Act of Worship: Recent Episodes
Jonathan Michael Jones
The healing power of Jesus is surely no secret. Unambiguously, Jesus is God and, thus, possesses the same healing power as the Father and the Spirit. One of the most unique accounts of Jesus’ healing is told in the fifth chapter of Mark’s Gospel, and it might double as the first report of deviled ham in history. A man who is possessed by a demon understands the power and authority of Jesus in this telling and, therefore, offers a grateful response of worship because of his healing, which could not be accomplished apart from Jesus Christ. In the same way, Jesus is the answer to all the world’s problems. Without Christ, everyone would live to their own perpetual destruction. It is, nevertheless, the power of Jesus that heals, for only Jesus may take a person’s devil and turn it into deviled ham.Here (Mark 5:1-20) is an account of Jesus’ authority and recognition, several responses to Jesus, and the first recipe for deviled ham in history. To the first two elements (Jesus’ authority and recognition), a call is offered to everyone: what will you do with Jesus? Ultimately, everyone will give an answer to what they did with the Son of God, and when that answer is short, Jesus will respond to them with, “I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness” (Matt 7:21).
An increasingly commonfancy in modern society suggests that self-love is right. Statements such as,“I know my worth,” or even something that proposes the term itself like, “I amfocusing on loving myself,” are seemingly prevalent. The idea, while alluring,however, does not reflect the gospel of Jesus Christ. In fact, such a conceptis antithetical to the gospel and should be avoided by Christians. A rebuttalmight ask, “Does not Christ want us to love ourselves? Is not self-love merelyviewing ourselves the way God views us?” While sincere questions, the gospelmessage answers such contentions with stark and often difficult truth: truthfulin that the gospel realizes humanity’s dire state and difficult because such arealization demands justice, which certainly is not the mercy of God (exceptthat his wrath was poured on his Son Jesus Christ); thus, God’s love, mercy,and grace are consummately underserved for anyone.[1]
To appropriately analyzethe absolute incorrect perpetuation of self-love, one must consider theopposing views which subsist in society: 1) the worldly idea of self-love and2) what should be considered Christ-honoring love,[2] asthe two offer diametrically competing concepts; yet, the two concepts are notboth right, for only Christ-honoring love permeates the gospel message. Theworld’s idea of self-love, however, offers only deadlocks and destruction.Human nature enjoys being in control and struggles with the truth that a lovingGod is also just so reality is that he would be unequivocally right inpunishing every single radically depraved person (i.e., everyone) in utter andeternal torment. To conclude such a truth, both concepts should be considered:self-love and Christ-honoring love.
[1]Even suggestions that a loving God would not send an innocent person to hellfalls short because such a person does not exist, and the gospel messageteaches and realizes this truth.
[2] Itshould be noted that the opposite of self-love is not low self-esteem, which isitself selfish and self-centered. Rather, Christ-honoring love understands thetwofold reality of humanity’s utter and debased depravity and the unmeritedmercy of God; additionally, Christ-honoring love chooses to boast not in selfbut in Christ and understands that the only reason Christians may stand beforethe Father is the mediation of Christ.
People often claim thatrespect is earned rather than given. Nonetheless, is such a claim biblical andright? What nuances establish such a claim? The common understanding is thatChrist respects all (or is at least tolerant of) all opinions, but does he? Ishe? Sensible thought would suggest that people should have a broad respect fora position (e.g., the president or leader of a country, a wise teacher of acourse, etc.). Therefore, to a degree, much respect is not earned but simplygiven in specific positions, especially those of authority.[1]The simplest Christian worldview on given versus earned respect then is this:respect is largely given rather than earned, for believers should show the samerespect Christ shows for all people.
How then is one toassess what more respect he or she should give? To answer such a question, adistinction should be made between those inside and those outside the Christianfaith. Scripture offers several indicators of Christian respect and how God’speople should treat others—both inside and outside the faith.
[1] Ifrespect had to be perpetually earned, mutual respect among humans could notexist, for everyone would constantly try to establish and reestablish respect.
Intro for the following may be found here. Additionally, audio for the Sacraments and Sacred Rites series may be found here. You may also listen to podcast episodes here. Additionally, Dr. Jones' book entitled Sacraments and Sacred Rites may be found here or bought on platforms such as Amazon or the Book Patch.
Christian worship is a lifetime journey of participation and involvement in the life of Christ. The sacred rites and rituals in which the people of God participate should not be undermined, neglected, or misunderstood, for surely, they are vital to a life of worship both individually and corporately.
This series aims to replace misunderstanding with replete comprehension and does not shy from difficult topics and terms often avoided (at least anecdotally) in Evangelical Christianity (e.g., sacrament, rite, etc.). To properly understand the significance of sacred acts of worship, however, one must not separate the sacramental nature of the Christian life, for surely, God is participatory in his people’s lives.
Furthermore, Christian worship holds deep roots, which although strongly connected, transcend that of Judaism. The church calendar and the sacred rituals through which God’s people worship the triune and eternal God offer ample opportunity for the church to live within the reality of Christ’s life and participate in his redemptive process and sacrifice, for God’s people are certainly called to share not only in the life of Christ but in his sacrificial death.
The more the people of God understand the sacramental nature of sacred actions in worship, the more they will experience the reality of Christ’s work in their lives and fully participate in Christ’s work within his bride: the church. This series, therefore, has the notable aim of clarification and understanding—understanding the nature of the church, the nature of sacrament, and the participatory foundation of Christian worship, which is most evident through the sacraments and sacred rites.
Dr. Jonathan Michael Jones give commentary on his hymn, "To Live Is Christ; To Die Is Gain"
Dr. Jonathan Michael Jones give commentary on his hymn, "The All-Discerning Eye of God"
The book of Isaiah holdssharp warnings for the people of God—not only the ancient people of God but thechurch today.
587 BC was a disastrous time for thepeople of Jerusalem and Judah. More than a century earlier the northern tribesof Israel were conquered and carried away by the Assyrians. Now the Babylonianslaid waste the southern territories and a seventy-year exile uprooted thenation. Shameful idolatry had caused the undoing of the people. Innumerablewarnings incited only an unresponsive disdainfulness; the prophets wereconsidered fools (Hos 9:7). God, who never threatens in vain, allowed the axeto fall (Isa 1:7).[1]
Isaiah 1:10-18 begins the Prophet’smessage, and while seemingly hopeless, a reminder of the Lord’s mercy isassuredly present, for in amazing love, God never abandons his people, thoughthey falter.
Thewaning people of God hear the words of the Lord through the Prophet Isaiah whocalls them to return—return to the Lord and return to worship. In a similarmanner, the message subsists today and transcends generations, as the people ofGod are not called to mere sacrifices but to purity of heart, for without sucha condition, God’s people may not rightfully worship and, therefore, may notworship in sincerity. There are three essentials which must be observed fromthe text.
[1] Stuart D. Sacks, Revealing Jesus as Messiah:Identifying Isaiah’s Servant of the Lord (Fearn, UK: Christian Focus Publications, 1998), 16.
[2] Unless otherwise noted, all Scripture quotations are from the EnglishStandard Bible.
Jesus’ usage of parablesis prominent in the gospel accounts as his primary manner to deliver lessons tohis followers. Moreover, Jesus employs parables in such a sufficient mannerthat even modern times may not negate their efficiency. One of the more familiarparables taught by Jesus is that of the Pharisee and the tax collector. Rareare times when Jesus utilized such a specific person or group of people in histeachings, but if he does so, it seems to be done with Pharisees.[1] TheParable of the Pharisee and the Tax Collector grasps nearly every believer’sheart with a reality that everyone fits into at least one category of thecharacters within the narrative. A read through the short parable and ananalysis of the characters within its text beckons the reader to examine his orher own heart in response to condition and what is required to worship the Lordin spirit and truth.
[1] Iam certain Jesus did not hold judgment, impartiality, or disdain for Pharisees(or any other group) in and of themselves and surely not based on their racial,ethnic, or external qualities but rather for the condition of their hearts.
Mybrother and I received a call to ministry at a young age. I remember oncespeaking with him about what we envisioned for our lives in ministry. We bothdiscussed our hopes and dreams (e.g., playing music in front of hundreds andeven thousands of people, preaching before large crowds and seeing God movemightily through the work to which he called us, and living within the contextof a successful occupation). We both agreed that we desired to be used of Godtremendously and we would go anywhere the Lord sent us; we were willing to doanything, but it became clear that it was not acceptable to us to do so unseen.
Paulteaches that the gifts and callings of God are without repentance orirrevocable (Rom 11:29). Nonetheless, human nature holds a propensity to forgetor even neglect such truth, especially when one’s call from the Lord goesunseen. Christians should take care in approaching tasks to which God hascalled them, for his plans are higher than the plans of humankind and his waysare unsearchable (Isa 55:8-9). The narrative in the final third of Genesispresents an often unseen and (assuredly) misunderstood focus, for the primarycharacter, Joseph, does not hold the most important role. The aim here is forbelievers to perceive and understand their own task and calling as 1) for theglory of God alone rather than self and 2) meaningful despite the possibilityof being unseen, rewarded, or praised.
Toproperly comprehend Genesis 45, background of the book to such a point must beconveyed. Mindful of the fact that Joseph seemingly satiates the final fourteenchapters of the book of Genesis (chapters 37-50), a reader couldstraightforwardly miss the point of the story, which is precisely what occurswhen believers make feeble attempts to turn the Bible into compartmentalizedindividual stories with the aim of moralistic therapeutic deism. One, forexample, might interpret the story of Daniel refusing to eat anything butfruits and vegetables as a comprehensive approach to diet rather than a purposefor a specific time and a specific people and then proceed to imitate Daniel’sdiet with a belief that it is the only appropriate diet for the people of Godwhen such a viewpoint would be a gross misinterpretation. In the book ofGenesis, Joseph takes considerable space because he is a tool to preserve thechosen seed, which ultimately would be Jesus.
The Apostle Paulreferred to Adam as a type of the one to come (Rom 5:14). The doctrine oforiginal sin infers that through Adam, the human race has been infected withthe disease of sin; we are, therefore, sinners by nature. Just as humankind isdead in sin through Adam, so also are we, the church, made alive through JesusChrist. Adam then was a type of what was to come, but the abundantly apparenttruth is that Jesus is better than original sin. The gospel centers aroundChrist and his fulfillment of the law and of the covenant God made with hispeople. From the beginning of the Bible, God told the serpent, “I will putenmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he willcrush your head, and you will strike his heal” (Gen 3:15). This tells of themiraculous virgin birth that was to come, for Jesus had to be born of the HolySpirit so as not to be conceived in sin. From the beginning of time, a promisedseed was established to save God’s people in the covenant, and while Satancontinued to try to thwart the line of seed, God continued it. Cain killedAbel, but the covenant continued because then Seth was born. Then in Genesis 5,there is a genealogy of ten generations from Seth to Noah so that the promisedseed is preserved. Seth and Noah are both promised seeds but not the ultimatepromised seed; they would preserve the promised seed that is to come. Noah hasthree sons (Shem, Ham, and Japheth), and while the world is judged in a flood,they preserved the seed. Shem then preserves the seed later through Zerah whohas a son named Abraham, the next link in the seed of promise. The problem,however, is that Abraham’s wife, Sarah, is beyond childbearing years so Abrahamtries to manipulate the situation by having a child with his servant andIshmael is born. However, Ishmael is not the promised seed and eventually Isaacis born and then Jacob and Esau. Esau, the older, would seem to be the promisedseed, but it is, in fact, Jacob, the younger. Jacob then has twelve sons. Wemight think Jacob’s son, Joseph, is the promised seed, but the promised seed isJudah; Joseph merely preserves the seed. From Judah’s line eventually comesJesse who bears a great son named David who is again a promised seed but notthe ultimate promised seed. The covenant is then renewed with David in that hislineage will sit on the throne forever. Even David’s son, Solomon, is not thepromised seed, but eventually through David’s line, the ultimate Savior of theworld was born of a virgin to save his people in the covenant.[1]
Thus, Joseph is merely a tool for theLord to use in preserving the life of Judah, for without Joseph’s high positionin the land of Egypt, his brothers might have perished in famine. Christiansshould understand that God’s plans involve the entirety of his people and thereis no job or calling too small or insignificant for him. The primary characterof the story (at least in relation to the covenant of the Lord)—the protagonistif you will—then is Judah, for Judah preserves the promised seed in JesusChrist. Therefore, after nine chapters of focusing on Joseph, the account isbrought to chapter 45 of Genesis.
[1]Jonathan Michael Jones, “Using the Psalms to Develop Corporate Prayer in theFirst Baptist Church of Slaton, TX” (DWS thesis Robert E. Webber Institute forWorship Studies, 2018), 101-102.
TheApostle Paul instructs believers not to complain about anything (Phil 2:14-16).Nevertheless, an entire book, Lamentations, is devoted to the people of Godcomplaining and for just reasons. Although no author is mentioned in the book,Lamentations is often attributed to the Prophet Jeremiah considering the direstruggles he encountered in captivity. Lamentations subsists in the context ofGod’s chosen people being disciplined for their own sin and rebellion.[1] It appeared as if God hadabandoned the people of the promise when the reality was that his own peoplehad abandoned him, for God does not move; people move.
Lamentations3:19-26 highlights the characteristics of a Godly form of lament so whilecomplaining for the sake of complaining and with a focus on self is wrong, alament rooted in a desire for justice and with a focus on the Lord’s goodnessis not only allowed but right. Here, a model of prayer (and indeed Christianworship) is expended by a man on behalf of God’s people.
[1] Itshould be noted that although God is patient and understanding, he does not letrebellion go unpunished.
Newsabout the assassination of Charlie Kirk recently have fostered numerousresponses of anger, confusion, and surprisingly even celebration by those whowould reveal the evil in their own hearts. Whether or not one agrees withsomeone’s opinions and expressions, murder should never be a response andcertainly should never be celebrated. The Prophet Amos spoke to the people ofIsrael in vivid visions and warnings, perhaps nowhere less than Amos 8. TheProphet begins the chapter by referencing visions of summer fruit (v. 2).[1] Through the prophet, Godcharges Israel with social injustice, commercial dishonesty, and indifferenceto holy days. Here, a sharp warning is given to God’s people regardinginjustice, for God is just so anything that does not exhibit his own heart isevil.
[1]The Hebrew words for “summer fruit” and “end” are similar and skillfullybrought together (v. 2) for effect (i.e., the end has come for Israel).
Anyfaithful believer will testify to the fact that prayer works. Inunfaithfulness, God is faithful, but it is the prayers of the righteous thatare accepted by God and are a stalwart part of his plan for his people. Exodus32 offers the narrative of God’s people creating a golden calf, an idol, andworshiping it. God’s response was anger and seeming propensity to destroy hispeople who had turned from him. Moses, however, pleaded with God (prayed)causing God to relent. Did God, however, relent because of Moses’ plea, or wasit already a part of his plan? A deeper look into the text confirms God’ssovereignty and plan to never abandon his people.
The art of biblical study and interpretation is a seemingly intimidating task, or at least it should be, as it isnecessary and holds incredible implications regarding its rightness orwrongness. Said another way, one who holds the duty of interpretation,especially in teaching, is given a serious job and will be held accountable forwhat he or she presents to the body of Christ. I contend that the role ofteaching is a noble but solemn one and have, therefore, adapted my own processof study and interpretation for anyone seeking to employ a tested-and-triedprogression in the art of biblical interpretation. The steps I will examinehave been utilized by myself and largely by many others who have endeavored tointerpret Scripture. I will highlight an eight-step sequence of events thatwill confidently aid in one’s study of Scripture. While humanity is fallen and,thus, imperfect, the process offered here will help in ensuring that one whointerprets Scripture holds a precise and accurate understanding of Scripturewith little room for error.[1]
[1]It should be noted that human understanding always holds the danger ofmisinterpretation. No teacher is perfect, but in trusting the one who isperfect (the Holy Spirit), he or she may eliminate the proclivity to mistakes.Even so, one who studies Scripture must be open to the guidance of the HolySpirit and even the possibility of a shift in hermeneutics as God the Spiritguides him or her in study.
Christianity has been marked for centuries by its radicalcommitment to the point of giving one’s life for his or her faith. CountlessChristians have been persecuted and even martyred throughout the centuries andaround the world, not the least recognizable of which are the New TestamentChristians. Further, while the concept of Jesus Christ setting believers freefrom sin and the former way of life might seem appealing, following Christ alsocomes at a cost. Rather than slavery to sin, however, God’s people have becomeslaves to Christ. By the end of the second century, “Christianity was illegal,and believers throughout the Roman Empire faced the threat of imprisonment,torture, or death.”[1]
The Apostle Paul employs the term, slave, in severalof his New Testament letters, and it is implicit that Christians shouldunderstand not only the cost of serving Christ but also the matchless benefit.The shift from non-believer to believer is a change in the form of slavery—fromslavery under the law to slavery in Christ (i.e., there is not an option thatdoes not include a type of slavery). Paul, in his letter to the churches ofGalatia, details life in the natural state as sinners and the disparate newfoundlife in Christ, which, although slavery, is slavery with Christ as the newowner and with his people as children and heirs to the promises of God. InGalatians 3:23-4:7, Paul offers an argument for the type of slavery that islife-changing and life-giving, for while the law’s temporal nature contains nosalvific ability, faith in Christ affords permanent salvation for the people ofGod that nothing in addition to or apart from Jesus Christ could give.
