Tuesday, June 25, 2013
Monday, June 24, 2013
Is It Ever OK To Lie?
From Jesse Johnson at The Cripplegate:
Is it ever not a sin to lie? Or—to let the double negative cancel itself out and get right to the chase—does God ever put you in a position where sinning is the right thing to do?
This question is as bothersome as it is perennial. It invariably comes attached to this hypothetical: say you lived in Nazi Germany, and you have Jews hiding in your living room, and the SS guards knock on your door and ask if you are hiding Jews. What do you do? Do you lie?
Let me give you my conclusion, and then try and walk you there with me. First: GOD HATES LYING. So yes, it is always a sin to lie, and no, it is never ok to lie. Proverbs 12:12-13 explains why:
“No disaster overcomes the righteous, but the wicked are full of misery. Lying lips are detestable to Yahweh, but faithful people are His delight.”
Lying lips are one of the seven things that God finds detestable (Proverbs 6:16). Christians are called to let their yes be yes, and lying violates that basic principle (James 5:12). Meanwhile, God is a God of truth (John 14:7), while the devil is the father of lies (John 8:38). Lies are an affront to providence, as they imply that the world would be better if God simply would have worked it out more to our liking. Thus every lie is an attack against the sovereignty of God, and essentially places you in opposition to that which is true. Instead of lying, speak the truth (Col 3:9, Eph 4:22, 24).
It really is that simple.
The Philosophical Problem
The question is it ever ok to lie comes from a faulty ethical construction. In Christian ethics there are basically two schools: graded ethics, and absolute ethics. Graded ethics says there is a triage to God’s commands, and some are more important than others. When they contradict, always follow the more serious one. For example, they would say the duty owed to the Jews hiding in your living room is greater than the commands against lying. So it is better to lie than to betray those in your living room.
On the other hand, those that hold to absolute ethics (like me, Moses, and Jesus) say that all commands from God are binding, and it is never ok to set aside any of them. God doesn’t grade on a curve, so we shouldn’t view his commands in some kind of order of importance.
Those that hold to graded ethics use verses like Mark 12:31 (where Jesus says that Loving the Lord your God and loving your neighbor are the two greatest commandments) as evidence that God holds some of his commands to be higher than the others. Whereas one who follows absolute ethics would look at Mark 12:31 and say that those commands are greater because the other commands are flow out of them—which to say that violating any command would in some way be an offense to either your neighbor or God, but likely both.
The simple problem with the graded-ethics approach is that it is not taught by the Bible—verses like Mark 12:31 notwithstanding. The first person to be stoned to death in the OT was executed for picking up sticks on the Sabbath, so at the very least that causes some problem for the concept of graded morality. Regardless of absolute vs. graded ethics, the first people God strikes dead in the New Testament are Annanias and Sapphira for lying to the Holy Spirit. The moral of that has to be: if you are going to rate sins in some kind of order of seriousness, lying should be pretty close to the top.
The Hypothetical Problem
But this takes us back to the Jews hiding in the living room. What then? Well, when scheming up hypothetical ethical dilemmas, you have to remember that hypotheticals are literally problematic. They are contrived precisely because they expose a supposed weakness in a person’s argument.
So if you are going to play the hypothetical game, remember that God is sovereign, and with that comes his promise that every instance of temptation he will always provide a way of escape (1 Corinthians 10:13)… and that escape is NEVER going to involve sinning. God does not open your escape hatch through sin. In fact, in the context of 1 Corinthians 10, sin is the very thing that God gives you an escape from.
Thus, in any hypothetical moral dilemma you need to remember that there is an unstated contingent—namely, God will give you a way out that does not involve sin.
Back to the guards at the door
So we are back to the guards knocking on the door, and the Jews hiding in the living room. The ground rules are that you can’t sin, and that lying is a sin, and delivering people over to their death is unloving, which is to say that it too is sinful. What is left to do?
Well, this decision is really made before you took the Jews in. When you gave them refuge in your house, you did so while taking responsibility for their safety. If you are brave enough to hide them, then you better be brave enough to protect them. How can you hide them but not be willing to physically defend them? If the guards knock on your door, respond by telling them that they have no right to enter your house, and that what they are doing is morally reprehensible—but that Jesus offers forgiveness for their sins, and they need to repent. Then slam the door, and take the hypothetical from there. A person who is brave enough to lie but not brave enough to be a martyr, isn’t brave at all.
What about war time ethics
As absolutist as that sounds, the Bible keeps room in its moral constructs for war time ethics. God uses countries to bear the sword and punish evil doers. It is expected that war includes both deception and violence. An army can fake left and go right, because they are bearing the sword to suppress evil. But that is fundamentally different than a person—a civilian, if you will—who lies because they have a secret moral agenda. Even if their morality is right, it is undercut by lying because (remember) God will never put you in a position where lying is right thing to do.
What about Rahab
No conversation on lying would be complete without Rahab sneaking on to the set. “What about her?” you ask. “Didn’t she lie?” Well, yes…but that is hardly the point of that narrative. Rahab sided with Yahweh over and against her nation. She heard of God’s work in the wilderness, and when she met the spies, she was soundly converted by faith alone. That faith immediately manifested itself in her devotion to God and his people (James 2:25).
So the point of the Rahab narrative in Joshua 2 is that an idol-worshiping prostitute was radically saved, and that God then used her to help Israel enter the promised land. Did she lie? Yes. She had been a believer for all of ten minutes, so cut her some slack. Is she in the hall of faith in Hebrews 11? Yes. As shocking as it might seem, there are some believers who were both liars and prostitutes (or Sampson, who was a liar while with a prostitute). Yet somehow the gospel is greater than sin, and salvation comes through faith alone. Rahab is always held out as an example of faith for siding with God’s people, and is never held out as an example of lying for the glory of God.
Is it ever not a sin to lie? Or—to let the double negative cancel itself out and get right to the chase—does God ever put you in a position where sinning is the right thing to do?
This question is as bothersome as it is perennial. It invariably comes attached to this hypothetical: say you lived in Nazi Germany, and you have Jews hiding in your living room, and the SS guards knock on your door and ask if you are hiding Jews. What do you do? Do you lie?
