Vote for Me!!!

You may have heard of the Reformed T-Shirt hoopla, and it seems to have all started with the man in the “Jonathan Edwards is my home boy” T-shirt on the  front cover of Christianity Today a month or so ago. Well, I am in the running for a free shirt compliments of Frank Turk (a.k.a. Centuri0n) of Pyromaniacs.  

You can check out the contest details here. But the time limit has already  expired for entering the contest. However, since I already entered, it is possible that I might win! The winner is the person whose shirt idea (which could not have been one Frank was already selling when he decided to begin the contest) sells the most merchandise this month. You can see the list of competing slogans here. And you can see all the merchandise for my idea: “Charles Finney is Not my home boy”, here. [If you are aghast that I would come up with that slogan, check out this post.]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I fear that not many will be willing to fork out the money required for one of these shirts, but they do look pretty cool. And Christmas is around the corner. Hey, maybe we could buy a few of these and distribute them at the local hyper  fundamentalist institution! Okay, just kidding!

Lest some accuse me of undue pressure placed on my readers to fork out massive quantities of the green stuff, let me inform you of some free music! Sovereign Grace Ministries has produced a new  Christmas CD, Savior,  which seems very good. They are offering an mp3 download of one of the songs from that CD, “Hope has Come” for free. I really like the song, and since it is free, what can you lose by downloading it? Just click here and proceed to the checkout. (HT: Mathew Sims) Also, if you head over to Bob Kauflin’s blog, Worship Matters, he is currently offering a free download of one of the songs from the recent Sovereign Grace Ministries CD release, Valley of Vision. The song is “O Great God”, and you can find a link on his sidebar where you can right-click and select “save target as” to download the music to your computer. (Thanks Bob Kauflin & Sovereign Grace!)


∼striving for the unity of the faith for the glory of God∼ Eph. 4:3,13 “¢ Rom. 15:5-7

"Still the Cross" — FFH

I am beginning a new series of posts here about music. I will probably continue to post occasionally on great modern worship songs we are singing at church, but this series will focus on the songs I am listening to throughout the week.

Fundamentalists often assume that virtually all Contemporary Christian Music (CCM) is worthless. They think it is all shallow and sensual. When I first started listening to CCM I was constantly shocked by the good quality of the songs, both in message and music. Now I do believe that there is a lot of CCM which is shallow and some which could be termed sensual. But there are many great songs and many groups which consistently produce worshipful, deep, Biblical, and hence God-honoring songs.

By sharing these songs with you, my readers, I hope to encourage you about the state of Christian music today. And beyond that, I want to encourage you spiritually with the message of these songs. Many of them are very moving and are a great boon to my spiritual life, and I trust might be for yours.

I begin with a great song about the cross. “Still the Cross” is one of my favorites, bar none. I haven’t been too impressed with some of FFH’s most recent songs, but this one from their 2004 album by the same name is really good. The message is superb and the music is extremely fitting, in my opinion. It is a “power anthem”. That means it is a big moving song. About 2/3 of the way into the song a choir joins the group and the effect adds to the building movement of the song as it ascends toward a climax. One thing you will learn in these posts is that I am not well versed in how you describe contemporary music all that much. But bear with me, and be sure to listen to samples of the music. (By the way you can usually preview entire songs at Christian bookstores without deciding to buy the music.)

 

Click to Order Still the Cross

Sometimes it seems the world’s unraveling around us
We fear it all may one day come undone
We can’t forget the One who came before us
To forgive the past and bring hope for what’s to come

When it all comes crashing down
The cross still stands alone
And on this our faith is built
And our courage is made strong

Chorus:
When the world falls apart
And you fear for your heart
There’s a tower of peace
It’s still the cross
So bring your sick and your poor
And your longing for more
To the place of relief
It’s still the cross

Bridge:
There is hope for the lost
It’s still the cross

Sometimes it seems that I have been forgotten
I don’t know how I will make it on my own
But the One who said I will never be forsaken
He still hears my prayer and I will never be alone

When it all comes crashing down
The cross still stands alone
And on this my faith is built
And my courage is made strong

Chorus

Though the world may not confess
You and Your holiness
One day all will see
You in all Your majesty
And the cross will stand alone
As the place where You made known
Your love for all mankind
Till then in it we’ll hide

Chorus / Bridge / Chorus and Bridge

Jeromy Deibler, Scott Williamson, Donna Smith /  © 2004 New Spring Publishing, Inc. / co-pub TBD / ASCAP (both adm. by Brentwood-Benson Music Publishing, Inc.) / Scott Williamson / ASCAP / Donna Smith Publishing Designee. All rights reserved. Used by permission.

