TD: In Hebrews 2, it’s said that Christ is not ashamed to call us his brothers. How important is it that we recognize that he became a brother to us in in order to save us?

NJ: I think it’s incredibly important to recognize that Jesus Christ became like us for the purpose of salvation. It’s right at the heart of what defines Christian belief. The church fathers fought the heretics to uphold the apostolic teaching that Jesus was fully human and fully divine at the same time. This is known to us as the doctrine of hypostatic union. Everything concerning our salvation from sin and death rises and falls on whether or not Christ became like his brothers in every way, except for sin. I think it’s important for Christians to understand something of this doctrine of our faith, even if they can’t explain it in detail.

TD: Can you recommend any books on this topic?

NJ: A helpful work to me of late in thinking about these things has been Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s Christ The Center, which deals with some of the heresies surrounding the hypostatic union that were expelled from the church in the early centuries. Bonhoeffer is admittedly difficult to read, but I think there is enough gold in Christ the Center to make the effort. Catholic theologian Hans Urs van Balthaser put together a short compilation of Irenaeus’ writings against gnosticism called Scandal of the Incarnation. It is a very accesible patristic source that helps us understand the implications of denying Christ’s humanity. Also, check out Gordon Strachan’s book on Pentecostal pioneer Edward Irving’s theology if you want some food for thought about what Christ’s Incarnation meant for the Son’s own need for the power of the Holy Spirit.

TD: So is it wrong for someone to only think of Christ as Lord and Savior, but not as brother?

NJ: The simple answer is that it is not wrong, per se, but instead incomplete. Jesus is not less than Lord and Savior by being our brother, nor is he less than our brother by being Lord and Savior. Both are equally true.

It’s amazing how many years we can live the Christian life and still not see the complete picture of who Christ is. Sometimes when we get a new glimpse of him we feel like our ignorance has been deliberate. We say, “How could I have been so blind as not to see this truth?”

This lack of the revelation, of course, is one of the blinding results of sin that keeps us from the true knowledge of God. We constantly need our eyes opened to the truth of who God is, of who Jesus Christ is, of who the Holy Spirit is. You’ll notice that Paul keeps praying for his churches to have things like a spirit of wisdom and revelation (Eph. 1:17), and the knowledge of God’s will in spiritual understanding (Col. 1:9), and the knowledge of the love of Christ (Eph. 3:19). These should be our prayers for one another, as well.

That we should walk so long with the Lord and not see the truth that is in him, and key truths about him, is a most lamentable fact, but once our eyes have been opened we should ask God to impress recently discovered truth upon our hearts. There is always more of Christ to see, and it is our shame as fallen sinners that it often takes so long to be aware of his many wonderful attributes. But with each new revelation we can give thanks to God that his Spirit continues to open our eyes to the truth about his Son.

TD: So we can call Christ our friend, brother, and partner in life?

NJ: Yes, it was Jesus who first called the disciples his friends (John 15:15), and we know from Hebrews that He is also not ashamed to call them his brothers (Heb. 2:11). As for partner, he is the Bridegroom who has sent his Spirit to prepare his Bride, the Church, until that time when he will come to take her to the wedding feast and to be with him forever (John 14:18, 16:7). If he calls us by these names, then we, too, can call him by them, because they are titles of mutual relationship.

TD: Hebrews seems to say that Christ worships the Father along with us. Does that mean we are to worship the Father with Him, but not worship Him as the Son? 

NJ: Let me give some Biblical examples of worship of the Son explicitly. The first case we have is of the wise men who came from the East to worship Christ in the manger (Matt. 2:2). The multitude praised Jesus as he entered Jerusalem (Lk. 19:40). One of the ten lepers who was cleansed came back to praise God and threw himself at Jesus’ feet in order to thank him. (Lk. 17:11-19). The man born blind and who was healed came back and worshiped Jesus (John 9:38).

Yet, Jesus and the Father are one, because God is one (John 10:30), and therefore the Scripture continually speaks about the worship of God - who is Father, Son, and Spirit.

Paul tells the Phillipians that we worship by the Spirit of God, and glory in Christ Jesus (Phil. 3:3). John says that our fellowship is with the Father and the Son (1 John 1:3). Jesus himself says that the Father seeks to be worshipped in Spirit and Truth (John 4:23-24), while later saying that the Father would send the Spirit in Jesus’ name (John 14:26) and that He (Jesus) was the Truth (John 14:6). Thus, by worshipping in Spirit and Truth, we worship God in the Holy Spirit and in the Son.

The worship of God the Father means that the Son and the Spirit are present. There is no true worship of God where the Spirit and Truth are not acknowledged and received. The theologians would say that our worship is to the Father, through the Son, and by the Spirit. I think that that is a helpful maxim, but I am always cautious that we could think so much of the theology of worship that we neglect to actually worship God in Spirit and Truth.

TD: Any thoughts about what to read about worship and the Trinity?

NJ: I would highly recommend a book called The Deep Things Of God: How The Trinity Changes Everything by Fred Sanders of Biola University. Jonathan Edwards’ Unpublished Essay on the Trinity has been helpful in forming some of my thoughts on these things. Harold Best’s Unceasing Worship is a great resource, as well.

Mother’s Day in America is, of course, a product of late 19th century social action, largely championed by feminist, pacifist, and temperance societies. While the majority of these groups were Christian in name, they were not particularly spiritual in their aim, and thus had a tendency to cross-pollinate civil matters with religious ones.

Because of these groups’ success, Mother’s Day has come to be incorporated in many church calendars, but not for the better. An unholy blending of spiritual and profane matters is one of the marks of a carnal church. Like the forbidden garment woven with both wool and linen (Deut. 22:11), those who bring both spiritual and non-spiritual aspects into their worship pollute the church and divide the body.

This kind of carnality was the particular problem of the Corinthian church. Whenever they gathered for communion, the rich would eat their dinner before the service, while the poor would look on and wait until their wealthier brothers had finished eating. Then they would all together partake of the Lord’s Supper, signifying their unity.

Paul was incredulous to discover that this practice was taking place in Corinth.  “What!” he wrote them, “Do you not have houses to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing?” (I Cor. 11:22). How could they claim to be united and yet be so divided in their membership?

I can’t help but feel that this kind of alienating practice takes place every Mother’s Day in thousands of churches across America, where we celebrate those women who have children, but despise the church and shame our sisters who are barren or single, as well as those who are orphans, estranged from mothers, or with no living mother.

Someone, I suppose, will want to know what I mean by this.

First, we despise the church by failing to bear in mind that when the body unites around something other than its head, Jesus Christ, then it will of necessity create division. Maternity is not a big enough umbrella under which to unite the church, even if the majority of the women in a congregation are mothers. We cannot claim to love the church if we cause it to fracture.