Let me give you my conclusion, and then try and walk you there with me. First: GOD HATES LYING. So yes, it is always a sin to lie, and no, it is never ok to lie. Proverbs 12:12-13 explains why:
“No disaster overcomes the righteous, but the wicked are full of misery. Lying lips are detestable to Yahweh, but faithful people are His delight.”
Lying lips are one of the seven things that God finds detestable (Proverbs 6:16). Christians are called to let their yes be yes, and lying violates that basic principle (James 5:12). Meanwhile, God is a God of truth (John 14:7), while the devil is the father of lies (John 8:38). Lies are an affront to providence, as they imply that the world would be better if God simply would have worked it out more to our liking. Thus every lie is an attack against the sovereignty of God, and essentially places you in opposition to that which is true. Instead of lying, speak the truth (Col 3:9, Eph 4:22, 24).
It really is that simple.
The Philosophical Problem
The question is it ever ok to lie comes from a faulty ethical construction. In Christian ethics there are basically two schools: graded ethics, and absolute ethics. Graded ethics says there is a triage to God’s commands, and some are more important than others. When they contradict, always follow the more serious one. For example, they would say the duty owed to the Jews hiding in your living room is greater than the commands against lying. So it is better to lie than to betray those in your living room.
On the other hand, those that hold to absolute ethics (like me, Moses, and Jesus) say that all commands from God are binding, and it is never ok to set aside any of them. God doesn’t grade on a curve, so we shouldn’t view his commands in some kind of order of importance.
Those that hold to graded ethics use verses like Mark 12:31 (where Jesus says that Loving the Lord your God and loving your neighbor are the two greatest commandments) as evidence that God holds some of his commands to be higher than the others. Whereas one who follows absolute ethics would look at Mark 12:31 and say that those commands are greater because the other commands are flow out of them—which to say that violating any command would in some way be an offense to either your neighbor or God, but likely both.
The simple problem with the graded-ethics approach is that it is not taught by the Bible—verses like Mark 12:31 notwithstanding. The first person to be stoned to death in the OT was executed for picking up sticks on the Sabbath, so at the very least that causes some problem for the concept of graded morality. Regardless of absolute vs. graded ethics, the first people God strikes dead in the New Testament are Annanias and Sapphira for lying to the Holy Spirit. The moral of that has to be: if you are going to rate sins in some kind of order of seriousness, lying should be pretty close to the top.
The Hypothetical Problem
But this takes us back to the Jews hiding in the living room. What then? Well, when scheming up hypothetical ethical dilemmas, you have to remember that hypotheticals are literally problematic. They are contrived precisely because they expose a supposed weakness in a person’s argument.
So if you are going to play the hypothetical game, remember that God is sovereign, and with that comes his promise that every instance of temptation he will always provide a way of escape (1 Corinthians 10:13)… and that escape is NEVER going to involve sinning. God does not open your escape hatch through sin. In fact, in the context of 1 Corinthians 10, sin is the very thing that God gives you an escape from.
Thus, in any hypothetical moral dilemma you need to remember that there is an unstated contingent—namely, God will give you a way out that does not involve sin.
Back to the guards at the door
So we are back to the guards knocking on the door, and the Jews hiding in the living room. The ground rules are that you can’t sin, and that lying is a sin, and delivering people over to their death is unloving, which is to say that it too is sinful. What is left to do?
Well, this decision is really made before you took the Jews in. When you gave them refuge in your house, you did so while taking responsibility for their safety. If you are brave enough to hide them, then you better be brave enough to protect them. How can you hide them but not be willing to physically defend them? If the guards knock on your door, respond by telling them that they have no right to enter your house, and that what they are doing is morally reprehensible—but that Jesus offers forgiveness for their sins, and they need to repent. Then slam the door, and take the hypothetical from there. A person who is brave enough to lie but not brave enough to be a martyr, isn’t brave at all.
What about war time ethics
As absolutist as that sounds, the Bible keeps room in its moral constructs for war time ethics. God uses countries to bear the sword and punish evil doers. It is expected that war includes both deception and violence. An army can fake left and go right, because they are bearing the sword to suppress evil. But that is fundamentally different than a person—a civilian, if you will—who lies because they have a secret moral agenda. Even if their morality is right, it is undercut by lying because (remember) God will never put you in a position where lying is right thing to do.
What about Rahab
No conversation on lying would be complete without Rahab sneaking on to the set. “What about her?” you ask. “Didn’t she lie?” Well, yes…but that is hardly the point of that narrative. Rahab sided with Yahweh over and against her nation. She heard of God’s work in the wilderness, and when she met the spies, she was soundly converted by faith alone. That faith immediately manifested itself in her devotion to God and his people (James 2:25).
So the point of the Rahab narrative in Joshua 2 is that an idol-worshiping prostitute was radically saved, and that God then used her to help Israel enter the promised land. Did she lie? Yes. She had been a believer for all of ten minutes, so cut her some slack. Is she in the hall of faith in Hebrews 11? Yes. As shocking as it might seem, there are some believers who were both liars and prostitutes (or Sampson, who was a liar while with a prostitute). Yet somehow the gospel is greater than sin, and salvation comes through faith alone. Rahab is always held out as an example of faith for siding with God’s people, and is never held out as an example of lying for the glory of God.
Sunday, June 23, 2013
Why I Find Your Pride So Annoying
There is no fault which makes a man more unpopular, and no fault which we are more unconscious of in ourselves.
And the more we have it ourselves, the more we dislike it in others.
The vice I am talking of is Pride. . . .
. . . In fact, if you want to find out how proud you are the easiest way is to ask yourself, “How much do I dislike it when other people snub me, or refuse to take any notice of me, or shove their oar in, or patronise me, or show off?”
The point is that each person’s pride is in competition with every one else’s pride.
It is because I wanted to be the big noise at the party that I am so annoyed at someone else being the big noise.
And the more we have it ourselves, the more we dislike it in others.
The vice I am talking of is Pride. . . .
. . . In fact, if you want to find out how proud you are the easiest way is to ask yourself, “How much do I dislike it when other people snub me, or refuse to take any notice of me, or shove their oar in, or patronise me, or show off?”