There is not much more to say about the lyrics of this song. It is a powerful message and when matched with the music it is a great song. To listen to the song, click on the link at the bottom of this post. You might be interested in watching a video about FFH and the making of their CD “Still the Cross”. The clip opens with some of the title song in the background, and then the last two minutes or more are devoted to the song. For more info on the group FFH (or Far From Home), check out their official website. You may find this review and this one helpful as well. I will close by quoting the Jeromy Diebler’s brief story concerning this song (found here).

This is really our theme right now. After all the years we’ve been together and everything we’ve been through, this is still what it’s all about. My aunt Donna wrote a lyric for a song called “˜It’s Still the Cross’ and gave it to me two years ago. I wrote the rest of the song and played it for the band, but it didn’t really fit for us at the time. Later, when we were looking for a really strong Christian anthem, Scott Williamson and I began working again on this song and completely rewrote it all, but kept the title. As we began to pull songs for this album, we played this one and people really gravitated towards it. I think if there’s a statement we want to make right now, it’s this one… about Jesus.

Still The Cross by FFH

Nicely Packaged Garbage

How do you like your garbage? Because that is what you are getting here at Fundamentally Reformed. Let me tell you! Garbage, garbage, and more garbage—it’s all garbage around here. It might look pretty, but its really rotten—and definitely ugly.

Pardon me, but I am ranting a bit here. I am a little worked up about a certain detractor of mine who has mentioned me on his blog, again. [The “garbage” line comes from a comment under that post, more on that comment later.] I have had various interactions with this person since my break with fundamentalism–some debates on blogs, a round of emails, and no matter what I say, this person refuses to believe me. (I say this in case you run into this fellow. Please contact me for my side of the story—I’ll leave it at that.)

Anyways, this time he started off by exploring why “the left” seems so appealing. He went on to note that among conservatives, those who are culturally “liberal” will not quote from or link to any people/blogs who are culturally “conservative”. Or if they do, he notes, they will do so with “disdain”. Now I am not exactly sure why he is all worked up about this curiosity,  but I do  know  that he has his own blog and a team blog besides, and he has gotten into quite a number of blog brawls on  a couple of  theologically conservative blogs I read.

At this point, then, he claims that my blog was one of the things that got him thinking about this (that cultural liberals disdain and ignore cultural conservatives). Why? Because he has noticed that I have been regularly linked to and quoted from “major evangelical and ‘fundamental’ blogs”. When I had  calmed down  after reading his post, I wondered if some big evangelical blog had started linking to me! I checked Technorati and my stats for referring links with no pleasant surprise. Nope, I am still linked to from mostly small blogs which often deal with much of the same content I do.  

Maybe he is so frustrated at my blog that he just isn’t thinking straight. Perhaps he has misinterpreted a few facts. As this is one of several misrepresentations  of me in his post, let me pause here and prove that he is wrong. He mentioned “fundamental” blogs, and I think he has in mind blogs associated with Sharper Iron. I double checked to be sure, and I am only linked to from 2 of 19 blogs currently listed on Sharper Iron’s blogroll. I think he might be referring to two other things, however. 1) I have joined a few different aggregators (listed toward the bottom of my sidebar), and one of those in particular, the League of Reformed Bloggers, gives me quite a few links in Technorati’s tally. It is simple to join the League of Reformed Bloggers,  and a  good many members  on the list link to the entire blogroll in their sidebars. I would list the blogroll too, but WordPress doesn’t let me do that as easy as Blogger did. So while this means I have many links,  the links in no way endorse me, because most of those bloggers have never even looked at my blog. 2) I have recently been linked to from Pyromaniacs a few times. But those were merely blogspotting posts where Phil links to as many decent blogs as quote him during the week as he can. Sure it sent more people my way, but it was not an endorsement of my blog, per se. And if my detractor wanted to, he could link to Pyromaniacs and be delighted to receive a spot in their next blogspot post. The same goes for a recent link from a Pulpit Live blogspotting post. Now all this is not to say that I haven’t had a few blogs link to me independently. I have, and I am glad they did. (Thank you for reading!) But most of my regular readers and most of the blogs who link to and endorse my blog are those interested in my topic—reforming fundamentalism. And I should add that many of my readers do not agree with me on a number of things, but they appreciate (I think) many things I share here, nonetheless, otherwise they would just be ignoring me.