[1]JohnMacArthur, Slave: The Hidden Truth About Your Identity in Christ(Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 2010), 7.
The amalgamation of concepts and ideas that comprisedispensationalism are surely considered in the various contentions with itstheological framework, especially in discourse with covenant theology.Dispensationalism is a relatively new theological construct, not gaininglegitimate and broad affirmation until the mid-nineteenth century.[1]Thomas Ice contends that dispensationalism is “a cluster of items joinedtogether to form a system of thought.”[2] Avariety of theological concepts, therefore, are combined to form theoverarching contention of dispensationalism. This paper will provide a surveyof dispensationalism’s theological framework as well as offer a discourse fromthe perspective of covenant theology. The broad arguments of dispensationalismwill be examined, and theological dissentions with dispensationalism will beengaged.
With the termdispensationalism coined by Phillip Mauro,[3] theconstruction of dispensationalism holds a variety of supports, not the least ofwhich is its view on the literal interpretation of Scripture. Here I willprovide an analysis of the overarching concepts within dispensationalismincluding interpretation of Scripture, the distinction between Israel and thechurch, and typical dispensational divisions. Moreover, this paper will offer asurvey of notable dispensationalists in church history. Finally, this paperwill give a theological critique of dispensationalism and dissent from theperspective of a covenant theology. Although dispensationalism has seeminglydiminished in recent decades,[4] it isstill a prominent part of eschatological theology among Western (and primarilyAmerican) evangelicals. Thus, the theological arguments offered bydispensationalists must be considered by all (American) Christians, for surelysuch arguments will be encountered.
[1] Craig Bloomberg and Sung Wook Chung,A Case for Historic Premillenialism: An Alternative to “Left Behind”Eschatology (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2009), 14.
[2] Thomas D. Ice, “What IsDispensationalism?” Liberty University Article Archives 71: 1.
[3] Phillip Mauro, The Gospel of theKingdom: With an Examination of Modern Dispensationalism (Hamilton BrothersPublishing, 1928) 17.
[4] “‘The Rise and Fall ofDispensationalism’—A Conversation with Daniel Hummel About Dispensationalism inAmerica and in the Evangelical Mind,” interview by Albert Mohler, Albert Mohlerblog, August 23, 2023, https://albertmohler.com/2023/08/23/daniel-hummel/#:~:text=Yeah%2C%20and%20it's%20a%20story,an%20Antichrist%20and%20everything%20else.
A long-debated biblicaltopic is that of the biblical qualifications of a pastor. The role of a pastorexceeds occupation, for a pastor must be called, and where God calls one toserve him, he also qualifies such a person. This paper will examine the biblicalqualifications and broad responsibilities of a pastor and subsequently surveythe notable duties of both teaching by way of expository preaching andcounseling, as such are foundational to pastoral responsibilities.
Thebiblical qualifications of a pastor are primarily found in Paul’s letters toboth Timothy and Titus. Moreover, the specific responsibilities of a pastor arefound and modeled throughout the scriptures with Jesus being the ultimateexample of a good leader, as a pastor should strive to be. With specialattention given to the ministry of the word and counseling, the pastor holds amyriad of obligations as a part of his calling that should not be taken forgranted. By examining first the qualifications and second the responsibilities(with exceptional consideration given to expository preaching and counseling)of a pastor, one’s understanding of the immense position a pastor holds shouldbe enhanced.
As we conclude this study on a concise theology of worship, I contend that worship may be summed as a sacred dialogue. In a dialogue, one party must initiate and another respond. In the sacred dialogue of worship, God initiates and the church responds. Jesus assures his followers that he chose them; they did not choose him (John 15:16). Lest God’s people believe they possessed any ability to choose him, consider the words of Paul.
As it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.” What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God's part? By no means! For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills. You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory—even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles (Rom 9:13-24)?
Worship is a right but only in Christ. In other words, God’s people, by nature, do not deserve the opportunity to approach the Lord in worship, but in Christ, the church may do so.
As worship is a dialogue, the church must take great care in ensuring active and right participation in the conversation that occurs between God and the church. The dialogue persists in a communal and personal manner, through which the dialogue is also realized by God’s people. The sacred dialogue that is worship should be prioritized and ameliorated by the church as God’s people seek to attain right doxology.
The centrality of Christ in worship has been discussed to this point, butthe mediation of Christ should be given special attention. Jesus’ mediation isoften considered in soteriological terms rather than in its necessity forChristian worship. Nonetheless, as Christ’s mediation is necessary in Christianlife, it is also necessary in Christian worship, as worship is the overarchingpurpose of life.
Christ mediates the practice of worship in his ever-present work. Jesusmediates before the Father in that he exists as the arbitrator between hispeople and the Father so that what the Father receives is transformed throughJesus as a pleasing offering. Without such transformation, God’s people couldonly offer filthy rags to God. In Christ, however, what is offered to triuneGod is good and right.
Additionally, Jesus works with the Holy Spirit to radically transform thelives of his people. Jesus’ sending of the Holy Spirit is meant to testify tohis own works and glory as God. Further, Jesus’ work testifies to the glory ofthe Father so that God’s work in the lives of his people is trinitarian innature. Through the Holy Spirit, God’s people rightly worship God as what theyoffer to him is transfigured into the righteousness of Christ and the Fatherreceives it as a blessing to him.
Believers should realize the great need all people have for the mercy ofGod, which is abundant in Jesus Christ. Mercy is the greatest need any personhas. In worship, God’s people exercise the copious grace given by God throughJesus and return a pleasing offering to him. Christ, therefore, mediates notonly a new a better covenant but pleasing worship as the body of Christexhibits God’s glory.
An important element to consider in especially the planning of worship isthe threefold aspect of content, purpose, and style.[1]Through the order the church employs and the narrative told within such anorder, the story of God should be told as a dialogue between God and hispeople. Through artistic elements and centered around the text of Scripture,leaders of worship have the responsibility of leading the church in honoringworship of the living triune God.
Content includes the material of the Christian worship gathering and themode in which it is exercised. At a fundamental level, the content of worshipis the story of God. The gospel must be proclaimed in Christian worship and notonly echoed back to God but told between believers so as not to neglect thehorizontal aspect of worship (not only vertical).
Moreover, the purpose of worship (broadly speaking) is the glory of God soall occurrences within the worship gathering should serve such a purpose.Filler material, often disguised as spiritual activities (e.g. prayer, speakingand teaching theological truths about congregational songs, etc.), should beerased from worship gatherings as they do not serve an intentional purpose.[2]
Content and purpose are nonnegotiable. Style is the only negotiable elementof the three discussed here but only to an extent. Style is negotiable insofaras context and culture allows it to be. Leaders of worship should make everyeffort to ensure the enhancement and conductivity of God’s people to worship.If style impacts the ability of the local church to worship, stylistic elementsshould be reconsidered. Style is not about leaders’ (or congregants’)preferences. Style is merely a tool to worship God.
When content, purpose, and style are intentionally contemplated, thechurch’s worship is built upon a stable foundation. This chapter will examineall three elements with the aim of deliberate planning for leaders of worship.
[1] Inhis book, Planning Blended Worship,Robert Webber includesstructure, but this text considers the three mentioned here as an overarchingpart of structure.
[2] Thatis not to say that those elements cannot exist but rather that leaders ofworship should be careful that every word and action employed in the gatheringsubsists for the sole purpose of worship.
The sacred actions of worship are what comprise the totality of thedialogue between God and his people, especially Baptism and the Lord’s Supper.These two actions are referred to commonly as sacraments or ordinances. In asymbolic way, Baptism and the Lord’s Supper represent the people who livewithin the reality of the life of Christ. In a corporeal way, participation inthe sacraments ensures a sign and a seal of membership in the family of God.Theological implications of Baptism are vast and many but revolve around thenew life that subsists because of one’s salvation. Additionally, one’s Baptisminto the family of God allows him or her to participate in the mystical realitythat is the Lord’s Table.
The sacraments of Baptism and the Eucharist shall be examined here withspecial attention given to their theological implications. The meaning ofBaptism’s application will be considered, and a theological trajectory throughthree Puritans who offer succinct and precise theologies of the Lord’s Supperwill be surveyed—namely Thomas Watson (c. 1620-1686 AD), John Owen 1616-1683AD), and Edward Reynolds (1599-1676 AD).
While the arts are not fundamental to Christian worship, they are surelycrucial. Still, without an understanding of their purpose, Christian worshiplacks a critical component. Every ingredient mixed in the Lord’s Day gatheringshould be examined for its purpose and theological precision. Unlike art thatthe world creates, however, God’s design for art is that it is created for hisglory. Harold Best writes:
Authentic worship is a continuous outpouring of all that we are and canever hope to become in light of the saving work of Christ. It reaches intoevery quarter of our living, informing all of our actions and safeguarding themwithin the arena of Spirit, truth and sacrificial living. Without thisunderstanding, all of our work, however magnificent it might be in its ownright, is misdirected.[1]
Therefore, the arts in worship include a criticalpiece that is seemingly absent from other art created in the world—faith.Without faith, art created for the purpose of worship does not hold afoundation and, further, misses the point for which God created art.
This chapter will define art as it relates to Christian worship, answer thequestion of skill and its necessity, and respond to a broad question about artin worship and its theological foundations.
[1]Harold M. Best, Unceasing Worship: Biblical Perspectives on Worship and theArts (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press), 111.
Time and space are steadfastly linked to Christian worship because time andspace are the most evident tools utilized in worship gatherings.[1] The timeand space of worship gatherings are critical.[2] Timeand space are human elements but elements which God created. Therefore, notonly is human understanding limited but believers worship a God not bound bythe two elements. God’s worthiness, as much as may be attempted, is impossibleto describe because he exists outside of time and space.
Since God is not bound by time and space, he is infinitely worthy. For himto be bound by anyone or anything would be for him to not be God. God, however,transcends time and space. In fact, he governs the two. Moreover, God hascreated time and space and uses it as a part of his story. Thus, time and spaceare crucial elements to Christian worship. While human understanding ofanything is finite, believers should trust God no matter their circumstancesbecause he not only knows and understands everything, he also presides over allsituations and all outcomes. Christians should take comfort in this truth andgive God glory within the time and space that he has created.
[1]Worship has a start time. Worship employs aesthetic elements such as music andart, which certainly engage with time and space.
[2] Thereexists no right or wrong type of space to be used in worship, but great careshould be taken to consider where God’s people gather.
Thesacrament of Baptism is exceedingly significant and should not be neglected inChristians’ lives. Various interpretations surrounding Baptism subsist, all ofwhich point to a greater reality that God’s people are changed by the LordJesus Christ and, in effect, have chosen to die to selfish desires. The NewWestminster Dictionary of Liturgy and Worship defines Baptism as “the ritewhereby a person is made a member of the church.”[1]In a way, therefore, the sacrament of Baptism includes covenant membership atits core (i.e. the act of Baptism is that which serves as an initiation intothe family of God).[2] Theroots of water for cleansing and Jesus Christ beckoning his people to becrucified with him daily and carry their cross (Gal 5:24) realizes the meaningof Baptism.
Baptism is a call to die, for in God’s Kingdom, the one thatloses his life finds it (Matt 16:25) (i.e. God’s economy is inverted from theworld’s and, in fact, does not make sense to the world—it is foolishness) (1Cor 1:18). A proper survey of the Old Testament roots of Baptism should grant abetter understanding of its meaning, significance, and why it is so crucial toliving in obedience in the Christian life.
[1]J.G. Davies, ed., The New Westminster Dictionary of Liturgy and Worship(Philadelphia, PA: SCM Press, 1986), 55.
[2] The practice and mode ofBaptism (e.g. sprinkling, immersion, original meanings, etc.) will be discussedlater. For now, however, this paper examines the definition of Baptism.
Indiscourse of regulative and normative principles of worship, an element thatsubsists as a crucial source of contention is that of creedal employment inChristian worship gatherings. Certainly, there is no explicit command to employsuch confessions. Nonetheless, the value of creedal texts has been observed forcenturies, since the early church, and even prior. This paper will contend foran unapologetic use of creeds in worship on a threefold basis.
1) Thehistoric creeds, derived from Scripture, present a survey of the gospel,
2) creedspoint to a deeper biblical reality and serve as springboards into the mysteriesof the faith, and
3) creedsare historically tested and tried, leaving little room for error.
Worship in the New Testament immensely contrasts worship in the OldTestament. Due to the New Covenant as the final realization of God’s covenantof grace, practical application for God’s people in worship has shiftedgreatly. For one, Gentiles are now grafted into the body of God’s people (Rom11:19). What used to be an issue of genetics is now an issue of adoption (Rom8:15). Thus, Christian worship has changed in manifold ways.
Since the early church, believers have met weekly on Sunday largely due tothe Resurrection occurring on the first day of the week. Moreover, the canon ofScripture has been completed and has been held as authoritative throughoutchurch history. The worship gathering now centers around the word of God, forthe biblical text is not only as if God said it but rather because he said it.Modern worship can and should take its example from the early church, as theApostles set the example for believers in the centuries that would follow. Oneof the greatest differences between Old Testament worship and New Testamentworship, however, is that the church is called to be the church rather thanmerely attend church. Jesus fulfilled the law, which allows God’s people toboldly approach him in worship.
Worship in the New Testament creates an improved situation for the peopleof God in both practice and spiritual reality. Worship is a reflection of whatoccurs in the hearts of God’s people and an overflow of that spiritual reality.These elements will be examined in considering worship of the New Testament.
Interplay between congregationalist rule and elder-led rulein local churches (especially in the United States) has seemingly increased inrecent decades so much that churches are increasingly making a transition froma congregationalist model to rule by a plurality of elders.[1] Thetransition often seems and proves to be a daunting task but a necessary one toconform to New Testament standards. In this paper, I will contend for a churchpolity that is led by a plurality of elders, as such a model most closelyaligns with the biblical model.[2]
The New Testament does not disclose a single correct politybut, without being explicit, paints with a broad stroke in its support forelder-led leadership. For manifold reasons, direction by a body of eldersaffords multiple benefits for the local church. First, elder-led polity is ajoint responsibility, which naturally yields greater accountability amongleaders. Second, as an extension of the local church body, an elder-led modelmost accurately portrays the body of Christ. Third, the elder-led model is atried-and-true method for local church leadership and has been employed sincethe early church. If God’s people desire to conform to the New Testament model,the elder-led model works best.
This paper will also oppose the most commonly employedmodel in Western culture: the congregationalist model by presenting two commonissues that arise in congregationalism:
1) little accountability and
2) too much responsibility placed upon one person.
In theinteraction between both models, the elder-led model will be met with staunchbiblical and practical support.
[1]Remy, “Church Transition to Plurality of Elders: A Case Study,” 1.
[2]Even among elder-led models, there are those governed by a singular pastor orsmall group of pastors (e.g. a hierarchy). The scope of this paper considerssuch models but asserts a firm position for governance by a plurality of elderswhere the board of elders hold equal weight in leadership decisions.
Dr. Jonathan Michael Jones give commentary on his hymn, "The Skies Above Declare the Glory of Our God."
Worship in the Old Testament offers a translucent perspective to Jewish worship. Whereas texts and documents from the early church are clearer, a window may be open in the practice of ancient Israel to inform Christian worship today. A primary foundation of Old-Testament worship is its foundation of sacrifice. More than New Testament worship, the Old Testament system was largely based on temporary sacrifice. Nevertheless, in an all-encompassing manner, Old-Testament worship informed all of life. Moreover, whether realized in practice or not, Old-Testament worship looked to the cross and the Messiah.
The greatest opposition to right worship is idolatry. While idolatry, inmost people’s minds, consists of an indigenous tribe worshiping a statue (andcertainly, that is idolatry), the practice lands closer to the home of theheart than people comprehend.
In the Bible there is no more serious charge than that ofidolatry. Idolatry called for the strictest punishment, elicited the mostdisdainful polemic, prompted the most extreme measures of avoidance and wasregarded as the chief identifying characteristic of those who werethe very antithesis of the people of God, namely the gentiles.[1]
In Scripture, idolators were commanded to be executed (Exod32:25-29). The apparent conclusion then is that God takes idolatry seriously,for he is jealous of the worship of his people (Exod 34:14). Where anything oranyone else takes s greater level of attention than that of the triune God, herightly demands that such a focus be severed.
For Christians to severe the root of idolatry in theirlives, however, it should be understood what is meant by idolatry. Thischapter, thus, is meant to define idolatry and includes a call to action. Theresubsist manifold definitions of idolatry. Suffice it to say that an idol islove of the world.[2]Therefore, severing the root of idolatry requires the believer to live withinthe new nature found in Christ in such a manner that love of the world isvirtually nonexistent. To improve individual worship, a daily process of dyingto self and living to new life in Christ must permeate Christian lives. It is awar and indeed a war against the flesh.
