Baptismal Commitments, Part 1 (May 16, 2004)
A couple weeks ago I wrote about the tension between the biblical practice of baptizing people immediately - as soon as they're converted - and the similarly biblical practice of warning people to "count the cost" before committing to Christ. Today and next week I would like to tell you some of the "counting-the-cost" details as I teach them to middle school students in a baptism class. I give baptismal candidates a sheet with these five statements on it:
1) I will be a Christian all my life.
2) I will attend church and worship God regularly all my life.
3) I will talk to God by praying to him.
4) I will listen to God by learning from the Bible.
5) If I get married, I will only marry another Christian.
I don't make the young people sign anything or raise their hands or take an oath - I just want them to think carefully and soberly about what they are doing. Here are some reasons why I make these commitments explicit:
1) "I will be a Christian all my life." There is a cloud of sorrow that hangs over my life, and it is the fact that I personally know people who "used to be" Christians. I am not saying anything about the doctrine of eternal security - I'm just saying that I have known lots of people who once said they were Christians, and acted like it, and gave good evidence that they were sincere; but now give no sign whatsoever that they love, serve, or even believe in Jesus. I can't understand it. What were they thinking when they became Christians in the first place - that they would "give it a shot" for a few years and then dump the Lord as soon as the mood struck them? How did Jesus fail them? Did he rescind his sacrifice on the cross? Did he stop ruling the universe? Did he cease to be the one whose face they will see after their death, and to whom they will render account? For the life of me I don't know how anyone could walk away from the Lord. But people do, and I have seen it, and I don't know how to stop it.
But I can at least warn people in advance, and I feel it is a duty to warn converts as they approach the act of publicly sealing their commitment to Jesus in baptism. This commitment is forever. A marriage covenant must last a lifetime merely, but our covenant with Christ is eternal. In baptism, we say that we belong to Jesus Christ now and for all time. He will never forsake us - God forbid that we should ever forsake him. It is better not to get baptized at all than, having been baptized, to abandon the faith we once expressed.
The remaining four commitments, Lord willing, I will discuss next week.
Sunday, May 16, 2004
Sunday, May 9, 2004
Sunday-School Goodness In The Arena Of War (May 9, 2004)
I am a big fan of the late Stephen Ambrose's books on World War II - D Day, Band of Brothers, and Citizen Soldiers. In one of his books (can't remember which) he talked about the difficulty of trying to gauge the likelihood that a young man would act heroically in battle. Sometimes the macho, strong, tough guy in boot camp would turn into a whimpering coward under fire, while the quiet, nervous fellow morphed into a Medal of Honor recipient. One pattern that emerged, Ambrose noted, was that the heroes tended to come from peaceful Christian homes where the children all went to Sunday School. Contrary to stereotype, the guy you wanted in your foxhole was the soft-spoken, clean-cut Bible reader - not the tattooed, foul-mouthed dispenser of venereal disease.
The need for a devout Christian presence in our military has been heightened in recent days by the release of all those sick photos depicting the abuse and humiliation of Iraqi prisoners at the Abu Ghraib prison. A question that crossed my mind in seeing those pictures was, "Weren't there any Christians guarding those Iraqis?" Apparently not. I like to think that a simple, Bible-believing Christian would have acted to prevent the abuse. Even if he could not stop it, a humble Christian would intervene as best he could, rebuking the perpetrators and reporting the matter to his superiors. The real Christian knows that he must always do the right thing no matter what, because, ultimately, he is answerable to God.
On October 8, 1918, a Christian sergeant named Alvin York did the right thing by heroically firing bullets into the heads of 28 German combatants. He and his small squad of eight men captured 132 soldiers that day, all of whom meekly surrendered rather than face the wrath of God's little warrior. But York was no bloodthirsty sadist. He was a kind-hearted Christian man who labored mightily in prayer before he overcame his reluctance to kill.
York was the kind of hero we needed in that Iraqi prison, because the Christ-centered man who is strong in battle is also humane in victory. A hero is a hero whether he is vigorously killing the enemy or conscientiously sheltering prisoners of war. Likewise, a creep is a creep whether he is running from battle or forcing the vanquished into positions of homoerotic barbarity.
