Really, for a minister to state and suggest that the taking up of the offering and tithes of worshippers was an act of worship, is ridiculous! This is how we get money from attendees to run the church and its programmes! Yet, Sunday by Sunday, congregations are bombarded with the words, or similar, "Let us worship God with our tithes and offerings. Your offering will now be received."
Now, when the minister calls the congregation to worship God, I take it that that is what he expects the congregation to do. When the living God is being worshipped, one would expect that their hearts and minds would be focused on that activity, and on nothing else! When they are called to pray, their souls are to be engaged in speaking to Almighty God. When they are called to sing praise to the Lord, again, the expectation is that hearts and minds are zoomed in on worshipping God. This is all they are supposed to be doing at that particular time!
But when they are equally sincerely called to worship as they make their offering for His work, the situation is totally changed. Indeed, it is not just changed, it is the very opposite of what the minister called the people to do!
Why do I say that? Because in my experience, when the minister calls for an act of worship when the offering is being made, this call is re-interpreted as permission to enter into a trivial chat with your nearest neighbour. Its an interlude, the short period after the commercial break, or announcements. Its a chance to catch up on the latest evangelical gossip. Its time for a break from concentrating on God.
And even when some worshippers want to use that time to worship the Lord and to reflect on Him and His gospel, a pew-sharer prefers to enter into an irrelevant conversation about something of interest to them. Such unspiritual behaviour is unacceptable.
When a duly ordained minister calls the congregation to worship God as it makes its offering, it is that precise thing that he expects the worshippers to do. In this act of worship, the worshippers are to give their hearts and lives to God as an offering, just as they give their money to support the work of the gospel. Their offering is a token of what is really in their hearts towards God. It is them giving themselves freely and willingly to the Lord. They are saying to the Lord, 'Use me in your service just as you would use my money.' And just as the money has no say in how it is to be used, so the submissive Christian has no say as to how God will choose to use him/her in His holy service. It is a giving of ourselves to the gracious Lord for His use, a handing over of our lives to Him.
What puzzles me is how Christian worshippers can do all this when they are engaging in meaningless chit-chat with their neighbour, while disobeying the call to worship God! Why do ministers not teach their congregations about the nature of worship, or indeed, the true nature of the God Who is to be worshipped? Or, if the 'offering' is not an integral element of the service of holy worship of the living God, then let us be honest enough to say just that! But let's stop the pretense, and say it as it is practised in today's diluted church!
Monday, 28 December 2009
Thursday, 24 December 2009
Oy Vey in a Manger!
This excellent article is printed here on 24th December 2009 to help you read the NT accounts of Jesus' birth much more accurately, thus exposing some of the mythology that surrounds the Saviour's birth.
Mike Moore casts a sideways look at some assumptions about the birth of Messiah and concludes that they ain’t necessarily so.
The most enduring images of the birth of Jesus, perpetuated through paintings, literature, Christmas carols, nativity plays and sermons, is that the Lord of glory was born in a stable because there was “no room in the inn”. Even though the carols and some of our English Bible versions call Bethlehem a “town” or a “city,” in New Testament times, it would have been a village too small to support an inn. Also, inns were normally found only on major roads, especially the Roman ones, but Bethlehem was not on a major road.
Lost in translation
The misunderstanding is due to our English Bibles. The Greek word, katalyma, should never have been translated “inn”, as it is in Luke 2:7. The 1395 edition of John Wycliffe’s translation of Luke 2:7 reads: “And sche bare hir first borun sone, and wlappide hym in clothis, and leide hym in a cratche, for ther was no place to hym in no chaumbir.” For reasons known only to themselves, William Tyndale and the translators of the Geneva Bible and the Authorised Version opted for “inn” rather than “chaumber”. And so it has continued. The two exceptions to this translational custom are The New English Bible and David Stern’s The Jewish New Testament. The NEB translates Luke 2:7 as: “She wrapped him in his swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger, because there was no room for them to lodge in the house.” The JNT renders Luke 2:7 as: “She wrapped him in cloth and laid him down in a feeding trough, because there was no space for them in the living quarters.”
In Luke 22:11 and Mark 14:14 (the only other places in the New Testament where the word appears), katalyma clearly does not mean an inn: “Then he shall show you a large, furnished upper room [katalyma] ...” (Luke 22:11.). If Luke had intended to refer to a commercial hostelry in chapter 2, he would have used pandocheion, the very word he uses in the parable of the Good Samaritan in 10:25-37: “... he set him on his own animal, brought him to an inn [pandocheion], and took care of him.” The 1915 edition of The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia observes that “Luke with his usual care distinguishes between [katalyma] and pandocheion, and his use of the verb katalúō (Luke 9:12; Luke19:7) makes his meaning clear... It is the word used of the ‘upper room’ where the Last Supper was held (Mark 14:14; Luke 22:11, ‘guest-chamber’), and of the place of reception in Bethlehem where Joseph and Mary failed to find quarters (Luke 2:7). It thus corresponds to the spare or upper room in a private house or in a village...” (available online at www.bible-history. com/isbe/I/INN).