There are three aspects to understanding idolatry I wouldlike to cover, which land close to the home of the human heart. Comprehendingthese truths of idolatry should aid in fighting it and severing its insidiousroot.
[1] Brian S. Rosner, “The Concept of Idolatry,”Themelios, 24.3 (May 1999): 22.
[2] John Piper, “What Is Idolatry?” DesiringGod. August 19, 2014,https://www.desiringgod.org/interviews/what-is-idolatry.
Christianity is unique not only in the fact thatbelievers worship a living God but also that he is a triune God. Furthermore,he is a triune God who works among his people in a triune manner (i.e. threedistinct persons in three distinct roles). God’s people then respond to histriune work in both Christian life and Christian worship. “Before religion canbe known as a sweet communion, it must be known as an answered summons.”[1]Worship is a call (by God) and a response (by his people). Still, such call andresponse are carried by triune work. The triune God, both as object andsubject, is the essence of Christian worship. Worship both declares andembodies the triune love relationship between the members of the Godhead.Moreover, worship must realize the balance that exists in Christian life: theworkings of the Trinity.
[1] Franklin M. Segler, Christian Worship:Its Theology and Practice (Nashville, TN: Broadman Press, 1967), 61.
The church is a singular body designed by God to exist in unionor in covenant with him. Covenant is thematic throughout the story of Scriptureand reoccurs throughout the narrative. While Satan tries to thwart God’s planof redemptive covenant throughout the Bible, it becomes apparent that God turnsdire situations into circumstances that glorify himself (Gen 50:20). Creationis meant to glorify God, and humankind is meant to glorify God by worshippinghim alone. The purpose of everyone’s existence is worship. Worship and creationand stalwartly linked in such a way that no one may escape their own dominatingpurpose of worship.
The subject of worship seems to be one of the most debated topicsin churches in recent decades. I boldly suggest that such debates center arounda misunderstanding of worship. In response, the church must rediscover thenature and essence of worship from a biblical perspective. Incorrect languagehas perpetuated a false understanding of worship and, thus, continues to be(often unknowingly) taught and discussed in improper and exceedingly convolutedterms. Much must change if Christians desire to not only understand biblicalworship but also change the narrative and practice to that which honors God. Todo so, God’s people should appropriately define worship and then act inaccordance with such a definition, which requires comprehending the what, who,when, and why of worship.
Finally, in this section of text dealing with the family,the Apostle Paul gives instructions to children. Nonetheless, he does notnegate the responsibility of parents in his instructions, for parents holdgreat responsibility in the development (especially the spiritual development)of children. A godly picture of the family includes all parties in the unit,which surely comprises children. While various ideas exist concerning the agePaul had in mind here, suffice it to say that a child may be considered one forwhom a parent is responsible morally, ethically, and legally. Could that appeardifferently between cultures, societies, and contexts? Yes. Thus, each parentmust determine those for whom they are responsible in such a manner and applythis text to those people.
Paul’s words in Ephesians 6:1-4 are positioned aroundobedience and honor with an overarching theme of doing what is right. Therightness of such attitudes is what constitutes behavior (i.e. Christians obeyand honor God because it is right irrespective of personal feelings orsentiments). Furthermore, the God-ordained family structure is dependent onparents and children doing what is right in a broad sense: namely submitting toGod by submitting to one another. A key difference in parental submission and thesubmission of children, however, is that the role of a child includes obedienceto his or her parents. Adults do not necessarily have such a charge in everycontext.[1] From thetext, three truths may be gleaned concerning children.
-
The motivation for obedience is the fact that itis right;
-
honor is a primary commandment concerningchildren toward their parents; and
-
authority brings up, not down.
These factors shouldoffer a supreme example to families as to how children and parents shouldinteract with one another in a godly manner.
[1]This statement is meant to imply that obedience is not sometimes necessary foradults (e.g. adults should obey their employers and legal authorities).
In the second part of this series on marriage, Paul’saddress to husbands will be examined. Appropriately, as the head of the family,husbands are devoted a greater portion of the text since certainly, the husbandholds a greater level of accountability. Paul’s instructions here point to thehusband’s role as a leader but as a leader who imitates Christ and, thus, leadsthrough serving, for this is how Christ led his people in his earthly ministry.
Paul’s instructions are explicit: the husband is to lovehis wife as Christ loves the church. The implicit idea is that Christ gave allfor his bride and left nothing in doing so: he gave his life. The husband’sleadership is imperative to any successful marriage. As such, the husbandshould carefully consider what it means to 1) submit to God and 2) lead hisfamily through serving as Christ has modeled. Paul submits that marriage is amystery, for the union portrays Christ and the church. The husband then shouldseek to imitate Christ in how he handles his marriage. In Ephesians 5:25-33,three conclusions may be drawn from the text that revolve around the husband’srole as a servant leader.
-
Christ is the ultimate model for husbands;
-
as the church is one with Christ, the wife isone with her husband; and
-
the mystery of marriage is led by the husband.
These truths resonate in a godlymarriage, which is precisely that for which husbands should strive.
The late Ruth Bell Graham, wife of evangelist, BillyGraham, was once approached and asked if she or her husband had ever thoughtabout divorce. She responded with, “Divorce? No. Murder? Yes.”[1] Marriage isa relationship based on a principle as simple as submission but convoluted byunsatisfied humanity, which is why it only works when true satisfaction isfound in the Lord Jesus Christ. Marriage is submission. Where submission is notpresent is not only a failed marriage but a marriage that does not do what itshould: display a picture of Christ and his bride, the church.
This series will be divided into three parts: 1) focusingon wives, 2) focusing on husbands, and 3) focusing on children and families andcentering around the text in Ephesians 5:21-6:4. The common thread through theentire text is submission (first to God and then to each other). God hasinitiated a design for marriage that reflects his character, and it is not tobe ignored, for doing so begs for failure. God-honoring marriages and familiesshould conform to the instructions presented in Scripture.
This portion of the series deals with wives. Although wivesare addressed first in the text, most of Paul’s instructions are delivered tohusbands. Any wives prone to offense by Paul’s address, therefore, should takecomfort in the fact that his address to husbands soon follows. The charge towives centers around submission. Submission, however, is not to be considered anegative term or inferior action, for it is necessary among all believers. Forthe wife, the responsibility in a marriage is to, yes, submit to the husbandbut first to God. Likewise, the wife’s submission to her husband presupposesthe husband’s submission to God so that her best interest is considered. In thetext considered today (Ephesians 5:21-24), three key essentials may be pulled fromPaul’s words.
-
Gospel-family dynamics are founded uponsubmission to Christ;
-
the wife’s submission is subsequent tosubmission to Christ; and
-
the wife is a representation of the church.
These three elements are crucial tounderstanding various roles in marriage and especially the role of the wife.
[1] Catherine Klasne, “Divorce? No. Murder? Yes,” UWWM,n.d.,https://www.uww-adr.com/uncategorized/divorce-no-murder-yes#:~:text=The%20late%20Ruth%20Bell%20Graham,Murder%3F.
A growing concern in Christian society is that of divorceand remarriage. Certainly, the fundamental instruction concerning the matter isHoly Scripture. While any orthodox believer would claim the Bible as thefundamental guide to their individual and collective (in the life of thechurch) lives, biblical interpretations concerning divorce and remarriage vary.Moreover, anecdotally, perspectives often shift throughout the course of one’slife depending on his or her own individual circumstances, which is indicativeof misinterpretation or, at best, a self-centered hermeneutic. To approach allareas of life with Scripture as the primary guide is to conform to itsstandards no matter the situation or sentiments, which may be derived from it.
In this paper, I will argue for two legitimate reasons fordivorce: 1) adultery and 2) abandonment. Additionally, both cases should not beconsidered mandates or excuses to get out of a marriage but should beapproached carefully and through the lens of the gospel. A summary of the fiveprimary views on divorce and remarriage will be presented, ensuing an analysisof the Bible’s teaching on marriage, divorce, and remarriage, which stems fromthe nature and essence of marriage itself: an earthly display of Christ and hisbride, the church. The conclusion will then be supported that divorce is onlyallowed for two reasons and should not be sought with ease. Marriage is apicture of Christ and the church and should be held with such determination.Jesus offers his bride great mercy and grace. So also should spouses with eachother.
In this episode, Dr. Jonathan Michael Jones interviews Stephen and Leann Abbott, music missionaries to Albertville, France. to find more information about Stephen and Leann, search for France Music Ministry on Facebook or visit their website at www.relevmusic.com. The Abbotts also have music available wherever music is streaming.
Dr. Jonathan Michael Jones give commentary on his hymn, "Above the Heav'ns' Celestial Span"
In areas oftheological discourse between various Christian traditions, Baptism and theLord’s Supper perhaps hold some of the most disparate approaches. Whilenon-Baptist traditions frequently utilize the term, “sacrament,’ to refer toBaptism and the Lord’s Supper, contemporary Baptist traditions usually employordinance. Differences of view regularly regard what is believed to occurduring the sacred acts: either the impartation of grace or an act of cognitiveremembrance. Few would likely disagree with the truth that the acts areordinances in that they were ordained and instituted by Jesus Christ himself(Mark 14:22-24, 1 Cor 11:23-26, Matt 26:26-30, Luke 22:14-23); yet, the notionthat Baptism and the Lord’s Supper are sacraments leads to disagreement betweencontemporary Baptist and non-Baptist traditions. Nonetheless, a careful surveyof the meaning of sacrament and its implications can bring greatercompatibility between Baptists and non-Baptists.[1]
Baptist teaching and worship practice oftenprides itself on the doctrine of grace alone. Often unrealized in Baptistteaching, however, is the fact that sacrament is also built upon grace alone.In fact, sacramental theology is founded upon the work of God rather than thework of humankind. The word, “sacrament,” is derived from the church’s unionand participation with Christ. The church’s present union and participationwith Christ necessitates a recovery of sacramental theology in Baptist worshippractice. This paper defends the need for the recovery of sacramental theologyin Baptist worship practice on a fourfold basis:
1) anexplanation of sacrament’s essence,
2) thefoundation of sacramental theology in church history,
3) theawareness of God’s place as subject over object in worship, and
4) thegroundwork of grace alone upon which sacramental theology subsists.
[1] “Christians throughouthistory have generally accepted Augustine of Hippo’s definition of a sacrament as ‘the visibleform of invisible grace’ (‘Onthe Catechism of the Uninstructed,’26.50). However, different Christian churches andtraditions vary in their understanding of how the visible sign relates to thedivine grace. There are two general understandings:
-
The sign bestows or contains the grace.
-
The sign depicts, represents, or symbolizes the grace”(EugeneR. Schlesinger, “Sacraments,” ed. John D. Barry et al., The Lexham BibleDictionary, Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2016).
Actsof worship come in manifold forms. I continually teach that worship and musicare not synonymous; yet, the individual nuances that comprise the act ofworship are numerous and multifarious. One such apparatus that fosters worshipis difficulty. Difficulty, however, does not automatically equate to worship;it is the response to difficulty that has the potential to result in worship.When perseverance is coupled with difficulty, the result is God-exaltingworship. Perseverance in difficulty, therefore, is an act of worship. Thus, inthe discussion of perseverance in difficulty as an act of worship, there arefour vital essentials which should be considered; realizing these essentialsthen allows Christians to respond properly to the surety that is difficulty.
Worshipministry is often associated with music. Although worship is not synonymouswith music, there should be no denying that music is assuredly a strong part ofworship, particularly in a corporate sense. Further, the connection betweenmusic (or the arts in the broadest sense) and human emotion holds a formidabletie. In fact, I would contend that the emotional aspect of Christian worship isfrequently overutilized and overemphasized, albeit perhaps without properrealization; yet, to separate from the misguidance of emotion-based worship,many churches unfortunately whitewash their practices of anything that resemblesthe God-ordained unique and emotional impacts artistic expression yields. Thus,there subsists a delicate balance between overemphasis of emotion in Christianworship and a dishonoring deception by the removal of emotion in Christianworship practice.
Severalquestions arise in the discussion of emotions in worship. Therefore, tofacilitate the discussion of this topic, my aim is to answer four crucialquestions.
-
Shouldemotions play a role in Christian worship?
-
What(or who) should be the source of emotions in worship?
-
Whatother human elements should be present in Christian worship?
-
Howshould churches balance emotions and other necessary elements in worship?
Answering such questions will offerguidance and balance in approaching the appropriate use of human emotion inChristian worship.
WhileChristian worship is surely trinitarian, it is also christocentric. One mayquestion how both may be true; yet, considering Christ’s complete work inChristian life, an acknowledgement of the christocentricity of Christianworship becomes apparent. Subconsciously, perhaps, many people consider Godsolely as the Father without realizing the co-equal nature of the Son. Paulargues for Christ’s preeminence in his letter to the Colossians. As worshippersof the living God, the preeminence of Christ is vital to God-honoring worship.Here is what Paul writes:
Heis the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of allcreation. For by him all things were created, in heaven and onearth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulersor authorities—all things were created through him and forhim. And he is before all things, and in him all things holdtogether. And he is the head of the body, the church. He is thebeginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might bepreeminent. For in him all the fullness of God was pleased todwell, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether onearth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross (Col1:15-20).
The preeminence of theSon here is clear and should be considered in such a manner that Christianworship teaches and reveals the preeminence of Christ. With that mentioned,there are four constraints that must guide how Christian worship is employed.
Thecoming May 9 is Ascension Day in the Christian Calendar; the following Sunday,May 12, is considered Ascension Sunday. While such a day is often notrecognized in evangelical traditions and particularly in American free churchtraditions, it is a vital experience that occurred in the life of Christ; thus,it is important for Christians to recognize and understand. One’s typicalthought could easily minimize the Ascension as if Jesus ascending from theearth into the heavens was nothing more than a fascinating sight to behold;yet, the implications of Jesus’ ascension are vast and far-reaching. Why thenis the Ascension important? Why should Christians remember it? And what are itsimplications? I intend to answer these questions with four key ideas.
-
TheAscension is important because it is biblical.
-
TheAscension means that Jesus presently understands his people.
-
TheAscension means that Jesus’ resurrection is absolute and inarguable.
-
TheAscension means that God is now human.
Matthew’sGospel teaches that Jesus came not to abolish the law but to fulfill it. Surely,the law could not be abolished so it had to be fulfilled; yet, the only oneable to fulfill it was Jesus Christ. Anyone who has been a Christian for anysignificant length of time has likely had discussions as to what Jesus’fulfillment of the law implies and even responded to questions about whybelievers seemingly obey certain parts of the law and not others. Today beginsthe Easter season, a time to reflect not only on Christ’s finished work on thecross but also the implications of his resurrection and how his presence in thelives of believers impacts the world today. Christian worship hinges onworshiping a resurrected Christ not only through corporate gatherings butthrough individual lives. What then does it mean that Jesus fulfilled the law?To answer this question, I intend for us to consider three items.
Dr. Jonathan Michael Jones give commentary on his hymn, "My God Who Charges Mountains Stand"
TheApostle Paul contends, “We destroy argumentsand every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and takeevery thought captive to obey Christ,” (2 Cor 10:5) in his second letterto the Church at Corinth. In context, Paul was defending his ministry againstfalse prophets by highlighting the difference between worldly wisdom and thespiritual wisdom of the cross, which to humankind could seem illogical or evenfoolish (1 Cor 1:18). Paul’s second letter to the Corinthians seemingly doublesdown on his argument against false prophets, which he initiates in 1Corinthians, i.e. the Apostle feels he must further oppose worldly wisdom,which has infiltrated the church. Such a sentiment resonates with the churchtoday, especially in the West.
Moreover,the key to Paul’s instructions is to take every thought captive to obey Christ.In other words, such an action is foundational to the battle waged againstlofty (worldly) opinions. Without taking thoughts captive, it is impossible todefeat the enemy. The mind is a powerful tool and may either be utilized forgood or for evil, which is why Paul says, in his letter to the Romans, thatGod’s people are transformed by the renewing of the mind (Rom 12:2). While theBible teaches that the greatest commandment is to love God with the heart,soul, mind, and strength (Mark 12:30), the mind is crucial to obedience. If theheart is the seed or core of a person, the mind is the root; thus, how onecares for the mind impacts all other areas of life. What then does it mean totake one’s thoughts captive? I suggest three imperative:
1)fight for rule of the mind,
2)destroy the enemy’s attacks on the mind,
3)obey Christ.
All aspects then arerooted in the realization that worship is war; war is waged against the enemywhen God’s people worship.
Dr. Jonathan Michael Jones gives commentary on his hymn, "Oh, Lord, Who Calms Tumultuous Seas"
Dr. Jonathan Michael Jones gives commentary on his hymn, "Thou, the Nations' Great Desire"
Asa worship leader, discussions of the balance between preparation andspontaneity often arise. Inevitably, I hear arguments for spontaneity overpreparation usually because it feels better or is cooler and less rigid.Further, a problem arises when the Holy Spirit is solely linked to spontaneity.God the Spirit, however, commonly uses planning, especially in matters relatedto Christian worship. In response, without quenching the possibility ofspontaneity and its good, my aim today is to argue for the good in how God usespreparation.