Anyway, back to my real beef with his post. I want to quote two sections of his rant against me and show that he is not honest with his facts.

He takes the hottest cultural positions—booze OK, dancing OK, immodesty OK, most television and movies OK, and to him music is essentially amoral. He hardly misses a favored cultural liberalism among those theologically conservative. For that, he is mightily rewarded in blogdom. Even those who don’t side with him, in every one of these cultural leftisms, will include him at their table. He has the compromise to make the connection.

Hopefully, some of you just raised your eyebrows a little. Have you ever read anything on my blog which condones immodesty, most movies, and dancing? Now I have discussed booze and music at some depth here, but he makes it seem like  I defend every practice he mentions.    Dancing has only received a passing “endorsement” from me. I have claimed that dancing to music is found in Scripture as a good thing (think David dancing before God in 1 Chron. 15-16). I have never claimed that dancing with someone of the opposite sex in a way that is designed to incite sensual passions is “OK”.  

Regarding TV and movies, I have only claimed that I see no Biblical reason not to go into a movie theater. I did claim that The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe was a good movie. But you will search in vain for me defending “most” TV and movies as being “OK”. I’ll go on record here saying that most TV and movies are NOT OK. My wife and I have not watched virtually any prime time TV. We might watch a game show or a football game, now and then. I do like to watch Public Television specials, and we record some of the decent  “weekly movies” which might be aired on Saturday nights or something. And yes, we are careful about what movies we rent or borrow from the Library. (By the way, check out kids-in-mind.com. It is a great rating tool for movies.)

And on the immodesty point, I am really upset. I have never said anything which could even be twisted into an endorsement of immodesty. That is just a patent falsehood aimed at trashing my reputation. I do claim that women should be allowed to wear pants, but that does not mean every pair of pants is acceptable for my wife to wear. Just like skirts/dresses, there are modest and immodest pants. In fact, many pants are more modest than dresses. My wife and I do not condone mixed swimming, and she does not go around in a swimsuit or revealing clothes in other’s presence at all. I am against immodesty. I have not come out with a detailed definition of immodesty, but that does not mean I endorse immodesty. Now on to the second snippet from his post.

I’m using this just as an example. I think it only represents something consistently occurring. This brings me to that original question….What makes the cultural left so appealing?…One could call the cultural left the lustful left. We all are allured by the dark side. It’s fun. It feels good. It’s easy. It actually allows a conservative either politically or theologically to fit into the world. You can get acceptance here (cultural liberalism) on earth and still get heaven (theological conservatism).

How do they justify all this?…They scoff at cultural conservatives like the apostates in 2 Peter 3, mocking while they walk after their own lusts, making space for their lifestyles. They don’t argue Scripturally on these issues. They use mockery and ridicule, which are often effective, you may have noticed. The cultural liberal calls this unity. They say we shouldn’t divide on cultural issues, only theological. They say that these cultural issues are second or third tier, so that those who separate on these issues are misguided and divisive. The cultural separatists, often called personal separatists, especially are spoiling their fun, what they call liberty to make it sound like something theological….

Just from reading this section, I can guess you might be thinking that you know why “culturally liberal” conservatives ignore people like this guy. He does go on to say, “My own opinion is that this is the major tool of apostasy today, this separation of theology from culture.” It is obvious that when he says “liberal” he has in mind almost any departure from his fundamentalist cultural positions. To deviate a little is to earn some pretty strong statements of rebuke. So who is censuring whom?

