I was pondering the issue of the intended roles of women in ministry the past few days and I began to see an interesting connection with the arguments of those who hold to what is known as the "egalitarian" position and those within the visible church (as compared to the invisible church which only God knows who belongs) who are part of the pro-homosexual lobby. A common element with both would be that they compromise the sole authority of Scripture (the Protestant principle of Sola Scriptura).
Egalitarianism and the Authority of Scripture
The "egalitarian" position basically argues that men and women are fully equal in all aspects such that the husband has not be placed in authority over his wife and that women can and should serve the major leadership positions in the church just as much as men. Such a view leads to the promotion of the licensing and ordination of women to serve as pastors in churches and other such high offices. The other perspective, and the one that a majority of theologians, pastors, and teachers have held throughout church history, as well as the perspective of this author based on his study of Scripture, has been labeled as "complentarianism." This perspective follows Scripture's teaching that God created men and women in His image both equal in status (Galatians 3:28) but with different roles that compliment each other in the home (1 Corinthians 11:2-16; Ephesians 5:22-33; Colossians 3:18-19; 1 Peter 3:1-7) and in the church (1 Corinthians 14:34-35; 1 Timothy 2:11-15). A typical trait of "egalitarians" has been to elevate the Galatians 3:28 passage to the exclusion of the other passages here cited. When faced with the plain teaching of these other passages, they actually wind up appealing to another authority outside of Scripture. For instance, a common attempt to get around 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 and 1 Timothy 2:11-15 that explicitly state that God has not ordained for women to serve the role of elder in the church has been to claim that the culture of the time these verses were written were different than our culture today and thus no longer apply. In 21st century America, women are viewed as doing pretty much anything that men do. Predominantly this is due to the feminist movement. (I long for the day where the high calling of women to serve as mothers would once again take precedence over the picture of the career woman. But I digress.) Women work in the same jobs and serve in the same roles as men. The argument follows then that these passages need to be read in light of today's culture instead of examining our culture in light of Scripture. It is as Matt Chandler puts it, "The culture begins to define the Scriptures instead of the Scriptures defining the culture" (The Explicit Gospel, 194). Hence, the authority appealed to for their position is not Scripture alone (Sola Scriptura) but the culture. (For the record, the textual evidence of 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 and 1 Timothy 2:11-15 do not support Paul's instruction concerning women not serving in a "teaching" or "authoritative" role over men in a congregational setting being a cultural issue limited to Ephesus or Corinth as "egalitarians" often claim. Right after making such a statement in 1 Timothy 2:12, Paul does not reference a problem occurring specifically at that local church that serves as the reason for such a prohibition but the design and order of God's creation itself. For Adam was formed first, then Eve (v. 13). In the Corinthian context, Paul states that this teaching concerning women learning in submission is As in all the churches of the saints v. 33b.)
However, culture is not the only authority that "egalitarians" appeal to in order to substantiate their claim for women to serve in the role of elder or pastor in a church. I don't know how many times I have had an egalitarian tell me something to the effect, "But they feel that they are "called" to be a pastor. You can't argue with God's Holy Spirit if He is calling them to such a ministry." The problem here is that they are the one actually arguing with the Holy Spirit who inspired the words of 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 and 1 Timothy 2:11-15! Their authority here is not Scripture alone but emotions. It is based on what someone "feels" or "senses". (I believe the Unibomber claimed that he "sensed" that God "called" him to blow up the Oklahoma City building and I have talked to people who claim that God "called" them to leave their wife for another woman.) Or proponents of such a view appeal to experience. They point out the gifts that a woman has for ministry and claim that you cannot tell them that God has not intended them to serve as a pastor due to the gifts He has given them. (In such a case, I would encourage a lady with such gifts to see how God may intend for her to use them in a role in which He has ordained for women to serve in the context of a church, such as working with the children's ministry or the youth or leading a women's Bible study or home group.) In each of these cases, the authority for the "egalitarian" is not Scripture alone (Sola Scriptura) but culture, feelings, or experience. Interestingly enough, these are the same authorities that we notice the pro-homosexual group within the visible church appealing to as well.
Homosexuality and the Authority of Scripture
No one promoting the pro-homosexual agenda actually holds to Sola Scriptura. They can't because if they did, they would not promote such an agenda. God's perspective concerning homosexual acts and relationships has been laid out clearly in His Word. I actually have done an extensive study of the passages that relate to homosexuality in the Bible and the paper that I have written on it can be found here. We find though with the homosexual agenda that has crept into many churches today that they also appeal to culture, feelings, or experience instead of Scripture alone (Sola Scriptura). A study guide concerning Scripture passages that "supposedly" related to homosexuality was put together by a committee within my denomination about two years ago that individual churches were encouraged to go through. One of the actual passages that concerned the issue of homosexuality was Romans 1:18-32. (I found out that one of the conservatives on the committee did suggest the other six passages that deal with homosexuality but he was told they were "clobber passages" and therefore would not be included.) The brief commentary given to go with such a passage stated something to the effect that "Paul did not share the same understanding of sexual orientation as we do today." Again, we find culture serving as the authority and not Scripture alone (Sola Scriptura). Basically, they are saying that what God said through the pen of Paul to the church at Rome does not apply today because we live in a different, more enlightened culture that has figured things out better. (Figured more out than the Ultimate Author of that text?! Perish the thought that God was ignorant about what He inspired to be written about homosexuality or that we know better about it now than He always has when He had these words in Romans to be written! Yikes!)
We also can find "emotions" or "feelings" serving as this group's authority. One of the main arguments of the pro-homosexual agenda is that those who identify themselves as "gay" or "lesbian" "feel" as if they have been born this way. And thus, they reason, if they have been "born this way," then that must mean that God made them this way and it cannot be categorized as a sinful lifestyle regardless of what the Bible actually says. For them, "emotions" and "feelings" trump Scripture. The same can be seen with the authority of experience. I am losing count of how many times I have been told about some homosexual couples who have demonstrated a better loving relationship than many heterosexual couples (and of course comparing them to the Britney Spears', Kim Kardashian's, and Katy Perry's does not really say much as none of them would come close to resembling what the portrait of a biblical marriage should look like). Just like with the "egalitarian" position, we find the pro-homosexual agenda appealing to other authorities outside Scripture instead of Scripture alone (Sola Scriptura).
The Danger of Compromising the Sole Authority of Scripture
So what is my point in showing you such a comparison that I have noticed? I am NOT saying that those who hold to an "egalitarian" position necessarily will adopt the pro-homosexual view. Many thankfully will not. However, this has certainly been the case with the denominations who have, as of this point, accepted so-called same-sex unions and permitted practicing gays and lesbians to be licensed and ordained to serve as pastors in their churches. I do not know of a denomination which has made such a move that didn't first decide to license and ordain women to serve as pastors and elders. Compromising the authority of Scripture in one place inevitably opens the door to compromise it's authority in another place. And as you can see, the same types of extrabiblical authority used to open the door to the one is the same as that used to open the door to the other. In fact, I heard arguments at my denomination's Annual Conference just two weeks ago of how the acceptance of homosexuals being licensed and ordained was just like how women used to not be allowed to be licensed or ordained. The church just hasn't caught up to the culture yet again!