...in a lowly cattle shed?
In Luke’s birth narrative, the Messiah was laid in a manger from which animals ate. Does that not strongly suggest a birth in a stable? According to the Biblical and Middle Eastern scholar, Kenneth Bailey, from the time of King David until the mid-twentieth century, most village homes in Israel and the Middle East consisted of two rooms; one for the family and the other for guests. The family room had an area, usually about four feet lower than the living space, in which the family donkey, cow and two or three sheep spent the night. The animals were brought into the house last thing at night and taken outside first thing in the morning. In the house they ate from mangers dug out of the stone floor of the raised family living area. The katalyma was the room reserved for guests and visitors. Contrary to the traditional Christmas story, Mary was not in labour when she and Joseph arrived in Bethlehem. Luke 2:6 records, “So it was, that while they were there [not upon arrival], the days were completed for her to be delivered.” The ESV reads, “And while they were there, the time came for her to give birth.” How could we have ever concluded from the biblical text that Mary was in labour at the time she and Joseph arrived in Bethlehem? The idea may have originated with a second-century apocryphal work of fiction, The Protevangelium of James: “And they came to the midst of the way, and Mary said unto him: Take me down from the ass, for that which is within me presseth me, to come forth. And he took her down from the ass and said unto her: Whither shall I take thee to hide thy shame? for the place is desert.” (Protevangelium of James 17:8, available online at www.earlychristianwritings.com/infancyjames.html).
No crib for a bed
Matthew records that when the magi arrived in Bethlehem they entered “the house,” not “the stable”, and there they “fell down and worshipped Him” (Mt. 2:11). Jews and Arabs have traditionally placed a high value on family and hospitality, so when Caesar Augustus decreed that the Jewish population of ancient Israel had to return to their home towns to register for the census, Joseph went to Bethlehem “because he belonged to the house and line of David”(Luke 2:4). “To turn away a descendant of David in ‘the City of David’ would be an unspeakable shame on the entire village,” writes Kenneth Bailey in Jesus Through Middle Eastern Eyes (p. 26). Even if there had been no room to stay with Joseph’s relatives in Bethlehem, no village in the hill country of Judea was more than an hours ride on donkey from Bethlehem, so Joseph could easily have taken his betrothed to her relatives, Elizabeth and Zechariah.
From these considerations, we can construct a more accurate scenario of the events surrounding the birth of Messiah. Joseph and his pregnant fiancée Mary made their way to this ancestral village of Bethlehem for the census decreed by Caesar. There, he and Mary stayed with Joseph’s relatives for the remainder of her pregnancy in a home which was crowded due to the census being taken and where there was no longer any space in “the guest room”. Consequently, Mary gave birth to her child in the family room and the baby was placed on clean straw in one of the stone mangers. The birth of the Lord of glory was indeed humble but the manger in which he was laid was in a warm, friendly family home, not in a cold, dirty and lonely stable.
This is not a call to preachers to devote their Christmas sermons to denouncing the traditional misunderstandings of the birth of Messiah. Still less is it an encouragement to ministers to ignore the festive season and to steer clear of preaching on the nativity. It is a plea for more careful reading, exegesis and exposition of Scripture in order to draw out better and more appropriate applications from the text of the Bible.
Mike Moore
The misunderstanding is due to our English Bibles. The Greek word, katalyma, should never have been translated “inn”, as it is in Luke 2:7. The 1395 edition of John Wycliffe’s translation of Luke 2:7 reads: “And sche bare hir first borun sone, and wlappide hym in clothis, and leide hym in a cratche, for ther was no place to hym in no chaumbir.” For reasons known only to themselves, William Tyndale and the translators of the Geneva Bible and the Authorised Version opted for “inn” rather than “chaumber”. And so it has continued. The two exceptions to this translational custom are The New English Bible and David Stern’s The Jewish New Testament. The NEB translates Luke 2:7 as: “She wrapped him in his swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger, because there was no room for them to lodge in the house.” The JNT renders Luke 2:7 as: “She wrapped him in cloth and laid him down in a feeding trough, because there was no space for them in the living quarters.”
