Musical Chronological Snobbery

A few years ago, a woman came up to me after the worship service, and asked why I looked so solemn during the singing. "Worship should be joyful," she argued. I responded that I was truly joyful, and that my serious composure was the result of being joyful in the presence of the Holy Lord...or something like that.

The attitude that many Christians have and assume is that older music doesn't have any use for us today. "It is outdated." "It was cool back then, but not now." "We want music that we find cool." On and on the modern thought goes.

By what standard? Now that is a good question. By what standard is the music we bring before the throne of God worthy? Firstly, none of our music is ever worthy of God. Secondly, the standard by which must judge our music is Scripture. Yes, even the tempo, yes even the rhythm, yes even the instruments played. Questions asked may include: "Does instrument A help us to focus our corporate attention on the Lord better than instrument B?" "Does this rhythm communicate an enjoyment of self more than an enjoyment of God?" "Does the melody of this piece have a sacred sound? Is that important?"

We need to be asking ourselves more revealing questions about the song-singing in our churches. We must do so for the sake of the Kingdom.


Source article: http://www.christkirk.com/Literature/Worship.asp

Also check out: http://www.amazon.com/Reaching-Out-Without-Dumbing-Down/dp/0802841023/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1246338515&sr=8-1

Christian Hilarity

civitas Dei

"It would be nonsense to say this of a particular group of people: 'Though they do not wear uniforms, are not organized by rank, do not employ military language, do not enforce rules of military conduct, never perform any military ceremonies, and never engage in military operations - yet in spite of this they are the military.' (Or, it would be nonsense unless it were describing the French military.) Military culture is the sum of all these activities and practices.

Culture is not a shadowy something existing in secret "behind" its "manifestations" in language, rites, and discipline. Culture is a people organized and united by its language, rites, rules, and mechanisms of enforcement.

So also is the covenant.

So also is the Church." (Against Christianity, Peter Leithart)

Counterfeit Virtue

Alcohol is synonymous with sin for many. Still for others it is considered an act of Christian love to perpetually abstain from alcohol, to provide a good Christian witness to others. My beef with the latter view (the former being easily dismissed on account of Scripture, and also condemned in the heresy of Manicheism) is that it creates a counterfeit virtue for the Christian.

The erroneous logic is as follows: 1. Alcohol itself is not inherently bad. 2. Perpetual abstinence from "stumbling" consumables is commanded from Scripture for reason of providing a good Christian witness. 3. Therefore, perpetual abstinence from alcohol is not bad; it is in fact a virtue.

My claim is that perpetual abstinence from alcohol is not good, and Scripture by no means condones this false conviction; it is in fact a counterfeit virtue.

Starting from the first premise: alcohol is not inherently bad. The positive of this negative statement is that alcohol is inherently good. Alcohol, being a creation of our Lord, is intrinsically good. Unlike the Manichees who understood evil to be tangible, Jesus states that "it is not what enters into the mouth that defiles the man, but what proceeds out of the mouth, this defiles the man" (Matt. 15:11). Evil is not tangible; evil is spiritual. This the Bible makes this absolutely clear (Gen. 1:11-12, Matt. 15:11, Romans 14:14, 1 Tim. 4:3).

The second premise is where things have gotten hairy in many modern churches; this is where my disagreement lies. In Kenneth L. Gentry Jr.'s book, "God Gave Wine," he devotes an entire chapter to the exegesis of Romans 14. In that chapter, Paul is speaking to the Romans about the doctrine of Christian liberty. There were a few things that stuck out to me in this chapter. One such point is the term "stumbling block" that many Christians like to throw around. What does this cryptic saying mean? What constitutes as a "stumbling block?" Gentry defines the Greek word used here: proskomma. As it turns out, this Greek word does not simply mean something that causes someone to feel uncomfortable or irritated. The meaning is much stronger than that. Proskomma in the Greek refers to something that causes someone to fall into sin against God. Notice the word "cause." If the effect of my cause is rebellion against the Lord, then I should not do what is in question. On how many occasions is moderate alcohol consumption a cause for sin? Let us answer the question with care, for our Savior Himself consumed alcohol in public, around the society's lowest, most likely some of which may have been tempted with the sin of drunkenness.

The fact is that Christ did not cause anyone to sin. "Cause" implies intent. If it is my intent to cause someone to fall into sin, then I have sinned; I am responsible. We cannot cause someone to sin if it is not our intent to do so. If our intent is not to make others sin and simply enjoy God's goodness and providence, then the responsibility literally does not lie with us for the sin they may commit as the result of our lawful activity. We cannot unknowingly cause someone to sin, according to the very nature and definition of the word proskomma.

