Why I think Youth Groups fit in the Reformed Tradition

Youth groups are a hot topic; people love them or hate them.  There is an article that is getting a lot of attention that points to Youth Groups as the reason so many young people leave church in their twenties.  

I pastor a church in the RCUS, and I would bet that our church is in the minority in the denomination in having a youth group.  I agree that this is a very flawed survey, and is sponsored by the Family Integrated Church movement, which is probably leaning toward Patriarchy.  But put all of that aside and we are still faced with the question, are youth groups bad?  

It is hard to read responses from many youth pastors and not think, "Youth groups are indeed the problem".  Any defense of youth groups that includes blaming parents, blaming boring church services, and quotes YoungLife as a positive is more likely part of the problem than part of the solution.  In fact I am willing to say if your church's youth group is creating worship services for the youth, then it is clearly part of the problem.  Yet, I still think there is a place for Youth groups.

I know there are many who think that segregation of the church by age is dividing the church.  I agree and disagree at the same time.  Whether we like it or not, the world around us is age divided.  Unless your kid spends all his or her time at home and never goes outside to play with friends, your child is age divided.  My 11 year old plays baseball in a different league than my 9 year old.  And have you ever tried to make a Sunday School class that teaches both the 3 year olds and 65 year olds?  Age division makes some logical sense.  

I think Youth Groups can be a great positive for the youth.  I think it can actually bind them to the local church rather than divide them.  But several things have to be present.  First, you can't have a worship service for them.  Worship is not age divided.  And if it is, then you are sending a message of separation rather than unity.  It will also train youth to grow up and expect church to be like it was during youth.  This generation's church service is last generation's youth group.  Second, the whole idea of Youth Pastor has to go.  This is another message of separation.  Your youth pastor is not the head pastor.  Your youth pastor is a special guy who just does one thing.  Oh and your youth pastor does not really participate in worship either, except maybe on one or two Sundays a year.  It is another separation.  However, if the actual pastor spends time with the youth, would it not help bind them to the church?  

This is how I currently envision youth ministry.  The pastor sitting down with the youth and leading a bible study.  Yes, in my church this often involves pizza or candy, but you will have a hard time convincing me that anything cannot be improved with food.  But the pastor sitting down with the youth and having Bible studies that help them with the particular trials they are facing is a good thing.  Probably most of the adults in your church are not struggling with dating or how to choose a spouse.  And thus, your church is probably not teaching on it very often.  But this is something the college students are facing.  And can't high school students get a head start on knowing what to look for in a potential mate?  Having a time and place for the pastor to lead a bible study on this with those who are facing it can be a valuable thing.  

If we believe Bible study is good, why would be against bible study for a particular age group that faces particular challenges?  And is there a better way for a pastor to get to know the needs of people who are valued members of his church than to sit down with them and talk to them over a pizza?  Maybe your youth group needs to have a lesson about why age divided worship services are bad.  Maybe you need to explain how wonderful it is to be in worship with people of all ages.  It is a timely topic for college students who are often being invited to church services geared for the young.  Explain to them why they should not abandon your church that sings hymns and has 80 year olds in the service.  Our youth group talked about it, and I think it was a discussion they needed to have.  

I know that Youth groups are a hot button issue.  I understand the desire to not be replacing parents, and on the other hand, I understand the desire to draw in young people.  There are always ditches on both sides of the road.  But for me the issue comes down to the call of the Lord: "Feed my sheep."  Each church needs to ask that very question.  Are the youth getting fed, and are they being equipped with the word to face the challenges they face?  I think the youth group is one way a church can try and feed the sheep.  It is not the only way at all, but I think it can be a possible way.  

Against Exclusive Psalmody -Scripture

I am finally getting around to posting the Scriptural argument against Exclusive Psalmody.

Let us just start with Scriptural commands to sing things other than psalms. Remember there is a specific word for psalm. There is debate about whether psalm (the word) means The Psalms always, but we can set that aside for now. Even if we concede it, I think the evidence is on the hymn singing side. Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16 are the most famous. Here Christians are commanded to sing psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs. Granting that psalms here means The Psalms, there seems little possible evidence that hymns and spiritual songs also mean psalms. And as you would expect few Greek scholars even claim they mean the same thing. Not even John Calvin claims that this is in favor of exclusive psalmody. Some want to claim that the use of “kai” (translated and) connects the three making them into three ways of saying one thing. But that argument breaks down as “kai” is not used in Colossians 3:16.
Then of course there is also the command to “sing a new song” (Isaiah 42:10). The word there is “hymn” and not the word “psalm”. The word for psalm exists, but was not used. Thus, here we have a command to sing hymns. The only way to maintain exclusive psalmody is to state that hymns and psalms mean the same thing. They are synonyms. Or that one refers to singing with instruments and one without. That argument is not possible to explain away Deuteronomy 31:19,22 where a non-psalm is required to be memorized and sung. Then there is I Corinthians 14:15,26. There I Corinthians talks of singing with the spirit and singing with understanding. This is further enlarged when Paul in verse 26 says “everyone of you has a psalm”. This use of psalm seems to be a song that is outside of the 150 psalms. The criticism is of those who come with a supposed song from the spirit like those who claim to have tongues and prophecies. Those are both assumed to be new word of prophesy and a new word in tongues. Thus, it ought also to be said that they were bringing new psalms not one of the original 150. This was taking place in Christian worship in Corinth that had been set up by Paul and his companions.

If hymn does not mean psalm then this introduces lots of problems for exclusive psalmists. Christ at after the Lord’s Supper sings a “hymn” not a “psalm”. While we might rightly guess that this hymn is a psalm, we cannot scripturally say he sung a psalm. Scripturally he sang a hymn and that is all we know. The same is true for Paul and his companions in prison in Philippi (Acts 16:25). The word used there is again not “psalm”, but rather “hymn”. One can assume that these songs were from The Psalms, but strictly scripturally speaking one cannot say it is. It is only an assumption. The inerrantly chosen word was “hymn”.

This brings up the point of all the times we see people singing non-psalms in the Bible. We have at least:
Luke 1:46-55 (Mary)
Luke 1:67-79 (Zechariah)
Luke 2:14 (the angels)
Luke 2:28-32 (Simeon)
Revelation 5:9f (hosts of heaven)
Exodus 15 (Moses and Miriam)
Deuteronomy 31-32 (Moses)
Judges 5 (Deborah)
Habbakuk 3 (Habbakuk)

And that list does not count many others that are generally considered to early Christological hymns like Colossians 1:15-20. Nor does it count the Song of Solomon, an entire book of the Bible either. The point is that we have more instances of people singing praises to God without the psalter than we do with the psalter in the Bible itself. Now we know how the Jews worshipped from extra-biblical sources, but again the biblical witness needs to carry some weight here. Non-psalms seem acceptable. Now admittedly Dr. Clark makes it possible to sing these songs as they are considered inspired and can be sung, but that attempt falls flat on the previously mentioned Nature of Words Argument. And it also comes into a problem with exactly where is the command to sing only inspired words.

Which brings me to my last point, the idea that the Bible is or contains an approved hymn books is itself an assumption. The idea that the Psalms is the God ordained hymn book is no where in the Bible itself. The application of the Regulative Principle of Worship to say “the psalms are commanded but there is no other command for hymns” makes an assumption in and of itself. Namely that the Psalms was a hymn book. The Regulative Principle does carry the requirement to have a command to do something. But this test is easily applied and passed when we dispense with the assumption that the Psalter is required because it is there. We see commands like Ephesians and Colossians that state “psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs.” We have the command to “sing unto the Lord a new song” (Isaiah). Add this to the many divinely approved examples of non-psalm singing in worship such as those in Revelation 5, then I am quite confident that the demand of the Regulative Principle of worship is met for hymnody.

Against Exclusive Psalmody (Nature of Words Argument) and WLC 109

I earlier spoke of the history of Hymn Singing in the Reformed Church and the question was raised about the Westminster Tradition, especially the Larger Catechism Questions 109-110, and Shorter Catechism Questions 51-52. These all deal with the second commandment.

Specifically question 109 states with regards to the sins forbidden by the second commandment:
"corrupting the worship of God, adding to it, or taking from it, whether invented and taken up of ourselves, or received by tradition from others, though under the title of antiquity, custom, devotion, good intent, or any other pretence whatsoever . . ."

