Who Is To Blame: Preacher or Pew Warmer?

Many people ask what is wrong with Reformed churches? Why are so many not growing? Why do we receive the slander of 'the frozen chosen' or 'the dead orthodox'? Truthfully, if one is chosen- he will not be frozen. There are imperatives in the Scripture that move us to be anything but frozen. And if one is orthodox, then he will not be dead, because orthodoxy requires us to have orthopraxy (right practice). Sadly, preachers want to accuse many in the pews of being the problem. We hear, 'People want to be entertained, they do not want sound preaching and demands on their lives.' Martyn Lloyd-Jones saw the problem from the other end- he blamed the preacher first; and saw the preacher's problem finding its way into the pew:

The time has come when we must assess the whole situation . It is entirely wrong to take our problems to the people; we have got to preach what is most profitable for them, what is really going to help them. The main problem of evangelicalism today (apart from slipping away from truth) is the lack of power- what do our people know of 'joy in the Holy Ghost'? You will not win people to teaching if you are a dull teacher! The wife of a deacon said to me about someone she had heard, 'He is unlike so many of our Reformed preachers who are so dull.' If you preach without moving people, you have failed as much as others. If we do not know the joy of the Lord what is the value of what we say? We must start with ourselves. To hear of 'excellent lectures on doctrine' being given on a Sunday is truly appalling. Are you right in assuming those in front of you are enjoying the Christian life, and they are able to convict others? These two things go together. Arguing about niceties will not help us. What is the value of anything if we are not living epistles?

13th Century Worship Wars

Why must we be different? It is rare today to go into a Protestant Church of any kind and find that people praise God with only their voices. The worship wars (which are officially over, according to evangelical scholars) between the organs and the praise band never took us into account. Those who praise God acapella are in the very small minority today, and were never consulted as to our thoughts on the worship wars.

So why be different? If less than 5% of the Western Church chooses to sing acapella- then what is the argument? It does not seem as though we have a leg to stand on in our argument. The Church of Jesus Christ DOES USE instruments in worship. That is just the fact.

But it was not always that way: Hear this selection from Nick Needham's (who, as far as I know, uses instruments in worship) book on Church history, 2000 Years of Christ's Power:

In the period 900-1100...organs began to become common features of the great western abbys and cathedral churches... At first the organ was used simply to give the right note for the monks and choir (like a tuning fork)... This period (900-1100) did not actually lead to a widespread use of instruments in ordinary parish churches and thus in normal Western Catholic worship. Even in the great abbeys and cathedrals the organ's use was limited... Some historical sources speak of an organ controversy in the 13th century, which resulted in the Catholic Church's declaring against the use of organs. Thomas Aquinas... confirms this, for Aquinas simply repeated the way that the early Church fathers had condemned all musical instruments in Christian worship: "The Church does not use musical instruments such as the harp and lyre when praising God, in case she should seem to fall back into Judaism..." In fact, it was not until after Aquinas in the 14th and 15th centuries, that the playing of musical instruments became a widespread, regular and accepted feature of ordinary Western worship.

So, the first 14-15 centuries of Christian worship were without instruments in worship. Then the Reformed churches abandoned them in the 16th century. That means that 3/4 of Christian history is acapella worship.

If I were in a church that used instruments, that figure alone would compel me to investigate the reason why.

How Do the Redeemed Live?

As we approach the 490th anniversary of the Protestant Reformation, we need to remember that the heart of the matter was this question: 'How can a man be made right with a holy and just God?" This is a question that we need to be asking ourselves, our families, and those with whom we come into contact. The doctrine of justification by faith alone is as important, and misunderstood, as it was before the dawn of the Protestant Reformation. May the Lord again send Reformation to His Bride.

Habakkuk 2:4 "Behold, his soul is puffed up; it is not upright within him, but the righteous shall live by his faith.

Romans 1:17 For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith for faith, as it is written, "The righteous shall live by faith."

"The precious and momentous doctrine of justification by faith alone, when biblically preached and rightly balanced, is not a denominational or sectarian peculiarity. It is not a mere species of Christianity. It is the heart of the evangel, the kernel of the glorious gospel of the blessed triune God, and the key to the kingdom of heaven.