Additionally, by only celebrating those who do have, we shame those who do not have. In the Corinthian case, those with meat and wine embarrassed those without. In a similar way, creating a special day to honor those who have children can serve to humiliate those who do not, especially when there is no other day in the year that the church applauds single or barren people.

This shaming is not intentional, of course, but it happens nonetheless. Many may not recognize that it occurs because they are those who have children. Someone in a position of abundance often fails to see how their supply embarrasses those who lack. The Corinthians who ate a full meal were not wrong for eating, but they were wrong for eating in front of their needy brothers. We must not follow their example by celebrating motherhood in front of those who do not possess it.

If we must choose to honor moms on Mother’s Day with a special recognition or carnations, we should be prepared to find another time or way to honor those who do not have children or mothers. I do not think it wise, however, to make this distinction so public a matter.

Because the church gathers to give praise to God through Jesus Christ, not praise to mothers (whether the mother of God or your mother), it is best if we reserve the chief honor in the church for our Lord.  If someone feels like celebrating their mother, they have a house in which to observe Mother’s Day.

IF THERE IS ONE THING the Corinthian church is best known for, it is the multiple divisions that existed within its membership. An unfortunate disparity had arisen between rich and poor in Corinth, and divisional lines had been drawn around four prominent Christian apostles: Paul, Cephas, Apollos, and Christ.

As Paul chided his church for their spiritual immaturity, he reminded them that any division within the body was a sign of carnality. In one of his longest letters, he labored to remind the Corinthians that they were one through the cross of Christ, where they had died to their carnal preferences, and one in the Spirit, by which they had been baptized into one body.

The message of the Corinthian epistle is as pertinent as ever because the problem of church faction is perhaps at its worst stage in the history of the world. Today, thousands of cities are filled with Christians who meet throughout the week in different congregations because of competing allegiences to different Christian leaders. One group says, “I follow Luther”, another, “I follow Calvin”, another, “I follow Wesley”, and still another, “I follow Christ”. Sometimes these various assemblies exist on the same city block.

Of course, this endless splintering is the unique problem of Protestantism, and Roman Catholics are quick to point it out. If Protestants would return to the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church, they argue, the 500-year schism could be mended and the Church would move closer to full Christian unity (now onto the Orthodox Church).

From a position of church unity, the appeal is exceptionally compelling. But, as I’ve argued before, the Catholic notion of unity goes beyond the Biblical pattern by making every church in the world subject to the church in Rome. By centralizing the universal church’s government in one city, Catholicism builds the church into a global empire.

The Scriptures reveal that no one church in the world has jurisdiction over any other. Jerusalem can aid Antioch in cooperation, but it cannot control Antioch or make decisions for it. The seven churches of the Revelation were each responsible for their own affairs. There is no Biblical record for a catholic church on earth. Petrine Supremacy is an argument that Rome can only make from tradition, and since the Protestant conscience is captive to the Word of God alone, it cannot tolerate a centralized church.

Yet, without defining the boundaries of a local church, Protestantism will be prone to continual rupturing. Any contention over doctrine within a congregation will lead to yet another “church” being formed. This is the sorry Protestant legacy. So, how should such a thorny problem be addressed?

IF WE ARE TO VIEW the boundaries of the local church as the New Testament expresses them, and as the first 1,500 years of church history reveal them, then we have to say that there is only one church in each city, to which all believers belong. That is to say, the boundary lines for the church lie within the municipality, not beyond or below it.

If the mistake of Catholicism is to make the boundaries of the local church too big, then the mistake of Protestantism is to make them too small, which is called congregationalism. Congregationalism is “when there is an assembly on a certain street and also one nearby, each of which does not care for the other, whether the other is doing well or doing poorly. The only unity they seek is a unity within their own assembly.”

Even though a party spirit is perhaps the defining problem in Western churches today, many fail to recognize it because they only think of the boundaries of the local church in terms of individual congregations, rather than municipalities.

If you ask someone who attends a congregation in which everyone agrees on most issues if their church is divided, they will most likely tell you, “No, my church has no real problems with division.” But if you ask them how First Church down the street is doing, or how dedicated they are to working with them, then you will find out if they define the boundaries of a local church as existing within their congregation or their city.

We should constantly reinforce that there is no such thing as “my church” and “your church” for believers who live in the same city. There is only “Christ’s church”, united or divided, in that locality. We cannot divide the church in our city because of personal preference in theology or practice.

Some will say that though Christian congregations and denominations are not uniform in actuality, they are still united in spirit. As long as all true believers worship one Lord and share one faith, then they belong to the same one church.

I think this is a fancy theological game of dodgeball.

We have to affirm that God is neither glorified nor pleased when we divide over the teachings of his servants “by whom we believed”. This is the clear teaching of 1 Corinthians. We cannot give Paul’s teaching against factions lip service and then say that we are faithful servants of the local church.

Additionally, congregational division produces spiritual retardation. Harmony comes naturally when you are surrounded by those who look like you, dress like you, talk like you, and think like you. It is only children who don’t play well with others or bother themselves with the plight of others. But believers are called to “grow up” in Christ.

THERE IS A WORLDWIDE MOVE of the Holy Spirit today that is drawing people all over the globe into cities in order to work for the good of those cities. Sensitive to the Spirit’s prompting, many denominations and church planting movements (CPMs) in recent years have placed a strong emphasis on urban life and Christian involvement in the city. Thousands of pastors have answered the call to go into metropolitan areas and begin new ministries.

I am firmly convinced that the message to focus on the city is right, but I wonder whether the manner in which many of these church plants are beginning is good for the city church. An incredible opportunity exists to reshape the religious landscapes of our cities, but it will not happen if these new church plants hold to the same congregational pattern of the older churches they are replacing.

Denominations, which thrive on theological dissimilarities, and church planting movements, which associate around shared ideologies and theologies, perpetuate congregationalism whenever they start a new church. A 2007 study done by Leadership Network and LifeWay Research indicated that about 4,000 churches are being planted each year in the United States – an all-time high. Almost all of these new plants have ties with Evangelical denominations or networks.

Because Evangelicals have historically been dedicated to the individual aspect of salvation in soul winning, and because church planting is a proven strategy for making new converts, they often employ a missional policy of “the more church plants, the better”. Though there are great evangelistic benefits in this approach, I find it disconcerting from a position of church unity.

I worry that by starting a new “church” in a city planters and their denominations are only fracturing the true church in that city even further. By gathering people to build a new church without considering the municipal nature of the local church, many are dividing the city church by creating individual communities, each with its own unique expression of Christianity, that remain divided from each other in leadership and fellowship. This is a mild form of sectarianism.