Or Shorter Catechism 51
"The second commandment forbiddeth the worshipping of God by images, or any other way not appointed in his word."

This is what is known as the Regulative Principle of Worship. What God does not command is thus forbidden. It is in the Westminster and it is also in the other major confessions. The Heidelberg Catechims has similar wording, although not nearly as detailed as the WLC.

The Genevan Tradition begins with exclusive Psalmody, but it is particularly the Westminster Tradition that codified it. It seems fairly obvious that the Scottish Church held to exclusive Psalmody until at least Isaac Watts in the 18th century. Even then Watts was a scandal for a time. The rest of the Genevan Tradition had abandoned Exclusive Psalmody. The Huguenots were long gone, and the Dutch Church had instituted non-inspired texts like the Apostles’ Creed to music in the Synod of Dort (1618-1619), which shows that it was around already. In fact, several other hymns Dort was trying to keep out, but they opened the door. The churches continued with the hymns for the most part, and soon they were accepted. Leaving only a Westminster Tradition as favoring Exclusive Psalmody.

The argument as I understand it is that hymns are customs “invented and taken up of ourselves” which is forbidden. The hymns are human inventions and are thus forbidden.

In responding to WLC 109, I am going to have to give the Nature of Words argument, which had been slated to be third.

Are the words of the hymns of human origin and invented by man? Yes. The answer has to be yes. But so too is much else that even the Scots hold dear but do not cast out of the worship service. One thing that can easily be pointed to are the instruments. The piano is invented by man. And some in the Westminster tradition forbid them. But a better thing to point to is prayer and preaching. The words of prayers are often man-made, not divinely inspired. Yet the Scottish church has a tradition of free prayer. They do not use the Book of Common Prayer, which was made by men anyway. Just as the Bible has songs in the Psalms, so they have a great many prayers. There is the Lord’s Prayer, the prayer at the temple by Solomon, the prayer of Jesus in the Garden or the prayer of Hannah or Jonah in the belly of the whale. And those are just off the top of my head. Yet, no one argues that prayers must be only the words of the Bible. Why not? What is the difference between words made up by man and prayed and the words made up by man and sung?

Preaching too must fall under the same condemnation of WLC 109 if we read that phrase so strictly. The words of the sermon are not Scripture, but rather “invented and taken up of ourselves”. Yet no one argues that only the sermons of Scripture are to be preached. Most scholars believe Hebrews was a sermon, and the epistles of Paul were read as if they were sermons. You have other sermons like the Sermon on the Mount that could also be read as the sermon. Many of the prophets have sermons recorded for us. Why not then just read those as the sermons? What is different about human words in a sermon and human words sung to a tune in hymns? Is there something ontologically different about words when we sing them that makes them unacceptable? If not then human invented hymns have to be allowed. They cannot be deemed unacceptable based on their uninspired origin. If non-inspired words are allowed into a service anywhere, then they have to be acceptable everywhere including in songs. If one wants to keep non-inspired sermons and prayers, but not hymns then it becomes incumbent on them to prove the difference between words spoken and words sung.

This leaves only one ground for Exclusive Psalmody, the broader argument from WSC 51 about hymns not being commanded. This means that the Bible commands psalms to be sung, but nothing else (which rules out the associated argument that only inspired words are allowed, but more than just psalms). This will led us now to the Biblical argument for Hymn Singing.

The argument Against Exclusive Psalmody (or only singing the Inspired Words of Scripture)

I just wanted to take a minute to defend the practice of singing hymns during worship. This will be done in three sections. First, the Historical Argument. Second, the Biblical Argument. Third, the Nature of Words argument (I am sure there is a better title to this argument, I just don’t know it).

I do want to take a minute to speak about the historical argument. It is often argued that all of the Reformed Churches were originally exclusive psalmists and that is how they understood the Bible and the Regulative Principle of Worship. This is simply untrue. It is true that Calvin, the Huguenots of France, the Scots, the Directory of Public Worship and even Elector Frederick III of the Palatinate desired exclusive psalmody. However there are at least two other earlier Reformed strands that are often ignored.

One strand is the Swiss Strand, which is probably extinct today. If you ever wonder why Zwingli is not referenced in this debate it is because Zwingli and the churches of Zurich did not sing at all. That is right: no congregational singing. That was the way of Zurich. Zwingli did not sing. Bullinger did not sing. Not even during the next head of the church, Simon Gaulther, son-in-law of Zwingli, did they sing. Nor did Bern under the leadership of Berthold Haller. Bern did not sing at all. In fact, Calvin himself seemed to favor this tradition. He was unsure if the people should sing, but he came to the conclusion to sing psalms as it was the safest thing just in case singing was not allowed at all.

The other tradition is the German Reformed tradition. This tradition does not spring from Geneva or Calvin, but from Constance and Strassborg. Constance, a German city reformed by Ambrose Blarer and Johannes Zwick, produced a hymn book that did have psalms, but also had uninspired hymns. It seems it was used during worship, especially on feast days. It contained some of Luther’s hymns. It also contained many hymns written by the Zwick and Blarer brothers. It also even had a hymn by Leo Juda, right hand man in Zurich. Since Zwick and Blarer had a hand in other cities like Augsburg one can assume that this hymnbook was used in more places than just Constance. The earliest copy we have is dated 1540, but it is also clearly a revision. We know they were singing hymns by at least 1533 in Constance.

Constance ended up changing the practice in Strassborg as well. The 1537 Strassborg Psalter included many hymns. Mostly by the Blarer’s and Johannes Zwick. Thus, Strassborg was not an exclusive psalmist city. In fact, it switched away from exclusive psalmnody. The Germans continued with their hymn singing even after the Augsburg Interim put an end to Reformed Services in much of Germany. Heidelberg and the Palatinate started out singing only psalms under Frederick III, but under his son Lewis, they sang hymns. This practice remained as they sang hymns during communion services from that point on. The Palatinate was not the only German church to sing hymns during communion services. So to did the church in Bremen.

Better yet, Brandenburg, which went reformed in about 1613 always sang hymns. The churches in the county of Mark also sang hymns. Mark was part of the Synod of Cleve, Julich, and Mark. Since Mark sang hymns it is fairly clear that the Synod was not against hymns. Thus, the tradition of singing hymns in the Reformed Churches in Germany is well grounded. So, it is completely wrong to suggest that the Reformed tradition sang only psalms. Such a comment is to equate Calvin and those who followed him with the entire Reformed tradition. There are at least two other traditions, which actually predate Calvin’s influence, and one of them is the singing of hymns during worship.

Lent - Why Bother - a Response

I am reading through my Christianity Tody which is surprisingly interesting this month. They had a brief two page article featuring three opinions on the topic of Lent – Why Bother?. I was really disappointed that all three were in favor of Lent. It sort of defeats the purpose of having a viewpoints article if the views are all the same. I was more surprised because one of the view points was from Michael Horton. He favored an "evangelical" celebration of Lent.

Now, I have made my thoughts known in the past about Lent, and why I don’t like it. I also have some dear friends who do celebrate it, and I don’t want to unnecessarily anger anyone. However, the lack of an “anti-Lent” position should be rectified. So I will speak against again here.

Horton admits that the Reformers railed against the connection between the fasting and penance of Lent with works of merit that expiate our sins. Such things are rightly condemned and ought to be by all Protestants. He also quotes the Puritans who taught Lent passed on superstitions, constrained the conscience, and degraded the Lord’s Day. All valid concerns, which are not really addressed by Horton. Horton goes on to suggest an evangelical keeping of the 40 Days of Lent. He does not mention whether or not this includes fasting, but one would assume it does. He makes a big deal of the number 40 in the Bible, which while maybe true does not need to be tied to Lent, which is not mentioned in the Bible. Horton believes Lent is a wonderful time for instruction and following the Life of Christ to prepare for Easter.

