MENU

Church
Category

On August 27, 2022 By In Church

God’s Preferences in Worship

The Church of our Lord Jesus is not a gathering of individual habits and rituals. In fact, the best way to never be a part of the culture of a church is to be stubbornly bound by your individual habits in church.

While everyone should have their own habits and rituals outside of worship, corporate worship ought to have a sense of unified ritualism in the best Protestant sense. Once we begin to add our external peculiarities to worship, we end up endangering the very unity Christ desires.

Corporate worship must be a call for consistent liturgical acts. For this reason, every externalized ritual must meet the standard of corporateness, and it should not appeal to individual tastes in corporate worship. The Lord’s Day worship reshapes our individual tastes and brings us into the tastes of ancient biblical texts. We talk so much about preferences in worship that we forget that God has distinct preferences that overturn our preferences.

When the people of God raise their hands for the Gloria Patri (or whatever portion of worship is common in the service), everyone raises their hands—young and old. When we kneel to confess our sins, everyone kneels to confess our sins (unless they are not able physically). When we sing a hymn or a psalm, we don’t stand there imagining we were singing something else; we sing what the body sings, whether that is on your greatest hits or not.

We cannot complain about liturgical incoherence in the evangelical world–where praise bands and people are doing two separate things or where the spontaneity of service subtracts from liturgical continuity–while offering our own version of incoherence regarding our own liturgy.

We are not individualists. We don’t atomize our participation. When we eat and drink, we are participating in Christ, joining our voices to Christ and to one another.

So, let us prepare ourselves to join one another in our separate bodies leaving our preferences behind and joining the preferences of God as expressed in our local churches. The best worship is the imitative part. Worship is not the place to bring your eccentricities; it is the place to imitate one another in adoration and acts of renewal.

Read more

On August 24, 2022 By In Church

A Review of Austin Brown’s “A Boisterously Reformed Polemic Against Limited Atonement”

Austin Brown’s A Boisterously Reformed Polemic Against Limited Atonement is a befitting title for such a bold endeavor. Brown challenges the status quo of TULIP orthodoxy right where it hurts most, in the middle. Limited atonement has long been the subject of many pugilistic enterprises in Reformational history, and Austin puts his typewriter to work forcefully in such endeavor.

Introduction

The book argues for a universal satisfaction view of the atonement (1) with the added qualifier that “Christ did not die with an equal intent for all men (5).” Brown seeks to exalt the Lombardian formula to a place of consistency (7), derailing the attempts of limitarians to absorb Lombard as their own. Calvinists of all stripes (cranky Dutch exempted) would affirm that “Christ’s death is sufficient for all, but efficient for the elect (7).” Strict particularists, according to the author, wish to qualify to death the sufficiency of the atonement. They want to treat sufficiency as a potentiality divorcing it from universal expiation (14). But if such sufficiency remains in the realm of potentiality, then there are vast implications for strict particularists, namely that the universal offer of the Gospel is not a legitimate one (16). If Christ did not die for the non-elect, “there is no gospel for them” (20). The free offer, even spoused by strict particularists, fails to be genuine since it is not ultimately sufficient to atone for the sins of the non-elect.

Brown argues, following 17th-century Anglican, John Davenant, that the free offer is only genuine if the “death of Christ is applicable to all men (24).” Davenant sought to find a middle ground between Arminianism and Supralapsarianism. But Davenant is not the only one to oppose limited atonement in its modern definition. Anglican writer and friend Steven Wedgeworth, considering the history of TULIP theology, argues that:

Amazingly, Dabney, Charles Hodge, and William Shedd all distance themselves from theologians like Francis Turretin on the relationship between the decree of God and the cross of Christ, and even go so far as to explicitly reject key exegesis that underlies the “limited atonement” argument found in John Owen’s The Death of Death.[1]

Wedgeworth goes on to make a distinction between high and moderate Calvinists. He argues that the high Calvinist,

“…place the limit in the content of the punishment born by Christ at the cross insisting on only the special will of God toward the elect, whereas the “moderate Calvinists” allow for a general will of God toward all men, as well as the special will toward the elect, and typically place the limitation on God’s effectual calling and application of the cross-work of Christ.”