"Justification by faith," John Murray writes, " is the jubilee trumpet of the gospel because it proclaims the gospel to the poor and destitute whose only door of hope is to roll themselves in total helplessness upon the grace and power and righteousness of the Redeemer of the lost." In our decadent and desperate day there is a crying need to reestablish and defend, with prayer and hope, in the power of the Spirit, the scriptural proclamation of this doctrine. The relevance and urgency of this doctrine relate to the identity of the church, the essence of Christian theology, the proclamation of the gospel, as well as to the scriptural-experiential foundations of the Christian faith for every one of us. Not only is justification by faith still, in Luther's words, "the article by which the church stands or falls" (articulus stantis et cadentis ecclesiae), but by this doctrine each of us shall personally stand of fall before God. Justification by faith alone must be confessed and experienced by you and me; it is a matter of eternal life or eternal death."
-Dr. Joel Beeke.

Politician's Religions

It seems that the media has become quite interested in the religious lives of this country's leaders. I am sure that it is because Americans are quite interested in religion and the media is reflecting that. It always interests me to see how different people view God and His Son, Jesus Christ. It saddens me when people hold error (as I am sure it does for all who love Christ). Here are two stories that I saw in the news today concerning two prominent political leaders:

• President Bush admits that he is a theological pluralist and denies that Jesus Christ is the only way to God.
• Barack Obama's pastor and 'spiritual adviser' is a social-gospel advocate that relates the biblical narrative to the struggles of minorities.
  

Descendit ad Inferna?

In a discussion on the article of faith, "He descended into hell" you will find much confusion. The ancients intended this phrase to mean just what it says- Jesus descended into hell after his burial. Most views say that he preached or proclaimed his triumph over sin and death before demons and/or the damned.

Reformed Christians historically deny this interpretation. We have reinterpreted this phrase in our ancient creed to mean that he either entered the place of the dead or he suffered the pains of hell on the cross. My personal belief (which does not find much support in the Reformed and Presbyterian tradition) is that we strike this phrase from our Creed or we place a giant footnote at the bottom of every printing and state that we disagree with the original meaning of the authors of the text.

As far as I see there are three camps in the Reformed tradition here:
1. Those who are revisionists and reinterpret the creed.
2. Those that do not think that it is that important to change or redefine.
3. Those who want to strike the phrase out of our ancient creed.

Of course, all three have consequences. What should be done though? Does a revisionistic interpretation open the door to liberal interpretations of the Scriptures? Does striking the line show disrespect to our ancient heritage?

Three quotes were given in the discussion that shows the confusion that this phrase has made in the evangelical world. These quotes left me astonished that some have gone so far as to redefine Christ's atoning sacrifice to fit into a creedal system. I see these as the bad fruit of not dealing with this early on in the Protestant Reformation (I understand that the Reformers would not have been able to maintain their claim on catholicity if they began disassembling the creeds of the historic Church):

When Jesus cried, ‘It is finished!’ He was not speaking of the plan of redemption. There were still three days and nights to go through before He went to the throne...Jesus’ death on the cross was only the beginning of the complete work of redemption. -Kenneth Copeland

Do you think that the punishment for our sin was to die on a cross? If that were the case, the two thieves could have paid your price. No, the punishment was to go into hell itself and to serve time in hell separated from God...Satan and all the demons of hell thought that they had Him bound and they threw a net over Jesus and they dragged Him down to the very pit of hell itself to serve our sentence. -Fredrick Price

He [Jesus] tasted spiritual death for every man. And His spirit and inner man went to hell in my place. Can’t you see that? Physical death wouldn’t remove your sins. He’s tasted death for every man. He’s talking about tasting spiritual death. -Kenneth Hagen

The Death Cookie

There are some really tacky ways to do evangelism. The Jack Chick Track is one of the tackiest. I must confess that I have used these, and maybe will use them again in the future... like for tips at Russ' Family Restaurant.

The one that you see to your left was one that I gave to my wife before she was a Christian. Wow! Fun stuff. Read some of these things at the link. They have the whole tract online.

This one is one of my favorites... I can totally relate to the pain of being lied to about these things!

Going to the Creation Museum this Sabbath....What?

This is Lydia.

Here is a response that Nathan emailed to World Magazine regarding their recent article on the new Creation Museum. I will post it, because I think it brings up a very good point, and since he is unable to blog, heh, I will do so for him.

Ken Ham focuses on problems in society stemming from evolutionary thoughts and views--and not taking Genesis literally. While I agree with Ken, and appreciate the work he has done and is doing, I pray he also will recognize the importance of the Sabbath Day and the impact of not keeping the Sabbath holy on society. Nathan summed this up in the last paragraph of his letter.

Exd 20:8 "Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy."