Church plants that operate within the evangelical paradigm undeniably serve as catalysts for evangelism and discipleship, but these new works effectively become gospel-training centers or ongoing evangelistic crusades – instead of actual components of the city church –  by remaining committed to building their own assemblies. Congregational churches with a bent toward individual salvation do very little to address the bigger problem of church division.

Congregationalism has the tendency to become individualism writ large when the boundaries of the local church are not being critically questioned. The popular argument that each Christian should hold membership in a local church (i.e. congregation) so as to both serve and be accountable, easily becomes a matter of choosing whichever community is most in line with one’s individual theology, ministry preferences, and consumer needs. Thus, church shopping has become the bane of late-modern Evangelicalism.

I thank God that many today are hearing the call to work across denominational boundary lines and to downplay non-essential theological differences for the sake of cooperation in the Gospel and fellowship in the Spirit. I am glad to hear of many congregations coming together for monthly prayer meetings, worship gatherings, and evangelistic efforts. By God’s grace I pray that many more will leave their denominations and theological fraternities, altogether, and work to build the church in their city.

Obviously, this is a very simplistic analysis of congregationalism. There are much deeper issues of spiritual unity, submission, leadership, government, and doctrine that are at work in these ideas which I can’t address here. I would welcome questions and comments.

I’ve noted before that I find the idea of city renewal to be dangerously close to repeating the same mistake of the Social Gospel movement of the early 20th century, which used the Gospel as a social mechanism in order to produce good community.

If the Social Gospel was the intellectual fashion of churches in the city a century ago, then what I will call the Gospel Society is the prevailing movement in many urban churches today.

The Social Gospel’s message was that Christian ethics could remedy the social problems in the city. But by trying to bring heaven to earth through means of Christian social programs and cultural devices, many Liberal and Mainline churches denied the spiritual power of both the Gospel of the Cross and the Gospel of the Kingdom, and in time apostatized to become just another religious humanitarian group. The Social Gospel possessed a form of godliness, but denied its spiritual power.

The Social Gospel failed because it reduced the Gospel of the Cross to a teaching of moralism, and viewed the ethical teachings of Jesus as the only catalyst needed to change men’s hearts, forgetting that Jesus’ teaching flourishes only in spiritually regenerated people. It additionally failed by equating the spiritual Kingdom with a human society free of crime, poverty, and addiction. Thus the Gospel of the Kingdom became both muted and confused.

Today, adherents of the Gospel Society have avoided certain errors of the Social Gospel, but have only gone halfway in righting the wrongs of that movement.

Unlike the Social Gospel, the Gospel Society believes that only the spiritual power of the Gospel can change individuals into ethical and moral people. This is good and true. But it then proposes that these redeemed individuals should re-enter society and/or create culture in order to transform the city into a healthy, prosperous place. This latter position does not seem to have moved from the Social Gospel idea that amalgamates the earthly city into the Kingdom.

I believe the danger of the Gospel Society lies in redefining earthly society’s chief attribute, when what is needed is a fundamental redefining of society itself. That is to say, the Kingdom of God becomes tantamount to “earthly society, Gospelized”, rather than, “heavenly society, Incarnated”.

The process goes something like this: the Gospel makes Gospel people, and Gospel people form Gospel communities, which in turn create Gospel cultures, which in turn create Gospel societies, and thus you arrive at city renewal, one Gospel society at a time. But all along the structures that comprise culture and society have not been challenged.

So the question remains as to whether or not the social and cultural systems that belong to the city are able to partake in the spiritual Kingdom of God. If they are not spiritual systems, then they cannot inherit the Kingdom. Though God promises to renew the creation – which includes both man and the Earth – he will not renew the worldly systems that belong to Satan. He is not remaking the things that are passing away.

My concern is that the Gospel Society is not questioning the inherent renewability of systems of art, business, economics, education, entertainment, government, literature, etc. – all the things inbuilt in a society and culture, and which exist in the city – but is instead accepting them as neutral things in need of godly management, like fields or animals. I think this is to confuse the creation (i.e. Earth) with the Satanic system of the World. For “the Earth is the Lord’s” (1 Cor. 10:26), but “the World lies in the power of the evil one” (1 John 5:19).

AS WATCHMAN NEE HAS POINTED OUT, the question we must ask of any thing that exists within the World is not so much, “Is it good or evil?” but instead, “Where does it have its origin?” If it has originated in Heaven, then it belongs to God and is eternal. If it is has originated in the World, then it belongs to Satan and is passing away.

Let’s take banking as an example of a system within a city, which is an extension of larger financial and economic systems within the world. The question we must ask is not, “Can a Christian work in banking?” but “Is banking by its nature from God?” The answer to the first question, as far as conscience and Scripture allows, is “yes”. The answer to the second question is “no”.

Banking is a system that has been created to deal with money, and since money is not the currency of the Kingdom, we have to assert that banking is a construct of a post-Fall world where lending, borrowing, and saving is required.

Now, a Christian can be a godly banker, exercising righteousness in equity in their lending, but the Kingdom has no need of bankers, and therefore God is not renewing banking. I think we have to say that banking as a system belongs to the world, and as such, by its nature, is passing away.

However, lest we fall into the ditch of fundamentalism and leave our vocations altogether, we have to say that while God is not renewing worldly systems, he has called us to be salt in order to preserve our cities from rapid decay. I believe this is because God is long-suffering and desires that all men would come to repentance.

Prior to modern refrigeration, salt was chiefly used to preserve a thing that, by its nature, would rapidly decay. Salting a slab of beef does not redeem beef from ever being able to rot. It only decelerates the rotting process the beef naturally takes.

In the same way, Christians who serve as salt within the worldly systems of their society do not change the nature of those systems from one of inherent worldliness to one of inherent godliness. They instead serve as preservatives in systems that will otherwise decay because of the sin in man, the curse on the earth, and the Satanic control of the world.

A city preserved by righteousness, then, affords more people the time needed to repent.

God was going to destroy Sodom, but said he would spare it for the sake of just ten righteous in the city. The people’s time was cut short because there was not enough ‘salt’ in their city. God was going to destroy Nineveh, but he sent Jonah to call the city to repentance. This is God’s providential design of preservation.

Perhaps this analogy will help.

The Titanic has hit the iceberg. The vessel is not redeemable. The ship is going down.

Fundamentalists run for the lifeboats and say, “Get me off this boat, and I don’t care who goes down with it! If anyone drowns, they probably deserve it.”

Liberals run to the gaping starboard hull and say, “The problem isn’t that bad. We can patch this hole up with the right tools. Everybody stay on board and help us fix the boat.”

But Kingdom people say, “The ship is going down. The damage can’t be repaired. But I’m going to stay here in the bilge and pump out as much water as I can in order to buy as much time as possible for people to get off the ship and be saved.”

This last way is not city renewal, but it is salty Christianity. I think this is what Jesus calls us to, instead.