Since I am mentioned in all of this, I take exception to his statement “They don’t argue Scripturally on these issues.” Have you read my blog even a little? You may disagree with me, but please don’t tell me I am not using Scripture. Just look at my defense of my positions in my long letter (“my story”), it is loaded with Scriptural arguments. I have yet to have anyone provide any serious rebuttal to my Scripture-loaded post on the wine/alcohol debate. I have had plenty express their disdain for my position, but no one has argued with my Scriptural arguments to any degree.

One last point to mention here, is his claim that “cultural liberals” are “making space for their lifestyles” and see people like him as “spoiling their fun”. These are loaded statements. Could it possibly be that some of these “liberals” have actually come to their positions from a study of Scripture and concluded that their lifestyles are okay. I would venture to say that many of these so called liberals are totally willing to change their lifestyle based on Scripture, and many have in different areas.  

Recently someone gave the following interesting comment under my long letter explaining why I left fundamentalism (“my story”): “Thank you for your transparency, I almost began to laugh when you made a comment that your friends would think your change flippant. You had just spent page after page describing how you had come to this point, it would be ridiculous to call the change flippant.” Yes, people do think it flippant. My detractor repeatedly claims that I plotted to leave fundamentalism to make room for my lifestyle of choice. Yet everything I say in my letter contradicts that. I was convinced against my will that the positions I held to dearly on various cultural and doctrinal points were wrong. I make this very clear in my letter, and I do so also in my whole treatment of the alcohol debate. I make it abundantly clear that even after I came to believe from all of the Scriptural evidence that drinking alcohol was okay, I was still loathe to do it. I made the plunge only because I felt that not to drink was to spurn what God said He gave us for our joy. It is not that I always wanted to drink, and now I found the perfect excuse. And I know that my case is not alone. Many “cultural liberals” were once conservatives and changed due to their study of  God’s Word and not out of a desire to have their cake and eat it too.

Before I go, I should mention the comment that birthed the title of this post and the first paragraph. A commenter on my detractor’s blog said the following:

His blog looks sharp, and he does have the time to put lengthy “well-researched” (highly footnoted) posts together. And honestly, he can write decently well. I guess some are beguiled by good presentation, even if it’s garbage that they’re being offered.

So there you have it folks, I hope you like the garbage you’re getting! Just like you can sort through trash and determine what is worth keeping, I am confident that my readers will be able to ignore anything I say that is unBiblical and unwise, and stick to what they find to be true and helpful. Or maybe it’s all just plain garbage!


∼striving for the unity of the faith for the glory of God∼ Eph. 4:3,13 “¢ Rom. 15:5-7

The Kidnapper, Kim Jong Il

North KoreaThis is a rare political post for me. But I thought the concise sentiments of Norbert Vollertsen, a German doctor and human-rights activist who has worked in North Korea, quoted in the cover article of last week’s World magazine edition (pg. 19) was worth repeating. The comments are concise but clearly convey the obvious and tragic reality concerning North Korea and its leader Kim Jong Il.

“The current nuclear crisis with North Korea is a ‘chance’—to end the evil regime of Kim Jong Il. Since 2001 we human-rights activists were looking for more exposure of the human-rights violations of Kim Jong Il. Nobody cared. Then came 9/11 and the Iraq war and North Korea was called one member of the ‘axis of evil.’ It now has proved to really belong there.

We have also to refocus on human-right issues again. The ordinary North Korean people are nice human beings who are taken hostage and brainwashed by the criminal mafia clan around Kim Jong Il. And like any ordinary kidnapper he is threatening his victims, and blackmailing the outside world with his weapons.

Like any ordinary kidnapper: You can talk with him, negotiate, even make a deal to release his hostages—but in the end you have to arrest him.

How true and yet how sad. May God remove Kim Jong Il and usher in a great time of peace for North Korea and in so doing provide those people with the only message that provides for lasting and perfect peace—the Gospel of Jesus Christ. May Jesus be exalted in that country by whatever means God knows is best. Amen!

UPDATE: Check out this post on mission work being done in North Korea. The link at the bottom of that post takes you to a page where you can view a video of a North Korean execution (it is filmed from a long distance away and not very graphic, but viewer discretion is advised). After the shooting, the North Korean official in charge said these words to the onlooking crowd: “You have witnessed how miserable fools end up. Traitors who betray the nation and its people end up like this.” This video is more evidence that all of North Korea is hostage to the regime of Kim Jong Il, a mad kidnapper. Let us all  purpose to  pray for the work the believers and missionaries in North Korea.