The only remedy to the homosexual issue in the denominations that are currently facing it (such as the beloved Church of the Brethren in which I serve) is to get back to Sola Scriptura; Scripture being our sole authority for everything in our lives. We need to stop flirting with culture, emotions/feelings, and experience. As a denomination, as congregations, and as individuals we either believe that the Word of God is sufficient as it claims (2 Timothy 3:17) or we don't. We either are obedient to God's Word or we are disobedient. Sola Scriptura served as one of the rally cries of the Reformers when they recognized that the unbiblical abuses within the Catholic Church of Rome arose from a departure from holding to Scripture as the sole authority. Such a reformation calling us back to the authority of the Word of God is needed in many denominations today. May God, in His grace, bring us once again back to His Word as our authority and thus to glorifying and honoring Him.
For the sake of God under the authority of His Word,
Lee Smith
Soli Deo Gloria!
Sola Scriptura!
Wednesday, July 25, 2012
Saturday, July 21, 2012
Lessons From the Book of Daniel
This past week I have been spending a significant amount of time studying the book of Daniel as that has served as the Bible lessons for the kids in Vacation Bible School. So often when we read the book of Daniel we focus primarily on the adventures of Daniel and his three friends, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah (or as they are more commonly known by their Babylonian names-Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego). In fact, we even have a popular song that we sometimes sing called “Dare to Be A Daniel.” However, upon a closer examination of the book, we realize that the author of the book emphasizes not the mere man, Daniel, but instead His great God.
Daniel and his friends were part of the intelligent young men taken from Judah to serve King Nebuchadnezzar in the nation of Babylon (1:3-6). They found themselves in a foreign and strange land with a vastly different culture. Their Jewish identity had basically been taken away from them as they were forced to learn the literature and language of the Babylonians as well as be given different names (1:4,7). They were in a place and among a people that thought and viewed things much differently than the Jews in the nation of Israel. Yet the author reminds the original Jewish readers who would have been in Babylon in captivity themselves at the time that regardless of where they were, God still was with them and served as the ultimate sovereign and king.
Though the people no longer were in God’s promised land, God showed them that He still was with them. He had never left them though they had left Israel. As Ezekiel, a prophet contemporary to Daniel, saw, God’s glory also resided with His people in Babylon just as it had in Jerusalem (Ezekiel 1:1-28). God remained at work in the peoples’ lives as seen with His blessing towards Daniel upon his greater allegiance to Him when he refused to defile himself with the king’s choice food or with the wine which he drank (1:8), His deliverance of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego from the fiery furnace after they refused to bow to the king’s statue (3:19-27), and His protection of Daniel in the lion’s den (6:16-23). God vindicated these men when they followed the law of God’s kingdom over the law of man’s kingdom when the latter contradicted the former. God had not abandoned the people in exile but continued to be present and work in their lives.
God not only reminds the people that He is still with them, even in Babylon, He also demonstrates that He still rules over them, while in this foreign land. Regardless of who may have occupied the thrones of man, God remained seated on His heavenly throne in charge of all of man’s affairs. He reminds all three of the kings recorded in the book that He is their ultimate King and they have to answer to Him. He humbles King Nebuchadnezzar through giving him a dream that shows how temporary his kingdom is since it will be followed by three other empires and ultimately God’s coming everlasting kingdom (2:31-45) as well as making him live like an animal for seven years (4:28-33). All of this served the purpose to bring the king to realize That the Most High is ruler over the realm of mankind, and bestows it on whom He wishes and sets over it the lowliest of men (4:17,25,32; 5:21). The King later comes to recognize through all of this that God serves as the ultimate King. He states, For His dominion is an everlasting dominion, and His kingdom endures from generation to generation. All the inhabitants of the earth are accounted as nothing, but He does according to His will in the host of heaven and among the inhabitants of earth. And no one can ward off His hand or say to Him, “What have You done?” (4:34-35). Later, God takes away King Belshazzar’s (Nebuchadnezzar’s successor) kingdom because he failed to acknowledge God’s ultimate rule over him (5:1-30). The “writing on the wall” revealed that his days as king were numbered since the God in whose hand are your life-breath and all your ways, you have not glorified (5:23). Again, God serves as the ultimate ruler over the kings and kingdoms of the earth. King Darius as well was reminded of God being the supreme ruler after witnessing God’s protection of Daniel in the lion’s den (6:26-27). He even declares: For He is the living God and enduring forever, and His kingdom is one which will not be destroyed, and His dominion forever (v. 26). God further shows His ruling over all of history in the visions given to Daniel concerning the future establishment of His ultimate everlasting kingdom ruled by the Messiah, the Lord Jesus (chapters 7-12).
While this book proved comforting for the Jewish people who questioned God’s presence and plan during their time spent in the foreign land of Babylon, it also serves as an encouragement for us today. It reminds us that God is still present with us in our modern day Babylon; that He is still in control and directing all things to the establishment of His glorious everlasting kingdom. No matter what you may find yourself going through today, take heart that God is there and still in control. We may not be aware of His presence or know His plan but we can rest assured that He is in control and working in all things for His glory just as we notice in the book of Daniel. Praise God for His everlasting reign over His everlasting kingdom!
Love in Christ,
Pastor Lee
Daniel and his friends were part of the intelligent young men taken from Judah to serve King Nebuchadnezzar in the nation of Babylon (1:3-6). They found themselves in a foreign and strange land with a vastly different culture. Their Jewish identity had basically been taken away from them as they were forced to learn the literature and language of the Babylonians as well as be given different names (1:4,7). They were in a place and among a people that thought and viewed things much differently than the Jews in the nation of Israel. Yet the author reminds the original Jewish readers who would have been in Babylon in captivity themselves at the time that regardless of where they were, God still was with them and served as the ultimate sovereign and king.
Though the people no longer were in God’s promised land, God showed them that He still was with them. He had never left them though they had left Israel. As Ezekiel, a prophet contemporary to Daniel, saw, God’s glory also resided with His people in Babylon just as it had in Jerusalem (Ezekiel 1:1-28). God remained at work in the peoples’ lives as seen with His blessing towards Daniel upon his greater allegiance to Him when he refused to defile himself with the king’s choice food or with the wine which he drank (1:8), His deliverance of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego from the fiery furnace after they refused to bow to the king’s statue (3:19-27), and His protection of Daniel in the lion’s den (6:16-23). God vindicated these men when they followed the law of God’s kingdom over the law of man’s kingdom when the latter contradicted the former. God had not abandoned the people in exile but continued to be present and work in their lives.