In Luke 22:11 and Mark 14:14 (the only other places in the New Testament where the word appears), katalyma clearly does not mean an inn: “Then he shall show you a large, furnished upper room [katalyma] ...” (Luke 22:11.). If Luke had intended to refer to a commercial hostelry in chapter 2, he would have used pandocheion, the very word he uses in the parable of the Good Samaritan in 10:25-37: “... he set him on his own animal, brought him to an inn [pandocheion], and took care of him.” The 1915 edition of The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia observes that “Luke with his usual care distinguishes between [katalyma] and pandocheion, and his use of the verb katalúō (Luke 9:12; Luke19:7) makes his meaning clear... It is the word used of the ‘upper room’ where the Last Supper was held (Mark 14:14; Luke 22:11, ‘guest-chamber’), and of the place of reception in Bethlehem where Joseph and Mary failed to find quarters (Luke 2:7). It thus corresponds to the spare or upper room in a private house or in a village...” (available online at www.bible-history. com/isbe/I/INN).
...in a lowly cattle shed?
In Luke’s birth narrative, the Messiah was laid in a manger from which animals ate. Does that not strongly suggest a birth in a stable? According to the Biblical and Middle Eastern scholar, Kenneth Bailey, from the time of King David until the mid-twentieth century, most village homes in Israel and the Middle East consisted of two rooms; one for the family and the other for guests. The family room had an area, usually about four feet lower than the living space, in which the family donkey, cow and two or three sheep spent the night. The animals were brought into the house last thing at night and taken outside first thing in the morning. In the house they ate from mangers dug out of the stone floor of the raised family living area. The katalyma was the room reserved for guests and visitors. Contrary to the traditional Christmas story, Mary was not in labour when she and Joseph arrived in Bethlehem. Luke 2:6 records, “So it was, that while they were there [not upon arrival], the days were completed for her to be delivered.” The ESV reads, “And while they were there, the time came for her to give birth.” How could we have ever concluded from the biblical text that Mary was in labour at the time she and Joseph arrived in Bethlehem? The idea may have originated with a second-century apocryphal work of fiction, The Protevangelium of James: “And they came to the midst of the way, and Mary said unto him: Take me down from the ass, for that which is within me presseth me, to come forth. And he took her down from the ass and said unto her: Whither shall I take thee to hide thy shame? for the place is desert.” (Protevangelium of James 17:8, available online at www.earlychristianwritings.com/infancyjames.html).
No crib for a bed
Matthew records that when the magi arrived in Bethlehem they entered “the house,” not “the stable”, and there they “fell down and worshipped Him” (Mt. 2:11). Jews and Arabs have traditionally placed a high value on family and hospitality, so when Caesar Augustus decreed that the Jewish population of ancient Israel had to return to their home towns to register for the census, Joseph went to Bethlehem “because he belonged to the house and line of David”(Luke 2:4). “To turn away a descendant of David in ‘the City of David’ would be an unspeakable shame on the entire village,” writes Kenneth Bailey in Jesus Through Middle Eastern Eyes (p. 26). Even if there had been no room to stay with Joseph’s relatives in Bethlehem, no village in the hill country of Judea was more than an hours ride on donkey from Bethlehem, so Joseph could easily have taken his betrothed to her relatives, Elizabeth and Zechariah.
From these considerations, we can construct a more accurate scenario of the events surrounding the birth of Messiah. Joseph and his pregnant fiancée Mary made their way to this ancestral village of Bethlehem for the census decreed by Caesar. There, he and Mary stayed with Joseph’s relatives for the remainder of her pregnancy in a home which was crowded due to the census being taken and where there was no longer any space in “the guest room”. Consequently, Mary gave birth to her child in the family room and the baby was placed on clean straw in one of the stone mangers. The birth of the Lord of glory was indeed humble but the manger in which he was laid was in a warm, friendly family home, not in a cold, dirty and lonely stable.
This is not a call to preachers to devote their Christmas sermons to denouncing the traditional misunderstandings of the birth of Messiah. Still less is it an encouragement to ministers to ignore the festive season and to steer clear of preaching on the nativity. It is a plea for more careful reading, exegesis and exposition of Scripture in order to draw out better and more appropriate applications from the text of the Bible.
Mike Moore
This article was first published in the Herald, the official organ of Christian Witness to Israel, in December 2009.
Tuesday, 22 December 2009
Going with the flow - a sign of maturity.
Just go with the flow! That's what makes a good minister! It is also a sign of ministerial and spiritual maturity, and something that only comes with age. This is the way a river flows, following the path of least resistance. It is a sure-fire way of avoiding rows in the congregation, and keeps everyone on board, regardless of whether they are Christians or not. It raises the minister in the church popularity stakes, and ensures that he is well looked after by the congregation. If he were to enter the popular Saturday evening entertainment show, X-factor, he would be sure to win.
It's a pity that I was not given the pastoral advice that a former colleague of mine was given by a theological professor: "do what the people want you to do, and say what they want you to say." Be "all things to all men" in this sense.