Advent beginsthis coming Sunday. Advent is the beginning of the Christian annual calendar,not the end. The word, Advent, comes from the Latin adventus, meaningcoming. It is a crucial time of remembrance, observation, and reality in theliturgical calendar. Advent represents a cycle of light present in a darkworld. The season is not synonymous with Christmas, as some might think; yet,Advent presents a place from which Christmastide may continue in the trajectoryof Christ’s life. A common misconception of Advent, however, is that the seasonprepares for a celebration of the First Coming of Christ. By intent, Adventfocuses primarily on the Second Coming of Christ. Advent’s focus on the FirstComing should only be considered in relationship to the Second Coming, i.e. thechurch’s connection to Israel in awaiting the Messiah. Furthermore, the SecondComing significantly impacts how one views the First Coming and certainlyimpacts the way one worships because of both. My aim here is to offer anenhanced perspective on Advent and the Second Coming.
When someonewho professes to be a follower of Christ sins in a big way, it is oftenshocking. Often, such sins are public and hold the eyes of others includingthose who are not Christians. How such circumstances are handled, however,often does not reflect the response demanded in Scripture. When Christians sinbig, there is a proper way Christians should respond. How Christians shouldhandle their own sin and the sins of others is immensely disparate from how theworld usually responds. Here are my thoughts on how to handle situations inwhich Christians sin in a seemingly hulking manner.
The book ofJohn discusses the person and divinity of Jesus perhaps more than any otherGospel. A concept derived from John’s text is the fullness of Christ. “For from his fullness we have all received, graceupon grace” (John 1:16). Such a concept should be carefully considered, as itholds eternal implications for believers. The most common interpretation ofthis verse reasons that grace upon grace is to be understood as “in additionto.”[1] The point here is that “God is wise indispensing his ‘graces’ in small doses, so that people do not receive more thanthey can cope with; John is emphasizing the superabundance of God’s grace.”[2]Not only is God’s grace abundant among his people, anything else lacks, for asmany have discovered in less than ideal ways, fullness and completesatisfaction is only found in Christ. My aim here is to draw four imperativesfrom the concept of Christ’s fullness: four imperatives that hold eternalimplications.
[1] D. A. Carson, The Gospel according to John, The Pillar New Testament Commentary (Leicester,England; Grand Rapids, MI: Inter-Varsity Press; W.B. Eerdmans, 1991), 131.
[2] Carson, 132.
In Christian theology, the doctrine of adoption is perhaps a topic that is not discussed enough and certainly not understood as it should be. While it is likely mentioned in Reformed circles more than others, it is a universal Christian doctrine. It is vital that God’s people understand the doctrine of adoption, for each one is adopted themselves. When God’s people gather to worship, they gather as adopted individuals and, thus, comprise one family and one body. Adoption then is crucial to Christian worship and should have a dramatic effect on individuals’ lives. Therefore, in a broad sense, I will examine the doctrine of adoption and the subsequent effect it should have on the believer’s life.
A common topic of debate is human depravity. Certain beliefs arise surrounding the topic. Human logic does not want to suggest a radically evil human race; yet, Scripture seems to point in such a direction. Why then is total depravity so difficult to admit? Perhaps, we do not want to believe we are as evil as we actually are. To truly grasp the extent of God’s mercy, however, it is imperative that we understand the full extent of our sin. We must realize the reality of total depravity.
The Apostle Paul instructs believers to walk by the Spirit and then suggests that the effect is a proclivity not to gratify the flesh (Gal 5:16). Many Christians see the commands of Scripture, however, as hindrances to freedom. It is often said and suggested that freedom only exists in Christ. Why then do many Christians feel enslaved rather than free? Why do biblical instructions often feel like imprisonment rather than freedom? To answer such a question, Scripture offers great reconciliation and helps believers understand what it truly means to be free.
Many evangelical Christians were raised in churches that gave a weekly invitation, i.e. a time of response usually placed at the end of the worship gathering. I am such a person even as my dad pastored a church that employed such an act. Currently, however, and for various reasons, the so-called traditional invitation is being removed in many evangelical worship gatherings. While those who have become accustomed to an invitation for nearly their entire lives might resist such a change, I would invite people to examine the invitation itself in a different light and question the foundational purpose behind its existence in the first place.
In the past decade, the importance of trinitarian worship has been deeply engrained in me. Its vitality cannot be overstated. God is triune in nature; therefore, the worship of God must also be triune. Believers often speak of the three persons of the Godhead but with limited knowledge and understanding and without an appropriate application in the context of worship gatherings. John MacArthur has referred to the Holy Spirit as the forgotten God because of such a misunderstanding. A close assessment of many churches’ worship gatherings will quickly reveal that ignorance of trinitarian worship is present in the Christian subculture. To combat such ignorance and misunderstanding, there are certain actions the church can take. I suggest three primary ways the church can ameliorate her trinitarian nature in corporate worship.
Each year traditional Western Christianity observes Epiphany January 6. Also known as Theophany, Epiphany, as the name suggests, celebrates the revelation of God as incarnate man in Jesus Christ.[1] The celebration of Epiphany often comes on its eve while the Sunday after (or on) the day is named Epiphany Sunday. Themes and scriptures surrounding Epiphany often include the event of the magi visiting Jesus as a child and Jesus’ baptism since such an event was vital in his revelation of who he is. Jesus’ baptism is the topic of confusion, for why would a sinless man need to be baptized? Baptism was not new in Jesus’ day; in fact, baptism has Old Testament roots for cleansing. In the case of Jesus’ baptism, however, the ordinance holds a different meaning. To answer why Jesus needed to be baptized, I suggest three crucial points.
[1] January 6 applies only to those churches, which utilize the Julian Calendar. Many churches of Eastern influence utilize the Gregorian Calendar and observe Epiphany January 19 because of the 13-day difference between the two calendars.
A serious issue in many modern contexts of Christian worship is their often-flawed basis. Rather than building upon centuries of scrutiny, trial, and error, much of what occurs in modern worship is based upon external human factors, e.g. personal opinion, emotion, and seeker-sensitive decisions. Worship must surely have a more substantial basis than humanmade devices; liturgy is the tool that holds a more substantial basis. Derived from the Bible, church history, and right theology, liturgy has a matchless and unshakeable basis, which free traditions should at least consider. Liturgy is not meant to hinder worship but to free it. Rather than viewing liturgy as an imprisoning resource, free traditions should consider it the apparatus that frees God’s people to worship in a way that honors him and is devoid of human-centered devices. The basis of liturgy is more substantial than the alternatives; yet, many churches desire less substance in the name of separation from their misunderstanding of liturgy. To consider the solid foundation of liturgy, however, is to realize the vast advantage of its employment. If such happens, even free churches discover the greater basis comprised in liturgy.
The Nicene Creed emphasizes a belief in one holy catholic and apostolic church. Often, Protestants seem to grow uncomfortable or even disassociate with such a statement likely because of misunderstanding its meaning. Catholic, in the context of the Nicene Creed, simply means universal; apostolic means originating with the Apostles of Christ. With such an understanding, all Christians should agree. Protestants and evangelicals may boldly declare in truth that they are a part of the one holy catholic and apostolic church. Christians are a part of a body before they are individuals. Thus, God’s people throughout the ages are linked together as a part of a single organism. Liturgy not only exhibits unity among the people of God but also affords God’s people to experience a greater connection to the church universal. Through liturgy, Christians share with global saints throughout time, share with Christ himself, and exhibit unity in Christ. Though from every nation, Christians comprise one body dispersed throughout the world and display unity through their use of the same resource and tool: liturgy.
Intentionality is surely required for worship to be pleasing to the Lord. Without intentionality, churches risk human motivation, selfish desires, and false teachings through worship practices. Nevertheless, for an intentional approach to occur, an intentional method must be employed. Even in a free tradition, a useful method is liturgy. Whether utilizing a historic liturgy or a liturgy adapted for contextual reasons, liturgy is the link between intentionality and planning. Despite humanity’s vast imperfections, God’s standards are matchless in demanding perfection. Christians, therefore, should strive for excellence in all worship practices; what is lacking is filled by the power of the Holy Spirit and the mediation of Jesus Christ. On a biblical, Spirit-led, and historic basis, liturgy provides an avenue for local churches to rightly declare the full counsel of God in an intentional manner.
A vast benefit of liturgy is its inherent declaration of the full counsel of God. God, his story, and the story of his work in the lives of his people is innately presented through liturgy. Whether new, old, modified, or adapted, liturgy is readily available to all contexts for use in worship and to aid God’s people in proclaiming his full counsel. The most evident ways liturgy helps declare the full counsel of God are through Scripture, prayer, church history, and language. Local churches should take seriously their commitment to God’s declaration in worship and should strive for excellence in every facet; liturgy helps in this way.
Christian worship tells the story of God, his people, and his work within his people. Nonetheless, the story of God is not yet complete, for God still works within his people today. Thus, worship should not only tell the story but allow God’s people to participate in that story, i.e. there subsists a connection between the worship of God and his work in the lives of his people. Liturgy is certainly not irrelevant to Christian worship and daily living in that it intentionally connects the gathering of God’s people to their daily lives in a timeless and transcendent manner; liturgy provides a way for the church to daily live in the story of God.
I come from a tradition, which recognizes the importance of missions. Many believers are passionate about missions and devote their entire lives to God’s call to the task. I contend, however, that the purpose of missions is often lost in the church. If one-hundred different people are asked to describe the purpose of Christian life, one-hundred different responses are likely. The purpose of life and indeed of missions, however, it simple and broad: worship. By worship, what is meant is glorifying God. By keeping worship at the forefront of life, the church’s purpose is not only ameliorated but also aligned with the desire of God himself. On such a topic, there are three primary imperatives of which the church should be mindful, which will aid in a God-centered focus in missional endeavors.
An apparent truth in the Christian life is the reality of the battle between spirit and flesh. Similar to the Apostle Paul, Christians find themselves constantly fighting and waging war on the flesh. Thankfully, God’s righteousness has already been imputed to believers making them positionally righteous; yet, actual righteousness is also a reality and one day will be complete. In consideration of Christ’s mediated atonement, believers should understand the importance of both positional and actual righteousness and live their lives according to the grace God has placed upon his people.
Jesus says that his people will be able to do even greater things than him (John 14:12). Various interpretation exists surrounding this statement. Being careful not to misinterpret or misrepresent what Jesus says, believers should understand the possibilities of what he means. I believe there are two primary meanings behind Jesus’ words, which should be carefully considered when dealing with the church’s work.
Today is Mother’s Day. As such, many churches (particularly American churches) will honor mothers. While there is nothing wrong with honoring mothers, believers should question the approach churches should take in doing so. Moreover, Christians should consider whether to employ any secular holiday in the context of worship. Certainly, one may celebrate a secular holiday and glorify God; yet, placing its focus in Christian worship gatherings raises an entirely new set of questions. My argument is that secular holidays are not rooted in biblical Christianity and, therefore, have no place in weekly Christian worship. I have three pillars to my argument, which support the overarching notion that secular holidays should be removed from Christian worship.
The Gospel of John possesses a unique perspective on the life and ministry of Christ. Although the book presents a disparate chronological order to the events in Jesus’ life, the primary difference lies more in substantive material. While composed in an abundantly simplistic manner, the spiritual depths held within the book are inarguable. The author of John clearly describes the purpose in composing the book. “…that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name” (John 20:31).[1] John 1:1-18 offers a fundamental support to the material in John’s Gospel. Approached as a prologue, the first eighteen verses promote Jesus as the Word (Logos in Greek) and as human. Furthermore, because of the underlying purpose of John’s Gospel referenced in 20:31, John seems to call the reader to respond to the light of men both throughout the book and in the prologue. The primary thematic material in John’s Gospel is highlighted in the prologue; through the hidden depth underneath the simple compositional style, this prologue grants readers the opportunity to understand the life of Christ in a deeper and more profound manner.
[1] All biblical references are taken from the English Standard Version (ESV) of the Bible unless otherwise noted.
John’s Gospel communicates that prior to Pentecost, the Holy spirit had not yet been freely given to God’s people (John 7:37-39), i.e. there is a chronological order to trinitarian work (Morrison, 2007, p. 36): the Son proceeds from the Father and the Spirit from both the Father and the Son. All three members of the Godhead are in agreement with such work as the one triune God. As such a chronological order subsists then, the outpouring of the Holy Spirit is dependent on Jesus’ death, burial, resurrection, and ascension (Morrison, 2007, p. 37). “In particular, without the cross, there would be no Pentecost” (Morrison, 2007, p. 37). Jesus’ ascension is deeply tied then to the coming of the Holy Spirit.
John’s Gospel includes a farewell discourse by Jesus. John 14:15-31 is Jesus’ promise of the Holy Spirit who would serve as his ambassador. The Gospel of John already includes more explicit references about the deity of Jesus than the other Gospels; yet, Jesus’ discourse in these verses focuses significantly on the promised Holy Spirit. This post will offer an analysis of three overarching aspects found within Jesus’ discourse:
1) trinitarian work in the love among the three members of the Godhead,
2) the sealing work of the Holy Spirit, and
3) the ambassadorial role of the Holy Spirit.
These three aspects protrude from the text in a profound manner to support the concept of the Holy Spirit which proceeds from both the Father and the Son.
John’s Gospel communicates that prior to Pentecost, the Holy spirit had not yet been freely given to God’s people (John 7:37-39), i.e. there is a chronological order to trinitarian work (Morrison, 2007, p. 36): the Son proceeds from the Father and the Spirit from both the Father and the Son. All three members of the Godhead are in agreement with such work as the one triune God. As such a chronological order subsists then, the outpouring of the Holy Spirit is dependent on Jesus’ death, burial, resurrection, and ascension (Morrison, 2007, p. 37). “In particular, without the cross, there would be no Pentecost” (Morrison, 2007, p. 37). Jesus’ ascension is deeply tied then to the coming of the Holy Spirit.
John’s Gospel includes a farewell discourse by Jesus. John 14:15-31 is Jesus’ promise of the Holy Spirit who would serve as his ambassador. The Gospel of John already includes more explicit references about the deity of Jesus than the other Gospels; yet, Jesus’ discourse in these verses focuses significantly on the promised Holy Spirit. This post will offer an analysis of three overarching aspects found within Jesus’ discourse:
1) trinitarian work in the love among the three members of the Godhead,
2) the sealing work of the Holy Spirit, and
3) the ambassadorial role of the Holy Spirit.
These three aspects protrude from the text in a profound manner to support the concept of the Holy Spirit which proceeds from both the Father and the Son.
Of all Old Testament genres, lament is perhaps one of the least understood and misrepresented. A lament, while surely a complaint, possesses a deeper root of understanding about God and his sovereign power. One who laments should have in mind not a mere complaint about undesired external circumstances but the purpose of God’s action to allow such circumstances. The book of Lamentations is perhaps the most striking example of biblical lament; yet, numerous other examples are also present. As an overarching model for lament, the book of Lamentations grants contemporary Christians insight into the unchanging character of God and their own connection with the people of God in the Old Testament.
The book of Lamentations is made up of five poems, each an expression of grief over the fall of Jerusalem. Like a eulogy at a funeral, these laments are intended to mourn a loss—in this case, the loss of a nation. The latter half of chapter 3 implies that the purpose behind the book’s graphic depictions of sorrow and suffering was to produce hope in the God whose compassion is “new every morning” (v. 23) and whose faithfulness is great even to a people who have been condemned for their own unfaithfulness. The author, while not identified in the book itself, may have been the prophet Jeremiah, who was said to have “uttered a lament for Josiah.” (2 Chron 35:25) Lamentations was probably written shortly after Jerusalem’s fall in 586 b.c. (ESV, 2016)
This paper will determine the usefulness of lament in a contemporary Christian context. In doing so, three truths will be conveyed: 1) the truth of New Testament parallels of Old Testament lament, 2) the truth of lament’s vitality to right doxology, and 3) the truth that nothing new exists in this world. Upon examining these truths, it should be concluded that lament is not only good for contemporary Christianity but also necessary.
Of all world religions, Christianity and Islam are two of the most prominent. Although derived from the same origins, both faiths have diverged into manifold differences with respect to worldview. The consequences of both Christianity’s and Islam’s worldviews are extensive in nearly every culture of the world. Those who do not understand the foundations of both faiths might incorrectly claim the God of Christianity to be the same as that of Islam. Contrasting Christianity and Islam, however, would reveal a different truth.
Christians should understand the Islamic worldview through a threefold lens: 1) the Islamic doctrine of tawhid, 2) the Islamic view of sin and its remedy, and 3) the Islamic perspective on the person and nature of Jesus Christ. These three fundamental differences create an irreconcilable contrast between the two faiths. Nevertheless, with such an understanding, Christians may replace false assumptions about Islam with enlightenment and greater love for image-bearers in the Muslim faith.