God not only reminds the people that He is still with them, even in Babylon, He also demonstrates that He still rules over them, while in this foreign land. Regardless of who may have occupied the thrones of man, God remained seated on His heavenly throne in charge of all of man’s affairs. He reminds all three of the kings recorded in the book that He is their ultimate King and they have to answer to Him. He humbles King Nebuchadnezzar through giving him a dream that shows how temporary his kingdom is since it will be followed by three other empires and ultimately God’s coming everlasting kingdom (2:31-45) as well as making him live like an animal for seven years (4:28-33). All of this served the purpose to bring the king to realize That the Most High is ruler over the realm of mankind, and bestows it on whom He wishes and sets over it the lowliest of men (4:17,25,32; 5:21). The King later comes to recognize through all of this that God serves as the ultimate King. He states, For His dominion is an everlasting dominion, and His kingdom endures from generation to generation. All the inhabitants of the earth are accounted as nothing, but He does according to His will in the host of heaven and among the inhabitants of earth. And no one can ward off His hand or say to Him, “What have You done?” (4:34-35). Later, God takes away King Belshazzar’s (Nebuchadnezzar’s successor) kingdom because he failed to acknowledge God’s ultimate rule over him (5:1-30). The “writing on the wall” revealed that his days as king were numbered since the God in whose hand are your life-breath and all your ways, you have not glorified (5:23). Again, God serves as the ultimate ruler over the kings and kingdoms of the earth. King Darius as well was reminded of God being the supreme ruler after witnessing God’s protection of Daniel in the lion’s den (6:26-27). He even declares: For He is the living God and enduring forever, and His kingdom is one which will not be destroyed, and His dominion forever (v. 26). God further shows His ruling over all of history in the visions given to Daniel concerning the future establishment of His ultimate everlasting kingdom ruled by the Messiah, the Lord Jesus (chapters 7-12).
While this book proved comforting for the Jewish people who questioned God’s presence and plan during their time spent in the foreign land of Babylon, it also serves as an encouragement for us today. It reminds us that God is still present with us in our modern day Babylon; that He is still in control and directing all things to the establishment of His glorious everlasting kingdom. No matter what you may find yourself going through today, take heart that God is there and still in control. We may not be aware of His presence or know His plan but we can rest assured that He is in control and working in all things for His glory just as we notice in the book of Daniel. Praise God for His everlasting reign over His everlasting kingdom!
Love in Christ,
Pastor Lee
Saturday, June 23, 2012
Do Not Forsake Gathering Together
Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for He who promised is faithful; and let us consider how to stimulate one another to love and good deeds, not forsaking our own assembling together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another; and all the more as you see the day drawing near.
~Hebrews 10:23-25
In his letter to Jewish Christians, the unknown author of the book of Hebrews encourages his readers to do five things in response to the precious truth that we now have direct access to God due to Christ satisfying God’s wrath with His death in our place for our sins. Four of these are positive as the people are instructed to draw near with a sincere heart in full assurance of faith (10:22), hold fast the confession of our hope (v. 23), consider how to stimulate one another to love and good deeds (v. 24), and encouraging one another (v. 25). However, notice that one of these commands is placed in the negative. They are told to not forsake our own assembling together (v. 25). Basically, do not forget about gathering together for worship. This must have become a problem for several in the church. In fact, the author points out that this forsaking had become the habit of some.
The author doesn’t tell us the reason that several in this church had quit joining others for worship. It could have been due to the fear of persecution that the church faced during the time. I often wonder how many today would even continue to confess Christ, nonetheless go to church, if they faced death for bearing Christ’s name. (It might turn out that there are much fewer true Christians in the nation than we realize.) Perhaps some decided to stop coming to worship because they had gone back to their life before coming to Christ. One of the main problems that the author deals with in this letter are these Christians who are drifting back to the former practices and traditions of the Judaism that they had left since they realized that Christ had fulfilled such rituals. Or the reason for their neglect could have been due to laziness. Earlier the author warned the people about being sluggish (6:12).
It appears that we have a similar problem in our churches today. Many believers also have been forsaking our own assembling together. Several do not make the time to gather with their brothers and sisters in Christ to worship our great God. It may also be due to going back to old sinful habits of the life they left behind. It may be on account of their own sluggishness. I think one of the biggest problems today is that God does not have the priority in our lives as He should; as He must. People claim to be too busy to make it to church. (Yet they never appear to be too busy for their favorite sports team, television program, or hobby.) The excuse itself does not matter. Remember that the author doesn’t even mention any of the underlying reasons for the neglect of those he references here. The greater concern centered around the issue of their failure to continue gathering for worship regularly.
Worship alongside God’s people under the authority of God’s Word bringing glory to God should not be easily dismissed. It should not occupy the place towards the bottom of our list of priorities. In addition to how vital it is concerning our own spiritual growth, it benefits one another. God never intended for the Christian life to be lived alone. He ordained for Christians to grow and serve together in a body called the Church. A body with many members each given special gifts for a special part to play (1 Corinthians 12:12-31). Instead of forsaking this gathering together, the author says his readers should encourage one another. Our worship together as a body on Sunday morning serves as a great way to do just this. It is hard to encourage one another when you are home by yourself!
I invite you to consider gathering together with God’s people this Sunday morning in case you have fallen away from it. For those who do make it out every week, I encourage you to continue such commitment for the glory of God. Let us not forsake the habit of gathering together as several did when this letter was written and others do today but encourage other as each day we are a step closer to Christ’s return.
Love in Christ,
Pastor Lee
Thursday, June 21, 2012
The Birth of the Bible and the Revision of History
Perhaps you have heard the claim that the Bible was put together by a church council sometime in the 400s. Often this is brought up by critics of the Bible in order to disprove the authority and trustworthiness of the Bible. However, such a statement is overly simplistic and actual fails to look at the facts. In a real sense it is a revision of history as it occurred. Anyone who makes such a statement needs to do their homework. It is unfair to Christians to have such a mischaracterization argued against them. The following are the facts that many neglect in their discussion concerning the development of the canon of Scripture. The term canon comes from a Greek word that means rod, measuring rule, standard. When speaking of the canon of Scripture we are identifying the books that serve as the standard of the Christian faith. Books standardized not by individuals, not by the church, and not by an ancient council but by God Himself.
The Church Does Not Define the Bible to Be God's Word, The Bible Defines Itself to Be God's Word
The reason that the Church identifies the Bible as the Word of God is because the Bible itself claims to be the Word of God. At least 3,808 times the Old Testament authors refer to a statement as being Thus said the LORD, indicating that these words belong to God and not the human author who recorded them. The prophets are described as having the word of the LORD coming down upon them before they spoke the words preserved for us in the prophetic books of the Old Testament (Jeremiah 1:1-2; Ezekiel 1:2-3; Joel 1:1; Hosea 1:1). The clear implication is that the prophets spoke what God had told them to speak and thus were delivering His message. This is the message written down in the books that bear their name.