Maybe this is how the politicians persuaded voters in Northern Ireland to support the Belfast Agreement of 1998 - say enough to please everyone, even those who hold fundamentally different views. They worded the agreement in such a way that everyone got something out of it. The unionists were assured that the union was copper-fastened, and republicans were also sure that it was a transition to their desired united Ireland. 72% of the people were kept happy, and on side.
The 'go with the flow' ministerial philosophy is exactly the same. It tells ministers to use words so carefully that both Christians and Gospel-rejecters alike are kept happy, and cause them to believe that the minister is agreeing with them, regardless of what they believe personally. If they want their young people to become full communicant church members, accept them so long as they say they are Christians; and if they want their babies baptised, or christened (in their language), do it, and so long as you ask them the orthodox questions and they answer appropriately, go with it. Ask no deeply personal questions. Don't worry about the well-being of their souls, or of the church of Jesus Christ.
Such ministers get on very well with their congregations, but what is unbelievably distressing is that those who hold this viewpoint care nothing about the souls of those who listen to them on a weekly basis. They are happy for their members to go to hell without Christ. Their defense is that all that God requires of ministers is for them to be faithful. He does not want them to win souls to Christ. He does not want them to annoy or disturb their members. He wants them to enjoy peace - such as is found in a cemetery. He calls them to lull them to sleep spiritually, so that they can remain "at ease in Zion." He does not want church members to come under conviction of sin - a reality that no longer exists, or if it does, is not that serious a thing. Nor do these modern ministers want the Holy Spirit to start working in the lives of church members - that would never do! Think of the trouble that would cause and the contradictions such a situation would create! The elders had already accepted them as Christians, and now they are talking about wanting to become Christians! How embarrassing! How unPresbyterian!
It is very sad to read this kind of material. But what makes it even more disillusioning is the fact that this kind of viewpoint is held by evangelical Christians. This is the attitude that desires peace at any price, or more accurately, peace at no price whatever.
The need for solid, ongoing and systematic teaching of the message of the Scriptures, the historical context of the theological controversies surrounding these issues, is apparent. And, the equal need for church discipline, properly administered, must go alongside the true proclamation of the Word/Gospel. These are the marks of a true church.
But where the 'go with the flow' philosophy rules in any congregation or is the controlling principle of any ministry, there you can be sure that no true church of Christ exists. While this attitude wins friends and influences people in your favour, it falls far short of the true calling of the minister of the Gospel.
Surely someone must be raised up by God to re-call the church to her God-given responsibility to form true churches of Christ, not cheap replicas of the real thing. But this is very, very costly. No self-respecting congregation will tolerate any minister who wants to do what God had called him to do! Yet, this is precisely the type of minister most congregations need, and need urgently. But churches do not want men whose aim in their ministry is to please God. They want a minister who will please them!
May God have mercy on His church which He purchased with the blood of His Son.
It's a pity that I was not given the pastoral advice that a former colleague of mine was given by a theological professor: "do what the people want you to do, and say what they want you to say." Be "all things to all men" in this sense.
Maybe this is how the politicians persuaded voters in Northern Ireland to support the Belfast Agreement of 1998 - say enough to please everyone, even those who hold fundamentally different views. They worded the agreement in such a way that everyone got something out of it. The unionists were assured that the union was copper-fastened, and republicans were also sure that it was a transition to their desired united Ireland. 72% of the people were kept happy, and on side.
The 'go with the flow' ministerial philosophy is exactly the same. It tells ministers to use words so carefully that both Christians and Gospel-rejecters alike are kept happy, and cause them to believe that the minister is agreeing with them, regardless of what they believe personally. If they want their young people to become full communicant church members, accept them so long as they say they are Christians; and if they want their babies baptised, or christened (in their language), do it, and so long as you ask them the orthodox questions and they answer appropriately, go with it. Ask no deeply personal questions. Don't worry about the well-being of their souls, or of the church of Jesus Christ.
Such ministers get on very well with their congregations, but what is unbelievably distressing is that those who hold this viewpoint care nothing about the souls of those who listen to them on a weekly basis. They are happy for their members to go to hell without Christ. Their defense is that all that God requires of ministers is for them to be faithful. He does not want them to win souls to Christ. He does not want them to annoy or disturb their members. He wants them to enjoy peace - such as is found in a cemetery. He calls them to lull them to sleep spiritually, so that they can remain "at ease in Zion." He does not want church members to come under conviction of sin - a reality that no longer exists, or if it does, is not that serious a thing. Nor do these modern ministers want the Holy Spirit to start working in the lives of church members - that would never do! Think of the trouble that would cause and the contradictions such a situation would create! The elders had already accepted them as Christians, and now they are talking about wanting to become Christians! How embarrassing! How unPresbyterian!