While I respect Horton a great deal, I think he is dangerously wrong here. Lent will tend to teach people a meritorious expiation of sin on our part as we suffer along with Christ on the road to Easter. It must be specifically taught against each and every Lent, and probably multiple times during Lent. I would bet the majority of people believe their suffering during Lent is meritorious in some manner or another. It is the default position. They practiced Lent in the Methodist church where I grew up and it was the default position there. It either helps us share in the suffering and thus share in paying for our own sins, or it means we are more holy now than when we began the fast. Both are dangerous positions. If Horton does not think that this is the default position for Protestants practicing Lent he should just look over a few columns to read the viewpoint of Baptist pastor and Professor Steven Harmon. Harmon states that the "dominant paradigm for Christian discipleship this side of heaven is "sharing in his sufferings" (Phil. 3:10.)" Harmon makes giving up of meat or something like that into sharing in the sufferings of Christ, which I think is a bit of a stretch in the first place, but he also says it is the main part of discipleship, which is also wrong in my opinion. Clearly, Lent is a way to share in the sufferings of Christ for Rev. Harmon, a Protestant.

The Reformation began in earnest in Switzerland by breaking this very idea. The rejection of Lent was the first major step taken by Zwingli toward total reformation. The Affair of Sausages was right and good. Now, I have no doubt that Horton does not want people to think that they are actually participating in Christ’s suffering, and really just thinks it is a teachable time, a time to prepare for Easter (something I am not sure is necessary either). But the tool of Lent is so bound up in bad theology that one wonders exactly how beneficial it would be to use it.

The Myth of Inclusivity

Several things have me thinking about “being inclusive”. The first is the ranting of Michael Steele, the New Chairman of the Republican National Committee. His desire to attract “one arm midgets” is a sign that he really has no business being the RNC chair. Just like all those who endorsed him such as Shawn Hannity, he does not understand the problem and thus cannot give the answer. The problem is not being inclusive of African-American, or women, or one arm midgets. The problem is not the need to include lots of different groups. The problem is that your message is not believed by enough people. Steele sees the RNC shrinking in Congress and thinks to himself we need to include more groups. When the answer is not to be inclusive but to bring people into your own group. Inclusive Big Tent parties have no union and fall apart to be worse than before. Teaching people the truth of your viewpoint unifies everyone and swells numbers.

But what really gets me is that this is the same mistake the "evangelical" church has been making for years. The problem with shrinking membership roles and declining levels of involvement of young people led many Evangelicals to try and be more inclusive. Some like the PCUSA and the United Methodist along with the United Churches of Christ tried to include women by letting them be elders and ministers and are now trying to include Homosexuals by letting them be members and soon will follow ordination. They could ask the Episcopal Church how that turned out, but they will do it anyway. Other churches that did not wish to compromise their doctrine turned to Seeker Sensitive worship services (pretending that did not change doctrine of course). They wanted to attract people through bands and ditching old hymns in favor of repetitive choruses among other things. They brought in people to the church in some cases, but did they make more Christians? Did they create a unified front with Christian Churches or did they simply sell the heritage of the church for a bowl of porridge. Take a look at the “Mega-Churches” out there today. Right their names down on a piece of paper and come back in ten years. Bill Hybels and the impressively large Willow Creek Church is already in decline, not to mention that a poll showed that something above 60% of their members felt they were not growing at church. Of course not. The church was built to attract people to church, not to actual be a church. People have seen enough and the fads of the culture have moved on. So the church will now decline unless it reinvents itself over and over and over. See the problem is that changing church and worship and doctrine to fit the culture to attract the culture, which is what inclusiveness is, you have one of two problems. One, you miss judged the culture and no one shows up. Or you get it right and you become a slave to the culture and their fads. Willow Creek is a thing of the past, their model for church is already outdated. Now it is the reign of Rick Warren and Saddleback or Joel Osteen in Houston. They are the new Mega-Churches. Ten years from now it will be someone else. Do you really think Saddleback will survive Rick Warren leaving? Or do you think it will still be popular when the Purpose Driven Logo has been put on everything? Does anyone still remember the Crystal Cathedral? That was the Mega-Church before Bill Hybels. It is now bankrupt and the father has fired his own son.

The problem of declining numbers is not to be answered by appealing to more people. The answer is to re-double efforts to convert people to your view. The RNC has a harder sell that Christianity, but the both have wandered off the path. The first thing to do when you find yourself in a hole is to stop digging. This means go back to what the Bible teaches. Go back to faithful worship and doctrine. Take seriously the things of the bible like training up your children, telling others of Christ, and living a life in conformity to His standards. Trying to "hip-hop" the gospel is not the answer. Living and teaching the gospel. That is the answer.

Roe v Wade Death Toll

Yesterday was the anniversary of Roe v Wade. According to statistics over 49,500,000 people have been aborted, or killed since Roe. That of course is a lot more than the Nazi’s or even Stalin, but yet abortion remains legal and protected while Hitler and Stalin are treated like the evil murderous villains they are. It is odd to think of your own country as being worse than Nazi Germany, but the facts don’t lie. We have perfected genocide in this country and we decided to call it abortion.

National Association of Evangelicals: What is the point?

Recently the National Association of Evangelicals fired Richard Cizik who served as Vice President. The NAE did this because they no longer trusted Cizik to speak for them because of his advocacy of Global Warming and he seems to support government distribution of contraception as well as personally supporting Civil Unions and probably even gay marriage (what else does saying I do not “officially” support gay marriage mean?).

John Armstrong has a nice series of articles about this firing, but I think he stops short of where he should. Armstrong places the blame on the make up of the NAE a “mostly white, male and aging” group. That may be true but I do not think that is the real problem. He dislikes the older way of doing “kingdom business” and prays that it will “die off” sooner rather than later. Armstrong fails to give a new way of doing kingdom business. Clearly Armstrong dislikes the influence of James Dobson and some other in the NAE, and would rather see Cizik lead the group. Potentially because Cizik could reach those younger evangelicals that care about Greenland becoming too green and not icy enough. But is that really the problem?

I think the more basic problem is that the NAE is worthless and always has been. It has over 50 denominations as member denominations, but why? Why on earth is the PCA a part of NAE? What exactly does the PCA have in common with the Pentecostal Free Will Baptist Church or the Wesleyan Church? I understand that churches should engage the culture and be active, but is becoming a glorified lobbying group the answer? That worked well for a few years when all the denominations agreed on those hot button issues, but new issues have come up such as global warming and gay marriage and certain denominations have declined in moral values and no consensus can be reached. Thus this group, the NAE, runs around Washington representing “evangelicals” and throws its political weight around like any good lobbiest does. It also manages to have internal scandals such as the Cizik affair or more prominently the Ted Haggart disaster. Haggart was caught with a male prostitute buying drugs, and then outright lied about it on TV. This man was the President of the NAE. The face of “evangelicalism”. Is it any wonder why young people hate the name “evangelical”? It is a K-Street lobbying group that has outright hypocrites leading it.

When Armstrong says he is ready for the old way of doing business to go away, I can’t agree more. However, he means detaching from the Republicans and starting to engage young people by talking about the issues they care about. I mean something else completely. I mean getting rid of the political tools and getting back to basics. Preach the gospel. Teach the gospel. Live the gospel. It is that simply.

To Altar Call or not to Altar Call

Kevin Johnson defends the idea of an altar call on his new blog: Prophezei, which has replaced Reformed Catholicism. He gives several reasons for including the idea of an altar call.

His first is that worship has always been innovative. He gives a few examples such as the Book of Common Prayer, which I find completely unconvincing. I would like for him to trot out a few more examples if he has them. It is my opinion that Reformed worship looks a lot like worship of days gone by, and dare I say it, the worship of NT church. That claim will probably draw some criticism, but it is a claim I am still willing to make until proven otherwise. I do not see the role innovation has played in history.

The one example he does break out that deserves mention is the Great Awakening. There was an innovation in the worship service during that time that serves as the basis for the modern “altar call”. They preached what they called the “terrors of the law” in those days, and that grew into the New Methods which actually used the “anxious bench” and later the “altar call” perfected by Moody and others. I am an Old Sider at heart. I am against the Great Awakening. I do not view it like most do within Presbyterian circles. I think the theology of Edwards has led to as many problems as it has anything else, and that George Whitfield began a horrible trend of Evangelists without a home church, undermined local ministers, and his theology was muddled at best. His sermons were often out right heretical. Referencing the Great Awakening to me hurts his case more than anything else.