The Apostle Paul states that All Scripture is God-breathed (2 Timothy 3:16). The all Scripture Paul refers to is the compilation of both the Old and New Testaments. The Greek word, graphe (Scripture), typically refers to written words. Paul consistently uses the word to refer to the Old Testament writings (Romans 1:2; 4:3; 9:17; 10:11; 11:2; 15:4; 16:26; 1 Corinthians 15:3, 4; Galatians 3:8, 22; 4:30; 1 Timothy 5:18). However, the New Testament authors themselves include each others' writings as the category of Scripture. For instance, Paul quotes a statement of Jesus' recorded by the author Luke and calls it Scripture in I Timothy 5:18. The quote is alongside one from Deuteronomy. Both the verse from Deuteronomy and the one from Luke's gospel are preceded by the statement For the Scripture says. With the two quotes connected by the Greek word for and (kai), Paul appears to identify both Deuteronomy and the Gospel of Luke as being Scripture. Luke's writing is deemed authoritative by Paul in teaching that elders should be paid for their service. Also, Peter explicitly labels Paul's letters as Scripture. He states that the untaught and unstable distort his writings as they do the rest of the Scriptures (2 Peter 3:16). So, according to Peter, Paul's letters are a part of Scripture. Furthermore, these letters were intended to be read aloud to the congregations and admonish them (Colossians 4:16).
Paul acknowledges that these Scriptures are God's very words. He describes them as God-breathed. The underlying Greek word, theopneustos, is a compound word consisting of God (theos) and breath (pneuma). It communicates God breathing out the Scriptures. Thus, the origin of Scripture is God who breathed them out and not man. Peter affirms Paul's point when he says knowing that first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone's own interpretation. For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit (2 Peter 1:20-21). These men spoke from God not from their own will.
Further claims of the Bible being God's Word found within Scripture can be seen with the author of Hebrews in quoting Psalm 95. He does not even credit David as writing the poem but the Holy Spirit. In introducing a quote from the psalm, he states: Therefore, just as the Holy Spirit says (Hebrews 3:7). He recognized that though David penned the words, the origin of them came from the Holy Spirit of God. Even Jesus identified the Old Testament as God's Word. He stated that David in the Spirit wrote about Him in Psalm 110 (Matthew 22:43-44).
So the definition of the Bible being the Word of God does not come from the Church or any Church Council for that matter. It comes from the Bible itself. Martin Luther put it well when he stated, "It is not the Word of God because the church says so; but that the Word of God might be spoken, therefore the church comes into being. The church does not make the Word, but it is made by the Word." If one wants to contend the truth of the Bible being the Word of God then they need to deal with the claims of the Bible itself.
The Councils Did Not Create the Canon, They Merely Confirmed the Canon
The claim that a council in the 400s created the canon of Scripture as we have it today is certainly unfounded. It would be equivalent to arguing that America was founded fully as a Christian nation. (While there are certainly Christian elements that can be found in the framing of the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution, one can also find secular humanist views and ideas of moralistic deism.) There is much more to it than simply claiming that the nation was established as a Christian nation. Likewise, there is much more to these councils than that they "created" the canon. It would be better to describe the councils as the process the church went through to "recognize" the canon. The disputes and discussions over what books should be included centered on whether or not the books were God's very words. The criteria that was looked for was whether the book claimed to be God's word, whether it was written by an apostle who would have been sent by God to write His words, and whether it was in accord with the teachings of the books that clearly were God's very words.
Interestingly, many of the books that did not become part of the Protestant canon do not even claim to be God's Word. For instance, the intertestamental 1 Maccabees 9:27 talks of how prophets (those who would have spoken for God) had ceased to appear among the nation of Israel. The book does not claim to be prophetic itself nor does it state that it serves as God's very words. Thus, the Church did not get together and arbitrarily decide that it was not to be included in the Bible. The book excludes itself from being included in God's Word. It also would exclude other books written contemporary to it since the time of prophets had be recognized as having ceased. The Jewish Talmud also indicated an ending to the time of the prophets after the writings of the Old Testament which would further exclude the later writings that comprise what is known as the Apocryphal (meaning hidden) books. It states "After the latter prophets Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, the Holy Spirit departed from Israel." The churches of the time recognized these apocryphal writings not to be inspired as seen in their not treating them as such. It should also be noted that several of the apocryphal books contain historical errors and contradictions which would clearly indicate them not to be inspired.
An examination of the practice of most of the churches at the time of the councils in the 300s and 400s reveal that predominantly what was treated as God's Word in worship and personal study were the 66 books that we now hold in our hand as the Bible. While a few books were doubted early on, most churches were found to be in agreement later, indicating God's powerful hand of providence at work. Most of the writings that are not included in the Bible today, such as the Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of Judas, were never read in the churches or ever viewed as authoritative. Eventually the different churches all were identifying the same books as being canonical and thus communicating God's Word. Church leader Athanasius in 367 listed all 27 books of the New Testament as canonical before much of the councils that many erroneously claim determined the books that would be in the Bible. The council simply served as a statement that here are the books that are God's Word. J. I. Packer points out that "it seems that the process involved no more than the explicit recognition of an established state of affairs. It was not a case of imparting to a newly-made collection of books an authority which they had not had before, nor of reminding a forgetful generation what authority the earliest Christians had ascribed to apostolic writings" ("Fundamentalism" and the Word of God, 66). It would better be described as a process of discernment. With the growing persecution and the rising of heretics that promoted books certainly not demonstrating evidence of being God's Word, such a statement was necessary for clarity and to guard the Church from error. They wanted to make sure Christians did not begin to read the wrong books that were not of God and therefore not authoritative for their lives.
Much more could be said about this and many more specifics pertaining to the debates and discussions over what books were canonical or not could be given but this should suffice for now the point that it would be wrong historically to claim that the councils merely created the canon of Scripture that we have today. That would undermine the testimony of the books of Scripture themselves and the facts surrounding the councils. Let's not rewrite history to make a point but deal with the text of Scripture itself and why Christians really are convinced the Bible to be God's Word.
In Christ,
Lee
Soli Deo Gloria!
The Church Does Not Define the Bible to Be God's Word, The Bible Defines Itself to Be God's Word
The reason that the Church identifies the Bible as the Word of God is because the Bible itself claims to be the Word of God. At least 3,808 times the Old Testament authors refer to a statement as being Thus said the LORD, indicating that these words belong to God and not the human author who recorded them. The prophets are described as having the word of the LORD coming down upon them before they spoke the words preserved for us in the prophetic books of the Old Testament (Jeremiah 1:1-2; Ezekiel 1:2-3; Joel 1:1; Hosea 1:1). The clear implication is that the prophets spoke what God had told them to speak and thus were delivering His message. This is the message written down in the books that bear their name.