As I have followed the Abu Ghraib scandal, I have seen all the usual excuses for our soldiers’ bad behavior, like "They were just following orders." Oh no, not that again. There is never a good reason to followa bad order. As I discussed this matter with my son Peter, I explained that the Holocaust resulted from ordinary people following bad orders. He responded (showing how well he understood) that Hitler did not personally stuff six million Jews into ovens. Right. Atrocities happen when cowards numbly carry out the dictates of villains, and not enough good people object.
Another excuse I've been hearing is that our abusers had received no training in the handling of prisoners. Granted, they should have been trained, but I'm still left wondering, as I look at the goofy grins of American soldiers humiliating their charges, "Didn't anyone ever train you how to be a minimally decent human being? Did you really need to take a class in that?" Maybe they should have gone to Sunday School.
I am a big fan of the late Stephen Ambrose's books on World War II - D Day, Band of Brothers, and Citizen Soldiers. In one of his books (can't remember which) he talked about the difficulty of trying to gauge the likelihood that a young man would act heroically in battle. Sometimes the macho, strong, tough guy in boot camp would turn into a whimpering coward under fire, while the quiet, nervous fellow morphed into a Medal of Honor recipient. One pattern that emerged, Ambrose noted, was that the heroes tended to come from peaceful Christian homes where the children all went to Sunday School. Contrary to stereotype, the guy you wanted in your foxhole was the soft-spoken, clean-cut Bible reader - not the tattooed, foul-mouthed dispenser of venereal disease.
The need for a devout Christian presence in our military has been heightened in recent days by the release of all those sick photos depicting the abuse and humiliation of Iraqi prisoners at the Abu Ghraib prison. A question that crossed my mind in seeing those pictures was, "Weren't there any Christians guarding those Iraqis?" Apparently not. I like to think that a simple, Bible-believing Christian would have acted to prevent the abuse. Even if he could not stop it, a humble Christian would intervene as best he could, rebuking the perpetrators and reporting the matter to his superiors. The real Christian knows that he must always do the right thing no matter what, because, ultimately, he is answerable to God.
On October 8, 1918, a Christian sergeant named Alvin York did the right thing by heroically firing bullets into the heads of 28 German combatants. He and his small squad of eight men captured 132 soldiers that day, all of whom meekly surrendered rather than face the wrath of God's little warrior. But York was no bloodthirsty sadist. He was a kind-hearted Christian man who labored mightily in prayer before he overcame his reluctance to kill.
York was the kind of hero we needed in that Iraqi prison, because the Christ-centered man who is strong in battle is also humane in victory. A hero is a hero whether he is vigorously killing the enemy or conscientiously sheltering prisoners of war. Likewise, a creep is a creep whether he is running from battle or forcing the vanquished into positions of homoerotic barbarity.
As I have followed the Abu Ghraib scandal, I have seen all the usual excuses for our soldiers’ bad behavior, like "They were just following orders." Oh no, not that again. There is never a good reason to followa bad order. As I discussed this matter with my son Peter, I explained that the Holocaust resulted from ordinary people following bad orders. He responded (showing how well he understood) that Hitler did not personally stuff six million Jews into ovens. Right. Atrocities happen when cowards numbly carry out the dictates of villains, and not enough good people object.
Another excuse I've been hearing is that our abusers had received no training in the handling of prisoners. Granted, they should have been trained, but I'm still left wondering, as I look at the goofy grins of American soldiers humiliating their charges, "Didn't anyone ever train you how to be a minimally decent human being? Did you really need to take a class in that?" Maybe they should have gone to Sunday School.
Sunday, May 2, 2004
“Forgiving Yourself” Is A Bunch Of Nonsense (May 2, 2004)
I would like to speak against the doctrine that we must forgive ourselves.
I do not know how this doctrine got started. It is not in the Bible. As far as I can tell, it is not in the writings of any church father, pastor, theologian or evangelist before the latter part of the 20th century. I would be happy to stand corrected on this, and will welcome any quotes on self-forgiveness from before, say, 1960. My gut tells me that you won't find Augustine or Luther or Edwards or Wesley or Spurgeon or any giants of the past talking about our need to forgive ourselves.