THERE IS A RESURGENT THEOLOGY in the American church today called New Calvinism, and in less than a decade it has found its way into the mainstream of evangelical faith. One of the central aims of the movement, as described by New Calvinist pastor Mark Driscoll, is to create and redeem culture, especially as it exists and is formed in metropolitan areas.

This ministry philosophy is summed up well in the mission statement of a church that I will call Reformation Church, a young New Calvinist congregation located in a major city in Texas. Since I do not know anyone personally who attends the church, I do not feel at liberty to mention them by name. Perhaps it is silly to think anonymity possible in the Internet age, but my aim is to be as charitable as possible to my Christian brothers and sisters in my critique.

Nonetheless, the congregation does exist and they define their purpose as this:

“Renewing cities socially, spiritually, & culturally with the gospel of Jesus”

Reformation Church represents one of the many New Calvinist and Reformed church plants that have cropped up in America in the last decade, a number of which have enjoyed a good deal of success and growth, and almost all which are focused on cultural renewal in major cities.

Another church plant that shares Reformation Church’s philosophy of city renewal is Atlanta’s Justice Church (also a pseudonym for the same reasons), which started in 2011. Its vision is “to make Atlanta a great city for all people through a holistic gospel movement.” This statement, too, is indicative of the New Calvinism.

I have picked the vision statements of Reformation Church and Justice Church to help me illustrate the main point of my post because I think their message captures in one short phrase the current fashion of missional evangelicalism: a church that exists for the city – for better and for worse.

I do not mean to be unfair to my brothers in Texas or Atlanta, who I believe are doing good work, but it seems to me that churches like theirs and others who are en vogue with the New Calvinism are in peril of falling into the old trap of the Calvinist churches in Europe and America, which is seeking control of the city through the exertion of Christian influence in politics, culture, and religion.

Though Christians in the West have, by and large, lost political influence, a new wave of Christianity has surfaced that aims at ends of municipal control through means of cultural influence. The shift has been subtle.

Instead of using democratic processes to gain a political foothold in central government (an approach abandoned by scores in the 90′s), many have now turned their energies toward cultural influence within culture-making cities or toward social change within decaying urban areas. The direct assault on American metropoles having failed, the method has changed to one of infiltration.

May the reader grant me the grace to approach this article from the negative angle before turning in my next post to what I think are the many positive sides of “churches for the city”. May God have mercy on me as I proceed, for my intention is not to divide, but only to strengthen.

ONE OF THE SEMINAL THINKERS fueling the evangelical drive for Gospel-driven city renewal is Dr. Timothy Keller, pastor of Redeemer Presbyterian Church in New York City. Keller has had nearly thirty years of success in Manhattan in reaching the creative class and reproducing faithful congregations that exist for the city. Keller’s reasoning for reaching cities is that “if the gospel is unfolded at the urban center, you reach the region and the society.”

In his latest book, Center Church, which details a comprehensive ministry plan for a rapidly urbanizing post-Christian culture, Keller expresses his ecclesial ethos in a succinct paragraph:

Only if we produce thousands of new church communities that regularly win secular people to Christ, seek the common good of the whole city (especially the poor), and disciple thousands of Christians to write plays, advance science, do creative journalism, begin effective and productive new businesses, use their money for others, and produce cutting-edge scholarship and literature will we actually be doing all the things the Bible tells us that Christians should be doing! This is how we will begin to see our cities comprehensively influenced for Christ.

This kind of logic is visible in the ministry mottos of churches like Reformation Church and Justice Church, and is being echoed in the New Calvinist churches (both evangelical and charismatic) all across North America and the West. Though I owe a great deal of debt to Dr. Keller and many New Calvinist churches for their commitment to godliness, something seems to ring hollow in their rhetoric on this issue of city renewal.

As I read the New Testament, I find that the main thrust of its teaching is not love for the city, but love for God and love for the brotherhood. Jesus and the Apostles were more troubled with domestic affairs than civic concerns – the house of God and the nuclear family feature most prominently in the pastoral counsel of the New Testament.

The majority of apostolic exhortation aims the energies of the churches toward the maintaining of unity in the church, and toward love, honor, and respect between husbands, wives, and children, and masters and slaves. We only read about municipal matters in relation to the paying of taxes and civil obedience. Try as we might, we just can’t find a message of city renewal in the New Testament.

A dangerous idea comes into play, I think, when the Biblical policy of “love thy neighbor as thyself” is confused with the extra-Biblical notion of “serving the common good” (the thrust of Aristotelian ethics and Thomist theology) and “renewing the city”, especially where the latter terms are synonymous with cultural renewal. The former follows the Pauline admonition to “do good to all men, and especially the household of faith” (Gal. 6:10), while the latter proposes to use the church as a transformational mechanism to achieve urban restoration, which we see clearly expressed in the maxims of the two churches mentioned above.

My concern is that this track will ever-so-negligibly turn the primary focus of the Church away from building up the living stones of the heavenly city toward building up the brick and mortar of the earthly city. It is a subtle shift that slightly alters the Christian’s course from one of chiefly caring for neighbor and brother to one of caring for the world.

The aspiration of city renewal seems fairly innocuous when it is championed with the earnest spiritual intention of coupling social justice and Gospel preaching. But a primary focus on the earthly city over the heavenly city, however coupled it is with godly intentions, will lead to a love for the world that grows quietly undetected. I don’t find New Calvinism alone susceptible to this pitfall, but it is interesting to note that the focus on city renewal through Christian action is the legacy of the 20th century liberal churches – churches, by and large, who were the ancestors of 17th and 18th century New England Calvinists who had incredible political and cultural influence in their municipalities.

Doctrines of city renewal are particularly vulnerable to incremental permeations of worldliness because they make the church a means to a worldly end; namely, good cities. A good city is a godly thing to desire, but we must vigilantly recall that “here we do not have a lasting city, but we are seeking the city which is to come.” (Heb. 13:14).

INSTEAD OF CITY RENEWAL, I believe the focus of the church should shift toward good work toward brother and neighbor, with the Gospel and the Spirit providing the impetus for good works, and the spiritual fruit of the Kingdom – righteousness, joy, and peace – being the “end-in-itself”. Let society and culture evolve as it may.

The logic that cultural infiltration affords Christians the best chance for the widest Gospel dissemination sounds like a godly intention, but in the end, it seems an awful lot like trying to find a way to get into the Babylonian system we are called to come out of. At best, it seems an effort of the flesh, and God’s house will only be built by grace.

I am anticipating arguments that bring up the message of Jeremiah to “seek the welfare of the city (Babylon) where you dwell”, but I can’t answer them in this post. Suffice to say, this Biblical teaching must be balanced equally with the command to “come out of her (Babylon) my people, and never go back again.” I will look at the juxtaposition between those two ideas in the days ahead.