It’s important to note that the Reformed tradition has built itself on various degrees of atonement language, and there have been exegetical disputes among certifiably Calvinistic figures. Therefore, to accuse Brown of any form of an Arminian spy within the Reformed camp is to miss the diversity inherent in such conversations. It is one reason that I rarely, if ever, associate Reformed theology with TULIP. Such associations minimize the depth of Reformed history by trivializing Calvin and Bucer’s rich sacramental theology and the profound political theories of the theonomic Puritans, not to mention the liturgical theology of the German theologian John Williamson Nevin, who sought to re-articulate a rich ecclesiastical vision from Calvin.[2] To limit Reformed theology to individual soteriology would be to mock the broad themes and emphases of the Reformation.

Brown makes helpful observations throughout, working carefully through key universal texts and showing that the exegetical gymnastics done by some do not comport with the nature or context of the passage. They cannot be limited when they are naturally meant to be universalized. Again, Brown is merely stating that there is a sense in which the atonement reaches the elect and another sense in which it reaches the non-elect; but in both cases, the offer is free and genuine to all.

(more…)

Read more

On August 23, 2022 By In Church

Ten Theses for an Ecclesiastical Conservativism

At a very practical level, the Evangelical Church has been injected with counterfeit spiritualities. We are a people looking for a city whose builder may only be in office for four years. Our temptation to veer to the side of the temporal is striking in our day, especially as the modern evangelical church founded largely by the disciples of the Billy Graham crusades willingly imbibes a distant ecclesiology from our Reformed forefathers.

For whatever reason, many have simply given up on the Church as a means of salvation or as a motherly figure (Gal. 4;26). The result has been a radical shift into politics and pundits as deliverers of human woes while forgetting the Table and Sacred Time.

But we should not be overly critical of only the evangelical enterprise in this country. We should be quick also to overturn the tables of those who opine sophisticated about the Church and her principles regulated by the New Testament alone and who view the endeavors of earthly politics to conflict with a spiritual kingdom.

These evangelicals, however well they dress their theological discourse, offer little to combat the profound changes in the ethical standards of our country. I am a Reformed, Evangelical Christian with the bona fides to prove it and the letters of recommendation from a fine seminary. I do not affirm the hierarchical structures of Rome or Constantinople, nor do I fall into the two alternatives listed above.

What we have before us is a time to go back to basics, especially if ecclesiastical anarchism becomes the norm in our age. Therefore, it seems good and wise to provide some basic theses on the prospect of a new American evangelicalism that does not despise the church, and which sees her role as fundamental in the re-shaping of the current political experience.

Therefore, I offer ten theses on this relationship:

Thesis I: Ecclesiastical Conservatism begins thinking about politics first as a churchman and then as a citizen of the body politic. His loyalty is first as a worshiper and then to his responsibilities to think about the politics of the day. The first must flow into the other and not the reverse. Our temptation to view government as the answer is a sign that we are eager to give up the role of the Church in society.

Conservatism observes the expansion of the state and the overreach of the government in areas where the Church should be independent. We, therefore, oppose such actions and accept that our fundamental duty is to obey God rather than man.

Thesis II: Ecclesiastical Conservatism affirms that the Church is central to the purposes of God in the kingdom and that from her flows the wisdom of God to the world (Eph. 3:10). Wisdom comes from above through the lips of ministers and the gifts of bread and wine. The lessons or rituals from D.C. should never take precedence over the Church.

Thesis III: Ecclesiastical Conservatism does not embrace the civic calendar as her first order of business. It does not embrace the flag over the cross nor the pledge of allegiance over our pledge to the Christian Creeds. We do not substitute the worship of heaven for the worship of political victors. For this reason, candidates for local and national offices must have as one of their central priorities the freedom of the Church to be who God called her to be on earth (Mat. 28:18-20).

Thesis IV: Ecclesiastical Conservatism prays for her leaders every Sunday (I Tim. 2:1-3). If a Church’s political orientation does not acknowledge the Pauline necessity to pray for the good of the country through whatever leader sits in the White House, she is violating the primary focus of Ecclesiastical Conservatism, which is to be faithful to the commands of the Bible whether the Left or the Right is in power.

Thesis V: Ecclesiastical Conservatism cannot abide by the murder of the unborn, even if it becomes “the law of the land” or if it has the word “precedent” behind its laws. Further, there is no justification to vote for leaders who violate this fundamental assertion outright and whose trajectory contradicts this basic thesis. This thesis should be the starting point of any ethical understanding of politics. We rejoice with the overturn of Roe and Casey and diligently pursue to see that all 50 states abolish abortion laws within their constitutions.