It is very sad to read this kind of material. But what makes it even more disillusioning is the fact that this kind of viewpoint is held by evangelical Christians. This is the attitude that desires peace at any price, or more accurately, peace at no price whatever.
The need for solid, ongoing and systematic teaching of the message of the Scriptures, the historical context of the theological controversies surrounding these issues, is apparent. And, the equal need for church discipline, properly administered, must go alongside the true proclamation of the Word/Gospel. These are the marks of a true church.
But where the 'go with the flow' philosophy rules in any congregation or is the controlling principle of any ministry, there you can be sure that no true church of Christ exists. While this attitude wins friends and influences people in your favour, it falls far short of the true calling of the minister of the Gospel.
Surely someone must be raised up by God to re-call the church to her God-given responsibility to form true churches of Christ, not cheap replicas of the real thing. But this is very, very costly. No self-respecting congregation will tolerate any minister who wants to do what God had called him to do! Yet, this is precisely the type of minister most congregations need, and need urgently. But churches do not want men whose aim in their ministry is to please God. They want a minister who will please them!
May God have mercy on His church which He purchased with the blood of His Son.
Thursday, 17 December 2009
When God answers prayer!
Ecclesiastical democracy is a most wonderful thing - more wonderful, indeed, than Northern Ireland's pretended democracy! Especially when that democracy is "bathed in prayer." Discovering God's will in a complex situation within a mixed congregation is not that easy, not if you have already made up your mind what God's will is in any given situation.
Then when God answers your prayer in a way that you did not expect, where does that leave you? More importantly, where does that leave your discernment, and your faith? Is strong spiritual conviction really a sanctified term for fleshly stubbornness? Or, is it nothing but selfish ambition, a worldly desire to 'keep up with the Jones's,' wanting to have as nice a place as someone else? Is it a form of thinly disguised pride?
But what about God answering prayer? Is answered prayer that which agrees with the pray-er's asking? Is prayer not answered when it goes against my asking? What do we make of it all?
I think the lesson here is that God's ways are not our ways, and we are very foolish when we think that we can demand from Him what we want! Christians must learn to say, "Let God be true, and every man a liar." God is sovereign in Himself and in everything He does, or does not do. We might try to restrict Him and the outworking of His sovereign purposes. But we cannot. He will crush our desires to dust, if we persist in our stubbornness. God is God, and we are but mere men, and sinful men at that.
But when a church leader gives the impression that he knows God's will or has had a secret, private and personal revelation of what He intends to do, and calls the people of God to prayer, and it still does not work out the way he wants, where does that leave his leadership? He has some very deep thinking and reflecting to do - not least about his own spiritual maturity.
Truth is that church leaders often do get it all wrong at times. And when they get it wrong, it can and often does have a fundamental effect on the unity of the congregation. Divisions are created, and disharmony becomes visible. Those who were once fellowship partners can be driven apart. Disunity becomes the norm, and when that occurs, the spirit of prayer is seriously damaged. The result is that that leader's ministry may be damaged beyond repair in that congregation. It may be time for a move.
But if he goes, he will then be accused of running away from a situation which might well be of his own making. Either way, the minister cannot win.
However, in some minds, there will be devastation and disappointment, while in others, glee and the semblance of spiritual pride. God answered our prayers, but He didn't answer yours! While that might be factually true, the end result is a worse situation than before. One section of the congregation feels humiliated and the other is full of pride. Not a good situation for any evangelical church to be in! Maybe that's why God does not give us as many answers to prayer as we would like! Perhaps there are lessons that we need to learn here too!
Then when God answers your prayer in a way that you did not expect, where does that leave you? More importantly, where does that leave your discernment, and your faith? Is strong spiritual conviction really a sanctified term for fleshly stubbornness? Or, is it nothing but selfish ambition, a worldly desire to 'keep up with the Jones's,' wanting to have as nice a place as someone else? Is it a form of thinly disguised pride?
But what about God answering prayer? Is answered prayer that which agrees with the pray-er's asking? Is prayer not answered when it goes against my asking? What do we make of it all?
I think the lesson here is that God's ways are not our ways, and we are very foolish when we think that we can demand from Him what we want! Christians must learn to say, "Let God be true, and every man a liar." God is sovereign in Himself and in everything He does, or does not do. We might try to restrict Him and the outworking of His sovereign purposes. But we cannot. He will crush our desires to dust, if we persist in our stubbornness. God is God, and we are but mere men, and sinful men at that.
But when a church leader gives the impression that he knows God's will or has had a secret, private and personal revelation of what He intends to do, and calls the people of God to prayer, and it still does not work out the way he wants, where does that leave his leadership? He has some very deep thinking and reflecting to do - not least about his own spiritual maturity.