Picture taken from here.


∼striving for the unity of the faith for the glory of God∼ Eph. 4:3,13 “¢ Rom. 15:5-7

Programs, Preaching and the Rest of Us (part 1)

Entering the sanctuary, I hear the musical prelude and realize I have made it on time. Soon the music leader starts off with a congregational song and the worship service has officially begun. I pop a mint in my mouth as I listen to the pastor welcome us to the service today before he gives a few announcements and prays. I stand again, as we sing a few more songs, pausing only to read a portion of Scripture together. Several men walk up to the front with baskets, while someone prays and the offering begins. The nice music in the background makes me almost forget that this offering is a part of our worship to God. We sing again, this time as we remain seated. And then a wonderful trio of ladies present us with a special number. Then the pastor steps up and our sermon begins. The message is moving, I must admit, although I wonder about that fellow over there who is practically snoring–oh, and then those people that keep getting up and taking their children out and then returning again. Before I know it the sermon has finished and we are praying. We rise and sing a few verses of a closing hymn and after a brief prayer or benediction we are dismissed.

This is the cycle repeated week in and week out every Sunday morning at numerous churches all over the world. It is carefully planned out and programmed. There is a bulletin with the order of service in it. Everyone who has a part up front has been notified well in advance. The songs have been selected, those praying have thought through what they will say. The pastor has prepared his fine sermon. Everything is in accord with the admonition in 1 Cor. 14:40, “all things should be done decently and in order”.

In some cases this same cycle is repeated at a Sunday night gathering. There may be a bit less formality than the morning worship, and perhaps a different pastor or church leader is speaking, but all in all it is the same. At the mid week service, there may be a time of concerted prayer before or after the service, but the service once again is largely a mirror image of Sunday morning’s routine.

Have you ever wondered if this kind of service was what the New Testament really had in view? Is this formal gathering with one man leading the show and another doing all the talking really what Hebrews has in mind when it exhorts us to not be “forsaking the assembling of ourselves together” (KJV, 10:25)? Or how about this question: Do we actually see this kind of a meeting in Scripture?

Far too often, I fear, we Christians, and especially we theologically conservative Baptists, resist asking such questions. Much more than we want to admit it, we are creatures of habit and upholders of tradition. Tradition is not all bad, in fact it can be very healthy. But if we find ourselves appalled that someone would even dare to question something as important as a programmed worship service where one man preaches the word to all gathered, perhaps a word of caution is in view. Just maybe, we are more connected to our tradition than to Scripture, and probably tradition is holding too prominent a place in our thinking.

In this article, I argue that an open, participatory style of worship is closer to what we see in Scripture than the modern programmed service. Then I give some descriptive examples as to how this might look, and finally I propose some recommendations (not without a few reservations) on how to implement this in a typical church. I understand this is controversial and radical to say the least. But I hope you hear me out and pause to think through some of the considerations I bring forth. May God bless us all in thinking through these matters together, and help us to live out church life in a way that is honoring to Him.

 

Arguments for Open, Participatory Worship

 

1) Church Services in Scripture

We do not have many examples in Scripture of believers meeting for worship and edification, but those we do have are examples of an open, participatory style of worship. The clearest example of public worship in Scripture, indeed also the most direct teaching on public worship, is found in 1 Cor. 14. The most pertinent section to our study is verses 26-33.

26 What then, brothers? When you come together, each one has a hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation. Let all things be done for building up. 27 If any speak in a tongue, let there be only two or at most three, and each in turn, and let someone interpret. 28 But if there is no one to interpret, let each of them keep silent in church and speak to himself and to God. 29 Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others weigh what is said. 30 If a revelation is made to another sitting there, let the first be silent. 31 For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all be encouraged, 32 and the spirits of prophets are subject to prophets. 33 For God is not a God of confusion but of peace. (ESV)

Verse 26 specifies that “each one” of the brothers are participating in the service. Two or three are allowed to speak in a tongue while another interprets. And two or three prophets may speak, while the other prophets weigh what is being said. Vs. 30 highlights the spontanaity of the service by stressing that if someone receives a message from the Spirit he may interrupt another’s message (from the same Spirit). Vs. 31 is key: “For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all be encouraged”. Today that verse would be rendered, “For one may prophesy so that everyone else can learn from him and be encouraged.”