The point is that each person’s pride is in competition with every one else’s pride.
It is because I wanted to be the big noise at the party that I am so annoyed at someone else being the big noise.
—C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity (1952), chapter 8.
Saturday, June 22, 2013
"The Word Is Not In Them"
From Ray Ortlund:
the word is not in them. Jeremiah 5:13
“[The sermons] are the words of one who has felt himself forced to speak by a greater than human power. . . . the tremendous impetus behind the preacher.”
A report of the preaching of Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, recorded in Iain H. Murray, David Martyn Lloyd-Jones, The First Forty Years, 1899-1939 (Edinburgh, 1982), page 144.
True preaching is more than preaching truth. It is also deeply personal. It rises from within a man. He is fully aware and engaged and intelligent. But he is forced to speak, compelled not by the expectations of others around but by the power of God within.
A man can preach the word, but still the word is not in him. It has not yet become interior to him, experientialized to him, a part of him. Such preaching is mere wind. True preaching is brewed within, as the gospel enters into a man, floods his awareness, rearranges his own interiority, and surges out of him as something divine and yet still his own.
To preach in the power of the Holy Spirit is not to take a good thing and make it even better. Preaching the truth in one’s own strength is destructive (1 Corinthians 1:17). “The word is not in him.” Preaching the gospel in the power of God is the only true preaching. All lesser preaching is sinful and to be repented of.
May the Lord help all of us pastors! May we resolve, God helping us, never again to preach a single sermon without power from on high — and deep within!
Friday, June 21, 2013
Pretty Boy Preachers
From Unashamed Workman:
Dr Steven J. Lawson spoke yesterday to a group of Irish pastors. His subject was “The Gospel Focus Of Charles Spurgeon.” Some of the content was encouraging. Much of it was tremendously challenging. However my ‘personal takeaway’ was Dr Lawson’s discussion of Spurgeon’s bold audacity in the pulpit.Spurgeon feared no man. Constrained only by the bounds of God’s Word, Spurgeon said what he liked,when he liked, how he liked. The problem with Spurgeon was not that men misunderstood his meaning. The problem was that men understood him completely. Spurgeon’s style was plain, direct, outspoken and urgent. Spurgeon wasn’t trying to be popular. He was trying to bring the truth to your soul.
In relation to this, Steven Lawson shared two quotes with us. I believe he had borrowed these from Adrian Rodgers. The first quote was,
The pastor should always enter the pulpit with his resignation letter in his pocket.
The other was:
The problem with preachers today is that no-one wants to kill them anymore.
By my observation, this is often true. Many preachers just want to be ‘nice.’ They cherish being winsome above being earnest. They desire popularity above faithfulness. They tremble more at the thought of offending their congregation, than they fear the thought of offending their God.
In the words of Dr Lawson: there are just too many “pretty boy preachers.”
Are you praying for your pastor?
Thursday, June 20, 2013
Why Should We Preach Christ in Every Sermon?
From Fred Malone at Founder's Blog:
1. Biblical hermeneutics requires us to preach Christ in every sermon. The historical rise of literal-grammatical-historical hermeneutics in the history of interpretation has been a very good thing. There is general agreement among evangelical teachers that the Bible should be taken literally (unless it uses metaphor, typology, allegory, parable, etc.), grammatically (using the original languages for exegesis), and historically (dealing with the historical context of the text). As part of this method, we also include the idea of “Scripture interpreting Scripture.” This is the foundation of exegeting a text and then expositing it in the sermon. This method is intended to prevent eisegesis in a text in order to be faithful to God’s specific Word. Sometimes, this method is used to justify not preaching Christ in every sermon if He is not mentioned specifically in the text, especially when expounding an OT text.
However, grammatical-historical exegesis is not the complete hermeneutical method used by Reformed interpreters. Reformed hermeneutics espouses grammatical-historical-theological exegesis. The addition of theological exegesis for each text is sometimes called “the analogy of faith.” It means that the exegesis of each text must look at the full theological context in which it resides; i. e., the place in biblical history, the covenant context in which it resides, and its relationship to the overall theology of the Scripture. This means that the overall theology of Scripture, which is Christ-centered, must be included in the full exegesis of the text. This is not eisegesis. It is theological exegesis.
Let me add that this theological element in hermeneutics is not quite the same as “Scripture interpreting Scripture.” An exegete may use cross-reference or word-studies of a text, comparing Scripture with Scripture and still miss the overall theology of Scripture in the exegesis. The analogy of faith takes the whole counsel of God into account, the faith once-for-all delivered to the saints, when interpreting the text. For instance, when preaching on an OT text, one may use the literal-grammatical-historical method, including Scripture interpreting Scripture in cross-references and word-studies, expounding the text faithfully in its original meaning in the OT. However, our Lord explained that He came to fulfill the Law and the Prophets. To explain the OT text and to expound its original contextual meaning without taking into account how our Lord fulfilled it in His person and work ignores the full theological interpretation of the text. So, one may expound accurately the OT text and its meaning in context without its full theological meaning in light of the completion of all revelation according to the analogy of faith.
To preach Christ in every sermon is more than just preaching a text in its literal-grammatical-historical meaning then going off into an unconnected explanation of the gospel. Rather, it is to expound how that text is connected to and fulfilled theologically in Jesus Christ, the theological center of God’s revelation to man. This method does not demean the OT as less inspired or not as important as the NT. Such caveats are not helpful or accurate. Rather, it recognizes that every OT text reaches its full meaning as contributing the revelation of Jesus Christ in all the Scriptures.
One more thing about the theological method of interpretation. It recognizes that all men are born condemned under law in the fall of Adam and that from Gen. 3:15 on, the rest of Scripture reveals the coming of Christ under grace. This is the old Law and Gospel theology that was central to the Reformation’s rediscovery of the gospel. All Scripture must be interpreted in light of the Law and the Gospel theology which reveals Jesus Christ to man. This enables the expositor to preach the gospel in every sermon legitimately without eisegesis. Charles Bridges, in The Christian Ministry, said:
The mark of a minister “approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed,” is, that he “rightly divides the word of truth.” This implies a full and direct application of the Gospel to the mass of his unconverted hearers, combined with a body of spiritual instruction to the several classes of Christians. His system will be marked by Scriptural symmetry and comprehensiveness. It will embrace the whole revelation of God, in in its doctrinal instructions, experimental privileges, and practical results. This revelation is divided into two parts--the Law and the Gospel--essentially distinct from each other, though so intimately connected, that an accurate knowledge of neither can be obtained with the other (222).