The Apostle Paul states that All Scripture is God-breathed (2 Timothy 3:16). The all Scripture Paul refers to is the compilation of both the Old and New Testaments. The Greek word, graphe (Scripture), typically refers to written words. Paul consistently uses the word to refer to the Old Testament writings (Romans 1:2; 4:3; 9:17; 10:11; 11:2; 15:4; 16:26; 1 Corinthians 15:3, 4; Galatians 3:8, 22; 4:30; 1 Timothy 5:18). However, the New Testament authors themselves include each others' writings as the category of Scripture. For instance, Paul quotes a statement of Jesus' recorded by the author Luke and calls it Scripture in I Timothy 5:18. The quote is alongside one from Deuteronomy. Both the verse from Deuteronomy and the one from Luke's gospel are preceded by the statement For the Scripture says. With the two quotes connected by the Greek word for and (kai), Paul appears to identify both Deuteronomy and the Gospel of Luke as being Scripture. Luke's writing is deemed authoritative by Paul in teaching that elders should be paid for their service. Also, Peter explicitly labels Paul's letters as Scripture. He states that the untaught and unstable distort his writings as they do the rest of the Scriptures (2 Peter 3:16). So, according to Peter, Paul's letters are a part of Scripture. Furthermore, these letters were intended to be read aloud to the congregations and admonish them (Colossians 4:16).
Paul acknowledges that these Scriptures are God's very words. He describes them as God-breathed. The underlying Greek word, theopneustos, is a compound word consisting of God (theos) and breath (pneuma). It communicates God breathing out the Scriptures. Thus, the origin of Scripture is God who breathed them out and not man. Peter affirms Paul's point when he says knowing that first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone's own interpretation. For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit (2 Peter 1:20-21). These men spoke from God not from their own will.
Further claims of the Bible being God's Word found within Scripture can be seen with the author of Hebrews in quoting Psalm 95. He does not even credit David as writing the poem but the Holy Spirit. In introducing a quote from the psalm, he states: Therefore, just as the Holy Spirit says (Hebrews 3:7). He recognized that though David penned the words, the origin of them came from the Holy Spirit of God. Even Jesus identified the Old Testament as God's Word. He stated that David in the Spirit wrote about Him in Psalm 110 (Matthew 22:43-44).
So the definition of the Bible being the Word of God does not come from the Church or any Church Council for that matter. It comes from the Bible itself. Martin Luther put it well when he stated, "It is not the Word of God because the church says so; but that the Word of God might be spoken, therefore the church comes into being. The church does not make the Word, but it is made by the Word." If one wants to contend the truth of the Bible being the Word of God then they need to deal with the claims of the Bible itself.
The Councils Did Not Create the Canon, They Merely Confirmed the Canon
The claim that a council in the 400s created the canon of Scripture as we have it today is certainly unfounded. It would be equivalent to arguing that America was founded fully as a Christian nation. (While there are certainly Christian elements that can be found in the framing of the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution, one can also find secular humanist views and ideas of moralistic deism.) There is much more to it than simply claiming that the nation was established as a Christian nation. Likewise, there is much more to these councils than that they "created" the canon. It would be better to describe the councils as the process the church went through to "recognize" the canon. The disputes and discussions over what books should be included centered on whether or not the books were God's very words. The criteria that was looked for was whether the book claimed to be God's word, whether it was written by an apostle who would have been sent by God to write His words, and whether it was in accord with the teachings of the books that clearly were God's very words.
Interestingly, many of the books that did not become part of the Protestant canon do not even claim to be God's Word. For instance, the intertestamental 1 Maccabees 9:27 talks of how prophets (those who would have spoken for God) had ceased to appear among the nation of Israel. The book does not claim to be prophetic itself nor does it state that it serves as God's very words. Thus, the Church did not get together and arbitrarily decide that it was not to be included in the Bible. The book excludes itself from being included in God's Word. It also would exclude other books written contemporary to it since the time of prophets had be recognized as having ceased. The Jewish Talmud also indicated an ending to the time of the prophets after the writings of the Old Testament which would further exclude the later writings that comprise what is known as the Apocryphal (meaning hidden) books. It states "After the latter prophets Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, the Holy Spirit departed from Israel." The churches of the time recognized these apocryphal writings not to be inspired as seen in their not treating them as such. It should also be noted that several of the apocryphal books contain historical errors and contradictions which would clearly indicate them not to be inspired.
An examination of the practice of most of the churches at the time of the councils in the 300s and 400s reveal that predominantly what was treated as God's Word in worship and personal study were the 66 books that we now hold in our hand as the Bible. While a few books were doubted early on, most churches were found to be in agreement later, indicating God's powerful hand of providence at work. Most of the writings that are not included in the Bible today, such as the Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of Judas, were never read in the churches or ever viewed as authoritative. Eventually the different churches all were identifying the same books as being canonical and thus communicating God's Word. Church leader Athanasius in 367 listed all 27 books of the New Testament as canonical before much of the councils that many erroneously claim determined the books that would be in the Bible. The council simply served as a statement that here are the books that are God's Word. J. I. Packer points out that "it seems that the process involved no more than the explicit recognition of an established state of affairs. It was not a case of imparting to a newly-made collection of books an authority which they had not had before, nor of reminding a forgetful generation what authority the earliest Christians had ascribed to apostolic writings" ("Fundamentalism" and the Word of God, 66). It would better be described as a process of discernment. With the growing persecution and the rising of heretics that promoted books certainly not demonstrating evidence of being God's Word, such a statement was necessary for clarity and to guard the Church from error. They wanted to make sure Christians did not begin to read the wrong books that were not of God and therefore not authoritative for their lives.
Much more could be said about this and many more specifics pertaining to the debates and discussions over what books were canonical or not could be given but this should suffice for now the point that it would be wrong historically to claim that the councils merely created the canon of Scripture that we have today. That would undermine the testimony of the books of Scripture themselves and the facts surrounding the councils. Let's not rewrite history to make a point but deal with the text of Scripture itself and why Christians really are convinced the Bible to be God's Word.
In Christ,
Lee
Soli Deo Gloria!
Thursday, May 31, 2012
The Puzzle and Picture of Scripture
And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed; He shall bruise you on the head, and you shall bruise him on the heel. ~Genesis 3:15
Have you ever been studying the Bible and felt that it was one big puzzle? You read a passage and then become frustrated and scratch your head just to what it means. You drudge through the seemingly never ending hard to pronounce list of names in those numerous genealogies or muster the exhaustive and extensive details of how the tabernacle or Temple should be build and wonder just what is the point. You know that All Scripture is God-breathed and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness (2 Timothy 3:16) but you struggle with how that passage fits with the others or what it has been intended to teach you. You wind up with all of these puzzle pieces without any idea how they all fit together. When you put together any puzzle, you need to look at the picture on the top of the box to understand each piece’s meaning and how they fit together in light of the painting. The same can be said of Scripture. To understand each individual puzzle piece that we encounter, we need to first recognize the overarching picture of the Bible. We find that picture in one verse, Genesis 3:15.