Truth is that church leaders often do get it all wrong at times. And when they get it wrong, it can and often does have a fundamental effect on the unity of the congregation. Divisions are created, and disharmony becomes visible. Those who were once fellowship partners can be driven apart. Disunity becomes the norm, and when that occurs, the spirit of prayer is seriously damaged. The result is that that leader's ministry may be damaged beyond repair in that congregation. It may be time for a move.
But if he goes, he will then be accused of running away from a situation which might well be of his own making. Either way, the minister cannot win.
However, in some minds, there will be devastation and disappointment, while in others, glee and the semblance of spiritual pride. God answered our prayers, but He didn't answer yours! While that might be factually true, the end result is a worse situation than before. One section of the congregation feels humiliated and the other is full of pride. Not a good situation for any evangelical church to be in! Maybe that's why God does not give us as many answers to prayer as we would like! Perhaps there are lessons that we need to learn here too!
Friday, 11 December 2009
Majoring on Minors
I had the privilege of preaching at the Tenth Anniversary Thanksgiving Service for the decade of service to the innocent victims of terrorism held on 22nd November 2009 when more than 200 worshippers attended the service on what was a very wet autumnal Sabbath.
But the single most important Person to be present at the service was the risen Lord Jesus Christ. His presence with us was evident from the rapt attention that was paid to the Gospel. The stillness and hush throughout the service were real, and the closeness of eternity was apparent to all.
The theme of the service and sermon was "Reconciliation." This was developed from Rom.5:10, 11, and the teaching of the Apostle Paul was developed and also contrasted with the perverted understanding that abounds within the 'peace and reconciliation industry' that has been created for the civil servants in Northern Ireland. The entire message had an evangelistic thrust, and the congregation was urged to be reconciled to God, thus demonstrating true biblical reconciliation.
Given the presence of the risen Lord Jesus Christ at the service, I am sure that readers will be amazed to learn that the comments from professing Christians were strange - to say the least. "You looked well, you did well, your voice kept up, there was a good attendance, the church building looked beautiful, it was very warm in the church, it was too long;" then the more 'spiritual' commented very negatively on that fact I wore my Geneva gowns, and used of both Psalms and hymns in the service.
The former comments were easily enough taken when expressed by non-Christians; but when Christians, from the reformed churches, criticised the wearing of the Geneva gown in a service of reformed worship, one was left wondering what historical awareness these people possessed. The critic did not seem to know that the Reformers, Huguenots, Puritans, Covenanters and other reformed ministers all wore their Geneva gowns, thus distinguishing them from 'preachers' from Roman-type churches.
The criticism of non-exclusive Psalm-singing was also a bit rich, especially when these criticisms were accompanied by the authoritative historical statement that hymns were only about 100 years old! Amazing! Even Calvin, whom the reformed churches revere, is believed to have written the hymn, "We greet Thee who my great Redeemer art." He also used the Lord's Prayer and the Apostles' Creed which were put into verse and set to music. Hymns stretch back to that time, as a quick and cursory glance through any good church hymn book will reveal. It is very sad that those who purport to promote a certain type of reformed worship do not even know the facts of the matter, and use historical inaccuracies to promote, what in their view, is biblical truth!
These criticisms were the only things that these people could say about the service, and the 'sectarian' nature of the comments is nauseating. It appears that they do not have any deep spiritual discernment when these were the only things they could say about that God-honouring service. When minor issues become the dominant issues, and take on major importance, there is a serious problem within the churches, and the need for reformation is a crying and increasingly necessity.
But the single most important Person to be present at the service was the risen Lord Jesus Christ. His presence with us was evident from the rapt attention that was paid to the Gospel. The stillness and hush throughout the service were real, and the closeness of eternity was apparent to all.
The theme of the service and sermon was "Reconciliation." This was developed from Rom.5:10, 11, and the teaching of the Apostle Paul was developed and also contrasted with the perverted understanding that abounds within the 'peace and reconciliation industry' that has been created for the civil servants in Northern Ireland. The entire message had an evangelistic thrust, and the congregation was urged to be reconciled to God, thus demonstrating true biblical reconciliation.
Given the presence of the risen Lord Jesus Christ at the service, I am sure that readers will be amazed to learn that the comments from professing Christians were strange - to say the least. "You looked well, you did well, your voice kept up, there was a good attendance, the church building looked beautiful, it was very warm in the church, it was too long;" then the more 'spiritual' commented very negatively on that fact I wore my Geneva gowns, and used of both Psalms and hymns in the service.