2. Biblical example requires us to preach Christ in every sermon. We now live under the New Covenant of Jesus Christ, the completed revelation of God to man. We have been given the full revelation of God in the faith once-for-all delivered to the saints. Our example of preaching and teaching is now displayed in how Christ and His Apostles preached and taught. His teaching of Himself, each sermon in Acts to unbelievers, and each Epistle to believers is fully Christ-centered. Even if we take a text from Christ or the Apostles' writings which do not explicitly mention the Lord Jesus Christ, they must be explained in light of their whole teaching in the context of His message and the whole Epistle’s message. These are our examples of biblical preaching under the New Covenant.
For modern-day examples of such preaching, you only have to look at the greatest preacher of the 19th century, Charles Spurgeon, and the greatest preacher of the 20th century, Martyn Lloyd-Jones. They both followed the grammatical-historical-theological method of hermeneutics to preach Christ in all the Scriptures.
1. Biblical hermeneutics requires us to preach Christ in every sermon. The historical rise of literal-grammatical-historical hermeneutics in the history of interpretation has been a very good thing. There is general agreement among evangelical teachers that the Bible should be taken literally (unless it uses metaphor, typology, allegory, parable, etc.), grammatically (using the original languages for exegesis), and historically (dealing with the historical context of the text). As part of this method, we also include the idea of “Scripture interpreting Scripture.” This is the foundation of exegeting a text and then expositing it in the sermon. This method is intended to prevent eisegesis in a text in order to be faithful to God’s specific Word. Sometimes, this method is used to justify not preaching Christ in every sermon if He is not mentioned specifically in the text, especially when expounding an OT text.
However, grammatical-historical exegesis is not the complete hermeneutical method used by Reformed interpreters. Reformed hermeneutics espouses grammatical-historical-theological exegesis. The addition of theological exegesis for each text is sometimes called “the analogy of faith.” It means that the exegesis of each text must look at the full theological context in which it resides; i. e., the place in biblical history, the covenant context in which it resides, and its relationship to the overall theology of the Scripture. This means that the overall theology of Scripture, which is Christ-centered, must be included in the full exegesis of the text. This is not eisegesis. It is theological exegesis.
Let me add that this theological element in hermeneutics is not quite the same as “Scripture interpreting Scripture.” An exegete may use cross-reference or word-studies of a text, comparing Scripture with Scripture and still miss the overall theology of Scripture in the exegesis. The analogy of faith takes the whole counsel of God into account, the faith once-for-all delivered to the saints, when interpreting the text. For instance, when preaching on an OT text, one may use the literal-grammatical-historical method, including Scripture interpreting Scripture in cross-references and word-studies, expounding the text faithfully in its original meaning in the OT. However, our Lord explained that He came to fulfill the Law and the Prophets. To explain the OT text and to expound its original contextual meaning without taking into account how our Lord fulfilled it in His person and work ignores the full theological interpretation of the text. So, one may expound accurately the OT text and its meaning in context without its full theological meaning in light of the completion of all revelation according to the analogy of faith.
To preach Christ in every sermon is more than just preaching a text in its literal-grammatical-historical meaning then going off into an unconnected explanation of the gospel. Rather, it is to expound how that text is connected to and fulfilled theologically in Jesus Christ, the theological center of God’s revelation to man. This method does not demean the OT as less inspired or not as important as the NT. Such caveats are not helpful or accurate. Rather, it recognizes that every OT text reaches its full meaning as contributing the revelation of Jesus Christ in all the Scriptures.
One more thing about the theological method of interpretation. It recognizes that all men are born condemned under law in the fall of Adam and that from Gen. 3:15 on, the rest of Scripture reveals the coming of Christ under grace. This is the old Law and Gospel theology that was central to the Reformation’s rediscovery of the gospel. All Scripture must be interpreted in light of the Law and the Gospel theology which reveals Jesus Christ to man. This enables the expositor to preach the gospel in every sermon legitimately without eisegesis. Charles Bridges, in The Christian Ministry, said:
The mark of a minister “approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed,” is, that he “rightly divides the word of truth.” This implies a full and direct application of the Gospel to the mass of his unconverted hearers, combined with a body of spiritual instruction to the several classes of Christians. His system will be marked by Scriptural symmetry and comprehensiveness. It will embrace the whole revelation of God, in in its doctrinal instructions, experimental privileges, and practical results. This revelation is divided into two parts--the Law and the Gospel--essentially distinct from each other, though so intimately connected, that an accurate knowledge of neither can be obtained with the other (222).
2. Biblical example requires us to preach Christ in every sermon. We now live under the New Covenant of Jesus Christ, the completed revelation of God to man. We have been given the full revelation of God in the faith once-for-all delivered to the saints. Our example of preaching and teaching is now displayed in how Christ and His Apostles preached and taught. His teaching of Himself, each sermon in Acts to unbelievers, and each Epistle to believers is fully Christ-centered. Even if we take a text from Christ or the Apostles' writings which do not explicitly mention the Lord Jesus Christ, they must be explained in light of their whole teaching in the context of His message and the whole Epistle’s message. These are our examples of biblical preaching under the New Covenant.
For modern-day examples of such preaching, you only have to look at the greatest preacher of the 19th century, Charles Spurgeon, and the greatest preacher of the 20th century, Martyn Lloyd-Jones. They both followed the grammatical-historical-theological method of hermeneutics to preach Christ in all the Scriptures.
Wednesday, June 19, 2013
Quote of the Day
“The modern-day gospel says, ‘God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life. Therefore, follow these steps, and you can be saved.’ Meanwhile, the biblical gospel says, ‘You are an enemy of God, dead in your sin, & in your present state of rebellion, you are not even able to see that you need life, much less to cause yourself to come to life. Therefore, you are radically dependent on God to do something in your life that you could never do.”