Today, though, self-forgiveness is preached as a duty such that the failure to do it is considered a sin against God. Here for example are some quotes from influential pastors whose congregations number in the thousands:
"The past is over! God has forgiven you! Forgive yourself!" Ron Lee Davis.
"The bottom line is this: Not forgiving ourselves is wrong and dishonoring to God." R. T. Kendall.
"When we say that we cannot forgive ourselves, we depreciate the value of Christ's sacrifice." Erwin Lutzer.
I differ from these sentiments with a zeal that borders on outrage. Forgiving yourself neither honors God nor depreciates the sacrifice of Christ. Quite the opposite: it is an abomination, because it usurps the role of God.
One thing I have noticed in my research on forgiveness is that when Christian writers advocate forgiving ourselves, they never quote Scripture to support their point. The reason they don't is because they can't. There are no such Scriptures. In the Bible, when it comes to pardoning sins, God is the one who does all the forgiving, and we are the recipients of his grace. The Pharisees understood this when they objected to Jesus telling a paralytic, "Son, your sins are forgiven," for they thought, "Who can forgive sins but God alone?" They were right. All the sins that the paralytic had committed, or that anyone has ever committed, are crimes against God. God alone has jurisdiction over them. He alone determines what to punish and what to forgive. Therefore, claiming to forgive sins (except for that small subset of sins committed against us) is a claim to be God. Jesus' pronouncement of forgiveness was a none-too-subtle claim to deity.
We mere human beings simply don't have jurisdiction over our sins. We have committed them against God and others, and must beg their forgiveness and be grateful for their mercy. It is absolutely ridiculous - a sickening arrogance, to forgive ourselves. The best we can do is recognize that we have been forgiven. But that is as far removed from "forgiving ourselves" as "recognizing that we are saved" is from "saving ourselves." This distinction is not trivial, it is not a matter of semantic pickiness. Grace, like salvation, must never be regarded as reflexive or self-generated. It is all one way, from God to us.
I am willing to grant that when Lutzer and Lewis Smedes and others tell us to forgive ourselves, they don't really mean it. They are not guilty so much of advocating a monstrous usurpation of God’s prerogative as they are of using the word "forgive" a little carelessly. Even so - even granting that point - I still disagree with what these Christian writers seem to be saying when they urge us to self-forgive.
As best I can make out, they are saying, "Stop beating yourself up over past wrongs. It is time to move on. Forget the past." In the words of Ron Lee Davis, "If you have been unable to forgive yourself for some sin in your past,...then [the Apostle] Paul would say to you, 'The past is over. Forget what is behind. Move out into the future with your eyes fixed on God and His love.'"
That is garbage. The Apostle Paul would say nothing of the kind. It is abundantly clear from his writings that the one thing he never forgot was what a terrible sinner he was. Some 30 years after his conversion, toward the end of his life, he wrote to Timothy saying, "I was once a blasphemer and a persecutor and a violent man," and, "Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners - of whom I am the worst." He dutifully revisited this truth to the very end - and rightfully so, because the memory of his great sin was a constant reminder of God's great grace.
The most recent issue of Christianity Today tells the story of John Newton, author of "Amazing Grace." Newton had been a captain of a slave-trading vessel, and, even as a converted Christian, continued for years ferrying slaves across the Atlantic. He would read the Bible and commune with God in his cabin while up to a third of his "cargo" lay dying in the hull below. Later, Newton gave up the slave trade and became an abolitionist. God forgave his slave-dealing, but Newton never forgave himself. Professor Mark McMinn writes, "As Newton's eyes opened more fully with each passing year, he became horrified at his sin. One of his friends later recalled that he never spent 30 minutes with Newton without hearing the former captain's remorse for trading slaves. It was always on his mind, nagging his conscience while reminding him of his utter dependence on God's forgiving grace."
That is as it should be. We don't forgive our sins, and we don't forget them. Let them serve, as long as we live, as reminders of God's grace and as spurs to provoke gratitude for his love.
I would like to speak against the doctrine that we must forgive ourselves.