Thesis VI: Ecclesiastical Conservatism understands the difficult decisions of parishioners in dealing with flawed candidates. Yet, we are not called to abdicate our role as citizens placed in a particular place in history (Acts 17:26). We believe Christians are called to make difficult decisions based on the body of information available and carefully contemplating the wisdom of their elders in the Church and people of good reputation in the community.

Thesis VII: Ecclesiastical Conservatism does not escape politics but embraces it as an expression of his faith in the world. We do not embrace a Gnostic view of history, nor do we embrace the ideology that says our disposition towards cultural and political things is divorced from our faith expressed amidst the congregation. Our faith as churchmen and churchwomen is carried out in the voting booth.

Thesis VIII: Ecclesiastical Conservatism does not put its trust in horses and chariots, but neither does it abdicate its trust that God rules over horses and chariots. God uses the power structure of Government to bring about his purpose of justice on earth (Rom. 13), and he acts by his divine providence according to the history of that body politic, whether they obey God or forsake his commandments.

Thesis IX: Ecclesiastical Conservatism is not a call to revolution through arms but revolution through the armor of God (Gal. 5). We put on the faith through song and sober living (I Thes. 5), which means that our primary tasks are more local among the body of people we call Church.

Thesis X: Ecclesiastical Conservatism views the first day of the week as the central day for the formation of his political thinking and doing. If his concerns display a greater interest in the things of the world over the things of the Church, he has committed idolatry and embraced a lie. He is, above all, a servant and worshiper of the Most High God to whom all praise and glory belong now and forever. Amen.

Read more

On August 19, 2022 By In Church, Theology

Does Romans 6 require submersion baptism?

In Romans 6:3-4, Paul says, “Do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? Therefore we were buried with him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.”

Does this passage require submersion as the proper mode of baptism? I was baptized by submersion and believe that submersions are legitimate baptisms, but my church practices baptisms from above (sprinkling or pouring). We believe this mode lines up best with biblical commands and imagery.

Submersionists appeal to Romans 6 as proof that baptisms must be done by submersion. The thinking goes like this: If baptism represents the death and burial of Jesus, then the recipient must go completely under water, similar to being buried underground. They think that the visual component of baptism must symbolize a visual burial. But there are problems with this argument.

(more…)

Read more

On August 18, 2022 By In Church, Music

The Liturgical Duty of Men and Women in Singing

We must restore the role of biblical femininity into the space of worship. The woman plays the role of sacred beautifier in history. The bride finishes what the groom begins. Adam was first, and Eve was second (I Cor. 11). The Ascension was first, and Pentecost was second. This chronology of creation is the starting point of any good anthropology. This is especially appropriate when it comes to worship.

When the woman sings, she glorifies what the man started. She enhances beauty. She cannot, therefore, be the initiator. This is why men must lead in worship as ministers or chief musicians and why women must follow as glorifiers and beautifiers of music.

This stated reality exemplifies why women are so easily enamored by harmonization and ornamental melodies. She adds the descant of the closing hymn, and she layers the music with happy complexities.

The voice of the Church’s music, however, must be dominantly male. The reason men are attracted to churches where male voices are dominant is that men were created to be starters, to offer the opening pitches, to make the first movements, and to utter the first poem (Gen. 2:23). Man leads the dance, and the woman follows.

The resounding voice is Christocentric, which means the prevailing sounds of a church singing are the sounds of a church leading into battle followed by a God/Man. In fact, the men lead with their voices as an act of protection for the women in the congregation. The men sing loudly to project to the enemies that we are doing warfare in the name of Yahweh God. The opponents of the holy Gospel should know that we are not interested in bargaining for a verse here or there, nor will we put the ones needing protection in front of the line.

Music is warfare, but if we change the order by giving the church a distinctly female voice, we reverse the chronology of creation. If we persist in putting the weak vessels (I Peter 3:7) meant for protection and honor in front, we are sending the message that the voice of Christ needs protection rather than the One who protects.

Therefore, it is even more crucial that men and women in the life of the Church pick up their hymnals and music sheets and proceed to train themselves to see music as their fundamental duty in initiating, beautifying, and glorifying the Church’s music.