In the midst of announcing specific judgments, God provides hope in a precious promise. Adam and Eve have just committed cosmic treason by disobeying God’s clear command not to eat the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. The serpent had talked Eve into the treacherous act and her husband, Adam, followed suit. Now God delivers punishment to each of the participants in the great sin. While cursing the serpent, God states that there will be enmity between his seed and the seed of the woman. Basically, that the descendants of the serpent and the descendants of the woman will not get along but constantly be at odds with one another. In fact, one of these seeds or descendants of the woman will bruise the serpent on the head. The idea is that of a crushing defeat; a knock out in a boxing match. The serpent will bruise the seed on the heel but will not be successful in defeating him. A bruised heel can be recovered from but a bruised head cannot. Thus, God promises one who will be born of a woman who will completely defeat the serpent, who is Satan himself (Revelation 12:9).
This one verse serves as the picture of the entire Bible. It would be what you would see on the top of the box of the puzzle. The One who serves as the Savior of His people by defeating Satan and the powers of sin and death that he holds. All of Scripture basically serves as the unfolding of this promise. It can be described as the thesis or purpose statement for the entire Bible. The Pentateuch (the first five books of the Bible) and the historical books reveal God’s working to bring this seed through the chosen lineage as well as providing previews of the salvation that the seed will accomplish through dying in the place of those who will trust in Him. The tedious genealogies trace the seed’s coming and the numerous animal sacrifices indicated that someone would die in the place of the people for their sins. The Law points to the need of the seed since it reveals that none of us are perfect and thus cannot save ourselves since we all fall short of it. The prophets provide further information regarding the seed’s birth and work indicating that He will be born of a virgin (Isaiah 7:14) and be God Himself (Isaiah 9:6). The Gospels and New Testament letters reveals this seed to have arrived and be named Jesus (Matthew 1:1-16, 21; Galatians 4:4-5) and show how He defeated the serpent through His death on the cross and bodily resurrection. They also indicate the change that the seed brings when one truly has embraced Him and trusted in Him and His work for their salvation.
So the next time that you are perplexed trying to make sense of a certain passage of Scripture that you are studying, consider how it contributes to the greater picture of God’s salvation through Christ and His death on the cross. The intended meaning may then become clear. You may see how the puzzle indeed fits after looking at the top of the box.
Love in Christ,
Pastor Lee
Thursday, May 10, 2012
The President, So-Called Same-Sex Marriage, and the Bible
Last night Barack Obama made history as the first sitting president to publicly proclaim support for so-called same-sex marriage. This itself comes as no shock or surprise. The President has been hinting at making such announcements since running for office four years ago. Everyone knew that it was just a matter of time before he came out and made his statement yesterday. What is surprising though is the reasoning he gave for the "evolution" of his position. He states that "[Michelle and I] we are both practicing Christians and obviously this position may be considered to put us at odds with the views of others but, you know, when we think about our faith, the thing at root that we think about is, not only Christ sacrificing himself on our behalf, but it’s also the Golden Rule, you know, treat others the way you would want to be treated. And I think that’s what we try to impart to our kids and that’s what motivates me as president and I figure the most consistent I can be in being true to those precepts, the better I’ll be as a as a dad and a husband and, hopefully, the better I’ll be as president." Alongside experience (he also referred to homosexuals who work for him and how they conducted themselves in relationships with other homosexuals as well as some same-sex couple "parents" of friends of his children), he uses the Bible, particularly the teachings of Jesus, to justify the practice of so-called same-sex marriage.
The President claims that this apparently "new" position stems from Jesus' teaching in the "Sermon on the Mount" concerning what has been labeled the "Golden Rule." In everything, therefore, treat people the same way you want them to treat you, for this is the Law and the Prophets (Matthew 7:12). This certainly is a principle given by the Lord that one should live by. However, Jesus never intended it to serve as a rationale for something that would go against His Father's grand and perfect design. In using this verse to support so-called same-sex marriage, the President ignores Jesus' explicit teaching on marriage itself. When dealing with a question concerning divorce, Jesus affirms God's intention of marriage by quoting the definition that God Himself gave in Genesis 2:24. And He answered and said, "Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh?" (Matthew 19:4-5). There can be no denying here that God distinctly created the two genders (male and female) to compliment one another and that marriage is instituted as a covenant relationship between one man and one woman. See here for my response to Newsweek a few years ago concerning the Bible's clear and consistent definition of marriage.
The President did to Jesus what is far too often done to him by the news media and his critics. He took one statement of Jesus and ignored other things that He taught. This is the equivalent of how one will take part of what the President said in a speech and criticize it without paying attention to what he said in the rest of the speech or what he has said in other speeches. In a sense, he did to Jesus what others have done to him.
The way that Mr. Obama used that principle taught by Jesus could be used similarly to justify other redactions of God's institution of marriage. One could say the same regarding polygamy. Why not grant those who desire to marry two or more women at one time the ability to do so legally if they love both or all of them since we would want others to allow us to marry who we desire? What about pedophilia and grown men marrying very young girls? Many pedophiles claim that they are born with such desires and that such attraction feels "natural" to them. Once one redefines marriage to suit one group what is to stop it from being redefined for another group?
Marriage is no trifling matter. The Creator established it and we as His creatures have no right to change it to suit our carnal desires. Furthermore, marriage serves as a visible picture to us of Christ's relationship with His Church (Ephesians 5:22-33). Any tinkering with the roles of manhood and womanhood within marriage or with what constitutes a marriage itself affects that picture.
The issue here is not so much that the President officially announced his support for so-called same-sex marriage but that he misquotes Jesus to back his position. That is what is frankly inexcusable.
In Christ,
Lee Smith
Soli Deo Gloria!
The President claims that this apparently "new" position stems from Jesus' teaching in the "Sermon on the Mount" concerning what has been labeled the "Golden Rule." In everything, therefore, treat people the same way you want them to treat you, for this is the Law and the Prophets (Matthew 7:12). This certainly is a principle given by the Lord that one should live by. However, Jesus never intended it to serve as a rationale for something that would go against His Father's grand and perfect design. In using this verse to support so-called same-sex marriage, the President ignores Jesus' explicit teaching on marriage itself. When dealing with a question concerning divorce, Jesus affirms God's intention of marriage by quoting the definition that God Himself gave in Genesis 2:24. And He answered and said, "Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh?" (Matthew 19:4-5). There can be no denying here that God distinctly created the two genders (male and female) to compliment one another and that marriage is instituted as a covenant relationship between one man and one woman. See here for my response to Newsweek a few years ago concerning the Bible's clear and consistent definition of marriage.
