resemble a well-staged Broadway show, then maybe, just maybe the church has taken a few steps into the wrong social structure. Is the church defeating herself by fraternizing with the enemy—by being on the wrong battlefield?”
—Maureen Bradley
If we are seeking to honor God through preaching that is bible-derived and bible-saturated, and through fellowship that is aimed at edification, and through corporate communication of our recognition of God’s worth and an understanding of God’s character, and through songs that proclaim God’s majesty, sovereignty, and holiness…and if all these things are done in a way that is honoring to God because we have done them to the best of our (corporate) abilities—then we will move far beyond the mundane arguments of “contemporary or traditional” and will build congregations that will revolt when the conversation turns to such mundane matters as “contemporary or traditional.”
Maureen Bradley has some outstanding thoughts on this subject at Worship Wars: Are We on the Right Battlefield?. May God grant today’s evangelical church the desire to return to worshiping Him in spirit and in truth without trying in the process to fill the pews or to entertain. Let’s leave God’s work to God.
Losing by seeking too hard
Michael S. Horton of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church made a statement that I found greatly encouraging:
The paradox of seeker orientation seems to be that while its watchword is evangelism, its effect has quite generally been the opposite. Instead of reaching the lost, we’re losing the reached. Having been taught themselves, our members would be the first to admonish us if our elders decided to exchange catechesis for Christian versions of MTV and Disneyland. If we transformed our Sunday-evening catechetical preaching into entertainment, we would have a mutiny on our hands
Those who have been taught properly from the Word of God, who have experienced the majesty and solemnity of true worship in liturgical or non-liturgical assembly, will revolt when new methods are introduced that lose a sense of the majesty and holiness of God. This transcends the simplistic arguments for “which style (genre) of music we should sing in church” and gets to the heart of worshiping God in spirit and in truth.
“Perhaps some of the confusion in the worship wars would be lessened if careful consideration were given to the subversion of purpose that can take place when the underlying assumptions of various social structures are mixed. When churches begin to look at the congregation as consumers and the programs of the church as products, when worship services begin to resemble a well-staged Broadway show, then maybe, just maybe the church has taken a few steps into the wrong social structure. Is the church defeating herself by fraternizing with the enemy—by being on the wrong battlefield?”
—Maureen Bradley
If we are seeking to honor God through preaching that is bible-derived and bible-saturated, and through fellowship that is aimed at edification, and through corporate communication of our recognition of God’s worth and an understanding of God’s character, and through songs that proclaim God’s majesty, sovereignty, and holiness…and if all these things are done in a way that is honoring to God because we have done them to the best of our (corporate) abilities—then we will move far beyond the mundane arguments of “contemporary or traditional” and will build congregations that will revolt when the conversation turns to such mundane matters as “contemporary or traditional.”
Maureen Bradley has some outstanding thoughts on this subject at Worship Wars: Are We on the Right Battlefield?. May God grant today’s evangelical church the desire to return to worshiping Him in spirit and in truth without trying in the process to fill the pews or to entertain. Let’s leave God’s work to God.
Hidrances to worship
And do not get drunk with wine, for that is debauchery, but be filled with the Spirit, addressing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody to the Lord with all your heart, giving thanks always and for everything to God the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ.
—Ephesians 5:18-21
I have thought a lot recently about the need to reclaim “horizontal” worship. The emphasis on “vertical” worship that has been so popular in recent years has led to a self-centered, self-absorbed music experience in our churches. The congregants are directed to worship with their God and to not care about what those around them may think (the Christian version of: “Wave your hands in the air like you just don’t care,” I guess). And the worship leaders have presented songs that are designed for personal communion with God at best or simply for emotional stimulation at worst. Gone is the concept of corporate worship, in which we edify the brothers and worship OUR God who gave His life to redeem US.
Bob Kauflin gives some solid guidance on this directive from Paul in his post on Addressing One Another in Psalms Hymns and Spiritual Songs. In this article Kauflin discusses practices that hinder horizontal awareness in worship:
Over the years, most of us have developed a few practices that can hinder any benefit we might receive from addressing one another as we sing.
- Singing songs that lack biblical substance or doctrinal depth. If the songs we’re singing are primarily subjective, and focused on how we feel, what we’re doing, or some other subjective element, we’re not going to have much to say to each other.
- Thinking that “worship” means closing my eyes, raising my hands, and blocking out everyone else around me. I’ve had many profound moments like that, as I’ve focused in an undistracted way on the words I’m singing and the Savior I’m singing to. But being Spirit-filled should actually make us more aware of others, not less. Many of the songs we sing aren’t even directed towards God. Crown Him with Many Crowns, Before the Throne of God Above, and Amazing Grace, are a few that come to mind. So when I lead I probably have my eyes open more than half the time. I’m looking around, addressing others, celebrating the fact that we can glory in Jesus Christ together. I do that even when I’m not leading, sometimes turning to someone beside me to rejoice in God’s grace. I want to benefit from the fact that I’m with the people of God.
- Singing alone. Obviously, there’s nothing wrong with praising God on my own. But in the age of iPods, earphones, and Internet downloads, it’s easy to lose our appreciation for singing with the church. The Spirit intends us to join our hearts to each other as well as to Christ when we sing.
By His grace - For His glory 