Read more

On August 12, 2022 By In Church, Culture, Politics, Theology

Psalm 109: Justice

You are on trial for a crime you did not commit. Your accusers know that you are innocent. This is a setup because they don’t like you; you are on the wrong side of the political lines, shaking everything up. You must be handled. They are aimed at taking away your position, family, fortune, and if they can swing it, your life.They are not like the thugs on the street who will walk up to you and take your life. They are using the justice system that they have corrupted to make it all “legal” and “above board.”

Who is your defense? What should happen to these people? It is not only your fate that is on the line here. This is the fate of Justice itself and with it the survival of society into the future. If the distortion of justice is allowed to go on, the entire society will be turned upside down. To make things right, those that seek to distort justice must be the subjects of true justice.

(more…)

Read more

On July 29, 2022 By In Church

The Offense of the Gospel

There is no way around it; there is no shortcut to escape it unless you want to forsake it, but the Gospel offends. You must drink it straight. For the Christian, the alternative to living out a Gospel that offends is to live as if the Gospel does not matter. We can move through our workday cavalierly playing the nominal Christian game, remaining quiet when you should have stood firm; you can let Uncle Joe splurt his vitriol against the church and be a good girl, not causing offense anywhere, just like the Apostle Paul (II Cor. 11:25), right? Is it or is it not the power of God unto salvation and foolishness to the world (Rom. 1; I Cor. 1)? The way you live is a determiner of one of these two choices.

So, how do we intentionally live a Gospel that touches the core of anthropology? That hits the center of human pride? That strikes at the root of secular practice? The first way to live a Gospel that offends, that is foolishness to the world is to practice those Christian rituals that birthed the Christ-community in the first century. And they were the “foolish” rituals of hospitality, friendship, and sacraments. The Early Church had many failures, but they hosted each other, they loved each other, and they ate the Lord’s Supper with each other. And those practices toppled an empire. How is that for a Gospel offense?!

If the cultural forces continue to move away from the authentic values of the Church, members will have to see the community of Christ as an alternative city fully ready to provide counter-cultural measures that build the Church once again. This is no time to rest or to play nice with anti-christian politicians and lawmakers. We will have to restore our sense of the good by loving one another and surrounding ourselves with a Creed that cannot be torn by the mobs but is embraced by a genuine community of believers. We must return to those principles which formed us into the unstoppable empire that grew from 12 to billions. We need to declare these things loud and clear.

“We believe in God the Father Almighty!” but they will say, “How dare you!”

“Maker of Heaven of Earth!” but they will say, “That’s not science!”

“And in Jesus Christ our Lord!” and they will say, “That’s not diversity.”

“Who shall come to judge the living and the dead!” and they will retort, “Nobody can judge!”

Every time we get together for coffee, eat with our neighbor, talk about the goodness of God, and practice holy habits, we live the Gospel in word and deed. We are embracing a different creed than the world’s rules.

No, there is no way around it. The Gospel offends! It afflicts the comfortable and comforts the afflicted. Any other message is false and has no power or salvation.

Read more

On July 22, 2022 By In Church

The Case Against Neo-AnaBaptists

In the revival of conservative politics and theonomic ethics, the danger is that evangelicals eager to see all things made new will capitulate to theological formulations that are more akin to Anabaptist rituals in practice and worship.

But the return to proper rituals and rightly dividing of the Law-Word does not mean a return to a Victorian past but a movement to a vibrant future. We incorporate past habits, styles, and paradigms by rightly absorbing them into our new world; adapting the parapet to protection around the pool (Deut. 22:8).

The Schleitheim Confession of Anabaptist religion should not be a model for those in the Reformed tradition seeking this cultural and political reformation. The attempt to disassociate from the world by forming isolated colonies leaves the church unprepared and naked before our enemies. Instead of providing a strong refuge for people, it serves as an escape world.

James Jordan’s emphasis on historical movement from land to sea; or land to metropolis is the right one. We are called to engage/be with/in the presence of/ the polis. Yet, many have adopted a neo-anabaptist paradigm. Chestertonian localism is good only insofar as the locale becomes the center of ecclesial life rather than an attempt to hide. As Peter Leithart observes: “Jesus doesn’t call us to be copers. We aren’t survivalists. We aren’t to beat a retreat. “

Generally, this plays out in the evangelical tendency towards externalized practices that differentiate Christians from unbelievers, other Christians, and Christians even within our tribes. I am describing a theological formulation that is not content with basic biblical imperatives but rather delves into extra layers of differentiation.