There are times when we are separated from the body of Christ because of mission, persecution or distance. We may not always enjoy the fullest expression of Deity in those situations. But what about the times when neither persecution, distance [1], nor mission separate us from our brothers? What about the times when we allow artificial things, or subordinate things, or matters of conscience rather than matters of truth to separate us? Can we expect the fullness of Deity to express itself then?

Here, on the horns of this dilemma, we are forced to do our best, with the Help of the Spirit of Truth, to come to terms and understand the reality of the Body of Christ.

If the Body of Christ is defined either as that which exists only in spiritual reality (consisting of all saints past and present) or only as that whose members I worship with on any given weekend, then I believe we have given it either too broad a definition, or one that is too narrow.

Let me defend my answer via means of an illustration. My body is a reality. I received it at the moment of conception and from that time it has been growing and maturing. Since my mother was an avid amateur photographer, I have plenty of reminders (photographs) of my body, what it was, and what it is. Should I live a few more decades, there will be visual reminders of what it will be.

If we talk about my body in the widest and truest sense, we enter a metaphysical world that considers my body from all those perspectives, past, present and future. Yet whenever I go to the physician, or consider work that needs to be done, or where I should be at a certain time, the only “body” that concerns me and is pertinent, is the body I now bear; the body of the present.

Likewise, when the Scriptures consider the Body of Christ, it is not a metaphysical reality that they are, by and large, concerned with. Instead, it is the living present reality of the Body that the apostles embrace and upon which they focus their concern. While Ephesians 4 might be construed as a universal, metaphysical treatment of the Body, Romans 12 and I Corinthians 12 are definitely a consideration of the Body of Christ that presently existed then in Rome and in Corinth.

NOW, IF WE CAN explicate the church too broadly, then it is also possible to understand and experience it too narrowly. When I think about work that must be preformed or places I must be, I am compelled to think holistically; that is, I do not think in part, but in whole.

For instance, when I need to dig a hole to plant my rosebushes, I must consider gloves for my hands, heavy shoes for my feet, proper clothing for my arms and legs, a hat for my head, glasses for my eyes, and (as I grow older) support for my back, since in the performance of this simple task I will employ all of my members including my thoughts, imaginations, and (probably) my emotions.

Now, if it takes all of my body, that is, all the members of my body, to do something as simple as plant roses, how much more should we expect to need the body of Christ to perform the work of the kingdom.

And it is exactly at this point–at the consideration of the work that the Lord has prepared for us (Eph. 2:10)–that we begin to consider the necessity of defining the Body of Christ as broadly as we can. The size and scope of the work determines the number of members required to accomplish the work.

For instance, if I believe that the work of the Kingdom is only to win souls, then the church really only needs evangelists and some ancillary members to support them. Miracles and healings would be helpful, and teachers would be a nice addition, but they would not be absolutely necessary.

If discipleship were the work of the Kingdom, then we would need to add pastors and teachers and, again, certain spiritual gifts would be helpful, but not absolutely necessary.

If we believed that kingdom work was a social affair, then mercy and service gifts would be essential and other gifts optional. But if we pray “Thy kingdom come, thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven,” then we will absolutely need the whole body of Christ.

If the work of the kingdom is not only to get men into heaven, and not only to feed the poor, and not only to defend the oppressed, but to bring the will and the kingdom of God to earth, then every gift is essential, for that work is both spiritual and material, both seen and unseen, both justificational and sanctificational, both present and eternal. Therefore, it requires every gift of grace that Deity has placed in the body of Christ.

When we understand the gravity and import of what we are called to do, then we will not be able to say of the ‘eye,’ “I have no need of you” or to the ‘foot,’ “I have no need of you.” We will be extremely careful of “biting and devouring” one another because we will recognize how incredibly important we all are. The shepherds will protect the sheep, and the church will be vigilant against false teachers because we fear division most of all.

However, just as digging a rose bed is not an end in itself, so working to bring the kingdom on earth is not the supreme goal. No, the purpose and plan of God is to sum up all things in Christ (Eph. 1:10). God, however, uses the work of the kingdom to accomplish His great purpose of eventual and eternal unity in Christ and this should not surprise us. Jesus was quite clear that God uses process to accomplish His plans.

Remember, the chief way that Jesus describes the kingdom is as a seed, something that goes through process to achieve its eventual end. And just like a seed, the eventual summing up of all things in Christ does not proceed immediately, but rather goes through a process that begins with individual conversions, continues on through kingdom building and then culminates in God’s grand purpose. The hope of seeing and experiencing the next step in the process leads us on to glory.

Thank God for His wisdom and fullness!

WE READ IN THE NEW TESTAMENT that God, through the Son and the Spirit, has put into His church certain gifts of grace and of power. We find these lists, primarily, in Romans 12, I Corinthians 12, and Ephesians 4. In those scriptures we are made to understand that the fullness of Deity is of grace and by grace, and that grace has been deposited, not into the atmosphere, but into the individual members of the body of Christ. This is why the body is the fullness of Him who fills all in all. It is endued with the fullness of His grace via the giftedness of each of the members.

So, we might expect (and should expect) to find in the body of Christ the following gifts of grace:

• Prophecy
• Service
• Teaching
• Exhortation
• Giving
• Leadership
• Mercy
• Healing
• Miracles
• Wisdom
• Knowledge
• Faith
• Spiritual Discernment
• Tongues and Interpretation
• Pastoral Ministry
• Teaching Ministry
• Evangelistic Ministry
• Prophetic Ministry
• Apostolic Ministry
• Elder Leadership

This is such a staggering list of exceptional qualities that, should they be possessed and administered all together, we would expect to find no lack among the people who were benefited from such an array of grace.

The question that arises in my mind, is, “To what degree does the Lord intend His body to be fitted with such graces?” Put another way: Should we expect to find these graces gathered in one place (or near one place), here and now? Or have some of these graces come and gone, while others are so widely dispersed that we should not expect to experience all of them in our lifetime?

TO BEGIN TO ANSWER these questions, let us consider the reality of the Body of Christ. The New Testament does not say we, Christ’s church, are “like” a body. Rather, it speaks in definitive terms that we “are” the body of Christ. This is no analogy; it is a living and dynamic truth.

Of course, we must also answer the question as to who “we” are; that is, who is a Christian… or rather, what is a Christian?”

The New Testament is quite clear on this matter. The Christian is the one who is in Christ and whom Christ is in. He is the one “born by the Spirit”; the one “washed and renewed by the Holy Spirit.” He is the one who has made Jesus Christ Lord, who loves God, and who loves those who have been born of God. Though there is a basic doctrinal test permitted (one cannot be a Christian who does not claim that Jesus has come in the flesh), it is not primarily doctrine, but life, that determines a Christian from a non-Christian.