– David Platt
Tuesday, June 18, 2013
Quote of the Day
“If God had perceived that our greatest need was economic, He would have sent an economist.
If he had perceived that our greatest need was entertainment, he would have sent us a comedian or an artist.
If God had perceived that our greatest need was political stability, he would have sent us a politician.
If he had perceived that our greatest need was health, he would have sent us a doctor.
But he perceived that our greatest need involved our sin, our alienation from him, our profound rebellion, our death, and he sent us a Savior.”
– D. A. Carson
Monday, June 10, 2013
Worship Is More
Therefore I urge you, brethren, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies a living and holy sacrifice, acceptable to God, which is your spiritual service of worship. And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, so that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good and acceptable and perfect.
—Romans 12: 1–2
Popular opinion these days often limits worship to singing. Music leaders are called “worship leaders.” So the congregation “worships” for a while, and then hears a sermon, possibly followed by more “worship.” True worship, however, includes so much more. Most obviously, it includes the entire activity of the church as she assembles for worship each Lord’s Day, especially the reading and exposition of the Word. But even that is only a small portion of the worship that God expects of us.
Popular opinion these days often limits worship to singing. Music leaders are called “worship leaders.” So the congregation “worships” for a while, and then hears a sermon, possibly followed by more “worship.” True worship, however, includes so much more. Most obviously, it includes the entire activity of the church as she assembles for worship each Lord’s Day, especially the reading and exposition of the Word. But even that is only a small portion of the worship that God expects of us.
Worship does not only occur in public services and assemblies. It should occur in the Christian’s daily living. So Paul exhorted the Christians in Rome, “Offer your bodies as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God—this is your spiritual act of worship.” Theology lived out in responsible action and obedience is worshipping God. When performed in faith, all the duties of the Christian life commanded in Scripture are means of worshipping God. “And whatever you do, whether in word or deed, do it all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him.” Worship of God is the supreme end of the Christian church, whether considered locally or universally, or in the individual lives of its members.
—Mark Dever, The Church: The Gospel Made Visible
Sunday, June 9, 2013
Sola Scriptura Applied
Behind the assertion that Christian worship must consist of . . . God-prescribed elements is the Protestant understanding of the sufficiency of Scripture—the idea that the Scriptures sufficiently reveal everything God’s people need for salvation, perfect trust, and perfect obedience. The sufficiency of Scripture has many implications, including the conviction that Scripture should regulate the way God’s people should approach God in worship. This principle has often been called “the regulative principle.” The regulative principle applies the Protestant belief in the authority of God’s Word to the particular doctrine of the church (most often it is referenced in discussions of public worship).
Many people have debated what specific applications should be drawn from the regulative principle for the weekly gathering of the saints. For example, does the principle require or forbid taking an offering during a service? having a choir? using drama in lieu of a sermon? and so forth. Yet before the particular points of application are tackled, the basic principle should be clearly and firmly set in place: God has revealed what basic components of worship are acceptable to him. Left to themselves humans do not worship God as they should, not even those who are blessed by him. One needs only to think of the unacceptable sacrifice of Cain or the golden calf of the Israelites.
In response to humanity’s lack of knowledge and desire to worship him rightly, God graciously grants humanity his Word. The first two of the Ten Commandments show God’s concern for how he is to be worshipped. Jesus condemned the Pharisees for aspects of their worship. Paul instructed the church at Corinth on what should and should not occur in their assemblies. In short, recognizing the regulative principle amounts to recognizing the sufficiency of Scripture applied to assembled worship. In the language of the Reformation, it amounts to sola scriptura.
—Mark Dever, The Church: The Gospel Made Visible
Saturday, June 8, 2013
Baptism and Maturity
Scripture limits baptism according to spiritual status, not age. But does that mean that children who profess faith should be baptized? Not necessarily. While believer’s baptism does not necessarily mean adult baptism, it is wise to delay baptism until a certain level of maturity is achieved. Mark Dever writes:
While Scripture clearly reserves baptism for believers, it does not directly address the age at which believers should be baptized. Nor does the command to baptize forbid raising questions about the appropriateness of a baptismal candidate’s maturity. The fact that believers are commanded to be baptized does not give a church license to baptize indiscriminately, especially where maturity-of-life issues make it difficult to assess the credibility of a profession of faith. New Testament baptisms largely appear to have occurred shortly after conversion, but every specific individual mentioned is an adult coming from a non-Christian context, two factors which make the church’s job of attesting to the credibility of a profession of faith simple and straightforward.
As a matter of Christian wisdom and prudence, therefore, the normal age of baptism should be when the credibility of one’s conversion becomes naturally discernable and evident to the church community. A legitimate secondary concern is the effect of the child’s baptism on other families in the church. The least spiritually discerning parents—with the best intentions—have too often brought pressure on their compliant children to be baptized. Such children have thereby been wrongly assured of their salvation and have been further hardened to hearing the gospel later in life. Tragically, the hope they most need may be hidden by the act meant to display it.
—Mark Dever, The Church: The Gospel Made Visible
While Scripture clearly reserves baptism for believers, it does not directly address the age at which believers should be baptized. Nor does the command to baptize forbid raising questions about the appropriateness of a baptismal candidate’s maturity. The fact that believers are commanded to be baptized does not give a church license to baptize indiscriminately, especially where maturity-of-life issues make it difficult to assess the credibility of a profession of faith. New Testament baptisms largely appear to have occurred shortly after conversion, but every specific individual mentioned is an adult coming from a non-Christian context, two factors which make the church’s job of attesting to the credibility of a profession of faith simple and straightforward.
As a matter of Christian wisdom and prudence, therefore, the normal age of baptism should be when the credibility of one’s conversion becomes naturally discernable and evident to the church community. A legitimate secondary concern is the effect of the child’s baptism on other families in the church. The least spiritually discerning parents—with the best intentions—have too often brought pressure on their compliant children to be baptized. Such children have thereby been wrongly assured of their salvation and have been further hardened to hearing the gospel later in life. Tragically, the hope they most need may be hidden by the act meant to display it.