So how, then, should we approach alcohol? In the same way we approach everything else. With sobriety of mind and spirit, and with praise for our Lord on our lips. He is good, and all that he has created is good. Alcohol abstention is, in fact, nothing more than a counterfeit virtue, a "virtue" that Christ Himself did not practice.

It is dangerous business indeed to try and be holier than Christ; that was the Pharisee's fatal game. Let us give thanks to our Maker for the good things he has given to us to enjoy; let us praise Him by enjoying alcohol as He meant for it to be enjoyed. Cheers!

In Relationship - "The Doctrine of Eating What you Want To," Part II

Hey all, here's an article that Wilson wrote, along the same vein of my previous blog. Tell me what you think:

"In Relationship"

"One of the most difficult things for us to do is the task of locating sin properly. One common mistake, one that we have addressed a number of times before, is the mistake of locating sin in stuff. This mistake thinks that sin must be resident in material things—in sex, in alcohol, in refined sugar, in tobacco, and so on.

Faithful Christians know better than this, knowing that sin is a function of the thoughts and intentions of the heart. But there is a subtlety here also. We sometimes forget that hearts do not exist in any solitary way. Think of this another way. All sin, every sin, is always a sin in relationship to others.

If you could be alone, truly alone, you could not sin. Moreover, you could not be you if you were genuinely, completely alone. In the world God made, relationship with others is as necessary as contending with height, breadth and depth. Even if you were to go off into the mountains to live alone, every moment of every day, you will still be living in relationship with the triune God in whom we all live, move and have our being.

So sin is not found in material stuff. Neither is sin found in a solitary human heart. Sin is always found in the human heart in relationship to other hearts. But notice what follows from this. When sin is in the stuff, sin is simple. That is why people are attracted to the legalistic systems that operate on this calculus. "Don’t drink beer" is the rule, and you are either obeying or you are not. When sin is in your own heart, and it is your solitary heart that you are thinking of, sin is simple. Sin is defined by how you think and feel about things. You descend into your own heart to look for sin, and as it turns out you always look in the same old places, and you don’t look in the nooks and crannies—the first places that others would look.

If sin is a function of relationship, then the complexities are such that only the grace of God can sort it all out. And sin is a direct function of relationship, isn’t it? What are the two great commandments, the two commandments that sum up all ethical responsibility that can be found in the Bible? What are those commandments? Love God and love your neighbor. All the law is encompassed in relationship. This means that sin cannot be understood, analyzed, confessed, or forsaken without reference to the thoughts, loves, intents, and desires of those others.

Therefore . . . love God. Love one another."

Now, sin is commonly understood as Wilson has defined it above: taking place in realtionships, and exlusively at that. Therefore, no physical thing is inherently sinful. This is extremely helpful in understanding things we consume: all food and drink (and yes, even smoking, if you enjoy that sort of thing) is permissible - God's Word affirms this, as my previous post explored and explained. However, "all things edible" leave the realm of permissibilty once they either A) inhibit our relationship with the Father, or B) inhibit our relationships with others. What say you?

The Doctrine of Eating What You Want To.

Food: everyone's favorite topic, especially for many Christians today. We've all heard people speak of "health" and "eating right," but where should Christians draw the line? What does the Bible have to say about this issue?

Douglas Wilson, one of my favorite authors, has written a great article entitled, "The Fat is the Lord's" in the latest issue of "Credenda Agenda." He claims that the modern dieting and health-pursuit craze can be classified as worldliness, of which Christians should take care to "not be conformed to" (Romans 12:2). As Christians, we should feel no need whatsoever to rule out certain food or drink! Matthew states that "John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, he hath a devil. The Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say, behold a man gluttonous, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners. But wisdom is justified of her children" (Matt. 11:18-19). God spoke to Noah, and told him that "every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you" (Gen. 9:3). In the Garden, God told Adam and Eve to eat freely (Gen. 2:16).

Now, what about modern foods? So much fat, grease, MSGs and the like; what of those? Obviously, the Bible speaks of none of these, so it is impossible for Christians to hold as law a charge to not consume them. Author James Jordon puts it this way: "it is not a serious matter for a physician to advise abstaining from foods for medical reasons, based on human wisdom. It is, however a very serious thing when men advocate abstaining from foods for religious reasons...valuable as exercise, good diet, and the like may be, they are not delineated in God's revealed law" (from his book, Pig Out?).