I do not know how this doctrine got started. It is not in the Bible. As far as I can tell, it is not in the writings of any church father, pastor, theologian or evangelist before the latter part of the 20th century. I would be happy to stand corrected on this, and will welcome any quotes on self-forgiveness from before, say, 1960. My gut tells me that you won't find Augustine or Luther or Edwards or Wesley or Spurgeon or any giants of the past talking about our need to forgive ourselves.
Today, though, self-forgiveness is preached as a duty such that the failure to do it is considered a sin against God. Here for example are some quotes from influential pastors whose congregations number in the thousands:
"The past is over! God has forgiven you! Forgive yourself!" Ron Lee Davis.
"The bottom line is this: Not forgiving ourselves is wrong and dishonoring to God." R. T. Kendall.
"When we say that we cannot forgive ourselves, we depreciate the value of Christ's sacrifice." Erwin Lutzer.
I differ from these sentiments with a zeal that borders on outrage. Forgiving yourself neither honors God nor depreciates the sacrifice of Christ. Quite the opposite: it is an abomination, because it usurps the role of God.
One thing I have noticed in my research on forgiveness is that when Christian writers advocate forgiving ourselves, they never quote Scripture to support their point. The reason they don't is because they can't. There are no such Scriptures. In the Bible, when it comes to pardoning sins, God is the one who does all the forgiving, and we are the recipients of his grace. The Pharisees understood this when they objected to Jesus telling a paralytic, "Son, your sins are forgiven," for they thought, "Who can forgive sins but God alone?" They were right. All the sins that the paralytic had committed, or that anyone has ever committed, are crimes against God. God alone has jurisdiction over them. He alone determines what to punish and what to forgive. Therefore, claiming to forgive sins (except for that small subset of sins committed against us) is a claim to be God. Jesus' pronouncement of forgiveness was a none-too-subtle claim to deity.
We mere human beings simply don't have jurisdiction over our sins. We have committed them against God and others, and must beg their forgiveness and be grateful for their mercy. It is absolutely ridiculous - a sickening arrogance, to forgive ourselves. The best we can do is recognize that we have been forgiven. But that is as far removed from "forgiving ourselves" as "recognizing that we are saved" is from "saving ourselves." This distinction is not trivial, it is not a matter of semantic pickiness. Grace, like salvation, must never be regarded as reflexive or self-generated. It is all one way, from God to us.
I am willing to grant that when Lutzer and Lewis Smedes and others tell us to forgive ourselves, they don't really mean it. They are not guilty so much of advocating a monstrous usurpation of God’s prerogative as they are of using the word "forgive" a little carelessly. Even so - even granting that point - I still disagree with what these Christian writers seem to be saying when they urge us to self-forgive.
As best I can make out, they are saying, "Stop beating yourself up over past wrongs. It is time to move on. Forget the past." In the words of Ron Lee Davis, "If you have been unable to forgive yourself for some sin in your past,...then [the Apostle] Paul would say to you, 'The past is over. Forget what is behind. Move out into the future with your eyes fixed on God and His love.'"
That is garbage. The Apostle Paul would say nothing of the kind. It is abundantly clear from his writings that the one thing he never forgot was what a terrible sinner he was. Some 30 years after his conversion, toward the end of his life, he wrote to Timothy saying, "I was once a blasphemer and a persecutor and a violent man," and, "Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners - of whom I am the worst." He dutifully revisited this truth to the very end - and rightfully so, because the memory of his great sin was a constant reminder of God's great grace.
The most recent issue of Christianity Today tells the story of John Newton, author of "Amazing Grace." Newton had been a captain of a slave-trading vessel, and, even as a converted Christian, continued for years ferrying slaves across the Atlantic. He would read the Bible and commune with God in his cabin while up to a third of his "cargo" lay dying in the hull below. Later, Newton gave up the slave trade and became an abolitionist. God forgave his slave-dealing, but Newton never forgave himself. Professor Mark McMinn writes, "As Newton's eyes opened more fully with each passing year, he became horrified at his sin. One of his friends later recalled that he never spent 30 minutes with Newton without hearing the former captain's remorse for trading slaves. It was always on his mind, nagging his conscience while reminding him of his utter dependence on God's forgiving grace."