The former comments were easily enough taken when expressed by non-Christians; but when Christians, from the reformed churches, criticised the wearing of the Geneva gown in a service of reformed worship, one was left wondering what historical awareness these people possessed. The critic did not seem to know that the Reformers, Huguenots, Puritans, Covenanters and other reformed ministers all wore their Geneva gowns, thus distinguishing them from 'preachers' from Roman-type churches.
The criticism of non-exclusive Psalm-singing was also a bit rich, especially when these criticisms were accompanied by the authoritative historical statement that hymns were only about 100 years old! Amazing! Even Calvin, whom the reformed churches revere, is believed to have written the hymn, "We greet Thee who my great Redeemer art." He also used the Lord's Prayer and the Apostles' Creed which were put into verse and set to music. Hymns stretch back to that time, as a quick and cursory glance through any good church hymn book will reveal. It is very sad that those who purport to promote a certain type of reformed worship do not even know the facts of the matter, and use historical inaccuracies to promote, what in their view, is biblical truth!
These criticisms were the only things that these people could say about the service, and the 'sectarian' nature of the comments is nauseating. It appears that they do not have any deep spiritual discernment when these were the only things they could say about that God-honouring service. When minor issues become the dominant issues, and take on major importance, there is a serious problem within the churches, and the need for reformation is a crying and increasingly necessity.
Monday, 7 December 2009
Psalms in Worship - a 'no-go' area
As I visit different churches of various denominations, I discover a variety of worship types, as if all these churches were reading different Bibles. Most, if not all, have adopted the practice of conditioning the worshippers before the service with either live music, or by the use of piped music. Most, if not all, now use modern worship songs. Most, if not all, no longer sing the Psalms, nor do they sing the Paraphrases with any degree of regularity.
But what is perhaps most perplexing is the cessation in many 'reformed' congregations of Psalm singing. Indeed, some 'reformed' churches do not even know the Psalms, and find singing them a real challenge. Some elders within these 'reformed' churches hardly recognise the Psalms as part of God's Word.
What a move away from the rich reformation tradition that these churches once embraced in their better days! I am not advocating exclusive Psalmody, since this practice has neither biblical nor historical warrant. But I am advocating the singing of Psalms as an integral part of the diet of weekly worship. As Calvin himself preached, there is nothing better than the Psalms in the worship of God - not meaning that there is nothing but the Psalms to be used in the worship of Almighty God.
Congregations in the reformed, or biblical, tradition are being weaned away from a solid theological understanding of worship, and are being subjected to modernism gone wild. Yes, there are some excellent modern hymns that we can use in the reverent worship of the Lord; but there is much spiritual gush and slush that is being introduced, why? To attract the young people.
Yet, and here's the interesting bit, I have heard young Christians who belong to a church that I know, and whom I would have said were into this modern stuff, complaining that they get nothing out of the services. The preaching is excellent, but the context in which that preaching is done is counter-productive. We hear the Cross of Jesus Christ preached in the context of virtual rock rhythm, accompanied by a heavy drum beat and African drums.
We need to get back to basics again - for the glory of God and the good of future generations. We need hymns that are biblically faithful and that teach sound doctrine. What we don't need is endlessly repeating verses of choruses, and all that stuff that goes with it.
May God teach the church before it is too late that reverence adorns His House!
But what is perhaps most perplexing is the cessation in many 'reformed' congregations of Psalm singing. Indeed, some 'reformed' churches do not even know the Psalms, and find singing them a real challenge. Some elders within these 'reformed' churches hardly recognise the Psalms as part of God's Word.
What a move away from the rich reformation tradition that these churches once embraced in their better days! I am not advocating exclusive Psalmody, since this practice has neither biblical nor historical warrant. But I am advocating the singing of Psalms as an integral part of the diet of weekly worship. As Calvin himself preached, there is nothing better than the Psalms in the worship of God - not meaning that there is nothing but the Psalms to be used in the worship of Almighty God.
Congregations in the reformed, or biblical, tradition are being weaned away from a solid theological understanding of worship, and are being subjected to modernism gone wild. Yes, there are some excellent modern hymns that we can use in the reverent worship of the Lord; but there is much spiritual gush and slush that is being introduced, why? To attract the young people.
Yet, and here's the interesting bit, I have heard young Christians who belong to a church that I know, and whom I would have said were into this modern stuff, complaining that they get nothing out of the services. The preaching is excellent, but the context in which that preaching is done is counter-productive. We hear the Cross of Jesus Christ preached in the context of virtual rock rhythm, accompanied by a heavy drum beat and African drums.
We need to get back to basics again - for the glory of God and the good of future generations. We need hymns that are biblically faithful and that teach sound doctrine. What we don't need is endlessly repeating verses of choruses, and all that stuff that goes with it.