Now some will argue here about my use of this passage. It seems that many would prefer to not have 1 Cor. 14 in the Bible, so little do they actually listen to what it says. Many will object that prophecy is in view and since prophecy is no longer current in the church today, we do not follow the teaching of the passage. I have actually heard people try to equate NT prophecy and preaching as almost synonymous. If so, the passage should be followed. Many today teach that NT prophecy is similar to sharing something God laid on your heart. Others obviously believe prophecy (albeit of a less authoritative nature than Scripture) is a revelation from God the Spirit for us to hear today. These all should apply the passage, still. And those who think it is referring to a prophecy no longer functioning should realize he is singling out encouragement and edification as the result of prophecy (see v. 3) and any speech today which would encourage or edify–an exhortation, if you will–would fit the bill and fall under the directions of this passage.

Others will point out that Corinth was a confused church and Paul is correcting problems here. Exactly, what you read in vs. 26-33 is Paul’s correction. It applies to us in that this is how Paul says churches should behave. As Steve Atkerson points out, “The inspired correction was for the church to have regulated, orderly interaction, and not a prohibition of it….” [1].

Other glimpses in Scripture at how church services were conducted also show us that the worship was interactive and participatory rather than heavily programmed and conducted as a one man show. Acts 15 shows us a church meeting [while vs. 6 specifies apostles and elders were considering the matter of discussion, vs. 12 and 22 suggest the entire church was together for this discussion] where Peter, Barnabus, Paul, and James all participated. In fact, vs. 7 says “after there had been much debate”. And vs. 12 which follows on the heels of Peter’s appeal, begins “And all the assembly fell silent, and they listened to Barnabus and Paul…”. This suggests that there had been an open forum of discussion and Peter brought forth an appeal and then Barnabus and Paul spoke up, followed by James after the crowd had finished talking (v. 13). Now I know this was a business meeting more than a worship meeting, but it is instructive that one man didn’t run the show.

But what about Acts 1? It seems that Peter is the only one conducting a business meeting of sorts. Well, actually, vs. 14 specifies that everyone was in one accord together in prayer. And then vs. 15 says “In those days Peter stood up among the brothers…”. In the context of this gathering where many are praying, Peter stands and addresses everyone. Then everyone (or at least the apostles) together chose two men (v. 23) and cast lots over them (v. 26). It again was no one man show, but there was a mutual involvement in leadership.

You may be scratching your head trying to come up with some other example of a church meeting in Scripture. Well, don’t forget Acts 20:7-12. And yes, this seems like a contradiction to all I have said, but upon closer look it is not at all. Here we find Paul meeting with the believers in Troas and talking with them, around a meal which seems to be also an observance of the Lord’s Supper. Now this at first glance might seem to be an argument against the position I am advocating. The ESV says “Paul talked with them…and prolonged his speech until midnight…” (from v. 7). Now I admit that many modern Bible translations are similar here, but I believe the Darby version and the NIV best capture what the Greek is actually saying.

Darby — And the first day of the week, we being assembled to break bread, Paul discoursed to them, about to depart on the morrow. And he prolonged the discourse till midnight.

NIV — On the first day of the week we came together to break bread. Paul spoke to the people and, because he intended to leave the next day, kept on talking until midnight.

The greek for “discourse” or “talk” (the KJV has “preach”) is the word “dialogemai“. This is the word from which we get “dialogue”. Vine’s Expository Dictionary says the following here: “…primarily denotes ‘to ponder, resolve in one’s mind’ (dia, ‘through,’ lego, ‘to say’); then, ‘to converse, dispute, discuss, discourse with;’ most frequently, ‘to reason or dispute with.’…The AV translates it ‘preached,’ in Acts 20:7,9; this the RV corrects to ‘discoursed,’ lit., ‘dialogue,’ i.e., not by way of a sermon, but by a ‘discourse’ of a more conversational character.”[2] This understanding of dialogemai fits with what we see later in this passage. Vs. 11 mentions that after Eutychus was raised from the dead, they go back up to the room and eat and “converse” until daybreak. The Greek word for “converse” is homileo. Vine says of this verse: “‘to be in company with, consort with’ (homilos, ‘a throng;’ homilia, ‘a company’), hence, ‘to converse with,’ is rendered ‘to talk with,’ Acts 20:11” [3].