Isa 58:13 "If thou turn away thy foot from the sabbath, [from] doing thy pleasure on my holy day; and call the sabbath a delight, the holy of the LORD, honourable; and shalt honour him, not doing thine own ways, nor finding thine own pleasure, nor speaking [thine own] words."

----------
Dear Editor,

I just received my latest World Magazine, which is always an anticipated day at the mail box! I was interested in the article, Museum With A Message about the Creation Museum that Mr. Ham has established.

What amazes me most about this museum is that despite the focus on a literal 6 day creation (which is a great purpose for a museum), Mr. Ham seems to have forgotten what occurred on the 7th day! The Museum is in violation of the 4th commandment as they work on the Sabbath and charge fees for entrance on the Sabbath day. A Christian museum that calls itself a ministry should not be open on the Lord's Day, and especially with fees over $20 per adult. If they want to make an impact on society, they would make a stand on 6 days of creation and one day of Sabbath rest. Hebrews 4:9 says that there remains a Sabbath for the people of God.

There will be no societal impact when the world looks on and says, 'Its business as usual at the Creation Museum.' Obedience to the Word is what an unbelieving society needs to see, not obedience to part of it!

Nathan Eshelman

More on Our "Christian" Nation

My wife, who brings a lot of theological insight into our home, had this to say to me concerning my former post, "Who cares if we were or were not a Christian nation? What do we have to do to become one now?"

This is a very good question.

She then read a quote to me from Daniel Webster that is worth sharing on the blogosphere.

If religious books are not widely circulated amongst the masses in this country, I do not know what is going to become of us as a nation. If truth be not diffused, error will be; if God and his Word are not known and received, the devil and his works will gain the ascendancy; if the evangelical volume does not reach every hamlet, the pages of a corrupt and licentious literature will; if the power of the Gospel is not felt throughout the length and breadth of the land, anarchy and misrule, degradation and misery, corruption and darkness, will reign without mitigation or end.

The power of the Gospel is the only thing that can reform a nation that is possibly more corrupt than the one from which we declared independence. Man-centered documents, political parties, rights and entitlements; they are unable to do anything in comparison to the power of the Gospel coming to sinners, families, communities, and even nations. Pray that kings of the earth would kiss the Son as they are commanded to do!

Saint Patrick: Presbyterian Father of Ireland

The Celtic Church fought for many years to maintain the rule of Saint Patrick against the pressures of Rome. It was not until c. 900 that Rome finally won over the hearts of the Celtic people, thus taking the ideals of Saint Patrick under the authority of a bishop that Patrick never gave homage to. Patrick is to be commemorated by Protestants as the Evangelist to Ireland. The Lord used Patrick mightily for his honor and Ireland's good.

Thus I give untiring thanks to God who kept me faithful in the day of my temptation, so that today I may confidently offer my soul as a living sacrifice for Christ my Lord; who am I, Lord? or, rather, what is my calling? that you appeared to me in so great a divine quality, so that today among the barbarians I might constantly exalt and magnify your name in whatever place I should be, and not only in good fortune, but even in affliction? So that whatever befalls me, be it good or bad, I should accept it equally, and give thanks always to God who revealed to me that I might trust in him, implicitly and forever,and who will encourage me so that, ignorant, and in the last days, I may dare to undertake so devout and so wonderful a work; so that I might imitate one of those whom, once, long ago, the Lord already pre-ordained to be heralds of his Gospel to witness to all peoples to the ends of the earth. So are we seeing, and so it is fulfilled; behold, we are witnesses because the Gospel has been preached as far as the places beyond which no man lives. -Saint Patrick

Read the Confessio of Saint Patrick here.

Cultivating a True Spirituality

How serious do we take our high calling of being a follower of Christ? Do we cultivate that relationship with Him or do we find contentment in the fact that now I am a believer I can go on 'doing my thing'. I believe that there is a sad form of antinomianism in the reformed churches today that wants to replace our battle cry of 'All things done to God's glory and enjoyment' with a spirit of 'do these things really matter'?

I answer with this: If things matter to the Lord Jesus Christ, they should matter to us. All Scripture is given for doctrine, etc. If my main concern with my relationship to my wife is to keep the legal status of married, I would not have to cultivate much in that relationship. If my main desire is to love her, to honor her, to respect her, to please her, to care for her, to grow deeper in love with her- then I have a lot of daily labor as I cultivate that type of relationship.

If I want to maintain my legal status with the Lord Jesus Christ I can do those lowest common denominator things. If I want to fall deeply in love with the Lord Jesus Christ and esteem his smiles higher than the smiles of men and esteem his frowns higher than the frowns of men; than I have some work to do.