His second point is that Christianity is no longer the dominant player in American society and culture. I agree with this, and this point needs a bit more examination. The point made by Kevin Johnson here is that we can no longer assume a familiarity with Christianity and that using old creeds and modes of worship do not connect with modern man. He goes on to state the forming the worship service for the believer rules out unbelievers, evangelism, and the chance to grow the church; thus, we cannot model the worship service to appeal only to those already in the community of believers. I grant his premise about the culture and he makes a solid point about the need for true evangelism. My rebuttal is that the worship service does not have to be the answer for evangelism. He is right that it ought to be accessible, although we doubtless disagree about the accessibility of Reformed worship as it is today. However, I do think that the church is not doing enough to reach out to the unbeliever and is not reaching people where they are in their lives. Churches need to change quite a bit in this area, but changing the worship service is not the answer. If you look back on the history of the church one can see the church reaching out in a myraid of ways other than the worship service. How often do churches have active deaconal help and pass it to someone in the community who is not a member of the church? How often do churches start schools and educate the young of believers and non believers alike? This was the common method of the church in the 2nd and 3rd centuries. I would advocate reaching out to those who have no history of Christianity, but I do not think that the worship service is the place to do that. It should not be exclusionary, but it should not serve as the main outreach.

The point about preaching and asking people to make a decision for Christ, I think is a different discussion from the one about the altar call that began the post. Asking men to repent and make a decision for Christ is not the same as having an invitation to come forward during Just As I Am. The post referenced the minor prophets as pressuring men to make a decision. To that I could add Joshua telling the people to choose this day or Elijah asking how long they would hesitate between two opinions. That practice is right and should be done, especially when the text demands it. However, ending the sermon with a time for people to come forward is not that. I believe the worship service has a flow, and build up if you will. The heart of the worship service is to be the Word of God and prayer. That is the heart of the service. I am against the altar call for the same sort of reason that I am against weekly communion. It supplants the preached word as the main part of the service. In Southern Baptist churches it is not going to far to say that the altar call is there sacrament. It is the main point and the high point of their service. It then also becomes something that people can put their trust in. I went forward at an altar call and I made a decision. Did they? Billy Graham usually thinks that about 10% of the people that came forward actually followed through on their decisions and went to church. Are we changing the service for the hopes of reaching 10%, if we preach as well as Billy Graham?

I share the concern that churches today (not just Reformed and Presbyterian) do not practice evangelism and the church is receding because we are not sharing the gospel. However, I think it means we are failing outside of the church walls and on Monday through Saturday, not necessarily on Sunday. This is a mounting problem, and one that I pray the church as a whole can address.

Feast Days not Holy Days

As I said in the first post in this series, the RCUS follows the German Reformed Tradition of celebrating Christmas, Good Friday, Easter, Ascension Day, and Pentecost as Feast days. How do I reconcile this with my opposition to the Liturgical Calendar? Since today is Ascension Day, what better time than now for me to tackle this task. I shall try to explain.

First, it should be pointed out that Easter and Pentecost are always Sundays. I am advocating replacing Sunday services. Instead, my church uses those days to celebrate the Lord’s Supper. We do the same with the Sunday before Christmas. This is what was done in Geneva as well, so it is not some sort of new tradition by any means.

Second, I do think churches ought (but by no means do I think they are required) to celebrate such obvious days as Easter and Christmas. If we were honest we would admit that Easter and Christmas are the two days that more people attend church than any other day. There are many who many only go to church on Christmas and Easter. Those people along with the majority of the congregation are expecting sermons revolving around the holiday that the entire culture is celebrating. A giant opportunity will be missed if one decides instead to preach on II Samuel 5:11. Those churches that do not celebrate Christmas or Easter should be consistent and not complain about the selfishness of the holidays or secularization of Christmas or the removal of nativity scenes or the Easter Bunny. If the church refuses to recognize the reason these holidays existed in the first place, then one should not expect the culture to do so either. We must be careful not to lift these days up as better than the rest of the year, but we can still sing Christmas carols or "Up from the Grave He Arose" without doing that. We are clearly not saying this is Easter, Pentecost, or Christmas and the rest of the year are 'Ordinary Days'.

Third, and getting more into theological points now, these days are not kept or celebrated anything like they are in the Liturgical Calendar. There is no sense of Pentitential Purple at all? No fasting, no expiation, no removal of the Bible from the table of the Lord, no services of darkness. All of that is gone and not used. Instead, of Good Friday being somber and dark, it is ‘GOOD’! It is a day of feasting because of the goodness of God towards us. All of these days are kept as celebrations, not of some re-enactment of the sufferings and life of Jesus. Instead of having a season of penitence prior to Easter, we celebrate Easter and Good Friday. Instead of having Advent, a season of penitence, we celebrate Christmas! Not a minor difference.

Fourth, The Continental Reformed Tradition of Five Feast days recovers the days of Pentecost and Ascension Day. There were lots of blogs by Calendar supporters about Lent, but will anyone blog about Ascension Day? I grew up in a Liturgical Calendar church (United Methodist), and we celebrated Lent, we went to church on Ash Wednesday, we had Maundy Thursday, and we never missed Advent. But not once did we ever have an Ascension Day service. Not once. I don’t remember any Pentecost celebrations either, but there could have been. The point is, the Liturgical Calendar and churches put much more emphasis on the penitential parts of the Calendar than it does other days. This is not true with the five feast days.

Fifth, these five days remind us of foundational truths found in the Apostle’s Creed. The Apostle’s Creed speaks of ‘born of the Virgin Mary [Christmas], suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried [Good Friday], he descended into hell, the third day he rose from the dead [Easter], He ascended into heaven to sitteth at the right hand of God the Father [Ascension Day]” And it goes on to speak of the “The Holy Ghost” [Pentecost]. These are fundamental beliefs of the Christian. The Five Feast days just give us days to remember them. Like the memorial stones of the OT, they are their so we do not forget or take for granted.

Again, I do not think it should be required that a Church follow such things, but I do not think it scrapes against Protestant or Reformed Theology to celebrate them with a biblical worship service, and perhaps a meal afterwards for fellowship. I do believe there is a real difference in the theology that underpins these celebrations and the theology of the Liturgical Calendar. So go and have a good Ascension Day. It would be interesting to see how many actually had a service today.

Holy Week Celebrations

Holy Week is the last part and the culmination of Lent. It should be mentioned that according to the Liturgical Calendar, Easter is the beginning of a distinct section from Lent. Holy Week is a term that in and of itself should give us problems.

Palm Sunday is the beginning of Holy Week. This is where the triumphal entry is re-enacted as the congregation parades in waving palm branches (or a variant depending on the availability of palms). I have often wondered why this is a day the church celebrates in such a fashion. After all, Jesus wept when he saw the Hebrews waving their palms in the air because he knew their praises false and empty. Why would the church want to re-enact such a thing. Let us not forget that the palms are considered sacramentals just like the ashes for Ash Wednesday.

Maundy Thursday is the next big day in the Holy Week celebration. It is the day of the institution of the Last Supper, so the churches gather together and take communion or Mass. Many churches also practice foot washing at this particular service. All of the extra communion bread and wine are kept for the Good Friday service (at least in the Roman church) because no consecration of the bread is allowed on Good Friday. The notable ending to the Maundy Thursday service is usually the stripping of the altar bare. Everything is removed.

Good Friday services and Holy Saturday are usually services devoid of communion. Any communion taken on Good Friday had to be left over from Maundy Thursday, and usually the main event is an unveiling of a crucifix as the only adornment on the walls. All the other things were removed at the conclusion of the Maundy Thursday service. Holy Saturday services usually forbid the taking of communion and all liturgy. They are centered around prayer vigils awaiting the Easter morning. Just for some perspective John Armstrong blogged about Maundy Thursday, Good Friday, and Holy Saturday this year as a time of worship that involves body and mind.

Again, my opposition to the Holy Week is the underlying purpose of Holy Week and its special celebrations. No, I do not think the purpose of Holy Week is to remember the death of Christ. Don’t we do that more often than once a year? The purpose for Holy Week is to prepare for Easter, but to prepare by re-enacting the end of the life of Christ. In case you disagree notice how Greg Grant feels when a Christ candle is reintroduced during a Tenebrae service. The re-enacting the life of Christ fits with the message of expiation from our sins of Lent. Not only does it fit it teaches it. It is built into the rituals of Holy Week. Read the Duke Divinity school online article. Notice how the Hatians were "bodily participating" in the suffering of Christ, and more importantly:

they knew that it was somehow wrong to listen to words proclaiming the death of Christ while resting comfortably.