Of the necessary adjustments attributed to the Reformation, congregational participation is perhaps one of the most all-encompassing and lasting. In a Western society which discouraged participation in corporate worship, Reformers gave hope to believers by implementing the vernacular language, music accessible to the common person, and a biblical canon in the language of the people. Congregants were given the resources to participate in worship and did so with potency. Centuries of expansion, however, brought the church to where it is now regarding worship: a place of consumer-driven and self-centered worship practice. Perhaps subconscious and unintended, the elaboration of what the Reformers intended with congregational participation has caused a morphing in perspective. Shifting back to the original goal of congregational participation is not impossible but requires two primary proposals. This paper will examine two primary differences between today’s worship practices and the Reformation’s concept of congregational participation. Furthermore, two essential proposals will be presented to inhibit the continuation of these two detrimental realities of modern Christian worship.
Future generations tend to possess greater insight into the impact of significant movements throughout history. With the advantage of seeing the events in hindsight, such movements may be analyzed and considered based on their both benefits and drawbacks. The Protestant Reformation is such a movement which may be considered with the advantage of future knowledge. To properly judge the impact of the Reformation, one must consider both positive and negative impacts, of which there certainly subsist both. Three primary areas of impact that should be considered are 1) the Reformation’s impact on congregational worship participation, 2) division in the church, and 3) exaggerated reform beyond what was necessary at the time. The positive and negative impacts of the Reformation aid in rightly judging its impact on the church both during its era and in the centuries to come.
Today is the last Sunday after Pentecost or the last Sunday or Ordinary Time, also known as Christ the King Sunday. Next Sunday begins Advent. Today, however, is a day to recognize the authority of Christ over all dominion, i.e. all principalities and powers, human and otherwise. He is certainly the King whether people realize it or not; one day, however, all will recognize his kingship and bow to him. Believers should consider him King far above any king or ruler. In the United States, we just went through an important election. In considering Christ the King, the recent election has caused many to wonder if Christ truly is the King even in the lives of professing Christians. I believe the recent US election has exposed hard truths about American society with which we must grapple. For the scope here, I will point to three hard truths the recent US election has exposed in American society.
A fundamental belief of the Christian faith is the exceeding and incomprehensible love of God in Jesus Christ. The Gospels detail the life and ministry of Christ on earth and are replete with instances which convey the matchless love and care of Jesus. One such account is found in Luke’s Gospel (Luke 7:36-50). The account details an experience at dinner with a Pharisee (Simon) in which Jesus declares forgiveness upon a woman who was apparently known by all as a wretched sinner. Underneath the surface, however, the story also reveals Jesus’ love for all including the Pharisee who invited him to dinner. In this account, the truth is borne that whether respected or despised, Jesus loves and offers forgiveness to everyone equally, for everyone is equally in need of his mercy. Unpacking the Luke’s account is certainly beneficial in clarifying the gospel truth and understanding the questions that may arise from the text. Three primary imperatives are offered from these verses that stem from the overarching truth of Jesus’ great love for everyone.
Biblical hermeneutics are attached to a wide array of external factors such as one’s traditional upbringing, previous instruction, personal contexts, e.g. family, work, and school, and (perhaps more than the rest) literary genre. Many Christians seem to make the mistake of interpreting biblical texts without proper understanding of the literary genre they read. Such an understanding is imperative, nonetheless, to a correct interpretation. One cannot read the metaphors of poetry, for example, as literal history. Various genres exist in the canon of Scripture. This paper will examine each of the major genres of the Bible in an overarching fashion and ultimately call believers to excellence in biblical interpretation.
Both Scripture and human history are replete with derivatives of covenant and (especially) God’s covenant with his people. The old covenant and new covenant are commonly considered in covenant theology; yet, framed within the bounds of the old covenant are also individual covenants, e.g. the Abrahamic covenant, the Mosaic covenant, and the Davidic covenant. The aim of this paper is to secure a theology of covenant in an overarching manner. Preceding the covenant of grace between God and his people and that upon which it is founded is the covenant of redemption between the three members of the Godhead. Stemming then from such a covenant is the covenant of grace, which encompasses both God’s sovereign plan and the responsibility of humankind. Upon this covenant of grace rests the entirety of God’s workings. Therefore, the foundation of God’s work throughout human history is his covenant with his people. Realizing the foundational doctrine of covenant is vital to the Christian faith and life in Christ, for covenant subsists as the foundation of Christian faith.
Disparities of Scripture-reading and interpretation subsist within the life of the church. On one extreme, one may read mere portions of the Bible with preconceived notions and make grave errors in interpreting the text. On the other extreme, however, one may pursue scholarly excellence and yet still with preconceived notions, which lend themselves to a negative and even false interpretation. Regarding New Testament study, it is clear that its writings should be examined with the metanarrative of the entire Bible in mind.
Culturally, the New Testament was written in a vastly different era and from an exceedingly different perspective than modern Western civilization. Often, Bible students are guilty of studying the New Testament in “much the same way as it would operate in our own society” (Malina, 2001, xi). Cultural perspectives are inevitable and, therefore, give every reader of the New Testament a hermeneutic, i.e. no uninterpreted extrabiblical text or commentary is possible to exist. The danger is that such interpretations are often the bedrock of shaping an entire people. Interpretation then should be as accurate and informed as possible.
Discrepancies found in the New Testament are often boldly noted by critics; contrarily, those who only understand New Testament writings based on singular passages or verses run the risk of perpetuating and perhaps enhancing the arguments of those critics. The paradoxical issues of the New Testament may be reconciled, however, on the basis of its overarching thematic content and its continuity of such thematic material in content. In this essay, I will submit the basis for both the New Testament’s continuity and integration to conclude its persuasion by the resilience of the text.
Discussions of Romans 13 have arisen significantly considering the vast manifestations of executive orders that have been offered during the prevalence of COVID-19. I dare suggest that Romans 13, along with a few other passages and verses of Scripture, is one of the most misused scriptures in the entire biblical canon. Submission to authorities is vital to godliness; yet, the scope of Romans 13 is perhaps not what many understand.
In the time Paul wrote his letter to the Romans, government was corrupt and even persecuted Christians. Paul, however, instructs believers to submit or be subject to the governing authorities. The Greek word for “be subject” is hupotasso, which literally means to place or rank under. The term implies an intentional effort. It is similar to what Paul commands believers in Philippians 2: to have the same mind as Christ Jesus, namely a mind of humility considering others better (Phil 2:5). These instructions do not mean that one certainly is less than another person but that Christians are to act as if that is the case, as Jesus did in his earthly ministry; no greater example of humility may be found except that of Christ Jesus. To be subject to the authorities then is to consider the governing bodies God ordained to be higher in rank.
Understanding that being subject to the authorities is an explicit instruction given to God’s people, Romans 13 must be interpreted. Are Paul’s instructions part of a blanket command to blindly obey the governing authorities, or is the scope narrower? To answer this question, there are four primary elements to consider. I will examine these elements here and then determine the scope of Romans 13.
In my Libertarian views, often a discussion of the role of government arises in various conversations. I do not believe my view is vastly different from what the framers of the US Constitution desired. The topic itself holds the potential to be divisive; yet, clear obligations are set aside for government both constitutionally and biblically. The scope here is to focus on the biblical role of government; nevertheless, I will briefly discuss the constitutional role of government as well.
Few deny the existence of Jesus and even his resurrection, although many have made feeble attempts at doing so. A common denial, however, is the deity of Christ. Even among professing believers, there are those who would adamantly claim that Jesus is not God and that he made such a claim himself. I counter that not only is Jesus God but the prophets, the Apostles, and Christ himself suggest otherwise.
Wholeness is a topic of discussion that likely arises in many gospel-centered conversations and indeed one with which believers should toil. Thoughts on how one achieves wholeness are disparate, many, and manifold. A commonality in such thoughts, however, is the necessity in determining challenges to overcome in order to achieve wholeness. For the following, I will suggest and dissect two primary challenges to wholeness: 1) the challenge of satisfaction and 2) the challenge of letting go. Both challenges offer unique thoughts and ideas and bring with them diverse opinions on how to correct them. While my suggestions here are anecdotal, I believe that my experiences are not unique but common not only to those around me but humanity in general. These challenges to wholeness could certainly be key components to Christian contentment and service to God.
The content of the church’s prayers is a crucial issue in worship. As worship not only tells the story of a covenant God but also participates in and does that story[1] (which is vast and diverse in the church), so corporate prayer ought to reflect the diverse narrative that exists between God and his people. The Apostle Paul, writing as a mentor to young Timothy, spent time teaching how the church is to pray (1 Tim 2). Paul’s instructions to Timothy here center around the church’s prayers in unity. Paul often makes clear his concerns for unity in the church. In his letter to the Galatians, the Apostle suggests that all in the body of Christ are equal when he says, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Gal 3:28). Unity among God’s people plays a significant role in Paul’s instructions to Timothy here regarding prayer. External factors are of no concern in the body of Christ, for all are equal. Paul makes clear that God “desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of truth. For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men” (1 Tim 2:4-5). No one is excluded here. While the church is diverse, she is, nevertheless, a unified people through the mediator, Jesus Christ.
Upon Jesus’ ascension, a task was given to the church: to go and teach all nations, baptizing them. To accomplish such a task, Christ gave the church five distinct types of ministers: apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers (Eph 4:11). Such offices should not be confused with spiritual gifts, as listed in 1 Corinthians 12 or Romans 12. All believers possess spiritual gifts; yet, only a few hold an office of the church. Holding an office is a privilege, not a right, and one which requires exceeding accountability and seriousness.
Of the five offices of the church, there subsist a variety of opinions and interpretations. For example, are these offices reserved only for men? The answer to that question will vary greatly depending on the hermeneutic of the one answering (and some more informed perhaps than others). Rather than outlining my own reasons for holding my view, suffice it to say that I believe these offices are not reserved only for men; yet, I am certainly able to see the perspective of one who believes so.
Another question asked by many believers is whether all five churches offices Paul lists continue to exist today, primarily the role of apostle and prophet. Some reference Paul’s letter to the Church at Corinth to argue that tongues and prophecy (often including apostleship) do not exist. “…but when the perfect comes, the partial will pass away” (1 Cor 13:10). Since Paul speaks of prophecy and tongues in this context, the assumption could be that such abilities existed only for an ordained interval of time and not any further. I believe that such a claim is a stretch and, yet, do not discount its credibility.
While different in function, the goal of all five offices of the church is the same: namely the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry and building the body of Christ (Eph 4:12). For the following, I will operate under the view that all five offices subsist today. How then should Christians understand the roles of apostle, prophet, evangelist, pastor, and teacher? My aim is to examine each office and how it should appear in current contexts.
Christian worship has changed significantly over the years. Nevertheless, its vitality to Christian life has remained. In recent years (and decades), I contend that reverence in Christian worship has been lost. There are likely a number of contributing factors for this loss of reverence, which I believe stem from an overemphasis on consumerism, i.e. the church, to appeal to unbelievers, has created an atmosphere of worship, which takes a casual approach. I do not argue for legalism or for an impersonal relationship with God but rather for a realization of who God is and subsequently an appropriate response to him in worship. I intend here to discuss the dangers of Christian worship’s loss of reverence. In my observations, three primary results have occurred, which I will discuss not only as reality but also as a warning to the church so that the trend may be reversed.
During this time of isolation, many question the church's importance and particularly the importance of weekly worship gatherings. Are they even necessary. Dr. Jonathan Michael Jones discusses the issue in this episode.
Dr. Jonathan Michael Jones discusses, on Resurrection Sunday, the good news of the gospel centered around Jesus Christ taken from Acts 1-:34-43.
Dr. Jonathan Michael Jones discusses various ways Christians today may relate to the crowd on that first Palm Sunday by employing practical atheism as they did.
Dr. Jonathan Michael Jones gives a personal response to the virus that has swept the world and virtually shutdown everything. How is a Christian to respond? Jonathan reveals his thoughts here.
Dr. Jonathan Michael Jones continues his discussion of the Five Solas with soli Deo gloria and the implications it has for all Christians.
Dr. Jonathan Michael Jones continues his discussion of the Five Solas with sola Scriptura and the implications it has for all Christians.
Dr. Jonathan Michael Jones continues his discussion of the Five Solas with solus Christus and the implications it has for all Christians.
Dr. Jonathan Michael Jones continues his discussion of the Five Solas with Sola Fide and the implications it has for all Christians.
Dr. Jonathan Michael Jones begins a discussion of the Five Solas with Sola Gratia and the implications it has for all Christians.
I have heard it said that the church is the worst about shooting their own wounded while they are down. Perhaps, many believers have experienced this firsthand. In such cases, which are likely more common than people care to admit, the church reveals her flaws where a message of mercy is preached and yet its application ends there, i.e. the mercy of God is not exuded through the people of God but rather proclaimed as a mere verbal message. To be imitators of Jesus, however, believers should realize that Christ does not stop with mercy, for he also restores. Scripture is replete with the message of not only God’s mercy but also his restoration.
At the heart of God’s mercy is his restoration and conformity to the image of Christ. To model the love of Jesus then is to not stop with a mere message of mercy but continually offer mercy even when it is not deserved and we do not want to give it, for the purpose of one’s restoration. With Christ as our model, there are three imperatives to a continuation of mercy through restoration.
Approaching the Christmastide season, it is common to hear arguments on various sides for or against the celebration of Christmas including those related to the actual date of Christmas itself. Many of the American traditions have little to do with the birth of Christ such as Christmas trees, the exaggeration of St. Nicholas that we find in Santa Clause, and even the giving of material gifts. I believe that these external elements are not wrong or right in and of themselves; yet, we must be careful with them and have likely lost the sense of Christmastide in American culture. Additionally, I believe a large reason for that is the negation of the Advent season: bypassing Advent may only contribute to the materialistic attitudes we possess. Those opposed to religion often claim that Christmas (and other Christian observances for the same matter) is derived from pagan rituals alone and even fall in the way of atheists who claim this as a sufficient reason to abandon the celebration. One such argument suggests even the timing of December 25 to be evidence that Christians celebrate falsely. Indeed, the same arguments are made against all Christian celebrations, which should cause Christians to consider the foundational reasons for observances. Here I will argue for the celebration of Christmas as a vital observance in Christian life and conclude by extending the philosophy to all Christian observances.
Advent, perhaps a largely misunderstood liturgical season in the Christian year, begins today. My aim in this message is to eliminate two common misconceptions of Advent: namely that Advent and Christmas are one and the same and that Advent solely prepares for the celebration of Christ’s birth. Advent holds a plurality of themes and rituals including but not limited to expectation and remembering Israel’s awaiting of the Messiah. Nonetheless, to relate to global Christians as a part of the timeless body of Christ, Advent focuses more on Christ’s Second Coming than his First. Certainly, many of the texts read and songs sung during Advent focus on the expectation of Christ’s incarnation; yet, we live in a time after such an event but, nonetheless, await our King’s Second Coming. In the same way Israel awaited the coming of Messiah, the church presently awaits his Second Coming and the end of time. The Sunday prior to Advent is known as Christ the King Sunday and celebrates his dominion over everything. Such a reflection is appropriate to subsequently reflect upon Christ’s certain return for his people and the end of time. Therefore, this is an Advent message of hope, for our King will return.
Christianity has faced nearly two millenniums of a faith which has been tested, persecuted, tried, and yet blessed; a commonality in Jesus Christ exists among global believers of diverse backgrounds, traditions, and cultures; and further, believers throughout the centuries are a part of the same adopted family. This collective group of people from disparate cultures, backgrounds, and even eras is called the church. All three major creeds of the Christian faith (the Apostles’ Creed, the Nicene Creed, and the Athanasian Creed) refer to the body of Christ as and affirms Christian belief in one holy catholic and apostolic church. This affirmation dismays many readers and hearers who do not possess an appropriate understanding of the church universal. The term, catholic (not the denomination), equates to universal or all-encompassing, i.e. the church is a single body of many believers and even denominations. It is, therefore, appropriate to affirm one’s Christian belief in such a doctrine and rejoice in the body which Christ has redeemed. Within the text of the three major creeds, four essentials exist which are primary to a right belief of the church.
Of the term, sacramental, a variety of thoughts enter the minds of believers. While, for some, sacramental might be linked to salvific grace, the nature of the word’s Latin roots suggests sacredness. Glenn Packiam’s 2019 publication, Blessed, Broken, Given, illuminates the concept of sacramental life in Christ. In Jesus’ hands, frail people become blessed; in Jesus’ hands, brokenness allows Christians to become open to the grace of God; and in Jesus’ hands, believers realize that sacred life is not for selfish gains but rather for the glory of the one who has redeemed.[1] Bread is used in the Lord’s Table as a deep reality of Christ and his body on earth: the church, i.e. while the element of bread is surely imagery, what it symbolizes, sacramental life, is reality. Discussing sacramental life as a work in three primary movements (blessed, broken, given), Glenn Packiam contends for the participation of those redeemed by Christ.