Now the word homileo brings up an interesting point. This word sounds like “homily” another word for a sermon. And the word “discourse” a good translation of dialogemai also can have a formal or religious sense to it. Yet when one looks in the dictionary, the formal sense of discourse is not the first sense for “discourse”, rather the idea of communication, expression, or conversation is primary. [4]

So in Acts 20, we see Paul earnestly desiring fellowship with believers before he likely will never see them again. Paul converses and dialogues, discussing the Word and other things in an edifying way to the believers present for the worship service.

Before I move on form this point about church services in Scripture, we should note two passages which expressly instruct how we are to behave as a body of Christ. Most would view them as directly informing our public worship. Let me quote the verses here.

Col. 3:16 “Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly, teaching and admonishing one another in all wisdom, singing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, with thankfulness in your hearts to God.” (ESV)

Eph. 5:19 “Addressing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody to the Lord with all your heart,” (ESV)

Did you catch the “one another”? We are to be teaching and admonishing, verbally and in song, one another. This seems to be most easily accomplished in a setting where people can bring a hymn or a teaching or exhortation (prophecy) publicly before the gathered body and share it with us all. Just think, how can the believers in the pew really teach, admonish, address, or edify the church as a whole? More on that aspect later.

2) Preaching and Teaching in Scripture

“But what about the emphasis Scripture places on preaching?” I can almost hear someone thinking that right now. Well, let me tell you that most often preaching is tied to the public declaration of the gospel message. And most, if not all, of the examples in Scripture we have of preaching (think Acts) are all in contexts describing an evangelistic message to a group of mostly lost people. Teaching, however is what we see happening in the church. The believers in Acts 2 continued in the Apostle’s teaching. Doctrine is a fancy word for teaching. And teaching is stressed as something which should be a part of church life. When Paul sums up his ministry of one and a half years to the Corinthian believers, he does not say he preached to them all that time, but rather that he was “teaching the word of God among them” (Acts 18:11).

Teaching, it is true, conjures up an image of a less formal structure than that of preaching. But still the idea is that one guy is doing it all. At this point let me provide a somewhat lengthy, but I trust helpful quote from John Zens.

Among the many gifts Christ gives to his people, some are gifted as teachers (Eph. 4:11). James says, “Not many of you should presume to be teachers, my brothers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly” (3:1). Paul says, “if a person’s gift is teaching, let him teach” (Ro. 12:6-7). And in 1 Co. 12:28-29 Paul underscores the fact that Christ never intended for everybody to have the same gifting by asking, “Are all teachers?” On the other hand, the writer to the Hebrews chides all the bretheren for their lack of growth by saying, “though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you the elementary truths of God’s word all over again” (5:12). So while it is clear that only some are gifted as teachers, all of Christ’s people are to be “teachers” in the broad sense of contributing to the overall edification of the body according to their gifting….groups of believers will vary greatly in their giftedness…some assemblies will have several gifted at teaching, some will have one person, and others may feel that they have none. The central thing to keep in mind is that all believers have the Holy Spirit (the “anointing”) and are capable of some level of sharing Christ, of manifesting discernment, of caring for one another, and of understanding the Scriptures…. [5]

A further point could be made about James 3:1, I believe. James does not make being an elder a requirement to becoming a teacher. He seems rather to be resisting the influx of people willing and apparently able to teach. Steve Atkerson says concerning this verse, “James’ warning makes sense in light of the intimate, interactive meetings that characterized the early church.” [6]

Now I do believe that pastors and elders (remember I believe in a plurality of elders, see Titus 1:5 and Acts 14:23) have a special responsibility to be pastor-teachers (Eph. 4:11) and to equip the saints through teaching (Eph. 4:12). And I will mention later that I believe there still should be public teaching including a lecture style format. More on that later. But for now notice Titus 1:9-11. Pastors must be able to teach so they can silence those who “contradict”. Those in view here are false teachers. They are speaking in these churches due to the open and participatory format. Thus they need to be silenced. Verse 11 is intriguing. The ESV says, “They must be silenced, since they are upsetting whole families by teaching for shameful gain what they ought not to teach.” But the Greek has “whole houses” not families. I think this is a reference to house churches being led astray by the influence of these false teachers “of the circumcision party”. This is similar to what is in view in 2 John 10, where house could be understood as local assembly, most of which met in houses originally.