Why on earth would it be wrong to listen to death of Christ in physical comfort? The answer is that there is something important about the suffering you inflict upon yourself. Not unlike the monks who flogged themselves for their sin. No liturgy is offered on Holy Saturday because as Father Cusick explains:

No liturgy is celebrated on Holy Saturday, for Christ's Church cannot pray except through the living Christ.

What? We have no living Christ? Does not this take the re-enactment of the last week of Christ’s life to far and miss the glory that we have living on this side of the Resurrection? I think the obvious answer is yes, unless all of this is part of a ritual package that focuses on penance and expiation of one’s sins that somehow needs to relive the sufferings of Christ every year.

The idea of penance, expiation, Lent, and Holy Week are bound together. Protestant churches that practice these things with the same rituals do nothing to free themselves from such teachings. Take a look again at the practices of more Roman Catholic countries at the bottom of the Holy Week page. The self-flagellation and suffering in order to do penance is astounding, and should not be dismissed as besides the point. If one thinks that this is still not part of the make up of Lent itself then a few questions need to be answered? Why does Lent have to involve giving up something hard to give up? Why cannot it not be 40 days of praying more or going to church more, but giving up nothing? Why is it not promising to watch 40 movies with religious themes, or spiritual themes? Why is it not just a prescribed set of Bible readings? Why does the preparation for Easter involve suffering at all? Why is the Good Friday service austere? Should we not celebrate the death of Jesus Christ as a good thing? The same can be said of Holy Saturday. I hope Protestants will think more seriously about taking on these type services. They are becoming more and more common, and I am not sure the church is reflecting enough upon these matters. Even if one disagrees with me surely we can agree that real thought and dialogue needs to take place prior to taking on these practices.

Ash Wednesday

Since I have already argued against the practice of Lent in general it is not hard to see why I am against Ash Wednesday in particular. It is a day that means nothing more than the beginning of Lent, which is found no where in Scripture. That alone ought to give us pause, but Ash Wednesday goes deeper, and is more Romanizing than much of the Lenten practices. Not only does this begin the day when the Penitential Fasting (or giving up something) begins, which we have stated is supposed to expiate our sins in the Roman tradition, but also it is a day of receiving ash on one’s head.

This ash is not supposed to be washed off, but rather worn around all day. This is a problem because of Matthew 6-16-18. Here our savior teaches that we should not draw attention to ourselves when we fast, but ashes on the forehead cannot be seen as anything else. It is a sign that one is following the practice of fasting. This violation of Scripture is enough to throw away any idea of Ash Wednesday, but there is more.

The ashes used are known as sacramentals. Basically, it is not a sacrament, but not just a rite either. Sacrament lite is a good way to think of it. Read this discussion of sacramentals.

Besides the efficacy which the sacramentals possess in common with other good works they have a special efficacy of their own. If their whole value proceeded from the opus operantis, all external good works could be called sacramentals. The special virtue recognized by the Church and experienced by Christians in the sacramentals should consist in the official prayers whereby we implore God to pour forth special graces on those who make use of the sacramentals. These prayers move God to give graces which He would not otherwise give, and when not infallibly acceded to it is for reasons known to His Wisdom.

Here we clearly see the idea that sacramentals are good works that merit something from God, a purely Roman idea. But they also go further and derive a special blessing for those participating in a sacramental. What special benefits, you ask. Read more.

One of the most remarkable effects of sacramentals is the virtue to drive away evil spirits whose mysterious and baleful operations affect sometimes the physical activity of man. To combat this occult power the Church has recourse to exorcism and sacramentals. Another effect is the delivery of the soul from sin and the penalties therefor.

The sacramentals can protect us from demons and deliver our souls from the penalty of sin. The ashes in Ash Wednesday are classified as sacramentals and help deliver us from the penalty of sin. It is not possible to remove this underlying theology from the practice of Ash Wednesday, especially if the practice of Ash Wednesday is virtually identical.

To Lent or not to Lent

It cannot be denied that the Liturgical Calendar is making a big comeback in Reformed circles. Talk of Lent and Advent abound on Presbyterian blogs. Sadly, after many centuries, I think that this is one area of the church that still needs to be studied and discussed. In the RCUS, the German Reformed tradition, we keep five feast days, and that is all of the Liturgical Calander we observe. We celebrate Christmas, Good Friday, Easter, Ascension Day, and Pentecost. Over the next several blogs, I would like to argue for this mode of Liturgical calander and against other forms.

My friend, James Solis made an excellent observation about Lent and the Regulative Principle when he spoke of ‘not requiring the observance’ rather than ‘forbidding’ it. I echo those sentiments when it comes to individuals. If someone wants to fast or give up something during Lent, the church should not forbid them from doing so. However, I also believe that theology lies at the root of all things. The Theology of Lent needs to be examined before any church enters into it as a church. I would argue that Lent has a Romanizing tendency because of the theology upon which it and its practices are based.

Reformed Catholicism copies an article that contains good information on Lent and its history. I want to echo their and Francis Beckwith’s rejection of argumentation that simply dismisses the Lenten season as pagan in origin. While I do think the claims Lent was celebrated as far back as Irenaeus (d.203) are dubious because they rest on the idea that a two day fast is the same as a 40 day season of Lent, it is apparent the church has celebrated Lent since about 6th century.

So why then do I oppose Lent? Am I opposed to fasting? No, although fasting is not an end in and of itself. Fasting is to be done for a purpose, and always coupled with prayer. I think we can all agree on that. I could disagree that one needs to fast to prepare for Easter, especially for 40 days, but since most people now days just give up one thing for 40 days, I won’t bore you. Am I opposed to ‘Holy Days’? No, as I said the RCUS celebrates five a year. I will deal more with that objection, and why I disagree with it in a future post.

As I said, I am against Lent because it is inherently a Romanizing practice. See how the Romanists define Lent and its purpose.

Lent, then, is a time consecrated in an especial manner to penance; and this penance is mainly practiced by fasting. Fasting is an abstinence, which man voluntarily imposes upon himself as an expiation for sin, and which, during Lent, is practiced in obedience to the general law of the Church.

Expiation is a payment for the penalty of sin. Here we clearly see Lent as a payment for our sins, a payment made voluntarily by ourselves. Reformed believers traditionally say the expiation of our sin occurs when Christ suffers and dies for us, and that we make no expiation because Christ finished it on the cross. The Romanists have always insisted that we participate in our salvation by our work, and Lent is no different. The entire season is about us suffering in order to participate or share in the sufferings of Christ. This is the idea I want to explore more, but for now, I think this post is long enough.

In summary, the theology of Lent is a Roman Catholic, faith plus works, creation. The practice of Lent reinforces and indirectly teaches the Roman doctrine; therefore, I believe it should be avoided by Protestants.

Expository Preaching under attack

Just in case one did not think that an altar based liturgy and a pulpit based one do not conflict with each other, witness the recent attack on expository preaching. It begins at Reformed Catholicism where Kevin Johnson extols ‘kergymatic preaching’ which he defines as follows:

[kergymatic preaching] brings the acts of God to fore in the proclamation of God’s Word so that both in word and in deed (communion, the Lord’s Supper, weekly if possible), the covenant community is brought ever more forward into a unity with God through Christ and by His Spirit.

He makes clear it is not:

"micro-exegetical" line by line word by word expository preaching through books in order. That should have passed with the Puritans.

This shot at the line by line preaching straight through a book done by the Reformers was then heralded by The Boar’s Head Tavern, and the Restless Reformer, who rightly calls it ‘Christian Storytelling’. The Restless Reformer goes on to connect this problem to Systematic Theology, noting that Christology is usually the third course or topic in Systematics. Nielson’s Nook makes the jump from the original attack on expository preaching to the Lord’s Supper seemingly linking believing propositions from sermons to a misuse of the sacraments. What is clear is his desire to have a more liturgical way of propounding the gospel, which for him seems to include weekly communion and less expository preaching.

Which brings us full circle to the original post by Kevin Johnson. Notice the comments. Comment #2 by Mike Spreng states the following after relating a story about Roman Catholic sermons:

I think good preaching certainly can and should be done with the help of the scriptures, but yes, wrangling with the text and expecting the people to take out there notebooks does not seem to emphasize the centrality of the ceremony and even the gospel itself. That is better done in an academic context

.