Heart-work is hard work indeed. To shuffle over religious duties with a loose and careless spirit, will cost no great difficulties; but to set yourself before the Lord, and to tie up your loose and vain thoughts to a constant and serious attendance upon him: this will cost you something. To attain ease and dexterity of language in prayer and to be able to put your meaning into appropriate and fitting expressions is easy; but to get your heart broken for sin while you are actually confessing it; melted with free grace even while you are blessing God for it; to be really ashamed and humbled through the awareness of God's infinite holiness, and to keep your heart in this state not only in, but after these duties, will surely cost you some groans and travailing pain of soul. -John Flavel

All Roads Lead to Rome

Eight Days OF Silence is an article about a Christian Reformed minister who went to a monastery and was silent for eight days. This experience was considered to be invigorating and reviving of his own personal spiritual life. He encourages us to do the same thing.

Is this really what minister's of the Gospel are supposed to be doing? Does a church with the name Reformed attached remember from what we have reformed? Does the blood of the martyrs not cry out against such practices that attempt to bring us, once again, under the blood-stained-staff of the so called Holy Father of Rome?

If we are going to drop the distinctives that Reformed churches have maintained since the 1500s (and not to mention the lights that shone in the Ancient and Medieval church), should we not just pack our bags and go knocking on the door of Saint Peter's basilica?

I desire one united catholic church- if others desire the same thing and have no problems with the errors and abuse of Rome- then they should return unto her shepherd. She is there to welcome you with open arms!

Emerging Right Along

This is a comment from Chuch Weise from Dutton United Reformed Church. Mr.Weise was commenting on the Emergent Church movement in response to a question concerning the Reformed response to this movement. His comments are quite helpful so I am (without permission) giving it to all of you.

In my opinion the best resource available is a book by D.A. Carson called "Becoming Conversant with the Emerging Church." He does a good job providing an honest critique of the movement and particularly McLaren's book "A Generous Orthodoxy." I would also recommend reading McLaren's book as well as Rob Bell's book "Velvet Elvis" to get an understanding of where they are coming from. Both end up saying things you would expect to hear from Robert Schuller. Neither seem to have much theological training.McLaren seems to want to define Christianity in the beginning of his book with the Nicene Creed but then critiques Calvin later on for executing Christians who disagreed with him. The only person I know of that Calvin had some part in the execution of was Servetus who was anti-Trinitarian.

It is interesting that McLaren's harshest criticisms in the book seem to be directed at Calvinism. He seems to be very positive towards the other groups he refers to. McLaren even spends some time apologizing for those horrible masculine pronouns in the Bible.

Bell's book is heavily influenced by the teachings of Ray Vanderlaan and I think the Reformed community in general needs to be very careful in how it uses Vanderlaan's material. Bell claims that when Peter is rebuked by Jesus for his lack of faith it is not for lack of faith in Jesus but lack of faith in himself. This is one of the things lifted from Vanderlaan. I don't think Bell has any real training in Hebrew but he almost leaves the impression that you can't have any understanding of the Bible without it. He seems to think that the Talmud should always be read back into the Bible.Bell does bring up some important issues, such as the need to study the Bible in community but he does not provide any real guidelines in how to do that.

Keith Mathison's book "The Shape of Sola Scriptura" addresses the same problem but deals with the issue in a more in depth and Biblical way.Both McLaren and Bell seem to be mostly writing about themselves which is common in evangelicalism. Everything is related to some experience they had or how they feel. McLaren claims to be writing in the spirit of Chesterton but Chesterton was very harsh towards such self-centered people who couldn't tell you about anything except in relationship to themselves. When I read McLaren and Bell it reminds me of reading Plato. They are good at showing real problems in evangelicalism but when it comes to providing solutions they don't really have any reasonable ones.

I hope that the movement causes Reformed Christians to look back to the 16th Century Reformers and embrace the ancient traditions that the Reformers did. The more Reformed Churches start looking like evangelicalism, the more their members will be easy prey for the emerging church movement. The Reformed Churches should also recognize the need for a strong community of believers. Church can't just be a place you go to twice on Sunday.It's important to realize who these people are reacting against. They are both critiquing evangelicalism but both still working within and evangelical mindset. They are not the root problem, the evangelical paradigm is. Their methodology is no less Biblical than the common evangelical one. They are starting to question things in evangelicalism and that is good and hopefully will lead to dialog with the Reformed community.

Chuck Wiese
Dutton URC
Grand Rapids, MI