I do not discredit either or find either full-time vocational ministry or bi-vocational ministry more admirable than the other. Both manifestations of ministry are noble and worthy tasks. The purpose of my words today, nevertheless, is to discuss the benefits of bi-vocational ministry. I personally wish more ministers were bi-vocational for the reasons I will give. Not only that, I also wish that more bi-vocational ministers put in the same work, schooling, and attention to ministry as those who are full-time vocationally. Paul did so; why could not any other minister in the local church? Ministry is hard; we should support our pastors and understand what they do for the kingdom. I understand three primary benefits to bi-vocational ministry that I believe all Christians should realize.
I have been in vocational ministry in various capacities for nineteen years and have seen ups and downs, good and bad, benefits, and struggles, and a variety of types of ministries and ministers. A common discussion that has arisen over the years is whether ministers should be paid full-time or part-time or even be paid at all. I have seen opinions from across the spectrum as well including those who believe that paying ministers is not biblical. While I disagree with such an assertion (1 Tim 5:17-18), I fully admit that each minister’s calling is unique. Context determines a great deal regarding wages; yet, there are benefits and consequences to both full-time vocational ministry and bi-vocational ministry.
I am less dogmatic about my Calvinistic beliefs than I used to be. Nonetheless, I am as devoted to the doctrines of grace as ever. Perhaps, the reason so many new Calvinists are annoyingly devout to such a doctrine is because it is wonderful news, not bad news. I used to be someone who saw Calvinism as bad news until I understood it. Certainly, it is a secondary issue, i.e. not necessary for salvation; yet, it is a crucial one for people to understand no matter on which side of the doctrine they stand. My purpose here is to walk through the five points of Calvinism[1] and discuss each one regarding what it is and what it is not.
[1] Although the doctrine takes the name after John Calvin, Calvin himself is not responsible for the formulation of TULIP. Rather, he was instrumental in the teaching and professing of such ideas.
There seems to be an avoidance of any biblical topic which might be considered negative even when Scripture plainly discusses such a matter. One such topic I will discuss is the toiling aspect of the Christian faith, for indeed, Christianity is a faith with which to toil and one worthy of toiling. I think that our subconscious minds and even our hearts deceive us into thinking that Christianity is full of happiness and little toiling. As glamorous as it may seem, that is not biblical Christianity. Even spiritual giants such as Paul, Peter, and truly all the Apostles struggled in their faith at times. Paul speaks of toiling with the Christian faith in multiple letters. He writes, “For this I toil, struggling with all his energy that he powerfully works within me” (Col 1:29 ESV). Additionally, he says, “For to this end we toil and strive, because we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Savior of all people, especially of those who believe” (1 Tim 4:10 ESV). These two scriptures, in particular, speak to the truth and necessity of toiling in the Christian faith. I dare suggest that if one claims to be a follower of Christ but does not toil, struggle, or suffer, he or she should carefully examine their faith. Scripture essentially guarantees these for God’s people. How then should we toil with our faith? I will discuss three principles which I believe to be fundamental to one who toils well in the Christian faith.
I considered presenting the following material around Martin Luther King (MLK) Day in January but chose instead to wait because I did not want to overshadow, to my listeners, the great social-justice work Dr. King accomplished. Today, however, I will discuss the false gospel which MLK preached citing specific examples and even questioning his personal salvation.[1] My issues with MLK surround his opposition to central tenets of the Christian faith, as is the case with many other solid Christian theologians and pastors who are familiar with his work. I openly admit that I am no scholar on the work of Dr. King; nor, have I exhaustively examined his work. I have, however, read and heard enough of his work and teachings to understand that he taught a false gospel, which is, in fact, the antithesis of the gospel of Jesus Christ aside from his stances on social-justice issues, particularly the wrongness of racism.
I suggest that MLK was wrong on the gospel in four chief areas: the authority of Scripture, the deity of Jesus Christ as the Son of God, the virgin birth, and the resurrection of Jesus. Given that these areas are indispensable to the Christian faith, I dare suggest that it is impossible to be a Christian without a fervent belief in these key orthodox doctrines. My intention here is not to defame Dr. King but surely to criticize the false gospel he preached[2] with the hope that Christians will know and understand his message compared to the message of Jesus Christ. As people discover the false gospel MLK preached examined next to what Jesus Christ preached, an abundantly apparent contrast becomes clear.
[1] It is not wrong to question one’s salvation insofar as he or she gives little evidence of a genuine Christian faith in their teachings and expressions of core and fundamental Christian doctrines and tenets of the faith. One might believe it is wrong to do so because of Jesus’ command not to judge (Matt 7); yet, in calling a person out for judgment, a judgment is also being made then and there. Judgments are not strictly forbidden but rather should be done in light of one’s own shortcomings. Here then is a proper judgment of Dr. King.
Footnotes here will reference specific citations of Dr. King’s work; yet, online sources were utilized; thus, page numbers will not be given.
[2] In Christianity, criticisms are right, for believers grow through loving critique, but should be employed in love and respect for the purpose of edification.
Rachel Hollis has seemingly taken the Christian book world by storm and (somewhat) rightfully so. I recently read both of her books. Her talent, confidence, and intelligence are undeniable. Pastors who have not heard of Hollis or who do not think that she has made her way into their churches are sadly oblivious. Hollis certainly presents a strong message to readers. Her two books, Girl, Stop Apologizing and Girl, Wash Your Face have sold many copies and made millions of dollars. Any time someone has as much influence as Rachel Hollis on any Christian group (most commonly women in this case), pastors should, at the least, understand the message being submitted. I will make a bold statement in that Rachel Hollis’ message is not the gospel and is, in fact, antithetical to the gospel. While I do not know Hollis’ personal motivations or even consider her work to be evil in itself, a few items surrounding her work concern me. Thankfully, my thoughts parallel those of many other Christians who think about these issues so I am not the first to review her work in this way. For the remainder here, I will examine these items through the lens of the gospel and discuss how Rachel Hollis’ message contradicts the gospel message of Jesus Christ.
Covenant theology is a common part of reformed thinking. The topic, however, can be convoluted and far-reaching. At the foundation, many might simply assume covenant theology to center around the various covenants of the Bible, e.g. the Abrahamic covenant, the Mosaic covenant, the Davidic covenant, or even the new covenant. Covenant theology, nonetheless, encompasses vastly more than the individual covenants manifested throughout history. In fact, reformed thought, as expressed by John Calvin, suggests that there are not multiple covenants but only one covenant of grace between God and his people, which is manifested through various instances in history and finalized and made permanent in the new covenant. This line of thought is clear when the Bible is viewed as a meta-narrative rather than individual stories useful for moral inspiration. The text of Scripture, rather, is the story of God and his people centered around Jesus Christ and a story into which we fit today, i.e. we, the church, have been grafted into Abraham’s blessing as God’s people; we are adopted children of God.
A unique aspect to covenant theology is the distinction between the covenant of grace and the covenant of redemption. Many often do not think about or realize two distinct covenants; yet, there is evidence for both and distinctions between both. Lest there be confusion or false understanding, I will examine both the covenant of redemption and the covenant of grace regarding their similarities and distinctions.
As a Christian and as a minister, I have found a common struggle with the functionality of the church regarding how to handle biblical truth, i.e. should the church handle God and his work as obligatory truth irrespective of how it makes us look to an onlooking world or merely as practical motivation for moral living? Questions like this arise, in my mind, from the disparate approaches we see in local churches. Where some churches seemingly treat God’s work and his word as merely motivational, others take his word quite literally and approach his work as active and effective. The most common way this plays out in local churches is by writing off those who have perhaps committed seemingly atrocious acts at some point in their life no matter how far in the past they may be. As unbiblical as it is, we tend to make excuses in feeble attempts to find their unworthiness or disqualification from service in any way. Surely, there are legitimate reasons for concern in some cases; yet, the church leans toward not allowing people to serve rather than grace. If we teach that service is one of the primary marks of a believer, how can we justify such a stance? There are also those who fall in the middle. Many of any of these approaches, however, seem to be unintentional.
Upon years of observation, personal experience, and pontificating, I submit that, if we are to be a people of genuine faith, God’s and his work should doubtlessly be obligatory truth rather than mere practical motivation. Said another way, the church must cease viewing grace and faith through the same grid as the world but rather should function in a vastly disparate manner. Our faith in God should cause us to live completely contrary lives to the world. Often, however, the opposite is true: the church seemingly takes a faithless approach and views God’s word and work merely as practical motivation rather than obligatory truth. While this approach is likely subconscious, I suggest four primary ways the church presently takes such an approach.
As we approach Ash Wednesday, my aim today is to discuss what the church might gain from observing the season of lent. Lent is not solely Catholic as many would assume, for there are many Protestant traditions who observe the season. It is also not insincere simply because it is tradition as others might assume. I have spoken often of the fact that sincerity has little to do with ritual or spontaneity. Sincerity, rather, is connected to the heart. Perhaps, this is to what Jesus refers when he says, “This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.” (Matt 15:8 ESV) This should surely highlight the corporate nature of spirituality; yet, it also points to a deeper matter than what is on the surface. Lent could certainly be surface-level for some people; for others, however, Lent could (and should for everyone in reality) be a sincere observance.
Lent is the 40-day season leading to Easter. The season is considered 40 days if Sundays are not included. Lent then begins Ash Wednesday and ends the Saturday of the Paschal Triduum just before Easter Sunday. Shrove Tuesday (Fat Tuesday in Western culture) is often lumped in with Lent but is actually just before Lent begins.[1] Its beginnings are born of a 2nd-century reflection during a 2-day fast leading to Easter; by the 3rd-century, fasting was expanded through Holy Week; and by the 4th-century, Rome developed a practice of a 3-week fast, which expanded throughout the empire and eventually became an observance of an entire season beginning the sixth Sunday before Easter.
The biblical background is diverse including the 40-day flood, Moses on Mt. Sinai, the spies in Cana, the Israelites in the desert for 40 years, most apparently Jesus in the desert for 40 days, and even his walking the earth for 40 days after his resurrection. There exists a variety of themes during Lent which are vital to the Christian life, e.g. reflection, a refocusing of one’s relationship with God, dependence on God, a reminder of humanity’s mortality, and selflessness.
Knowing this information, I suggest that Lent is, in no way, a meaningless ritual, especially if one’s observances are sincere. If the observance of Lent is meaningless ritual, why then is the observance of Christmas or Easter not the same? Derived from this knowledge then, I have four predominant imperatives which we gain from observing Lent.
[1] Shrove Tuesday is from the Latin absolve and is intended for the believer to reflect upon the current sins and struggles of which he or she needs to repent. Its evolution into “Fat Tuesday” is unbiblical, unhistorical, and a distortion of its intent at best.
As we approach Ash Wednesday, my aim today is to discuss what the church might gain from observing the season of lent. Lent is not solely Catholic as many would assume, for there are many Protestant traditions who observe the season. It is also not insincere simply because it is tradition as others might assume. I have spoken often of the fact that sincerity has little to do with ritual or spontaneity. Sincerity, rather, is connected to the heart. Perhaps, this is to what Jesus refers when he says, “This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.” (Matt 15:8 ESV) This should surely highlight the corporate nature of spirituality; yet, it also points to a deeper matter than what is on the surface. Lent could certainly be surface-level for some people; for others, however, Lent could (and should for everyone in reality) be a sincere observance.
Lent is the 40-day season leading to Easter. The season is considered 40 days if Sundays are not included. Lent then begins Ash Wednesday and ends the Saturday of the Paschal Triduum just before Easter Sunday. Shrove Tuesday (Fat Tuesday in Western culture) is often lumped in with Lent but is actually just before Lent begins.[1] Its beginnings are born of a 2nd-century reflection during a 2-day fast leading to Easter; by the 3rd-century, fasting was expanded through Holy Week; and by the 4th-century, Rome developed a practice of a 3-week fast, which expanded throughout the empire and eventually became an observance of an entire season beginning the sixth Sunday before Easter.
The biblical background is diverse including the 40-day flood, Moses on Mt. Sinai, the spies in Cana, the Israelites in the desert for 40 years, most apparently Jesus in the desert for 40 days, and even his walking the earth for 40 days after his resurrection. There exists a variety of themes during Lent which are vital to the Christian life, e.g. reflection, a refocusing of one’s relationship with God, dependence on God, a reminder of humanity’s mortality, and selflessness.
Knowing this information, I suggest that Lent is, in no way, a meaningless ritual, especially if one’s observances are sincere. If the observance of Lent is meaningless ritual, why then is the observance of Christmas or Easter not the same? Derived from this knowledge then, I have four predominant imperatives which we gain from observing Lent.
[1] Shrove Tuesday is from the Latin absolve and is intended for the believer to reflect upon the current sins and struggles of which he or she needs to repent. Its evolution into “Fat Tuesday” is unbiblical, unhistorical, and a distortion of its intent at best.
Perhaps you are like me and have heard a phrase like the following at some point in your life and perhaps even recently: I know many non-believers (or non-Christians) who are more “Christian”[1] than most Christians. While I understand the sentiment behind such a statement, it is simply not true. Without negating the responsibility of all Christians to live morally upright lives, we should understand that everyone fails. If we did not fail, we would not need a savior; yet, we do so in that way, we are all hypocrites. What people usually mean, in a statement like this, is that there are some people who do not profess Christ as their Lord yet live lives seemingly more righteous than many people who do profess Christ as Lord. The problem in such a statement, however, is threefold under the umbrella of answering with a resounding no! I will discuss the most protruding three problems in that statement, all of which are derived from what the Bible says about humanity and about Jesus Christ.
[1] This is often the precise term used by those who might present such a statement.
In our current societal discourse in many facets, e.g. political, theological, cultural, etc., the church should be an agent of unity rather than disunity. Often, the opposite is true; yet, God calls us to primarily exemplify the unity of Christ among each other but also to love our neighbors as ourselves (Mark 12:31). Jesus’ command here is in the greater context of giving us what to what he refers as the two greatest commandments. The Greek word for neighbor here, plesion, simply means someone who is near and does not suggest a specific group of people such as other Christians, i.e. Jesus implies that everyone is our neighbor. Our love for others is derived from the greatest commandment: to love God above all else with all our heart, soul, mind, and strength (Mark 12:30), for when we love God above all else, our love for others increases because we begin to view others in the same light as God himself. How then are we to handle dissonant discussions of vital material among all people in our society? The church is given the responsibility to love everyone so we are not exempt from that command in any situation including tense dialogue. The question at work here is this: should all opinions be respected? I shall argue that all opinions should be respected in scope but limited in application, i.e. everyone is to be loved, heard, and even understood while absolute agreement is not necessary. Before continuing, it should be noted that everyone is different and, thus, possesses different opinions, which is okay and good. Without diversity, we would not need to have important discussions as we so often do. We should enter our dialogue with other believers and even non-believers realizing this fact. To properly engage in tense dialogue as Christians, I have three imperatives to bear in mind.
One of the most polarizing topics in Christian theology is that of election, foreknowledge, and predestination. Having wrestled with this important but difficult doctrine (the doctrine of sovereign grace) in my early twenties, I have made several conclusions on the matter; yet, I remain open to other perspectives. Nothing, however, has convinced me more than what Scripture says plainly and clearly. As much justifying as I did to prove a friend wrong about election, it proved futile except that it brought me to a place of acknowledgement and belief in election. After approximately six months of anger and not knowing how to handle the fact that the God whom I was taught growing up was not the God I was seeing in the Bible, I finally rested in and trusted the Lord that he is sovereign, I am responsible, and the two are compatible.
One of the primary justifications I used during that time and, to this day, hear others use is a feeble explanation of foreknowledge. I could not deny that predestination and foreknowledge is biblical. It is there plainly; Scripture is also replete with the concept in both the Old the New Testament. What I did was misrepresent foreknowledge as many do today. I tried to give a definition of it that was not true because, in my mind (and in others’), it made sense. Part of the problem, however, is that we often look for what makes sense to us when we should merely trust what God has already said.
The recent legislative actions in the state of New York recently have caused me to reflect quite a bit. I have always been a staunch opponent of abortion; the recent, legislation in New York, however, has provided a time and place for me to speak about the topic even more. We, as a society, have already committed the largest mass murder in history. Since Rove vs. Wade (1973), there have been over 61 million abortions.[1] Additionally, since 1980, there have been over 1.5 billion abortions worldwide.[2] History would suggest that the world followed suit to the United States after Roe vs. Wade. We then are the most murderous people who have ever walked this planet. I say “we” because it has been allowed as a society. Even for those of us who hate the murder of babies, we are a part of the people who have allowed it to happen. In Scripture, God condemns those who sacrifice children to Molech (Lev 20:2). In the same way, a day of reckoning is coming for all of us regarding abortion. The question will be asked of what we did about it. I, for one, do not want to be someone who did nothing. Thus, considering the recent New York legislation, I will respond to two groups: 1) advocates of abortion and 2) Christians.
[1][1] “Number of Abortions,” Abortion Counters, accessed January 26, 2019, http://www.numberofabortions.com/.
[2] Ibid.