—Mark Dever, The Church: The Gospel Made Visible
Friday, June 7, 2013
Outward Signs
Mark Dever on the inseparable relationship of the Word and the ordinances:
When churches practice baptism and the Lord’s Supper, they obey Christ’s teaching and example. In so doing, they portray Christ’s death and resurrection, the testimony of every believer’s own spiritual birth, as well as the church’s collective hope for the final resurrection and reunion with the Lord. These two practices, in short, proclaim the gospel. Thus, even congregations that have long forsaken biblical doctrine regarding regeneration, Christ’s substitutionary death, or the hope of heaven, still proclaim these truths in their liturgies as they reenact these signs. The new birth may be ignored, but baptism portrays it. Christ’s atonement may be denied in the sermon, but the Supper proclaims it. In such cases tradition at the table speaks more truth than the preaching from the pulpit. Practicing baptism and the Lord’s Supper demonstrates obedience to Christ, and they are intended to complement by visible sign and symbol the audible preaching of the gospel.
Conversely, a church fails to obey Christ’s command when it neglects either of these two signs. Such failure removes that church from a submission to the larger teaching of Scripture. And it separates a congregation from the apostolic and universal practice of Christ’s followers. Scripture acts as a counterweight against anyone—whether a congregation or a person—who decides to be a Christian and yet neglects baptism or the Lord’s Supper. This neglect, or denial, separates the person from those who truly follow Christ. While neither baptism nor the Lord’s Supper is salvific, a deliberate neglect of either puts a question mark on any profession of faith. In this sense baptism and the Lord’s Supper act as the marks of a true church. They are the outward signs, or visible boundaries, which distinguish a particular people from the world. Yet matching that outward message is an inward message. The ordinances remind Christians of the fellowship they enjoy with God and one another.
—Mark Dever, The Church: The Gospel Made Visible
When churches practice baptism and the Lord’s Supper, they obey Christ’s teaching and example. In so doing, they portray Christ’s death and resurrection, the testimony of every believer’s own spiritual birth, as well as the church’s collective hope for the final resurrection and reunion with the Lord. These two practices, in short, proclaim the gospel. Thus, even congregations that have long forsaken biblical doctrine regarding regeneration, Christ’s substitutionary death, or the hope of heaven, still proclaim these truths in their liturgies as they reenact these signs. The new birth may be ignored, but baptism portrays it. Christ’s atonement may be denied in the sermon, but the Supper proclaims it. In such cases tradition at the table speaks more truth than the preaching from the pulpit. Practicing baptism and the Lord’s Supper demonstrates obedience to Christ, and they are intended to complement by visible sign and symbol the audible preaching of the gospel.
Conversely, a church fails to obey Christ’s command when it neglects either of these two signs. Such failure removes that church from a submission to the larger teaching of Scripture. And it separates a congregation from the apostolic and universal practice of Christ’s followers. Scripture acts as a counterweight against anyone—whether a congregation or a person—who decides to be a Christian and yet neglects baptism or the Lord’s Supper. This neglect, or denial, separates the person from those who truly follow Christ. While neither baptism nor the Lord’s Supper is salvific, a deliberate neglect of either puts a question mark on any profession of faith. In this sense baptism and the Lord’s Supper act as the marks of a true church. They are the outward signs, or visible boundaries, which distinguish a particular people from the world. Yet matching that outward message is an inward message. The ordinances remind Christians of the fellowship they enjoy with God and one another.
—Mark Dever, The Church: The Gospel Made Visible
Thursday, June 6, 2013
Created By God's Revelation
In his book Nine Marks of a Healthy Church, Mark Dever placed expositional preaching at number one. This is no novel opinion. The Belgic Confession of Faith of 1561 also placed preaching of pure doctrine first of three distinctive of a true church. Mark Dever explains why preaching holds such a high position in the life of the church:
God’s people in Scripture are created by God’s revelation of himself. His Spirit accompanies his Word and brings life.
The theme of “life through the Word” is clear in both the Old and New Testaments. In the Old Testament, God created life in Genesis 1 by his breath. God spoke and the world and all living beings were created. In Genesis 1:30, the living creatures are described as having the “breath of life” in them. So in Genesis 2:7, God breathed this same breath of life into those creatures made specially in his image—men and women.
After the first man and woman fell away from God by rebelling against him, God sustained them and their descendants by his word—a word of promise given to them in Genesis 3:15. Again in Genesis 12:1–3, his word called Abram from Ur of the Chaldees to become the progenitor of God’s people. In Exodus 3:4, God called on Moses with his word to bring his people out of Egypt. In Exodus 20, God gave his people his 10 “words,” and throughout the Pentateuch, God’s Word is the shaping influence on his people. Throughout the Old Testament, God ministered to his people by his word. He created them and recreated them through the priests’ teaching of the law and the prophets’ inspired guidance.
Ezekiel 37 presents a dramatic picture of recreation in particular. The people of Israel were in exile, depicted as an army so devastated only their bones remained. God commanded the prophet Ezekiel to preach to these bones. As Ezekiel did, the Spirit of God accompanied Ezekiel’s words, and the bones were brought to life:
And as I was prophesying, there was a noise, a rattling sound, and the bones came together, bone to bone. I looked, and tendons and flesh appeared on them and skin covered them, but there was no breath in them. Then he said to me, “Prophesy to the breath; prophesy, son of man, and say to it, ‘This is what the Sovereign Lord says: Come from the four winds, O breath, and breathe into these slain, that they may live.’” So I prophesied as he commanded me, and breath entered them; they came to life and stood up on their feet—a vast army. (vv. 7–10)
The consistent message of Scripture is that God created his people and brings them to life through his word.
Moving to the New Testament, God’s word again plays the central role as the bringer of life. So the eternal Word of God, the Son of God, became incarnate for the salvation of God’s people (John 1:14). Jesus came to preach God’s word, to uniquely embody it, as well as to accomplish God’s will through his perfect life, atoning death, and triumphant resurrection. He founded his church and taught his followers to go into all nations, preaching the message of reconciliation to God through faith in him (Matt 28:18–20). Therefore, Paul wrote that “faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word of Christ” (Rom 10:17).
—Mark Dever, The Church: The Gospel Made Visible
Wednesday, June 5, 2013
Not Evangelism
Evangelism means preaching the gospel. That is all, and there is no substitute.