May God teach the church before it is too late that reverence adorns His House!
Friday, 27 November 2009
More Romanising Trends Within Mainstream Evangelicalism
It's sad, but true! Evangelicals within the mainstream denominations are leading the way to Rome! Not only is this trend seen in the way 'reformed' ministers, in administering the sacrament of baptism to covenant infants, actually take these infants away from the father into his own arms, thus sending out the message that it is the church that is ultimately responsible for the child's salvation, and is essentially a priestly action, it is also seen in another sphere.
Now, the other New Testament sacrament, the Lord's Supper, is being treated in the same Romanising manner. Just recently, I witnessed this with my own eyes. Not that many, or any, others noticed this, but I certainly did. At the normal Sunday services, you will see elders coming to the worship of Almighty God dressed like 'tramps,' the evangelical type, of course, in denim jeans, open necked shirts, trainers, sportsy dress; but when it comes to the observance of the sacrament of the Lord's Supper, my, they present themselves appropriately - their good suits on, shirt and tie, and every bit the Christian leader. Indeed, they would never dream of presenting at school in such a tawdry fashion. These professionals obviously have a higher respect for their employers and professions than they do for God and His house!
Now why do they do this sort of thing? True, its not what is on the outside, but what's in the heart, that matters. That point is willingly granted. But what does it say about the elevated position these men give to the Lord's Supper? It says that they believe that Sacrament Sunday is different from the other Sundays because the Lord's Supper is being taken. In their minds, there is an elevation of this sacrament above the preaching of the Gospel which is the focus of every other service. It might even be the Presbyterian's way of "elevating the host" as is done within Romanism in all its forms. But thankfully not all Presbyterians do this - they are much better taught than that!
It is high time for the reformed church in this decadent age, to take a long hard look at what it is doing. In fact, it must take a long hard look through the lens of Scripture, at what the Church of Jesus Christ really is, for that knowledge has long since been lost within the churches. Because she does not know accurately what she is, anything goes. Because her true nature is misunderstood, her practice follows as does the night the day. What is believed by the church about the church cannot be divorced from how the church conducts her affairs. If she is viewed as a fun-fair, then she will run her entire life trying her best to attract the world into her midst using worldly means. If she sees herself as a museum, then nothing will be changed over the rolling centuries. But if she sees herself as the Body of Christ in this world, then everything about her will reflect this exalted position. If she orders her life according to the teaching of the Scriptures, then she will be transformed, becoming what God intended her to be, and very different from what she has become in the 21st century.
There are lessons to be learned, and learned urgently, if she is to hear that "Well done, good and faithful servant," from the Lord she professes to serve.
Now, the other New Testament sacrament, the Lord's Supper, is being treated in the same Romanising manner. Just recently, I witnessed this with my own eyes. Not that many, or any, others noticed this, but I certainly did. At the normal Sunday services, you will see elders coming to the worship of Almighty God dressed like 'tramps,' the evangelical type, of course, in denim jeans, open necked shirts, trainers, sportsy dress; but when it comes to the observance of the sacrament of the Lord's Supper, my, they present themselves appropriately - their good suits on, shirt and tie, and every bit the Christian leader. Indeed, they would never dream of presenting at school in such a tawdry fashion. These professionals obviously have a higher respect for their employers and professions than they do for God and His house!
Now why do they do this sort of thing? True, its not what is on the outside, but what's in the heart, that matters. That point is willingly granted. But what does it say about the elevated position these men give to the Lord's Supper? It says that they believe that Sacrament Sunday is different from the other Sundays because the Lord's Supper is being taken. In their minds, there is an elevation of this sacrament above the preaching of the Gospel which is the focus of every other service. It might even be the Presbyterian's way of "elevating the host" as is done within Romanism in all its forms. But thankfully not all Presbyterians do this - they are much better taught than that!
It is high time for the reformed church in this decadent age, to take a long hard look at what it is doing. In fact, it must take a long hard look through the lens of Scripture, at what the Church of Jesus Christ really is, for that knowledge has long since been lost within the churches. Because she does not know accurately what she is, anything goes. Because her true nature is misunderstood, her practice follows as does the night the day. What is believed by the church about the church cannot be divorced from how the church conducts her affairs. If she is viewed as a fun-fair, then she will run her entire life trying her best to attract the world into her midst using worldly means. If she sees herself as a museum, then nothing will be changed over the rolling centuries. But if she sees herself as the Body of Christ in this world, then everything about her will reflect this exalted position. If she orders her life according to the teaching of the Scriptures, then she will be transformed, becoming what God intended her to be, and very different from what she has become in the 21st century.
There are lessons to be learned, and learned urgently, if she is to hear that "Well done, good and faithful servant," from the Lord she professes to serve.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)