Having said that, the New Testament does give us some solae (Latin: ‘alones’) that the believer should embrace. Here I speak of the five solae of the Reformation; sola Scriptura, sola fides, sola gratia, etc. Most of these five are, in some way, inferred by my last paragraph. For instance, one cannot be born again except by grace—sola gratia—through faith—sola fides. However, even beyond the ‘alones’ of the Reformed solae, there are ‘ones’ to which the true believer adheres.

What are these ‘ones’?

There is one body and one Spirit, just as also you were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all. (Eph. 4:4-6)

The believer affirms that there is but one body of Christ and one Spirit who forms and animates that body. As I mentioned above, Christians are those who have put their full trust and only hope in one person alone, the Lord Jesus Christ, and have accepted baptism into His name (in whatever outward form) as the only true baptism. They are monotheists in the truest sense, in that they acknowledge no God but the God who is the Father of us all.

THERE ARE EVIDENCES, then, that one must exhibit and look for if the unity of the body is to mean anything more than a paper unity that God will somehow or other sort out in His way and His time. If I want to enjoy the glories of the fullness of His body in the present day (and nothing in the Scripture tells me that I cannot fully enjoy these things), I must know how to identify and co-operate with that body.

So, do I make my test one of doctrine, or one of life?

That question, as I purposely posed it, is a false dichotomy. One’s doctrine, by necessity, determines one’s life. However, as Jesus reminds us, we do not need to “root” around the base of the tree to see what we are dealing with, but merely to look at its fruit. If the fruit is bad, it is because it is born by a bitter root. When desiring to know who Christians are, we need to see whether or not the “fruit of the (one) Spirit” is growing in their lives.

We need not demand that all fruit, fully formed, is evident, but can we say that we acknowledge a transformation in their lives from bitter fruit to good fruit? If before they were drunkards, are they now exhibiting self-control? Where previously they were idolaters and sorcerers, are they currently exhibiting qualities of faithfulness to the One True God? Were they angry and bitter, but now are showing signs of peace? Were they living in immorality, but now seeking to do good with their mortal bodies?

Just as the apostle reminded the Corinthians, so we might say to those who are our true brothers in Christ:

Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God. (I Cor. 6:9-11)

 

UNDERSTANDING WHO OUR BROTHERS are, then, we should also try to understand where we might find them. If within the body of Christ we find the fullness of Deity, then it behooves us to define this body and find this body – and most importantly, find ourselves in it.

Determining the “who” of the body, Scripturally speaking, is, perhaps, easier than locating the body in any geographical way. But let us try to use our best judgment and give it a go.

We must admit, I believe, that the fullest expression of Deity will be seen when we see the fullest expression of the body. That is, whenever we see the body of Christ manifested in all its glory, there, too, will we see the fullest expression of the fullness of the “Deity in bodily form.”

When will that happen? When the Lord returns with all of His saints and the kingdom of the world becomes the Kingdom of our Christ. That is, when all believers, past and present, dead and alive, are transformed in the clouds, then we will see the body of Christ in its fullest expression. Where the “Body is, there will the eagles be gathered.” (Lk. 17:37)

However, are we left just to “eat the crumbs that fall from the master’s table?” That is, must we wait for the “gathering together” to enjoy at least some of the fullness of the body of Christ? Perhaps, for some and at some times, this, sadly, will be the case. There are moments seasons we are separated from the body of Christ because of mission, persecution or distance. We may not always enjoy the fullest expression of Deity in those situations.

But what about the times when neither persecution, distance , nor mission separate us from our brothers? What about the times when we allow artificial things, or subordinate things, or matters of conscience rather than matters of truth to separate us? Can we expect the fullness of Deity to express itself then?

The answer to that and other thoughts in my next post, which will conclude this three part series.

IF IT IS TRUE that Jesus Christ is the glory of His church, then it is equally true that the church is His glory. Note I Cor. 11:7; “For a man ought not to have his head covered, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man.”

As the body of Christ—the eventual “bride of Christ”—we are, as the church, the glory of the Man, Christ Jesus. That means, if I can be so bold, that though there may be no good thing in our physical body (see Rom. 7:18 and II Cor. 4:16), there is a very good thing in our spiritual body.

In fact, listen to these verses:

And He put all things in subjection under His feet, and gave Him as head over all things to the church, which is His body, the fullness of Him who fills all in all. (Eph. 1:22-23)

 

For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form, and in Him you have been made complete, and He is the head over all rule and authority. (Col. 2:9-10)

 

He is also head of the body, the church; and He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that He Himself will come to have first place in everything. For it was the Father’s good pleasure for all the fullness to dwell in Him, and through Him to reconcile all things to Himself, having made peace through the blood of His cross; through Him, I say, whether things on earth or things in heaven. (Col. 1:18-20)

If you are a believer in Jesus Christ, you have probably read those verses before, but my sense is that, because we do not see the body of Christ on earth conform to its true glory and beauty, we may have read over these verses and either been confused about them, or assigned to them some spiritual gloss that they should not have.

We must remember, however, that, “God…καλουντος τα μη οντα ως οντα” (“calls the things that be not, as being” Young’s Literal Translation). That is how God works His creative will into the world. He calls the things that “be not, as being”. He did it with Abram, whom He called “Abraham” (meaning “Father of many nations) before Abram even had a son.

I don’t believe that anyone could argue successfully that, from a purely material viewpoint, the church of Jesus Christ (of North America) presently manifests the “fullness of Him who fills all in all.” Yet, that is exactly what the apostle Paul said it was and is. We who believe in the inspiration of Scripture can be assured that is exactly what the Holy Spirit intended when He inspired Paul to pen those letters.

Again, one may go into a great amount of spiritual contortions to try to make these verses say and mean something that they don’t. Notice that all the verbs are present tense. There is nothing in these truths that would allow us to put these realities into the future. The church is His body, now, and now it is the fullness of Him who fills all in all. In Him, today, yesterday, and forever all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form. The question arises, then, “If this is a spiritual reality, a truth, why don’t we see this”?

The answer that comes to me first, is that because we are divided, and walking as “mere men,” this dynamic, powerful, glorious truth is seldom really seen by us or by the world. No one should argue the fact that the church in North America is divided, and I do not mean divided as in certain congregations are bickering over parochial issues.

Instead, I mean that we are riven with denominations, individualism and winds of doctrine (not true doctrine, but that which blows out of the mind of man). Because of that, we seldom, if ever, really expect to find “all the fullness of God” dwelling in our midst. I know this both experientially and principally, but let me share the principal first.

If we found the fullness of God dwelling in Christ’s body, that is, if we walked, by faith and obedience, in the promise of the Father to be the “fullness of Him who fills all in all,” would we need to look outside of ourselves (i.e., the church) for anything? Let me use I Corinthians 6 as an example.