[S]ocial action or “mercy ministries” (e.g., soup kitchens, medical clinics, etc.) must never be mistaken for evangelism. They may be a means to evangelism, but they are not evangelism. The church’s main responsibility is gospel proclamation. Nothing must obscure the church’s central obligation to preach the gospel. Expounding Scripture in the local church equips members to understand and express God’s character of justice and mercy appropriately to the world. And this rightly means touching on issues of poverty, gender, racism, and justice from the pulpit. Such teaching, however, should normally occur without committing the church to particular public policy solutions. For example, Christian preachers could strenuously advocate the abolition of human trafficking without laying out specific policy proposals for how to do it. Christian preaching can speak to [sic] what ought to be done without assuming it has the expertise to untangle all the means necessary for achieving those good ends.
A non-Christian’s greatest need is to hear the gospel. The proclamation of the gospel addresses the greatest part of human suffering caused by the fall. It is central to fulfilling the Great Commission (Matt 28:18–20). And it is central to fulfilling the great commandments (Mark 12:29–31; cf. Gal 6:2). For the Christian these commandments must lie at the heart of any cultural mandate (Gen 1: 28).
—Mark Dever, The Church: The Gospel Made Visible
[S]ocial action or “mercy ministries” (e.g., soup kitchens, medical clinics, etc.) must never be mistaken for evangelism. They may be a means to evangelism, but they are not evangelism. The church’s main responsibility is gospel proclamation. Nothing must obscure the church’s central obligation to preach the gospel. Expounding Scripture in the local church equips members to understand and express God’s character of justice and mercy appropriately to the world. And this rightly means touching on issues of poverty, gender, racism, and justice from the pulpit. Such teaching, however, should normally occur without committing the church to particular public policy solutions. For example, Christian preachers could strenuously advocate the abolition of human trafficking without laying out specific policy proposals for how to do it. Christian preaching can speak to [sic] what ought to be done without assuming it has the expertise to untangle all the means necessary for achieving those good ends.
A non-Christian’s greatest need is to hear the gospel. The proclamation of the gospel addresses the greatest part of human suffering caused by the fall. It is central to fulfilling the Great Commission (Matt 28:18–20). And it is central to fulfilling the great commandments (Mark 12:29–31; cf. Gal 6:2). For the Christian these commandments must lie at the heart of any cultural mandate (Gen 1: 28).
—Mark Dever, The Church: The Gospel Made Visible
Tuesday, June 4, 2013
What Is A Christian?
What is a Christian?
One who, by the grace of God, can declare that he justly deserves the wrath of God, save for the mercy of Jesus Christ alone. He casts aside all hope in his self-righteousness and puts away all pride in his own goodness. One who is glad to be regarded as spiritually bankrupt, a poor sinner, saved by the free grace and righteousness of Christ and, with a grateful heart, yields in allegiance to Him alone as LORD and sovereign. In a word, one who "glories in Christ Jesus and has no confidence in the flesh." (Phil. 3:3)
How about you? What would you say?
Monday, June 3, 2013
Three Ways, Not Just Two
Ray Ortlund writes:
Your life and mine are not so simple as a question of doing the Lord’s work versus doing the devil’s work. We face not two but three possibilities: (1) doing the Lord’s work in the Lord’s way, (2) doing the Lord’s work in our own way, (3) doing the devil’s work. And the great divide is not between 2 and 3 but between 1 and 2.
To do the Lord’s work in the Lord’s way is to humble ourselves and prayerfully depend on the power of the Holy Spirit, according to Scripture alone, moment by moment.
To do the Lord’s work in our own way is to move forward with our good intentions and true theology and just keep doing what seems obvious and successful and even right. But on that final day, the Lord will look at it and say, “This belongs not to me, but to you. It was not for me, but for your own glory. I do not see it as an accomplishment. I see it as a hindrance.” And it will fall from our hands forever.
It gets worse.
To do the Lord’s work in our own way is to risk doing the devil’s work. When Peter tried to persuade Jesus to bypass the cross, the Lord said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan” (Matthew 16:23). How did Peter go so shockingly wrong? Jesus explained: “You are not setting your mind on the things of God, but on the things of man.” Peter did not have to set his mind on the things of Satan to become useful to Satan. All he had to do was set his mind on the things of man. On obvious, understandable, human things. Like survival, popularity, saving face, and so forth. That’s all it takes. It is easy, even natural. Which is why Jesus had to tell Peter what was really going on. Peter hadn’t decided for Satan. He had just proceeded in his own way, without allowing himself to be overruled by the counterintuitive ways of God revealed in Scripture. If we are not consciously redirecting ourselves into the surprising ways of God, the Lord stops using us and must say to us as, in fact, he said to no one less than the apostle Peter: “You are a hindrance to me.”
To do the Lord’s work in our own way is to become destructive with good intentions, true theology and what seems obvious, successful and right.
To do the Lord’s work in the Lord’s way is searching and costly. We pay a price. But it is glorious. The Lord himself is in it. And he is nowhere else.
Sunday, June 2, 2013
How Can We Tell When God Is Really At Work?
In The Distinguishing Marks of a Work of the Spirit of God (1741), Jonathan Edwards pulled out of 1 John 4 the biblical indicators that God is at work, even if the people involved are complicating it with their own sins and eccentricities. And we do complicate it. In this life, the work of the gospel is never pure, always mixed. But we do not need to be stuck in analysis-paralysis. The true gold of grace is discernible, within all the mess, in four ways:
One, when our esteem of Jesus is being raised, so that we prize him more highly than all this world, God is at work.
Two, when we are moving away from Satan’s interests, away from sin and worldly desires, God is at work.
Three, when we are believing, revering and devouring the Bible more and more, God is at work.
Four, and most importantly, when we love Jesus and one another more, delighting in him and in one another, God is at work.
Satan not only wouldn’t produce such things, he couldn’t produce them, so opposite are these from his nature and purposes. These simple and obvious evidences of grace are sure signs that God is at work, even with the imperfections we inevitably introduce.
If we hold out for perfection, we will wait until we are with the Lord. True discernment keeps our eyes peeled for fraudulence but also unleashes us, and even requires us, to rejoice wherever we see the Lord at work right now.