Under worship, this may play out in tendencies against instrumentation or excessive emphasis on preaching to the detriment of the liturgy (identifying liturgical practices as too Roman Catholic; pitting word against sacrament) and a fundamental pursuit of novelty in worship patterns identifying the structure as too cumbersome.

Anabaptism–theologically and historically–is a distancing from good, material things, despising the gifts of God in technology, industry, plentifulness, & McDonald’s (I Tim. 6:17). The solution is not to look different for the sake of looking different but to act differently for the sake of changing society’s rituals.

For an additional follow-up, see my post.

Read more

On July 19, 2022 By In Church, Culture

Ring Around the Collar

What the minister wears while performing his official duties is more important than many of us might imagine. When I came to Arizona in 2013, this congregation was used to having its pastor wear a suit, a nice suit, every Sunday. I did not own a suit like that, nor did I think that wearing one would help change the culture. So I preached my first sermon in a button-down shirt and tie, not a bow tie, and without a jacket. Several months later, I took off the tie and simply preached in a button-down. I preached one Sunday with the shirt untucked, which made me uncomfortable. As reformation proceeded in the congregation, the changes were reflected—perhaps too subtly for many to realize—in what I wore on Sunday.

After two years, we bought hymnals for the church, began using a modest but explicitly Reformed liturgy for the service, and I put back on a tie. As the worship became more consistently biblical, I wore a jacket with the tie. But I did not think then, and I certainly do not believe now, that the pastor should dress like a businessman. I am not the CEO of this organization. I am not running a company. I am a minister of Jesus Christ, a slave representing the kingdom of heaven, called to pray, teach, and care for this flock. So after a lot of thinking, studying, praying, and conversation, and with the Session’s blessing, in December of 2016, I took off the jacket and put on a preaching robe for the first time.

Presbyterian Churches do not have a dress code for their ministers. But though there is not a formal standard, it is unlikely you will see a Presbyterian minister wearing skinny jeans and flip-flops in the Lord’s Day service. In many Reformed denominations, the minister usually wears a jacket and tie on Sundays. Some might preach without a tie, but the jacket and tie are the unofficial uniform. Relatively few ministers wear a Genevan robe regularly, though they used to be very common in Presbyterian churches. Only three or four of the thirty churches in our presbytery use the robe regularly.

(more…)

Read more

On June 4, 2022 By In Church

What is Pentecost Sunday?

Many Christians know little about the Church Calendar, which means that many evangelicals will treat this Sunday like any other day. But this Sunday marks the beginning of the “Ordinary Season” (not in the mundane or common sense, but the term comes from the word “ordinal,” which means “counted time”). This season–called the season of Pentecost (or Trinity Season) is composed of 23-28 Sundays, and it fleshes out the mission of the Church. It begins tomorrow and continues all the way to November 26th. To put it simply, Pentecost is the outworking of the mission of Jesus through his people by the power of the Spirit. The Pentecost Season emphasizes the unleashing of the Spirit’s work and power through the Bride of Jesus Christ, the Church.

Liturgically, many congregations wear red as a symbol of the fiery-Spirit that befell the Church (Acts 2). The Season brings with it a renewed emphasis on the Church as the central institution to the fulfillment of God’s plans in history. As such, it brings out the practical nature of Christian theology. Joan Chittister defines Pentecost as “the period of unmitigated joy, of total immersion in the implications of what it means to be a Christian, to live a Christian life” (The Liturgical Year, 171).

The evangelical church has offered a Spiritlessness teaching and worship. We have acted afraid of the mighty rushing wind for fear of its mystical presence. However, Pentecost exhorts us to be spiritual (Spirit-led) while emphasizing the titanic involvement of the Third Person of the Trinity in beautifying the world to reflect the glory of the Father and the Son. We must worship Spirit-led and in truth (Jn. 4:24).

The Spirit is crucial to the forming and re-forming of any environment. It communicates our thoughts, emotions, and prayers to our Meditator. The Third Person of the Trinity emotionalizes rightly and intercedes on our behalf in the midst of our ignorance (Rom. 8:26-30). Further, the Spirit draws individuals (John 6:44) to enter into one baptized community of faith. The Spirit, in the words of James Jordan, is the “divine match-maker.” He brings isolated individuals into a Pentecostalized body, a body that has many parts, but one Head.

So, let us embrace this Season! Let us join this cosmic Pentecostal movement and embrace the mission of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.

Read more