Kevin responds in comment #3:

I have found nine times out of ten when I’ve been at a Roman Mass that the preaching was actually very much gospel-oriented and in line with what I’ve written above. The fact that the Western liturgical tradition in large part sees the sermon as part of the liturgy rather than the climax helps this aspect of it, imho

This shocking bit of information cannot be passed over. The preaching of the Romanist church was ‘gospel-oriented’? The church that denies one is saved by faith alone and requires work and sacraments to achieve salvation had a ‘gospel-oriented’ sermon? Has this attack on exegetical preaching changed the definition of gospel or at least the message of the gospel?

I believe it has, and I believe it does. I want to be clear there are those that should be legitimately criticized for preaching badly and some who may even leave Christ out of the sermon. However, this is a failure of the preacher not the method. These gentlemen are advocating a return to pre-reformational ways of preaching and pre-reformational messages that those ways are meant to communicate. They are extolling the centrality of the service, the centrality of the ritual, the Supper and the altar. This is exactly why the Reformers changed the service from an altar based one to a pulpit based service. The words of Christ are life (John 6:68). We should cling to them line by line. We should usually go straight through books so we can see the ‘story’ develop before us. So we can see his truth, and receive the gospel of eternal life. Kergymatic preaching that elevates the story above the words, and is designed only to make the focal point the altar and not the words, is not emphasizing Christ, it de-emphasizes him. It de-emphasizes his gospel words and returns us to the yoke of works as the Roman system openly admits.

Exegetical preaching should always present the call to Christ. But is does this through line by line exposition of his words. The preacher must be aware of applying it to the lives the believers and showing them Christ in every story, in every message. These posts come dangerously close to advocating a giving of the gospel without the words of the gospel. ‘Christian Storytelling’ is nice, but it is not preaching. Preaching is an explaining of the Scripture, which cannot be done by simply finding its ‘kergyma’. Jesus fulfilled every ‘jot and tittle’ of the Scripture, not just the main points or central thrust (kergyma) of it. We must not return to the methods of an age that denied the gospel and replaced it with sacerdotal system unless we desire to return to that same gospel denying sacerdotal system.

Occasional Observance of the Supper

I do believe the Bible teaches an occasional observance of the Lord’s Supper. I do not believe the frequency is ever specified, and thus, it should probably be left up to the local church as to how often the Supper should be administered. For the sake of disclosure, my particular church follows the Zwinglian model of when to take the Supper, which means on Christmas, Easter, Pentecost, and once in the fall. We usually have the fall Supper near Thanksgiving.

First, much like baptism is the NT version of circumcision, so to is the Lord’s Supper the NT version of Passover. It was instituted at Passover, they point to the same truth, and both proclaim the Lord’s death. Passover, you will recall, was only administered once a year. Passover was not devalued, it was not ignored, it was not taking that sign for granted. To argue a necessary weekly administration makes one wonder about any continuation or connection with Passover. Without a clear biblical command to partake weekly, dismissing the occasional nature of Passover is unfounded.

Second, I Corinthians 11:25-26 tells us "as oft as ye drink it" and "as often as ye eat this bread." The word ‘often’ here means ‘as often as’ or ‘whenever’. Thus, ‘whenever you take the Supper, do it in remembrance of me.’ This is odd phraseology if they are supposed to be taking the Supper every week. Yet, ‘as often as’ or ‘whenever’ fits nicely with an occasional model of partaking the Supper. It gives great leeway to the local congregations. Whenever they decide to administer the Supper, they are to do it in remembrance of Christ. This allows local churches to avoid profaning the Supper by either a to frequent or too infrequent administration of the Eucharist.

Third, no clear command for any sort of time frame is given. As mentioned earlier, it is not necessary to believe that ‘breaking of bread’ in Acts 2:42 means the partaking of the Lord’s Supper. In fact, the evidence appears to be just as strongly against that idea. Acts 2:46 and Luke 24:30 both use the same phrase, ‘breaking of bread’ in conjunction with eating meat, which is not a Lord’s Supper activity. The Luke example is in the midst of the regular evening meal. Acts 20:7 is another example where it is not necessary to hold that it is Communion that is being administered. I do freely grant that it might be, but the sentence losses nothing if they are gathering for a fellowship meal. I personally think Acts 20:7 probably is talking about the Lord’s Supper, but again it is not a proof for weekly communion. The addition of the phrase, "in order to break bread" may actually be seen as proof of non-weekly communion. If they always partook of the Supper when they gathered together on the First day then the phrase "in order to break bread" is redundant. However, if they did not then the phrase is showing the specific event that was taking place on that particular Lord’s Day. This would support the idea of a communion season, where it is taken only a few times a year. The main point is this verse does not clearly demonstrate anything that except on this particular Sunday, the church in Troas took the Supper.

Fourth, I do believe that examples exist of meetings where no Supper is recorded. We do not see the Supper on the first Easter, or anywhere between Christ’s resurrection and his ascension even though he 40 days to participate with them in it. John 20 records the first Easter and the Sunday afterward without any mention of the Supper. We do not see it at the ascension, nor at Pentecost. We do not see it in the ministry of Paul at Antioch (Acts 13:14-50), we don’t see it in Ephesus despite the fact Paul resided there for years, we do not see it in Miletus (Acts 20:13). In fact, with the exception of 2:42 and 20:7, both of which are extremely debatable, we do not see the Supper at all in Acts. We see Baptism a lot, but no Eucharist.

Fifth, the sacraments are not regular elements of worship. They are elements of worship, do not mistake me, but they are not the regular elements of worship. Many weekly communion people argue why leave this regular element of worship out on any Sunday. The synagogue worship had reading of the Word, explanation of the Word, prayer, psalms, but it did not always contain circumcision or Passover. If one argues from the sacrifices present in the temple worship, then we have lapsed into a theology of the sacraments, or perhaps worship itself, argumentation that I will deal with later. Even if one assumes a point of discontinuity on this point between the Old and New, there becomes a problem of Baptism. Why is the Supper a regular element of worship, but Baptism an occasional element. After all baptism is seen more in the book of Acts, it is in the Great Commission, and it is a sacrament as well? I think it must be argued then that sacraments in general are not regular elements of worship, but are occasional elements of worship.

In summary, I think the Bible does not give a command as to how often one should partake of the Supper. I do believe that occasional partaking is exegetically supportable mainly through the connection with Passover and Acts 20:7, which tells us that they gathered together "in order to break bread". Yet, in the end the Scripture is full of deafening silence on the matter of ‘when’. Thus, for me, when the Bible is silent we should be as well. It is not right to bind consciences to a prescribed pattern. If a church wanted to celebrate monthly, that is their right, if they wanted quarterly that is their right, if they wanted annually, again, it is their right. I even think weekly is allowable. Each church should be allowed to assess the need of the congregation and decide in that manner. However, I do think weekly communion arguments are designed around a re-definition of worship and the Supper, and that is not allowable. I shall post on that next.

Free Prayers . . . Are they unacceptable?

Alastair has yet another thought provoking post. This time he tackles the subject of liturgy, mainly the subject of form versus free prayers. Alastair says,

The ‘heroic pose’ that Keillor speaks of is one in which the speaker presents God with his own words, deeming his own vocabulary to be sufficient. The reasoning behind such an approach is that the most authentic way of being is that of spontaneity as opposed to imitation. Prayers of spontaneity, no matter how rhetorically brilliant they are, will always fall short of truly public speech. True public speech is shared language, where the words are not the speaker’s own. Spontaneous speech always falls short, drawing attention to the speaker, who often has a desire for people’s praise.

While I can agree with Alastair that we should pray the promises of God back to him, I cannot agree that free prayers, prayers of spontaneity, in the worship fall short and only serve to draw attention to the speaker. True public speech is one where the language is shared, but does that necessitate that the words are not the speaker’s own? I do not believe this necessarily follows. Can a speaker not be the representative of people? Can a speaker’s own words not be concurred or agreed with by the people, or must they all share a book of prayer and the man must read a book of prayer to be truly public speech. Let us take this example out of the context of worship for a moment. President Reagan famously called for Ghorbachov to “tear this wall down” at the base of the Berlin Wall. Now Reagan was the representative of America, and his words spoke for me, and for thousands of others. The words were Reagan’s own, but they were still public speech because his words represented the will of America. He spoke for us. Why cannot a minister speak for his people in a similar way? I believe he can and does.