Don’t turn away because of the non-gold; prize the gold. Defend it. Rejoice over it. God is giving it.
Saturday, June 1, 2013
The Difference Between Congregational Worship and a Concert
John Piper, writing in 2008:
Thirteen years ago we asked: What should be the defining sound of corporate worship at Bethlehem, besides the voice of biblical preaching?
We meant: Should it be pipe organ, piano, guitar, drums, choir, worship team, orchestra, etc. The answer we gave was “The people of Bethlehem singing.”
Some thought: That’s not much help in deciding which instruments should be used. Perhaps not. But it is massively helpful in clarifying the meaning of those moments.
If [our church] is not “singing and making melody to the Lord with [our] heart,” (Ephesians 5:19), it’s all over. We close up shop. This is no small commitment.
James K. A. Smith, writing last year, made a similar point. While there may be a few exceptions to what he says here, I think he’s exactly right with regard to the main thrust of Christian congregational worship.
1. If we, the congregation, can’t hear ourselves, it’s not worship.
Christian worship is not a concert. In a concert (a particular “form of performance”), we often expect to be overwhelmed by sound, particularly in certain styles of music. In a concert, we come to expect that weird sort of sensory deprivation that happens from sensory overload, when the pounding of the bass on our chest and the wash of music over the crowd leaves us with the rush of a certain aural vertigo. And there’s nothing wrong with concerts! It’s just that Christian worship is not a concert. Christian worship is a collective, communal, congregational practice–and the gathered sound and harmony of a congregation singing as one is integral to the practice of worship. It is a way of “performing” the reality that, in Christ, we are one body. But that requires that we actually be able to hear ourselves, and hear our sisters and brothers singing alongside us. When the amped sound of the praise band overwhelms congregational voices, we can’t hear ourselves sing–so we lose that communal aspect of the congregation and are encouraged to effectively become “private,” passive worshipers.
2. If we, the congregation, can’t sing along, it’s not worship.
In other forms of musical performance, musicians and bands will want to improvise and “be creative,” offering new renditions and exhibiting their virtuosity with all sorts of different trills and pauses and improvisations on the received tune. Again, that can be a delightful aspect of a concert, but in Christian worship it just means that we, the congregation, can’t sing along. And so your virtuosity gives rise to our passivity; your creativity simply encourages our silence. And while you may be worshiping with your creativity, the same creativity actually shuts down congregational song.
3. If you, the praise band, are the center of attention, it’s not worship.
I know it’s generally not your fault that we’ve put you at the front of the church. And I know you want to model worship for us to imitate. But because we’ve encouraged you to basically import forms of performance from the concert venue into the sanctuary, we might not realize that we’ve also unwittingly encouraged a sense that you are the center of attention. And when your performance becomes a display of your virtuosity—even with the best of intentions—it’s difficult to counter the temptation to make the praise band the focus of our attention. When the praise band goes into long riffs that you might intend as “offerings to God,” we the congregation become utterly passive, and because we’ve adopted habits of relating to music from the Grammys and the concert venue, we unwittingly make you the center of attention. I wonder if there might be some intentional reflection on placement (to the side? leading from behind?) and performance that might help us counter these habits we bring with us to worship.
You can read the whole thing here.
Thirteen years ago we asked: What should be the defining sound of corporate worship at Bethlehem, besides the voice of biblical preaching?
We meant: Should it be pipe organ, piano, guitar, drums, choir, worship team, orchestra, etc. The answer we gave was “The people of Bethlehem singing.”
Some thought: That’s not much help in deciding which instruments should be used. Perhaps not. But it is massively helpful in clarifying the meaning of those moments.
If [our church] is not “singing and making melody to the Lord with [our] heart,” (Ephesians 5:19), it’s all over. We close up shop. This is no small commitment.
James K. A. Smith, writing last year, made a similar point. While there may be a few exceptions to what he says here, I think he’s exactly right with regard to the main thrust of Christian congregational worship.
1. If we, the congregation, can’t hear ourselves, it’s not worship.
Christian worship is not a concert. In a concert (a particular “form of performance”), we often expect to be overwhelmed by sound, particularly in certain styles of music. In a concert, we come to expect that weird sort of sensory deprivation that happens from sensory overload, when the pounding of the bass on our chest and the wash of music over the crowd leaves us with the rush of a certain aural vertigo. And there’s nothing wrong with concerts! It’s just that Christian worship is not a concert. Christian worship is a collective, communal, congregational practice–and the gathered sound and harmony of a congregation singing as one is integral to the practice of worship. It is a way of “performing” the reality that, in Christ, we are one body. But that requires that we actually be able to hear ourselves, and hear our sisters and brothers singing alongside us. When the amped sound of the praise band overwhelms congregational voices, we can’t hear ourselves sing–so we lose that communal aspect of the congregation and are encouraged to effectively become “private,” passive worshipers.
2. If we, the congregation, can’t sing along, it’s not worship.
In other forms of musical performance, musicians and bands will want to improvise and “be creative,” offering new renditions and exhibiting their virtuosity with all sorts of different trills and pauses and improvisations on the received tune. Again, that can be a delightful aspect of a concert, but in Christian worship it just means that we, the congregation, can’t sing along. And so your virtuosity gives rise to our passivity; your creativity simply encourages our silence. And while you may be worshiping with your creativity, the same creativity actually shuts down congregational song.
3. If you, the praise band, are the center of attention, it’s not worship.
I know it’s generally not your fault that we’ve put you at the front of the church. And I know you want to model worship for us to imitate. But because we’ve encouraged you to basically import forms of performance from the concert venue into the sanctuary, we might not realize that we’ve also unwittingly encouraged a sense that you are the center of attention. And when your performance becomes a display of your virtuosity—even with the best of intentions—it’s difficult to counter the temptation to make the praise band the focus of our attention. When the praise band goes into long riffs that you might intend as “offerings to God,” we the congregation become utterly passive, and because we’ve adopted habits of relating to music from the Grammys and the concert venue, we unwittingly make you the center of attention. I wonder if there might be some intentional reflection on placement (to the side? leading from behind?) and performance that might help us counter these habits we bring with us to worship.
You can read the whole thing here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)