The President did to Jesus what is far too often done to him by the news media and his critics. He took one statement of Jesus and ignored other things that He taught. This is the equivalent of how one will take part of what the President said in a speech and criticize it without paying attention to what he said in the rest of the speech or what he has said in other speeches. In a sense, he did to Jesus what others have done to him.
The way that Mr. Obama used that principle taught by Jesus could be used similarly to justify other redactions of God's institution of marriage. One could say the same regarding polygamy. Why not grant those who desire to marry two or more women at one time the ability to do so legally if they love both or all of them since we would want others to allow us to marry who we desire? What about pedophilia and grown men marrying very young girls? Many pedophiles claim that they are born with such desires and that such attraction feels "natural" to them. Once one redefines marriage to suit one group what is to stop it from being redefined for another group?
Marriage is no trifling matter. The Creator established it and we as His creatures have no right to change it to suit our carnal desires. Furthermore, marriage serves as a visible picture to us of Christ's relationship with His Church (Ephesians 5:22-33). Any tinkering with the roles of manhood and womanhood within marriage or with what constitutes a marriage itself affects that picture.
The issue here is not so much that the President officially announced his support for so-called same-sex marriage but that he misquotes Jesus to back his position. That is what is frankly inexcusable.
In Christ,
Lee Smith
Soli Deo Gloria!
Wednesday, April 11, 2012
A Crisis in Contemporary Christian Music
The other afternoon while driving home from visiting with my grandparents I was shifting through the radio stations to find something to listen to. (Throughout my 70 mile drive between Cumberland, MD and Mt. Pleasant, PA I need to find a few different stations.) I came across a song which sounded like it was sung by the lead singer of a popular Christian band. However, the style of the song resembled something one would hear on a station that would be playing the likes of Lady Gaga or Katy Perry. In fact, I was unsure what type of station I had stumbled upon. I could not tell if I was listening to the "Newsboys" or a modern day equivalent of the "Backstreet Boys!" It was not until I heard the word "Christ" in the bridge at the end of the song that I deduced that I had indeed stumbled upon a Christian music station. Though I am very dismayed that it took me that long to decipher whether the song was a "Christian" song or not (and granted I may not be the brightest lightbulb in the chandelier sometimes). The more I listen to and take in much of what is termed "contemporary Christian music" today, the greater my concern grows. I fear that much of what we listen to on several Christian music stations has replaced genuine God-centered "worship" with me-centered shallow feel good sentimentalism.
A Few Disclaimers
Before I explain what I mean by this, let me issue a few disclaimers. I do listen to Contemporary Christian Music (CCM). I have listened to it since high school. I came to a point where I began to see how many of the country music songs that I predominantly listened to did not edify me much or contribute to my sanctification. A majority of them glorify drinking, cheating, or divorce. I wanted to follow Paul's instructions to Set your mind on the things above, not on the things that are on the earth (Colossians 3:2). Switching my dial to the local Christian radio station was a way to do just that. (For the record, Country Music remains a bad habit that I still listen to. I love the sound of the steel guitar! However, what normally happens is that I will put up with a few songs until I hear one that repulses me so much that I refuse to listen again for a week or so.)
Also, note that my complaint does not include every singer or song that could be classified as being under the Contemporary Christian brand or label. I do believe that there are several notable exceptions to the common trend. Hence that is why artists such as Casting Crowns, Chris Tomlin, Steven Curtis Chapman, David Crowder Band, Rich Mullins, Keith Green, Aaron Shust, and Kristin Stanfill serve as some of my favorites. My issue is with the direction the genre generally is currently taking. I am not the only one who has such concerns with the current state of Contemporary Christian Music either. Here is Steve Camp's (a Christian artist himself) "A Call for Reformation In the Contemporary Christian Music Industry" with his 107 theses (beating Luther's by 8!): http://www.bargenquast.com/steph/theses/opening.html
Staying in the Shallow End of the Pool
A major problem in much CCM today is that the lyrics are really shallow theologically. If you compare many of the popular Christian songs on the radio today with the old hymns of the church you will find that the songs of today lack in rich theology. When was the last time you heard a song on KLove that emphasized the Trinity? That explained Christ's atoning work on the cross in terms such as "in my place condemned He stood"? How much can you learn about the Bible from some of these modern popular songs? From time to time I like to take one of the hymns and just meditate on the words. So many of the words are so rich theologically in reminding me of Who Christ is and what He accomplished on the cross it just moves me to worship. Not many of the current songs played on several Christian radio stations have that effect because theologically they are lacking.
The songs that we sing should have an educational value to them. Paul instructs us to Let the word of Christ dwell in your richly, teaching and admonishing one another in all wisdom, singing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, with thankfulness in your hearts to God (Colossians 3:16). Singing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs are a way to let the word of Christ dwell in your richly. If the song barely mentions Christ, or worse yet, does not describe Him with the majesty and glory He deserves, it cannot let the word of Christ dwell in us richly.
The psalmist states that As the deer pants for the water brooks, so my soul pants for You, O God. My soul thirsts for God, for the living God (Psalm 42:1-2). In his depression, the author longs for God. In fact, he ends his poem by encouraging himself to find his hope in God (v. 11). He did not need some pep rally to motivate him. He needed to be reminded that he could find his comfort in God. He needed the very One that he yearned for. Likewise, what we need more than anything else today is not a fluffy fun song to make us feel good but a song that explains and magnifies Who God is. That is what would fulfill our deepest longings yet it appears so absent in much modern Christian music.
It is Really All About Me Lord, Not You
Another growing issue with modern CCM is just how "me centered" it has become. The central focus is not on Who God is and how great He is and how wonderful and majestic is His grace but instead on how I can benefit from Him or how worthy man supposedly is. Compare the recent song by the group, MikesChair, "Someone Worth Dying For" with the old hymn, "Beneath the Cross of Jesus." The former song seeks to comfort its listeners by reminding them that they are "someone worth dying for." The latter actually emphasizes the fact that none of us are worth the sinless Son of God experiencing the punishment that we deserved for our sins. "And from my smitten heart, with tears, These wonders I confess: The wonder of His glorious love, And my unworthiness." One of these elevates man while the other elevates God. Which emphasis do you think honors God more?
So many Christian songs today are about our emotions and not as much about the one these emotions should be directed to. The thing is, worship is not primarily about our emotions. It is about God! It is not about how we feel. In essence, when we sing about how we feel towards God, we actually shift the focus away from God to us. The issue becomes not "how great Thou art" but "how wonderful I feel." Instead of singing about our emotions, we should more so be singing about God. He must be the center in every aspect of our worship, including the songs that we sing. It must all be all about Him and not about us.
A Romance With Jesus
I think the worst element in the modern day CCM movement is how it has "romanticized" Jesus. If you replace the word "Lord" in many modern Christian songs with "baby," the words still make perfect sense. That is a scary thought! What happened to Jesus' holiness? What every happened to Him being Lord and worshiped? It is an affront to Jesus to sing to Him as if He were equal to our significant other. He must be seen and treated as greater than anyone or anything else. In a sense, we bring Jesus down to our level instead of exalting Him to where God the Father has lifted Him to. It is degrading to Him to sing of Him being our "home boy" or "best bud." Jesus must be honored as being holy and Lord or He is not honored at all.