Alastair’s next point states,

In handing ourselves over to a language that has been handed over to us in tradition we confess that we do not have the words that are sufficient to approach God. Our verbal works are sinful and poor, so they are not the sacrifice of praise our tongues present to God. The words that we bring are words that have been given to us, words that are not our own. The shared language of liturgy is thus a natural extension of the doctrine of justification by faith alone.

Our own words are not good enough to approach God. I do admit that no one, no not one, is worthy enough to approach God on his own. Yet, the blood of Christ makes us able to approach the Lord in worship even with our own words. If man’s words are not worthy of approaching God, then they are never good enough to approach God. Man is then only allowed to approach God with the words of Scripture. Man made prayers that have been handed down to us through tradition are not made worthy by the passing of time. If they were not worthy when written, then they are not worthy today. Just because they are not my personal words does not make someone else’s personal words worthy. Alastair does grant later that hymns are sometimes acceptable, but if man’s words are not good enough then why are they good enough in song. The argument Alastair uses for form prayers is the argument often used by exclusive psalmody. A difference is also drawn between private prayers and public ones, but why a man’s words are not worthy in public, but in private found acceptable is not explained.

The other argument brought forth against free prayers is one of self-promotion. While I can see that this may indeed from time to time be a problem it is arguing that the personal faults of some destroy the worthiness of the entire system. Some people may try to show off in their prayers, but that does not mean that everyone shows off in prayer. Some may indeed draw attention to themselves during prayers, but others may not. The few certainly does not out weigh the many. One could just as easily argue that form prayers are bad because people mindless read, and do not understand what they are praying. Reading is not the same as praying; therefore, those who simply read, do not pray at all. Such an attack is probably true for some people. They may indeed not bother to pay attention. But does that necessarily mean the whole idea of a form prayer is corrupt? No, I do not think so. Each way has its own temptations, and it is good to be aware of them, but no way is temptation free.

My real point of contention with high liturgy is found in one of Alastair’s concluding points. One of the things that the Church could really benefit from today is a downplaying of preaching within the context of the liturgy and a denial of the primacy of the preacher. I believe in a liturgy, but one that is a pulpit based liturgy of which I believe free prayers are acceptable. Traditionally the high liturgy is an altar/table based liturgy that stress other elements than the word and the word preached. I am not against form prayers, in fact, we pray the Lord’s Prayer every week and we have responsive readings every week, but I do not think that one can be biblically against a representative free prayer either, which we also have every week.

The Images Strike Back

Images, otherwise known as icons, are making a comeback. Admittedly this comes from Christianity Today whose definition of Reformed apparently comes from Andover Newton Theological Seminary, which if I am not mistaken feeds the United Churches of Christ. The church that pushes for homosexual marriage is hardly the representative of the Reformed tradition. Yet, this is not the only example of a push to return to images. Take for example, Reformed Catholicism’s recent post on the subject. If one wants to see the exegesis in favor of images, Dr. Paul Owen provides us with the new analysis of the Second Commandment allowing for images in worship.

It is no secret since I have posted on the subject before I am against images. No pictures of Christ, no pictures of the Spirit, nothing. I base this in part on the second commandment. Dr. Owen’s post assumes too much about the nature of the second commandment, and Deuteronomy 4:14-20 for that matter. Dr. Owen restricts this to imaging surrounding false gods. He seems to deny that imaging God is forbidden, only imaging false gods. Yet it should be noted that in Exodus 32:4-5 Aaron clearly claims the golden calf is an image of Jehovah. It is not some new false God, he proclaims it is the god that brought them out of Egypt, a reference to Jehovah. And then he proclaims the next day as a feast to Jehovah. The proper name of God is used in reference to the golden calf. They were not making foreign gods, they imaged the God, and it violated the Second Commandment.

Dr. Owen also fails to deal with John 4:24 that tells us we are to worship God in spirit and truth. We are not to need physical objects to aid our worship. We are not to need Jerusalem or any old mountain. We are not to need these relics to be true worshippers. Instead, our worship is to be in spirit and truth. Nor does he deal with Romans 10:17 that faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. Sight is not mentioned at all. In fact, we are to walk by faith and not by sight. Nor did he reference Isaiah 40:18 where he openly asks, "To whom then will ye liken God? or what likeness will ye compare unto him?" These verses do not seem to lend themselves to only discussing foreign god images, but a prohibition on images all together in worship.

Dr. Owen did provide another argument in favor of images of Christ that is commonly used. Jesus is the image of God, and we are simply imaging the image of God. That must be allowable. Plus, they are not images of the divine nature, but Christ in the flesh. That argument was given by men like John of Damascus when they argued in favor of images. The imaging Christ’s flesh argument runs afoul of the universal definition of the person of Jesus Christ as given in the Council of Chalcedon. The person of Jesus has two natures, and they cannot be divided nor mixed. Thus, any picture of the person of Jesus Christ is a picture of the divine nature as well as the human nature. No picture can do that, and any picture that tries violates the Second Commandment. By making the argument that images are not trying to capture the "ineffable divine nature", he admits that trying to do so is wrong. Thus, in order to keep images of Christ, one must throw out the Council of Chalcedon. This is the conclusion reached by Constantine V as did the Council of Hieria which included 338 bishops. They rightly pointed out that Jesus left us the bread and wine as proper images, we need nothing else. Images were also rejected by Charlegmane and the Council of Frankfurt lest anyone be swayed by the argument that the church pronounced them acceptable in Nicaea II.

In the end, we should remember the progression of Romans 1:18-32. The rejecters of God refused to glorify him as God (21) and turned to their vain imaginations instead. Thus, they changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image (23). It is from there that they continue down the path of sin. Images are no small matter, but cut to heart of the nature of God.

Sunday: A tradition or command?

Rev. Andrew Sandlin argues that Sunday is not the day of worship, but merely a creation of human tradition. He quotes Harold O.J. Brown as saying that the change of worship from Saturday to Sunday is "not demonstrable from Scripture." I disagree. Now if these gentlemen want to argue that there is no direct command, then they are correct, but that does not mean it is not demonstrable at all nor does it mean that is a mere tradition of men.

The issue, it seems to me, is how much authority does one give the book of Acts and other historical passages in Scripture. Is the apostolic example of worshipping on Sunday inspired by the Spirit or a mere tradition of a group of men?

The theological argument revolves around the 4th Commandment and its link to redemption as seen in Deuteronomy 5. Thus, when redemption is accomplished there is now a new act and basis for the day with the resurrection of our Lord. Which by the way is on Sunday (John 20:1). Sunday worship can also be seen as prefigured in the Festival of the Booths and the high worship done on the 8th day, a Sunday. However, we will set this argument aside and simply look at the NT worship patterns.

It should be noted that the disciples met and Christ met with them on Sunday in John 20:19. They received the Holy Ghost during this meeting (22). The very next Sunday Christ met with them again in verse 26. It would seem as if Christ established a bit of a pattern of meeting with the disciples when they gathered together on Sundays after his resurrection. But did the disciples see it this way? It would seem so because on Pentecost, which is a Sunday, there were meeting "all with one accord in one place." As you know Pentecost is when the Holy Ghost came and the church baptized 5,000 people on that day. It is also reinforced in Acts 20:7 where we see "And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached . . ." Here we clearly see Sunday was a day of worship that included preaching and perhaps the Lord’s Supper. Paul also seems to command a tithe or offering taken up on the first day in I Corinthians 16:2. All of this culminates in Revelation 1:10 when John tells us he was in the Spirit on the "Lord’s Day." The meaning here is that there is a day that is called the "Lord’s" and apparently was used for worship according to not only the context of being "in the Spirit", but any historical record one examines. The church can never be found to worship on any other day after the resurrection than Sunday. Church history is unanimous with this proclamation, Sunday is the day Christians worship.