The few weeks prior to Christmas are often spent celebrating the birth of Christ. The birth of Christ is vital to remember and right to celebrate. Nonetheless, the Advent, e.g. his second and first comings, are often neglected. I often lament the neglect of Advent during the month of December. More than a personal matter, I believe it is a matter of remembering and living within the reality of the life of Christ and the story of God and his people. Why then should Christians observe Advent, which is certainly not synonymous with Christmas? I should suggest that an overarching reason for observance of Advent is Christians’ empathy with Israel in expectation and waiting. The church is surely able to relate to Israel because we too are in waiting and possess eager expectation, not of his first coming but his second. In fact, Advent focuses more on Christ’s second coming than his first. Certainly, we should remember the expectation of Israel awaiting the Messiah; yet, we too await the second coming of Messiah, which is a certainty. The heart of Advent then is not only expecting but also waiting. As Israel long awaited and expected the coming of Jesus, we too await and expect him to return as well as other aspects of Christ’s work and character which are crucial. I would like to submit three primary imperatives for which we wait and expect.
Mike Breen recently posted a blog centering around why the missional movement will fail. I was shocked upon first reading these words; yet, the author makes the point that radical disciple-making is the church’s call above going. Breen says:
We took 30 days and examined the Twitter conversations happening. We discovered there are between 100-150 times as many people talking about mission as there are discipleship (to be clear, that’s a 100:1). We are a group of people addicted to and obsessed with the work of the Kingdom, with little to no idea how to be with the King.[1]
In the Great Commission (Matt 28:19-20), Jesus commands his followers to go; the imperative, however, comes after the word, go, when he subsequently commands his people to make disciples, i.e. the purpose of going and indeed the end means of missions is to glorify God by forming people who love and obey him. Thus, the imperative is often wrongly placed on going rather than disciple-making. Furthermore, the Greek context of the Great Commission implies not merely going to make disciples but rather to make disciples as you are going, i.e. going is not a separate event but is rather what we do in our daily rhythms of life. Making disciples then should be part of our daily walk. I submit that we have missed the point of the Great Commission because we have missed the point of a disciple and the Christian life altogether. There are two glaring aspects of our call that we have missed.
[1] Mike Breen, “Why the Missional Movement Will Fail,” Verge, accessed November 19, 2018, http://www.vergenetwork.org/2011/09/14/mike-breen-why-the-missional-movement-will-fail/.
God exists as triune: three persons yet one God. We often speak of the Trinity in mere passing terms; God, however, has revealed himself in Scripture and in his work through threefold persons: the Father, the Son, and the Spirit. Sadly, the most neglected and misunderstood person of the godhead is the Holy Spirit including in charismatic contexts where the Holy Spirit might seemingly be given an overemphasis. The neglect of the Holy Spirit has caused false teaching while the misunderstanding of the Holy Spirit has fostered improper thoughts of his work and personhood, e.g. the Holy Spirit is not an it or a force but is rather a he and a person who works and speaks. The Holy Spirit is effectively the forgotten God. Even such a statement likely perplexes some people, as some believers might forget that he is God, co-equal and co-eternal with both the Father and the Son. I intend to discuss both the neglect and the work of the Holy Spirit so that we might develop and have a correct understanding of him and worship him rightly. Three thoughts I have are devoted to this topic of the Holy Spirit.
Selfishness has crept its way into the church over the years and has become detrimental to the point that Western culture has adopted a false gospel: a gospel that makes humankind the center and the point rather than God. I remember a conversation with a friend years ago in which I suggested that God is primarily about his own glory. My friend responded by saying that makes God sound as if he is stuck on himself. My response was, “He is! Who else would he stuck on? You, me, or someone lesser?” God is the point of the gospel; the gospel is not even about humankind at all but solely about God’s glory. Even the story of redemption among his people points to his own glory and pleasure.
Our selfishness is manifested in many ways. A common prayer among many believers, for example, is for God to glorify himself by working through us, i.e. we desire him to work through us more than we desire him to work so that he is glorified. What if he decided to answer our prayer in that regard but to do so through someone else other than us? John Piper has written a book entitled God Is the Gospel. The truth is that we should desire God to work despite us rather than through us. Consider the story of Joseph. Fourteen chapters of Genesis are devoted to this story. It is a story with which many are familiar and a story that teaches valuable lessons; yet, it has become a story that effectively promotes therapeutic moralistic deism in which we gain insights from the text and believe that if we make the right decisions living a decent life, we will be blessed as Joseph was. What is fascinating about the story of Joseph, however, is that while Joseph takes up the most space and is the main character,[1] he is not the point, for that role belongs to Judah. In fact, the reason God placed Joseph in a place of authority through his trials and circumstances was to eventually preserve the life of Judah who likely would have died without the help of his brother. Though Judah is not mentioned as often as Joseph, it was through his line that the Messiah would come. The role for Judah, although seemingly small, was the most important role. For many of us, we would not be okay with that. We pray for God to move but desire him to move so that we receive at least a little recognition. We spend our time ministering and claiming a desire solely for God’s glory as a mask that hides our selfishness.
It is vital that we realize God is the point of the gospel, not us. When we realize how God-centered the gospel is and when our perspective changes, other things in our lives also change. I would like to suggest four aspects that change in our lives when our perspective on the gospel changes.
[1] This is not meant to imply that the Joseph accounts are not real.
Nearly every minister who is involved in the worship leadership in any capacity has or will come across the issue of what to do with children during gatherings. Various churches employ disparate measures with their children including but not limited to having separate children’s worship services, having special children’s messages during corporate worship, or simply allowing them to worship with everyone else in the fellowship. In my years of encountering this issue, my opinion has changed, for where I used to support separating children from adults so as not to be a distraction, I now firmly and fully support keeping kids in the worship space with adults. My reason for this shift lies in this rhetorical question: how will children learn to worship if not from older generations in their lives, especially their parents. I openly admit that not everyone enjoys being around kids or is even good with kids; there is nothing wrong with that so no one should make such people feel as though they are wrong for their discomfort with children. Nonetheless, everyone in the body of Christ is given the obligation to model proper worship to a younger generation. I intend here then to make a case for keeping children in corporate worship rather than separating them. In doing so, I will provide four foundations for children in worship.
In a consumerist society, the Christian subculture has most certainly been affected. I confess, as a minister, that it is difficult to keep society from affecting at least some of the practices of the church, though often, we should strive for such a goal. One of the effects of consumerism (I think) is the neglect of congregational participation in worship. Recently, I visited a local church and noticed not just a few but many people entering the doors late, texting while entering, drinking coffee, and sitting in a casual position as if to be entertained. Those actions are not evil in and of themselves. Nonetheless, they could be indicative of a greater issue: a hedonistic attitude. John Piper has effectively turned the word, hedonism, into a good thing for the glory of Christ, i.e. it is okay to be a hedonist if we seek our pleasure through the satisfaction found only in God. That is not that to which I am referring here.
Let us separate the good of political and societal individuality from the negative impacts of individuality in the church. While God has made us and loved us as individuals, 1) we are part of a larger body, and 2) we should not seek our own desires but first and foremost the desires of God and then the desires of others. The self-seeking attitude to which I refer is largely responsible for a negation of congregational participation in worship. Rather than seeking what one can do for the church, often, people seek what the church can do for them, which has contributed to churches craving entertainment.
Worship, in its nature, is participatory since the corporate body is involved. Rather than seeking entertainment and self-satisfaction (except in Christ), we should strive to participate in the worship of God. It is not as though we have anything of worth to give God; yet, he gladly accepts our offerings of worship and works in us to conform us to his image. I intend to provide three foundations for congregational participation here: a biblical foundation, a theological foundation, and a historical foundation. My aim is that God’s people realize the importance of participation found in the fact that the local church offers worship to God, not just the leaders.
A growing concept, in recent decades, is that of vertical worship, i.e. worship occurs solely as a dialogue between God and individual worshiping. I do not deny that worship is vertical; nonetheless, it is not solely vertical, for there is also a horizontal aspect. By horizontal, I do not mean that God’s people worship each other or other earthly things; contrarily, I mean that the church corporately worships triune God. In fact, God has covenanted with a people more obviously than with individuals. While individuals comprise the body of Christ, the church exists as one body. The connection between worship and mission, corporate and personal happens in the sending; when the church is sent from the corporate worship gathering, God’s people begin a process of personal worship together. Thus, even in personal worship, there is a corporate aspect. To neglect the horizontal relationships shared between the people of God is to effectively become absorbed in self-seeking goals. Worship, however, is not self-seeking but looks first to the glory of God and second to the good of others. If worship were solely vertical, the ordinances would not only be corporate; therefore, private communion is not Communion at all; there is surely a horizontal obligation in worship. So as not to deny the vertical aspect of worship, for the following, I will assume the truth of vertical worship while concurrently providing a foundation for horizontal worship.
The ethos of the modern church, particularly in western society, seemingly involves a catering to the culture for a plurality of underlying reasons. The strong belief in the use of vernacular language stemming from the Reformation era has drastically changed in its purpose. Where Reformers desired for communities of God’s people to possess the ability to worship in their own language and, thus, experience a greater effect in life-change, the tendency of modern churches’ use of vernacular language appears to be founded upon the desires of people (lost or saved) rather than the worship of God.
I will discuss vernacular jargon, specifically lingo, and its contribution to the ethos of worship in modern society. Worship leaders often see themselves as indirect theologians and theological teachers when instead the view should foster teaching in a direct manner, i.e. worship leaders should be intentional and purposeful with the lingo they choose to use. Lingo teaches ideas, concepts, and even theologies whether realized or not. One can certainly say, “Well, they know what I mean.” I would, however, respond with, “Do they?” When worship leaders use terms such as stage and setlist, many people’s minds automatically create an association with worship. Since a worship leader’s context is the local church (not a concert setting), jargon such as stage and setlist is naturally associated with worship, although it should not be, which is why leaders should be careful to be intentional, pointed, and clear with the lingo used. Every single word used in the context of corporate worship (quite literally) has an either intended or unintended implication.
I suggest here that lingo has become one of the most neglected aspects of corporate worship. Even Reformation era theologians, in their desire to cultivate communities of worship through understandable language,[1] had, at the center, a desire to worship God rather than to cater to societal norms. Lingo then is more than meets the ear. In fact, what is heard is surface level; what is experienced and internalized both mentally and emotionally is at the root of the issue. Lingo should not be neglected. We should not shift back to language which is difficult to understand; yet, those who lead the church in worship should take seriously their call to cultivate worshipers of God, not merely congregants who understand theological concepts, albeit in an inaccurate frame. Lingo, therefore, should not be neglected, negated, or de-emphasized but rather intentional.
[1] Prior to the Protestant Reformation, liturgies were conducted and almost solely in Latin, a language that many laypeople could not fully understand. Thus, a transition to the vernacular was necessary and allow congregants to not only worship in their own language but to also understand the gospel message and story being proclaimed in corporate worship.
One of the seemingly most despised moments during a weekly worship gathering is the greeting time. I have personally observed the woes of many who are opposed to greeting one another during corporate worship and, in fact, used to be one of those people. Yet, my heart and mind began to change on the issue when I realized the underpinning on which such an act is built, namely the kiss of peace.
Paul instructs believers to greet one another with a holy kiss (Rom 16:16). The significance is not found in the act of kissing itself but rather in the adjective which proceeds it: holy. Built upon the truth that God’s people are holy and set apart, the weekly greeting should be viewed not as a regrettable act but as a sacred act. More than a mere greeting, the act is sacred because the people of God are sacred and called to holiness. When one’s attitude shifts from greeting with a kiss to greeting with a holy kiss, the act becomes not merely a kind gesture but an act of worship. To discuss how to approach the kiss of peace in a modern context, I suggest five imperatives of which believers should be mindful.
Recent personal discussions and observations of Eucharistic practices have made it abundantly clear to me that the vitality of the Lord’s Supper must be recovered in the church. I believe most local churches’ view of the Lord’s Table has veered so far off course that a track toward recovery is necessary. Not only do Pew and Barna statistics reveal a lack of deep spirituality in the church, but my own (and others’) personal observations have led me to this conclusion. Communion is not an option for the believer, i.e. it is a command and a crucial command at that; yet, many local churches seem to diminish the importance of the ordinance. Thus, those who hear my call right now, let us faithfully begin to recover the vitality and fundamental importance of the Lord’s Table in our local churches, for recovering can only happen in local churches.
My personal conviction of the importance of the Lord’s Table has greatly increased over the past four years. Before beginning a process of recovery, we must understand why the vitality must be recovered. I would like to discuss the vitality of the Lord’s Table in a succinct and concise manner. I have four thoughts I would like to expound upon to argue for the vitality of the Lord’s Table and its recovery.
A few years ago, a prominent church in the United States came under controversy for beginning their weekly worship gathering with a secular song. The scrutiny was not as much because the song was secular but because of its questionable lyrics, which include, “Baby, you turn me on.” Like many of you, growing up, it became clear to me that secular music should be used in the context of corporate worship. I have laxed on that stance since then; yet, I still draw the line at God’s glory. We should always remember that all we do is to be for the glory of God. With that said, it is certainly possible to glorify God and listen to or perform secular music. I would, however, like to focus on the music we utilize in our corporate worship gatherings.
Is it okay to use secular music in corporate worship? The underpinning question (I think) is this: for whose glory is worship designed? Throughout church history, there has existed a fine line between the use of secular and solely sacred elements in music, e.g. secular tunes were often parodied and set in corporate worship contexts in the Reformation and post-Reformation eras. In fact, many hymns in our various denominational hymnals employ tunes that were once considered secular. Many congregants likely do not know that now because the tunes have been familiarized in sacred worship for so long. The church shares a rich history of employing secular mediums in worship. Recently I recorded an entire podcast on art in worship and discussed the fact that there is no sacred and secular divide except what humanity has created, i.e. God created music and art for his glory so any artform that does not glorify him has been distorted.
How then do we, as worship leaders, approach the use of secular music in corporate worship? Is it okay? Is it not okay? I would like to answer these questions as best as possible by discussing three unique aspects to this conversation. Thinking through these three imperatives will help us determine what is okay to use in corporate worship.
A recent popular worship song has caused great controversy among worship leaders and churches. Cory Asbury’s “Reckless Love” has sparked debate far and wide. Arguments made both for the use of the word, reckless, are:
1) it is a metaphor;
2) from a human perspective, God’s love is reckless because it does not make sense;
3) the song does not speak of God himself but rather his love;
4) and many more.
I do not intend to delve into discussion of this song itself or the use of the word, reckless, but I would like to discuss the broader topic of language in worship music. I would like to examine the pros and cons of modern vs. traditional and metaphorical vs. literal language. I do not mean to sway one way or another but merely to have us think about these issues as it relates to the message of the gospel as well as the context we minister in, which is disparate across the spectrum. To sum, I will discuss how to approach language in worship music, which, by the way, is nothing to be taken lightly.
A recent popular worship song has caused great controversy among worship leaders and churches. Cory Asbury’s “Reckless Love” has sparked debate far and wide. Arguments made both for the use of the word, reckless, are:
1) it is a metaphor;
2) from a human perspective, God’s love is reckless because it does not make sense;
3) the song does not speak of God himself but rather his love;
4) and many more.
I do not intend to delve into discussion of this song itself or the use of the word, reckless, but I would like to discuss the broader topic of language in worship music. I would like to examine the pros and cons of modern vs. traditional and metaphorical vs. literal language. I do not mean to sway one way or another but merely to have us think about these issues as it relates to the message of the gospel as well as the context we minister in, which is disparate across the spectrum. To sum, I will discuss how to approach language in worship music, which, by the way, is nothing to be taken lightly.
A recent popular worship song has caused great controversy among worship leaders and churches. Cory Asbury’s “Reckless Love” has sparked debate far and wide. Arguments made both for the use of the word, reckless, are:
1) it is a metaphor;
2) from a human perspective, God’s love is reckless because it does not make sense;
3) the song does not speak of God himself but rather his love;
4) and many more.
I do not intend to delve into discussion of this song itself or the use of the word, reckless, but I would like to discuss the broader topic of language in worship music. I would like to examine the pros and cons of modern vs. traditional and metaphorical vs. literal language. I do not mean to sway one way or another but merely to have us think about these issues as it relates to the message of the gospel as well as the context we minister in, which is disparate across the spectrum. To sum, I will discuss how to approach language in worship music, which, by the way, is nothing to be taken lightly.
A recent popular worship song has caused great controversy among worship leaders and churches. Cory Asbury’s “Reckless Love” has sparked debate far and wide. Arguments made both for the use of the word, reckless, are:
1) it is a metaphor;
2) from a human perspective, God’s love is reckless because it does not make sense;
3) the song does not speak of God himself but rather his love;
4) and many more.
I do not intend to delve into discussion of this song itself or the use of the word, reckless, but I would like to discuss the broader topic of language in worship music. I would like to examine the pros and cons of modern vs. traditional and metaphorical vs. literal language. I do not mean to sway one way or another but merely to have us think about these issues as it relates to the message of the gospel as well as the context we minister in, which is disparate across the spectrum. To sum, I will discuss how to approach language in worship music, which, by the way, is nothing to be taken lightly.