You may recall, there, that Paul was upbraiding the Corinthians for going outside of themselves to judges for the purpose of legal arbitration. Here’s what Paul reminds them:

Or do you not know that the saints will judge the world? If the world is judged by you, are you not competent to constitute the smallest law courts? Do you not know that we will judge angels? How much more matters of this life? So if you have law courts dealing with matters of this life, do you appoint them as judges who are of no account in the church? I say this to your shame. Is it so, that there is not among you one wise man who will be able to decide between his brethren, but brother goes to law with brother, and that before unbelievers? - I Corinthians 6:2-6 (emphasis mine)

The Corinthians were suffering from the modern evangelical malady; that is, they were divided and so “walking as mere men”. This affliction, then, denied them the opportunity to see spiritually. We cannot walk carnally and expect to see spiritual realities! And what is that they could not see? The fact that “all fullness dwelt in them!” That is, they were fully equipped to adjudicate the thorniest of legal matters, but they could not see that and the apostle had to speak into their shame because of it.

Hear me when I say this, and I do so reverently and in fear. When the church looks outside herself for solutions she does so because she is blind to the fact that “all the fullness dwells in her.” She is blind because she is divided, and that is to our shame. When we are divided we do not see that the fullness of Deity dwells in us, and because we do not see this fullness we look to man to supply our needs.

We already have an illustration of looking to the courts to solve civic matters. But how about physical problems? James says if any is sick, call for the elders of the church. Why, then, do we call for natural physicians? Because the fullness of Deity does not, functionally, dwell in us. And why doesn’t His fullness dwell in us, even though that is the truth of the matter? The answer is because we are divided.

How about money issues? If we were walking in the truth of Ephesians and Colossians, would we need the banks? The Amish have figured out how to lend to one another. Why? Because they are not as divided as the evangelicals!

What about education? Do we think that the world can educate our children better than we can? We wouldn’t if we believed that in Christ and in His body dwell all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge (Col. 2:3). We have thrown our children to the wolves because we have not united, but remain divided. I say this to my shame and to the shame of the whole church.

O brothers! So much belongs to us if we will only walk in the truth!  We are promised that the fullness of Deity dwells in His body. All things are ours Paul declares to the church (I Cor. 3:21). Let us repent of prideful schism and division and let us possess the promises that all things are ours!

THE 18TH PSALM IS THE ONLY psalm that tells God, directly, that the singer loves Him. Other songs may speak of the love of the singer for His Lord, or of the love of the singer for his Lord’s Word, but I am fairly certain that this is the only place in the psalter where the singer says, directly to the Lord, “I love you.”

Why do I mention that here? Because in our sexually charged, gender-bent generation, we tend to forget who initiates the love relationship and who sets its parameters.

As we look at the New Testament, we are shown that we are only able to love because God first loved us (I John 4:19). We also note that it is the man, not the woman, who is encouraged to love, while the woman is taught to submit. Though I do not mean to deny the “romance” of the faith, or the privilege of the saints to connect emotionally with the Lord, it does behoove me to ask whether or not there is any instruction we receive about worship from these realities.

First, as to who initiates the love relationship, we ought to look at the man-woman relationship that is described throughout the Scripture. Though we have two significant illustrations of women participating in the courtship—Ruth and the Shulammite woman of the Song of Solomon—the man, or his family, always initiates the relationship. Even Ruth could only make herself known, and we are not told at what point the relationship stood in Song of Solomon.

Why is this important?  Because marriage is a living example of Christ and His church (Eph. 5:32). It is not too much to imply that since Christ came out of heaven (a man shall leave His Father…) to seek and save us, and that He reminds us that we did not choose Him, but He chose us (John 15:16), then the man, not the woman, ought to be the one to initiate a love relationship.

Second, as to who sets the parameters of the relationship, it is again the man. Let us read together what the Man, Jesus Christ, said about love. “If you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love; just as I have kept My Father’s commandments and abide in His love (John 15:10.) We seldom see the Lord singing about His love of the Father, but we do see Him frequently keeping His Father’s commandment.

Finally, the apostle John reminds us, “And this is love, that we walk according to His commandments” (II John 1:6). When Peter and Jesus were walking the seashore right before Jesus ascended to the Father, it was Jesus who was asking the question. “Peter, do you love me?”

It is interesting to note that Psalm 18 is the only Psalm, of which I am aware, where the psalmist says directly, to the Lord that he loves Him. However, in the other 49 verses in that psalm, David declares not his love for the Lord, but the Lord’s works of grace and mercy and his own obedience to the law of God.

I think of my own relationship with my wife and how I know that she loves me. Though I appreciate it when she tells me so, I am convinced of it when she serves me, when she is submitted to the vision and work God gives me, and when she tells of my attributes to family and friends. If she did the former (telling me she loved me), but did not do the latter, I am sure that my attitude would not be one of gratitude but of anger.

I have to wonder that if we do not yield to the desires of the Holy Spirit in our worship (and I speak about those times when we do not), if we are not like those to whom the Lord addressed by the prophet Malachi and said “Oh that there were one among you who would shut the gates, that you might not uselessly kindle fire on My altar! I am not pleased with you,” says the Lord of hosts, “nor will I accept an offering from you.”

If we are not keeping the Lord’s commandments, then our offerings of praise are not acceptable to the Lord, and His commandment is that we should love one another! How can we sing that we love the Lord when we are so separated by denomination, men’s doctrine (not truth, the only legitimate separator), race, wealth, jealousy, envy, etc.

I wonder if when we sing “love songs to Jesus” if we aren’t singing what we want to hear, rather than what we know is true about ourselves. That is, can worship sometimes be a subjective attempt at feeling my deep love for God, when my conscience tells me otherwise about my actions? Let John, the apostle, help us here:

Little children, let us not love with word or with tongue, but in deed and truth. We will know by this that we are of the truth, and will assure our heart before Him in whatever our heart condemns us; for God is greater than our heart and knows all things. Beloved, if our heart does not condemn us, we have confidence before God; and whatever we ask we receive from Him, because we keep His commandments and do the things that are pleasing in His sight. (I John 3:18-22)

“Let us love…in deed and truth,” the apostle says. Then our hearts will not condemn us; then we will have confidence before God. In other words, then will we feel good about ourselves, then will we have the emotional confidence to ask God, the One we love, for anything.

Brothers and sisters, I do not want to inhibit anyone from praising the living God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. I do not want to take from Him the honor and the praise due His name. But I do want to make sure that all of God’s people—men, women, and children—can praise the Lord with joyous abandon. Let not our praise be an attempt on our part to convince ourselves of something that is not true, but rather let it be the true notes of our heart that give thanks to His name, for our God is looking for those to worship Him who will worship Him in Spirit and in Truth.