If we are singing to a holy God, should not the songs we sing be holy? The word "holy" itself basically means "set apart." So the songs we sing should thus be "set apart" from those of the world. The world should not be comfortable with Christian music because the world hates Christ. The lyrics should be exalting Christ where the believer is moved to worship and the unbeliever repulsed unless the Holy Spirit uses the song to convict him and open his or her eyes to see the beauty of Christ and move them to embrace Him. An unbeliever should not gladly sing a Christian song if he or she truly pays attention to the lyrics. Yet, some Christian songs also double as top ten pop hits! The church has begun to become so much like the world that not even is there much difference in the message in their respective music. This should not be.
I am not calling for a boycott of Christian music but a reformation of it. The church is resembling more and more of the world and less and less of Christ. Oh for songs that would glorify God and edify His saints!
In Christ,
Lee
Soli Deo Gloria!!!
A Few Disclaimers
Before I explain what I mean by this, let me issue a few disclaimers. I do listen to Contemporary Christian Music (CCM). I have listened to it since high school. I came to a point where I began to see how many of the country music songs that I predominantly listened to did not edify me much or contribute to my sanctification. A majority of them glorify drinking, cheating, or divorce. I wanted to follow Paul's instructions to Set your mind on the things above, not on the things that are on the earth (Colossians 3:2). Switching my dial to the local Christian radio station was a way to do just that. (For the record, Country Music remains a bad habit that I still listen to. I love the sound of the steel guitar! However, what normally happens is that I will put up with a few songs until I hear one that repulses me so much that I refuse to listen again for a week or so.)
Also, note that my complaint does not include every singer or song that could be classified as being under the Contemporary Christian brand or label. I do believe that there are several notable exceptions to the common trend. Hence that is why artists such as Casting Crowns, Chris Tomlin, Steven Curtis Chapman, David Crowder Band, Rich Mullins, Keith Green, Aaron Shust, and Kristin Stanfill serve as some of my favorites. My issue is with the direction the genre generally is currently taking. I am not the only one who has such concerns with the current state of Contemporary Christian Music either. Here is Steve Camp's (a Christian artist himself) "A Call for Reformation In the Contemporary Christian Music Industry" with his 107 theses (beating Luther's by 8!): http://www.bargenquast.com/steph/theses/opening.html
Staying in the Shallow End of the Pool
A major problem in much CCM today is that the lyrics are really shallow theologically. If you compare many of the popular Christian songs on the radio today with the old hymns of the church you will find that the songs of today lack in rich theology. When was the last time you heard a song on KLove that emphasized the Trinity? That explained Christ's atoning work on the cross in terms such as "in my place condemned He stood"? How much can you learn about the Bible from some of these modern popular songs? From time to time I like to take one of the hymns and just meditate on the words. So many of the words are so rich theologically in reminding me of Who Christ is and what He accomplished on the cross it just moves me to worship. Not many of the current songs played on several Christian radio stations have that effect because theologically they are lacking.
The songs that we sing should have an educational value to them. Paul instructs us to Let the word of Christ dwell in your richly, teaching and admonishing one another in all wisdom, singing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, with thankfulness in your hearts to God (Colossians 3:16). Singing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs are a way to let the word of Christ dwell in your richly. If the song barely mentions Christ, or worse yet, does not describe Him with the majesty and glory He deserves, it cannot let the word of Christ dwell in us richly.
The psalmist states that As the deer pants for the water brooks, so my soul pants for You, O God. My soul thirsts for God, for the living God (Psalm 42:1-2). In his depression, the author longs for God. In fact, he ends his poem by encouraging himself to find his hope in God (v. 11). He did not need some pep rally to motivate him. He needed to be reminded that he could find his comfort in God. He needed the very One that he yearned for. Likewise, what we need more than anything else today is not a fluffy fun song to make us feel good but a song that explains and magnifies Who God is. That is what would fulfill our deepest longings yet it appears so absent in much modern Christian music.
It is Really All About Me Lord, Not You
Another growing issue with modern CCM is just how "me centered" it has become. The central focus is not on Who God is and how great He is and how wonderful and majestic is His grace but instead on how I can benefit from Him or how worthy man supposedly is. Compare the recent song by the group, MikesChair, "Someone Worth Dying For" with the old hymn, "Beneath the Cross of Jesus." The former song seeks to comfort its listeners by reminding them that they are "someone worth dying for." The latter actually emphasizes the fact that none of us are worth the sinless Son of God experiencing the punishment that we deserved for our sins. "And from my smitten heart, with tears, These wonders I confess: The wonder of His glorious love, And my unworthiness." One of these elevates man while the other elevates God. Which emphasis do you think honors God more?
So many Christian songs today are about our emotions and not as much about the one these emotions should be directed to. The thing is, worship is not primarily about our emotions. It is about God! It is not about how we feel. In essence, when we sing about how we feel towards God, we actually shift the focus away from God to us. The issue becomes not "how great Thou art" but "how wonderful I feel." Instead of singing about our emotions, we should more so be singing about God. He must be the center in every aspect of our worship, including the songs that we sing. It must all be all about Him and not about us.
A Romance With Jesus
I think the worst element in the modern day CCM movement is how it has "romanticized" Jesus. If you replace the word "Lord" in many modern Christian songs with "baby," the words still make perfect sense. That is a scary thought! What happened to Jesus' holiness? What every happened to Him being Lord and worshiped? It is an affront to Jesus to sing to Him as if He were equal to our significant other. He must be seen and treated as greater than anyone or anything else. In a sense, we bring Jesus down to our level instead of exalting Him to where God the Father has lifted Him to. It is degrading to Him to sing of Him being our "home boy" or "best bud." Jesus must be honored as being holy and Lord or He is not honored at all.
If we are singing to a holy God, should not the songs we sing be holy? The word "holy" itself basically means "set apart." So the songs we sing should thus be "set apart" from those of the world. The world should not be comfortable with Christian music because the world hates Christ. The lyrics should be exalting Christ where the believer is moved to worship and the unbeliever repulsed unless the Holy Spirit uses the song to convict him and open his or her eyes to see the beauty of Christ and move them to embrace Him. An unbeliever should not gladly sing a Christian song if he or she truly pays attention to the lyrics. Yet, some Christian songs also double as top ten pop hits! The church has begun to become so much like the world that not even is there much difference in the message in their respective music. This should not be.
I am not calling for a boycott of Christian music but a reformation of it. The church is resembling more and more of the world and less and less of Christ. Oh for songs that would glorify God and edify His saints!
In Christ,
Lee
Soli Deo Gloria!!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)