A recent popular worship song has caused great controversy among worship leaders and churches. Cory Asbury’s “Reckless Love” has sparked debate far and wide. Arguments made both for the use of the word, reckless, are:
1) it is a metaphor;
2) from a human perspective, God’s love is reckless because it does not make sense;
3) the song does not speak of God himself but rather his love;
4) and many more.
I do not intend to delve into discussion of this song itself or the use of the word, reckless, but I would like to discuss the broader topic of language in worship music. I would like to examine the pros and cons of modern vs. traditional and metaphorical vs. literal language. I do not mean to sway one way or another but merely to have us think about these issues as it relates to the message of the gospel as well as the context we minister in, which is disparate across the spectrum. To sum, I will discuss how to approach language in worship music, which, by the way, is nothing to be taken lightly.
A recent popular worship song has caused great controversy among worship leaders and churches. Cory Asbury’s “Reckless Love” has sparked debate far and wide. Arguments made both for the use of the word, reckless, are:
1) it is a metaphor;
2) from a human perspective, God’s love is reckless because it does not make sense;
3) the song does not speak of God himself but rather his love;
4) and many more.
I do not intend to delve into discussion of this song itself or the use of the word, reckless, but I would like to discuss the broader topic of language in worship music. I would like to examine the pros and cons of modern vs. traditional and metaphorical vs. literal language. I do not mean to sway one way or another but merely to have us think about these issues as it relates to the message of the gospel as well as the context we minister in, which is disparate across the spectrum. To sum, I will discuss how to approach language in worship music, which, by the way, is nothing to be taken lightly.
A recent popular worship song has caused great controversy among worship leaders and churches. Cory Asbury’s “Reckless Love” has sparked debate far and wide. Arguments made both for the use of the word, reckless, are:
1) it is a metaphor;
2) from a human perspective, God’s love is reckless because it does not make sense;
3) the song does not speak of God himself but rather his love;
4) and many more.
I do not intend to delve into discussion of this song itself or the use of the word, reckless, but I would like to discuss the broader topic of language in worship music. I would like to examine the pros and cons of modern vs. traditional and metaphorical vs. literal language. I do not mean to sway one way or another but merely to have us think about these issues as it relates to the message of the gospel as well as the context we minister in, which is disparate across the spectrum. To sum, I will discuss how to approach language in worship music, which, by the way, is nothing to be taken lightly.
A recent popular worship song has caused great controversy among worship leaders and churches. Cory Asbury’s “Reckless Love” has sparked debate far and wide. Arguments made both for the use of the word, reckless, are:
1) it is a metaphor;
2) from a human perspective, God’s love is reckless because it does not make sense;
3) the song does not speak of God himself but rather his love;
4) and many more.
I do not intend to delve into discussion of this song itself or the use of the word, reckless, but I would like to discuss the broader topic of language in worship music. I would like to examine the pros and cons of modern vs. traditional and metaphorical vs. literal language. I do not mean to sway one way or another but merely to have us think about these issues as it relates to the message of the gospel as well as the context we minister in, which is disparate across the spectrum. To sum, I will discuss how to approach language in worship music, which, by the way, is nothing to be taken lightly.
A recent popular worship song has caused great controversy among worship leaders and churches. Cory Asbury’s “Reckless Love” has sparked debate far and wide. Arguments made both for the use of the word, reckless, are:
1) it is a metaphor;
2) from a human perspective, God’s love is reckless because it does not make sense;
3) the song does not speak of God himself but rather his love;
4) and many more.
I do not intend to delve into discussion of this song itself or the use of the word, reckless, but I would like to discuss the broader topic of language in worship music. I would like to examine the pros and cons of modern vs. traditional and metaphorical vs. literal language. I do not mean to sway one way or another but merely to have us think about these issues as it relates to the message of the gospel as well as the context we minister in, which is disparate across the spectrum. To sum, I will discuss how to approach language in worship music, which, by the way, is nothing to be taken lightly.
A recent popular worship song has caused great controversy among worship leaders and churches. Cory Asbury’s “Reckless Love” has sparked debate far and wide. Arguments made both for the use of the word, reckless, are:
1) it is a metaphor;
2) from a human perspective, God’s love is reckless because it does not make sense;
3) the song does not speak of God himself but rather his love;
4) and many more.
I do not intend to delve into discussion of this song itself or the use of the word, reckless, but I would like to discuss the broader topic of language in worship music. I would like to examine the pros and cons of modern vs. traditional and metaphorical vs. literal language. I do not mean to sway one way or another but merely to have us think about these issues as it relates to the message of the gospel as well as the context we minister in, which is disparate across the spectrum. To sum, I will discuss how to approach language in worship music, which, by the way, is nothing to be taken lightly.
Commonly referred to as Communion, the Eucharist, or even the Great Thanksgiving, the Lord’s Supper is one of two ordinances of the church and, thus, must be considered a serious and sacred act of worship. I recently had a conversation with another worship leader who said to me that the Lord’s Supper is not an act of worship. I was stunned, to say the least. If Communion is not an act of worship, what is it? Contrarily, not only is Communion an act of worship, it is also a vital sacred act of fellowship in the body of Christ. To neglect the Lord’s Supper, is to disobey Christ’s institution of and command to partake in it. Doubtlessly, believers should prioritize the Lord’s Supper. A good question then is this: how often should a church observe the Lord’s Supper? There are varying opinions on this matter. Communion was a crucial aspect of my doctoral studies so I have four thoughts regarding the interval between a church’s Lord’s Supper observances.
Throughout my ministry, I have had some form of the following question: is it okay to use the music of ungodly composers and song-writers in your ministry? This question could certainly be asked of other Christian artists and creators such as authors and preachers. The question is likely not derived from thoughts of their work but rather their lives. In my experience, it has been asked out of a genuine concern for God’s people and how using such people’s work will impact the local church. Years ago, a prominent Christian musician to which I grew up listening professed his own homosexuality while I was serving in a local church fellowship; I am still asked questions about whether it is wrong or right to use his music. While I openly admit that his decision has had drastic negative effects on professing Christians, we should assess whether using his music is still acceptable.
Although we should test and measure everything we allow into our lives, I would like to examine how to respond to the music of ungodly composers, song-writers, and hymn-writers. I firmly believe that it is acceptable and even good to use the music of anyone, irrespective of the composer’s lifestyle, if the music is created within the bounds of certain parameters, namely correct theology. Regarding this topic then, I have four thoughts concerning the church’s use of ungodly composers’ music.
I was recently asked what my church’s hymn to contemporary congregational music ratio is. I keep a running chart and continuously update it so I knew the answer to that question; yet, it was apparent to me that the person asking did not understand the meaning of the words, hymn and contemporary. Most people would likely assume contemporary to mean in a modern style. Contemporary, however, denotes an era or timeframe. If I were to ask of a contemporary of Mozart, for example, one might respond with Haydn. Certainly, this is true, while a contemporary of myself could be Carrie Underwood. To restate the question then, I think it would be more appropriate to ask, “What is your church’s ratio of hymns to modern music, though even then, one must define a hymn.
My church is about an 88% hymn-singing church. The problem many worship pastors might experience is not a lack of singing hymns but rather which hymns they sing. Many congregants have a wrong idea of what constitutes a hymn. There are certain characteristics that hymns possess. The age of a song then does not define it as a hymn or not a hymn. Of the hymns my church sings, 72% are what refer to as timeless and 28% modern.[1] In my role as a worship leader over the years, it has become clear that most people do not know what a hymn is. The Apostle Paul tells the Colossians to admonish one another with “psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs (Col 3:16). There is then a difference between hymns and other types of congregational music. I do not intend to delve into the biblical difference between these three categories but only to give specific characteristics of hymns. I will do so by defining first what a hymn is not and then what it is. There are characteristics unique to hymns, both sacred and secular.[2]
[1] The timeless designation has to do with the age of the hymn and whether it is in my denomination’s hymnal. Modern hymns are hymns written primarily in the last fifteen years by living composers and cannot be found in most hymnals.
[2] Secular hymns have existed for centuries, the tunes of which are often also utilized in Christian worship.
Singing in Judeo-Christian worship has been essential for centuries. Even before the church-age, the Israelites utilized singing as a proper mechanism by which to worship God. It is surely not the only element in corporate worship, but it is important, nonetheless. As a worship leader, I have observed the worship practices of many congregations of God’s people. In my close workings within various church contexts, my observations have led me to conclude that a congregation’s spirituality is strongly connected to how they sing. I am not referring to quality of singing but rather the general practice of congregational singing itself, i.e. congregational singing is reflective of a local church’s spirituality. Without grinding at the specifics of what constitutes spirituality, let us concern this topic with a church’s overall connection to God’s heart and character. Said another way, singing indicates a local church’s general spiritual condition. I have four thoughts then that further illustrate my notion.
It is essential that Christians believe in many aspects of Jesus Christ; yet, one of the most fundamental is his resurrection. Christ’s resurrection from the dead is essential to not only salvation (Rom 10:9) but also to the way God’s people live their lives. Nevertheless, there are ways we often exercise practical denial of Jesus’ resurrection. By practical denial, I mean to imply not a literal belief that he is still dead but rather a seeming denial in the way we live our lives, i.e. our belief in Christ’s resurrection should surely impact our lives in the areas I will discuss. I will, therefore, offer four ways we deny the resurrection of Christ practically, a grave danger, for actions often speak to others louder than words.
In both Greek and Hebrew, the biblical words used for worship do not equate to music. Biblical worship refers to either 1) an attitude or a posture or 2) a service rendered. Abraham reveals the first use of the word in the Bible when he says, “. . . I and the boy will go over there and worship . . . (Gen 22:5 ESV). In essence, it could be said that music is but a small part of worship. Worship might be separated into two categories: corporate and personal; yet, even in corporate worship, the entirety of the gathering constitutes worship rather than merely the musical portions of the service. How then did the word, worship, become synonymous with music? Historical records of worship reveal that the church, through the centuries, has considered all aspects of the worship gathering (e.g. prayers, sermons, communion, etc.) to encompass the whole of worship. I have four ideas for how the terms, worship and music, became synonymous and some suggestions for how to counter this false connection.
For centuries, the church has utilized familiar tunes with variations of text in congregational worship. Those who have studied church music and hymnody are likely familiar with the crossover between texts, tunes, and meters. Only in recent years has it been common to associate a particular tune with only one set of text, e.g. Amazing Grace with the NEW BRITAIN tune; yet, there are marvelous benefits to setting new text to familiar tunes. Such a practice can help both worship leaders and congregants. I would like to give four reasons to employ the practice of setting new text to familiar tunes in congregational worship.
Sunday, February 25, I interviewed a missionary to Africa, during his recent visit to West Texas. We discussed missions in general and his specific calling to a nomadic unreached people group.
The Apostle Paul tells believers to abstain from every form of evil (1 Thess 5:22). While the ESV reads, “form, other translations read, “appearance, e.g. the KJV, BRG, GNV, AKJV, and TPT. In the English language, form and appearance have two disparate meanings and implications. Paul’s instructions here are often stretched in manifold directions to fit one’s theological interpretation. It is doubtlessly a vital instruction; yet, believers must discern and interpret the intention behind Paul’s words. The line between clarity and ambiguity in these directions is often imprecise, forcing Christians to a variety of personal interpretations. Certainly, there is room for disagreement here; we must, however, determine what Paul’s words mean based on sound reason and doctrine. I have four personal thoughts regarding the appearance (or the form) of evil.
In recent years, discussions of patriotism and nationalism have penetrated the boundaries of society and moved into the walls of the church to the point where falsely marrying the church to one side of the issue or another now regularly occurs. As a pastor and a worship leader, I desire to see all things through the grid of God’s glory; this includes the issue of patriotism and nationalism, which are two drastically disparate items. What is the Christian view on patriotism? On nationalism? Is there a single Christian view, or might there be a plurality of right views on the issue? I am usually a both and person and prefer to view issues with an open mind, if the view I have does not blatantly contradict Scripture. I have three primary thoughts on the Christian’s relationship between patriotism and nationalism as well as an additional personal note that I would like to share.
Perhaps you have had heated conversations (with believers or non-believers) on seemingly controversial theological topics. As unified and loving Christians, a difficult aspect to our faith is learning how to handle disagreements. A few months ago, my commentary centered around orthodoxy and how we determine what is orthodox. I made the point that the older I get, the less orthodox items there are, i.e. there must be room for disagreement in the church. Yet, I would also offer the necessity of clarity in gospel communication. Secondary issues do not equate to meaningless issues; semantics or not, we not only benefit from clarity in our words, but whether dealing with preaching, singing, or general conversation, I submit that we are called to clarity in gospel communication. The tendency is often to negate the importance of words in communication; yet, words mean and imply vital elements which we (knowingly or unknowingly) communicate. Therefore, regarding clarity in gospel communication, I have three thoughts we should be mindful of in our dialogue.
[1] Many would say accept rather than receive. I choose the word, receive, for theological reasons.
What is the best method of evangelism? I was raised in an evangelical Baptist church that not only believed in evangelism but also practiced it, and we utilized various methods of evangelism. A plurality of acronyms and methods were fed into my brain from an early age. One I remember is the FAITH method. Each letter of FAITH represented a part of the gospel message. The goal, at the end of the presentation, was to get people to receive[1] Christ. Methods such as this could certainly be beneficial, especially for people like me who enjoy structure and planning. When I preach, speak, or give a presentation, I want to know what I will say. That is not to diminish the prompting of the Holy Spirit. Structure, however, helps people like me. No matter how we employ it though, evangelism is necessary for all believers. We are called to evangelize so how should we do it, and why is it important? I have some thoughts regarding evangelism methods that I would like to share.
As we approach the Feast of St. Valentine, we often (at least in western culture) consider the topic of love. February 14 has become something of an enigma, having moved far from its original intent. So little is known of St. Valentine that the Catholic Church has removed the Feast of St. Valentine as an official feast day but has opted to keep it on local calendars. Nevertheless, in western culture, Valentine’s Day is the day we celebrate love so on the topic of love, as a follower of Christ, I would like to discuss the relevant topic of evangelism. I relate evangelism to love because of our urgent call to preach the gospel and share the love of Christ. God is love and has given people a way to him through Jesus Christ. How much then do we have to not love people to refuse our participation in evangelism? If love doesn’t compel us to evangelize, we should be compelled first and foremost by the mere fact that God has called us to it (2 Tim 4:5); therefore, it is a command. God’s command then should be enough. Yet, often it isn’t. In the name of love for humanity, let us be evangelists.
In this episode, Dr. Jones discusses the difficult of hearing from God and recognizing his voice. There are practical elements involved, but the discernment is usually up to the individual. How does God speak to you? Jonathan discusses these matters in this episode.
Many believers are raised being taught to tithe. What is the true meaning of the word, tithe, though? Dr. Jonathan Michael Jones examines the meaning of the word and discusses the difference in Old Testament and New Testament giving.
Artists are often told to think outside the box. While the concept may sound intriguing, is that the best way to approach art and particularly Christian art? Dr. Jonathan Michael Jones discusses the benefits of the artist placing himself or herself inside a box for concise and accurate artistic expression.
The trend of the modern church is to emphasize relationship over religion, but is such an emphasis biblical, i.e. does Scripture point to one over the other or to both? Does one inform the other? It is biblically incorrect to deny the religious aspect of the Christian faith. How then do we approach religion in its proper manner? Dr. Jonathan Michael Jones examines the concept of religion and relationship working together.
Cultural norms tell us to forego Advent and move immediately to Christmas, only to cease Christmas celebrations December 25. Historically, the church has observed Advent prior to Christmas though? Is this necessary? What do we miss by failing to observe Advent, and what do we gain by observing this historic time of year? Dr. Jones discusses these matters in this episode.
Christ lives and walked among humans on this earth nearly 2,000 years ago, but what happened to him after his ascension? We often neglect to realize his continued incarnation. What implications does Christ's present incarnation have in our lives? Jonathan discusses these matters here.
Perhaps we have confused the terms, blessing and prosperity. God has never promised prosperity to his people but rather perseverance. Have we passed the point of blessing to where we are now spoiled? Jonathan discusses this issue and particularly how it relates to the American church.
We often use the term, "orthodox," incorrectly as if to refer to individualized or denominational beliefs when particular beliefs may not, in fact, be orthodox at all. What is the meaning of this word? How do we define orthodoxy? In this episode, Jonathan discusses these matters.
How do we deal with confessions and creeds, particularly in free church settings? In this episode, Jonathan discusses the benefits and pitfalls of formal confessions.
How do we approach the issue of the law in the church age? Jonathan discusses our obligation to or freedom from the law in this episode.
In honor of the 550th anniversary of the Protestant Reformation, Jonathan discusses three overarching points found in the text of Martin Luther's 95 theses which were nailed to the church door in Witternberg October 31, 1517.
Is ritual/tradition good or bad? Is it directly linked to sincerity or insincerity? Jonathan Jones discusses these matters in this episode.