3) Church Life in Scripture

One last and important line of reasoning which supports a participatory worship style are the many “one another” commands in Scripture. The Bible is replete with exhortations for us to love, encourage, comfort, edify, and exhort one another. In a previous post on this issue (“1 Thessalonians and Churches’ Greatest Need”), I listed 27 passages of Scripture besides almost the entire book of 1 Thessalonians which give “one another” commands. And my list is by no means exhaustive.

Now how exactly are we to obey these commands? Does sitting in a pew provide you the means of exhorting and encouraging fellow believers? Perhaps every third month when you get a chance to pray publicly, but certainly not regularly. Now, I am sure the commands mentioned above are to be followed out as we interact within the community of believers in our local church. But think about how your church is structured. How exactly are these commands being obeyed? While I agree that I and you and we all must be more assertive in looking for ways to practice “one another” ministry, I think, however, that part of the blame for a lack of “one another” ministry should lie at the feet of how we structure church today. With a select few doing all the practical ministry, the rest of us merely veg being the wonderful consumers that we are.

When you look at Scripture, you do certainly see specific qualifications and responsibilites required of the elders. But it is most often the normal church members who are addressed and called to serve and work in the church. Just typing the phrase “normal church member” irritates me. That entire idea stems from the whole Catholic idea of a distinction between the clergy and the laity. The clergy must mediate the spiritual blessings to the laity. I think the whole Protestant view of preaching is tied up in this concept of clergy and laity held over from the Catholic church. When we look at church life in Scripture we see no special prominence given to the church leaders, and we see non leaders actively involved in every facet of ministry and worship within the church.

We have come to the end of part one. I still plan to describe open, participatory worship (giving modern and historical examples) and offer some final recommendations and reservations about this whole discussion. I wanted to go ahead and post what I have so far here. And the rest should follow shortly.

 

∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞

 

Further Resources

[1] Steve Atkerson, “Interactive Meetings”, an online article (similar to the chapter  3 in Ekklesia—see footnotes).

[2] Beresford Job and Jon Zens, “Paul Preached Unto Them”, an online article (similar to chapter 4 in Ekklesia).

[3] The New Testament Restoration Foundation, a ministry devoted to spreading and teaching about house churches with participatory, open worship.

[4] More to come in part 2.

Footnotes

[1] Steve Atkerson, Ekklesia: To the Roots of Biblical Church Life, edited by Steve Atkerson, (Atlanta: New Testament Restoration Foundation, 2003), pg. 37. [For sample of a chapter in this book, click here.]

[2] Vine’s Expository Dictionary entry for “discourse” as accessed at BlueLetterBible.Org, click herefor the online entry.

[3] Vine’s Expository Dictionary entry for “talk – B-3” as accessed at BlueLetterBible.Org, click herefor the online entry.

[4] Information gathered from the Dictionary.Com entry for “discourse” as accessed at Dictionary.Com, click here to view the whole entry.

The Dictionary.Com dictionary’s first two definitions for “discourse” are as follows: “1. communication of thought by words; talk; conversation: earnest and intelligent discourse. 2. a formal discussion of a subject in speech or writing, as a dissertation, treatise, sermon, etc.” And The American Heritage Dictionary‘s first three definitions for “discourse”, cited at Dictionary.com are as follows: “1. Verbal expression in speech or writing. 2. Verbal exchange; conversation. 3. A formal, lengthy discussion of a subject, either written or spoken.”

[5] John Zens, Ekklesia, pg. 59-60; underlined emphasis is italic in original.

[6] Steve Atkerson, Ekklesia, pg. 42.


∼striving for the unity of the faith for the glory of God∼ Eph. 4:3,13 “¢ Rom. 15:5-7