Now of course all of this is familiar to Rev. Sandlin, I am not shedding any new light. Yet, he persists in calling it a tradition of men. Thus, I believe that the issue revolves around what weight one wants to ascribe to historical accounts. Are they binding? Are they prescriptive or descriptive? Should one assume the Holy Spirit inspired apostles were setting up an example to followed or were they the first tradition makers with no real guidance in what they were doing? Does the fact Christ at least twice met with them bodily after his resurrection on Sunday, and twice gave them the Holy Spirit on Sunday have any significance at all? Does it matter that on 2 of the 5 Sundays in which Christ’s resurrected body on earth the disciples gathered expecting to met with Him, and did just that? By the way it is the only 2 Sundays we are shown, so it very well could have happened every Sunday.

I believe it is significant. I believe the Bible can require things without a written command. The apostles blatant examples preserved for us in Scripture can serve as a binding command. If we are to take Rev. Sandlin’s position then not only does Sunday worship become a mere tradition of men, so too does Presbyterian church government in Acts 15. So too does the office of deacon in Acts 6. These things have the same or less amount of evidence than Sunday worship, so does Rev. Sandlin believe these to be optional traditions as well? While I do not know his answer, mine is a resounding no.

More Pastor vs. Priest

Mark Horne has joined the discussion about pastors as the continuation of the OT priesthood. He argues the Westminster Confession does view the office of pastor as the continuation of priests because of Form of Presbyterian Church Government that came out of the Westminster Assembly as because of Larger Catechism Question Q.156, which discusses who should read the Scriptures during worship. He points out that the footnotes show the restriction of lay readers in the Westminster comes from OT references to the law being read publicly by the Levites. Although admitting the footnotes were forced on the Westminster Divines, and that later questions show how the office of pastor is connected to the office of prophet, he claims that the Westminster tradition shows the office of pastor to be the Levitical priestly office in the OT.

Despite Rev. Horne’s reasoning, I believe he has still failed to show that pastors are modern day priests. Nor does he show that many of the Westminster Assembly thought pastors to be modern priests. I think what Rev. Horne has shown is that the office of pastor does not have a one to one correspondence with OT offices, especially with offices whose job dealt with the temple. The NT pastor does read the Bible, which Levites did, proclaims the word, which prophets did, and rules the people, which judges or kings did in the OT. The NT office of pastor is just that, a New Testament office. It does not fit perfectly with any OT office, and we should not force it into such a mold. Rev. Horne has shown that the Westminster Divines thought along these lines by referencing Larger Catechism 156 and 158.

Rev. Horne’s thesis also takes a historical hit when one considers the Puritan tradition in England. The Vestment controversy had roots in what we are discussing now. The Vestiments, robes worn by the clergy, they claimed had a jewish, ie. priestly, origen. Bishop Hooper refused to ever wear them on account of his scruples to the idea of pastors being priests. Despite wearing them for a time, Archbishop Cramner along with Bishops Latimer and Taylor all expressed contempt for them before their deaths. Also Peter the Martyr Vermingly desired the church to be rid of them forever. This is the history of English Church. Despite Horne’s claim to the contrary, it certainly would have been controversial to claim the office of pastor is the OT office of priest.

Another blow to Rev. Horne’s idea is that not every Levite was a priest who sacrificed in the temple. Only the line of Aaron did the sacrificial work. Thus, linking pastors to Levities reading the law is not the same as linking pastors to priests. An important distinction that I fear is blurred in Rev. Horne’s article.

Rev. Horne also links another article of his that I believe is much more helpful. This article is a paper written for the candidates and credential committee of the Pacific Northwest Presbytery of the PCA. Here Rev. Horne is much more careful about the Levite/priest distinction, and unconvincingly tries to show how they could be synonymous. Yet, Rev. Horne’s paper shows both another hole in his argument and confirms my fear for where this argument is going. The hole Rev. Horne accidentally exposes is the fact that it is traditionally not reformed to link the office of pastor to the office of priest or Levite. The paper admits that the pastor is generally linked to the office of prophet or even perhaps judges. Yet, of more value is his stated desire in getting the office of pastor linked to the office of priest. He says in his conclusion:

Finally, if we allow that the Levites were the precursors to our pastors, then should we not ask if perhaps Levitical worship provides guidance and principles for pastoral worship?

There it is. Rev. Horne sees not just a redefinition of the office of pastor but of all worship along with it. This allows a weekly communion, and perhaps a more sacrificial view of the Supper. It leads to seeing ministers as mediators of the presence of God. All of which Horne argues for in his paper or in his footnotes.

Redefining Priests

There is a movement afoot to redefine the work of priests, and to re-institute priests into Protestant churches. This process of re-introducing priests should not surprise us much since movements exist to make the Lord’s Supper an actually sacrificial meal that contains objective grace. Priests may then be needed to dispense such a meal. The task begins by reworking the role of the OT priest. Rev. Barach explains what he believes was the role of the priests in the Old Testament.

What were the duties of priests in the Old Covenant? They don't exactly appear to be mediators. As Leithart has shown, priests were primarily housekeepers. They cooked God's food, guarded access to God's house, made sure the house was lit, smelled nice, had bread on the table, was kept clean, and worked to see that God's people (who are also God's house, represented by the tabernacle and temple) were taught, kept clean, and so forth. Priests are God's chefs, guards, housekeepers: servants in His royal retinue.

Does anything appear to be missing to you? Can anyone think of a duty of the priests that is not listed? Making sacrifices perhaps? I do believe that the job of overseeing sacrifices is included by Rev. Barach in calling them God’s chefs, but the omission of making sacrifices is glaring. Especially since this appears to be the main focus of their job in the OT. They made daily sacrifices, morning and evening. They made special sacrifices on holy days. The Bible concentrates on this aspect of the priest much more than it does their making the temple of the Lord smell nice. Rev. Barach’s refusal to recognize the job of making sacrifices as the primary role for priests helps explain why he cannot see how priests were mediators. Although, in another article, he recognizes that Christ as our priests gives us access to God, the Holy of Holies, which only High Priests could do prior to Christ. After noting this is the sense of Hebrews 10:19-22 and I Peter 2:5, he continues to tell us;

But some people are priests in a special sense. Pastors are a special sort of priest, servants appointed by God to teach, to proclaim God's Word, to help us carry out our calling as God's priests.

Elsewhere he includes serving the Lord’s Supper as part of the role of this new special priesthood called pastors. It should be noted that Rev. Barach freely admits his debt to Peter Leithart and his book Priesthood of the Plebes, and James Jordan and his book From Bread to Wine.

Some of you may be asking, ‘what is the big deal?’ Here is my concern with such a movement. Barach has downplayed the sacrificial role of the priests, but not eliminated it. He has focused upon the housekeeping role, but misapplied it. And I believe he has confused the office of prophet and priest. First, if Rev. Barach really wanted to say the priests were housekeepers, and maintained the physical appearance and working order of the temple, then the modern day priests would be deacons, not pastors. Who is charged with making sure bread is on the table of the new temple of God, the people of the church? Acts 6 makes clear that it is the deacons, not the apostles. Second, Rev. Barach has denied a mediatorial role of priests. They offered sacrifices day and night, and on special days including the Day of Atonement. This was the priests mediating with God via the sacrifices that they alone could make. This job is officially finished because of the work of Christ. Third, Barach’s definition of the role of pastors seems to be all about teaching and preaching. This job is more associated with the office of prophet than that of priest.

This last reason shows my fear of what is really at stake in this debate. The new emphasis and re-definition of priest to make it seem as if pastors are the continuation of priests will make pastors mediators and give to them the job that is finished by Christ. Only the pastor/priest will be able to offer the Lord’s Supper which will now be viewed as a sacrifice, as the priests of old did with sacrifices. This by the way is what the Roman view of priests contains. Only the pastor/priests will be able to open the presence of God for us by having sole authority over worship in the church. James Jordan includes "organizes/disciplines the people for worship" as a job of the priest on page 11 of his book according to Barach’s article. Only the pastor/priest will be able to dispense pardon for the people. See Peter Liethart’s. series of articles about Liturgical worship and the role of absolution by the pastor/priest.
The Bible is clear that we all have access to him because he is our only mediator. He is the only sacrifice, and he is the only one who forgives sins. These things belong to him alone, and the priesthood of Aaron prefigured His work. The Reformed Confessions are clear as well. See WCF chapter 8, Larger Catechism 36-45, and HC 12-19, 29-30. This subtle new twist is no harmless thing. It leads down a road that the Church abandoned during the Reformation.