HINDUISM IN CHURCH MUSIC

Let me quote a blogger who calls himself “Danimal”, who wrote an article entitled ”The Hindu Roots of Worship Music” at ExChristian.net, a website devoted to the deconversion of former Christians:

Perhaps my largest objections (sic) to the organized church is its music. Hymnbooks have been largely discarded in many churches in favor of “praise and worship” or simply “worship” music. The music and lyrics are simple, easily reproduced (and) the lyrics are often bereft of meaning and frequently repetitive. Consider the lyrics of this song:

 

“This is the air I breathe / This is the air I breathe,
Your holy presence living in me.
And I, I’m desperate for you/ And I, I’m desperate for you.”

If you are like me, you are mystified by these words. Picture singing them six or seven times in a row. Worshippers will always have their eyes closed and maybe their hands raised. They often describe their minds as empty during these songs…

…I doubt most Christians realize how much Hinduism has permeated the church. In Hindu meditation repetitive phrases intended to empty the mind is called “mantra”. Christian musicians have adopted this technique, and the sheep can’t seem to get enough of it. I find the music phase of a church service to be highly contrived in order to manipulate emotions and attitudes. I find it difficult to believe that a rational god would enjoy such music. [emphasis mine]

“Danimal” is able to see, ironically, what many in the church have not; that anything that strives to separate one part of us—our emotion, our will, or our intellect—from all parts of our being is not of God the Father. The mantras of Hinduism (like the “om”) achieve this separation very powerfully by creating a sound vibration which aims at eliminating unwanted mental chatter in order to enter a place of spiritual harmony. The goal is to go deep within oneself – out of space and time – in order to feel a sense of bliss. This kind of unthinking, emotive spirituality has found its way into the current stream of Christian praise music.

Coincidentally, these are often the same kinds of experiences sought by acid users. It is not surprising, then, that music industry gear like strobe lights and fog machines, which are used to enhance and replicate acid trips, are utilized in Christian worship experiences, especially with young people.

CHRISTIANITY AS EMOTIONALISM

D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones points out, expertly, in his exposition of Romans 6:17, that true worship involves the totality of man. He writes:

“You cannot be converted in your mind only, you cannot be converted in your heart only, you cannot be converted in your will only; if you are truly converted and born again, the three are involved, the whole man is involved… 

 

…Then there are movements which interest us and move us only in the realm of our emotions and affections. There are many things that can move us to tears, but they are of no ultimate value to us. This applies to most forms of entertainment, and to many books which are read. They may move you, but they do not give you any understanding; they have nothing to say to your mind, and they do not lead you to anything of value. Music of a certain type can do this. Great music, of course, goes much further, it takes in your mind as well. But there is a type of music that takes a direct appeal to the emotions and to nothing else—the sloppy sentimental type. The Gospel is not like that, says the Apostle; it is not only an appeal to the emotions. We must be careful about these things. There is no charge that is brought so frequently against the Christian faith and message, as that is nothing but some kind of emotionalism. (emphasis mine)

 

Romans: The New Man, Exposition of Chapter 6 (pg. 207-208)

Among the many things that strike me about Dr. Lloyd-Jones’ words is the fact that they were written in early 1959, 53 years before “Danimal” offered his assessment of Christian “praise and worship” music.

So, I am struck by these thoughts of Dr. Lloyd-Jones, but are they accurate? Can we defend them from Scripture and can we build from those same Scriptures a case for a different kind of praise and worship experience? Let us try.

THE WHOLE MAN IN THE PSALMS

Thankfully, God has left us with an extensive psalter from which we can draw many conclusions and principles about praise and worship. Let us focus on the argument that Lloyd-Jones has made and see if all three parts of man—his will, his intellect, and his emotion—are addressed by the Psalms.

Now, why is that important?  It is important because we have to ask the questions, “Why do we sing to God in the first place?” and “What does spiritual praise look and sound like?” and “What part does singing and music play in our worship?”

To answer that, let us read these Scriptural passages:

“Offer to God a sacrifice of thanksgiving and pay your vows to the Most High. (Ps. 50:14)

 

Enter His gates with thanksgiving And His courts with praise. Give thanks to Him, bless His name. (Ps. 100:4)

 

I will extol You, my God, O King, And I will bless Your name forever and ever. Every day I will bless You, And I will praise Your name forever and ever. (Ps. 145:1, 2) [1]

Our spiritual act of worship, I would argue, is first an expression of our thanks, our praise, and our blessing before it is an expression of our feelings of love. This will be very important as we work our way through this issue. That is, our mind and our will should be engaged before our emotions. Emotions will follow, but they should not lead.

Most men, if I can be so sexist, distrust emotion, but they do not deny emotion. They love to get excited, but they usually need a good reason. That’s why I believe praise and worship should be at the end of the preaching and not at the beginning.

Be that as it may, let us define the two concepts of ‘thanksgiving’ and ‘praise.’ We know what thanks is, perhaps, but what is praise? That word can be defined as the offering of grateful homage in words or song, as an act of worship: a hymn of praise to God.

What, then, is ‘homage’? It is “respect or reverence paid or rendered”. It could also be defined as “the formal public acknowledgment by which a feudal tenant or vassal declared himself to be the man or vassal of his lord, owing him fealty and service.”

WORSHIP IN MIND, WILL, THEN EMOTION

So, let us apply our principle here.

Firstly, does this worship – that is, the offering of thanks, praise, and blessing - rise to meet the standard laid down by Lloyd-Jones? I think it does. For in offering thanks, we must engage the intellect in remembering and enumerating those things for which we are bound to give thanks. We must articulate, in our minds, why we are to give thanks and what benefits have accrued to us because of those things done to us for which we are thankful. It is an arduous task, not meant to be taken lightly. However, it is one in which the ardor does not diminish us, but rather satisfies us.

Secondly, we note that in giving praise to our God, He is made great in our minds by the songs of praise that we apply to His great and unique person. Thus, by necessity, we run up against the demands that are inherent in any great Lord. This touches the note of ‘homage’ (Ps. 50:14b “Pay your vows to the Most High”). In praising God, we acknowledge the reverence due His name because of His great power, His great wisdom, and His great love. Because we give thanks that the blood of Christ Jesus has bought us, we remind ourselves of the nature of our relationship to him; as a vassal to his Lord, presenting ourselves at His service (Rom. 12:1-2). Thus our will is engaged and we say to the Lord, “I am yours!” (Ps. 119:94)

In elevating His name through our praise, and by enumerating in our singing the many things of which we are to give thanks, our poor souls are enriched and our emotions are elevated to that place wherein they are satisfied as by the morning dew. Thus our intellect, our will, and our emotions are all properly engaged in the proper singing of praise and giving of thanks.

In my next post, we will return to the issue of order that I brought up earlier.