Now, this may prove offensive to many Christians, but there are many verses, some of which I have already quoted, that simply stand at odds with diet-crazed moderns. Isaiah, when speaking of the New Covenant, states that "on this mountain shall the LORD of hosts make unto all people a feast of fat things, a feast of wines on the lees, of fat things full of marrow, of wines on the lees well refined" (Is. 25:6). God's design for His people is for them to enjoy all things edible. I'll close with a final quote from Wilson:

at the root of all the problems, we should be able to detect a false doctrine of God. Ours is a lost generation, in the grip of a deep father hunger. Because we have not had healthy relationships with our human fathers, God, we naturally assume, is parsimonious. He is tight-fisted with His abundance. We slander Him in our hearts. If it tastes like gravel, it must be from God, so the thinking goes, and restaurants tout their 'death by chocolate' concoctions as 'decadent' or 'sinful.' Something is desperately wrong here. God - not the devil - was the inventor of pleasure, sex, goodness, fermentation, and satisfaction. He was the designer of all our nerve endings and our taste buds and over a million tastes, and He gave men the ingenuity to be able to figure out how to combine all those tastes in ways that would create a trillion more. Where could we have possibly gotten the idea that He was stingy? An enemy has done this.

The Chicken or the Egg?

I've recently heard arguments from a friend of mine who says that Scripture is itself subject the the authority of Tradition. This view is most identifiable from within the Roman Catholic camp of Christianity, and it presents itself quite convincingly, at face value. The argument goes something like this: Scripture is infallible inasmuch as those who canonized were themselves infallible; therefore, these men, operating from within the Holy Tradition, bear the weight and authority of Tradition onto the canonized Scripture. In conclusion, we have the Scripture, arranged and canonized by men, which is subject to the authority of the men operating from within the Holy Tradition.

As I have said, this can sound very convincing at first, but there are some big problems with this reasoning. The biggest error that I can see is the lack of objectivity given to God's Word, the Scriptures. The way I see it, if we can give math the benefit of objectivity, we should do likewise for God's Word. Going further in this example of mathematics, we find men in the past who have developed theorems and proofs that men before them had not developed, hence they “discovered” those theorems and proofs. But it would be silly to say that they invented the very principles of math that they sought to theorize and make useful in theorem form. Most certainly math exists outside of our knowledge of it. Two and two make four, quite regardless of whether I acknowledge that or not. This objective view of math can be very helpful when searching for the authority of Scripture. Just as the objective principles of math can be acknowledged by men, so those who helped to canonize Scripture recognized its authority outside of themselves, or objectively.

Here is a second problem. No Roman Catholic would argue with the fact that there have been false, or bad traditions that have disguised themselves as tradition in the past. Many have not even been disguised. Now, I acknowledge that many bad or false traditions have been purged from the Roman Catholic church over the years, and that is a good thing. What I find contestable are the words good and bad, when applied to Tradition. Now, if it is true that Roman Catholic's place the Holy Tradition as their highest degree of authority, then how in God's Name can subjective terms such as bad or good be applied to it? If the Holy Tradition is the yardstick by which we must measure everything else, then how is it even possible that it can be questioned or deemed bad? That would be like saying that there is such a thing as good math or bad math. Now, when I say bad math I do not mean one who is poor at math, nor when I say good math, one who excels at math. I mean math itself. Math itself has no subjective qualities about it; it simply is. We must conform our minds to the principles of math, not the other way around. Likewise, if Holy Tradition is the highest authority, how then would it begin to make sense to question it? If it is, in fact, the highest authority, then we should conform ourselves to it, no questions asked. But once we begin the nonsense of saying there is good absolute authority, worthy of our devotion, and bad absolute authority, then we have begun to hold Tradition up to a higher standard, a standard objective to it's subjectivity. Now what would be the candidate for Tradition to be subject to? Men, who are creatures prone to change? I shouldn't think so. Then what? Why, the Holy Scriptures of course.

The last argument that many Roman Catholics like to raise goes something like this: both Tradition and Scripture are subject to divine revelation, which comes from God and empowers both equally. Now, this is perhaps the best of their arguments so far, but it remains unconvincing. One must ask this crucial question: How do we receive divine revelation? Of course, this is the key point where Protestants and Roman Catholics answer differently, Roman Catholics answering that they receive divine revelation from the papacy, Tradition, and Scripture, while Protestants answer only the Scriptures. Personally, in reference to the Catholic argument, I can think of nothing more circularly problematic. Maybe I just need to ask the Lord to increase my faith...for when receiving divine revelation from the papacy, Tradition, and Scripture, which have all erred in the past, sans Scripture, then I'd consider myself in deep doodoo if I placed my foundation upon something that has failed, and is certainly prone to fail again.