That is as it should be. We don't forgive our sins, and we don't forget them. Let them serve, as long as we live, as reminders of God's grace and as spurs to provoke gratitude for his love.
Sunday, April 25, 2004
Baptism Quick And Biblical (April 25, 2004)
I like to point out that it is biblical to baptize very quickly. On the day of Pentecost 3,000 people were baptized moments after they heard the first gospel sermon ever preached (Acts 2:41). The family of the Philippian jailer heard the name of Jesus for the first time just after midnight, and were all baptized by dawn (Acts 16:25-35). The Ethiopian Eunuch heard the gospel and then minutes (at most, hours) later was baptized in ditch water by the side of the road (Acts 8:36-38). And after hearing the word of the Lord from Ananias, Paul got baptized before he broke an absolute fast that he had observed for three days! (Acts 9:9, 18-19).
A seminary professor of mine once warned us to delay baptizing people until we were sure they were ready. Then later another professor said, "I understand there are those who believe we should wait and exercise caution as to whom we should baptize. I say that the New Testament knows no such caution." As I studied the matter it became clear that the second professor had all the Scriptures on his side, and the first professor had none. In the Bible, no one has to wait to prove his sincerity before an apostle will baptize him! Simon the Sorcerer, for example, was baptized in Acts 8:13, though he quickly proved how unworthy he was by trying to buy the ability to give away the Holy Spirit. Peter told him to go to hell (Acts 8:20).
So I baptize at the drop of a hat, and, frankly, in so doing, I have probably baptized people who were no more "ready for it" than Simon the Sorcerer. One case in particular sticks in my craw. I once baptized a young woman who left the worship service with her family immediately afterward. They didn't even bother sticking around for the sermon. She never returned to church.
Now, though I never refuse baptism to an individual who, as a believer in Christ, requests it, I have learned to warn people about the seriousness of the commitment they are making. Jesus himself warned potential disciples that following him was a life-changing (even life-sacrificing) decision. He said, "If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me" (Luke 9:23). See Luke 9:57-62 and John 6:53-66 for instances in which Jesus' strong words seemed almost determined to drive away those who were less than whole-hearted in their decision to follow him and obey his commands.
Baptismal candidates should be baptized quickly, but not without being warned of the seriousness of sealing forever their decision to follow Christ.
I like to point out that it is biblical to baptize very quickly. On the day of Pentecost 3,000 people were baptized moments after they heard the first gospel sermon ever preached (Acts 2:41). The family of the Philippian jailer heard the name of Jesus for the first time just after midnight, and were all baptized by dawn (Acts 16:25-35). The Ethiopian Eunuch heard the gospel and then minutes (at most, hours) later was baptized in ditch water by the side of the road (Acts 8:36-38). And after hearing the word of the Lord from Ananias, Paul got baptized before he broke an absolute fast that he had observed for three days! (Acts 9:9, 18-19).
A seminary professor of mine once warned us to delay baptizing people until we were sure they were ready. Then later another professor said, "I understand there are those who believe we should wait and exercise caution as to whom we should baptize. I say that the New Testament knows no such caution." As I studied the matter it became clear that the second professor had all the Scriptures on his side, and the first professor had none. In the Bible, no one has to wait to prove his sincerity before an apostle will baptize him! Simon the Sorcerer, for example, was baptized in Acts 8:13, though he quickly proved how unworthy he was by trying to buy the ability to give away the Holy Spirit. Peter told him to go to hell (Acts 8:20).
So I baptize at the drop of a hat, and, frankly, in so doing, I have probably baptized people who were no more "ready for it" than Simon the Sorcerer. One case in particular sticks in my craw. I once baptized a young woman who left the worship service with her family immediately afterward. They didn't even bother sticking around for the sermon. She never returned to church.
Now, though I never refuse baptism to an individual who, as a believer in Christ, requests it, I have learned to warn people about the seriousness of the commitment they are making. Jesus himself warned potential disciples that following him was a life-changing (even life-sacrificing) decision. He said, "If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me" (Luke 9:23). See Luke 9:57-62 and John 6:53-66 for instances in which Jesus' strong words seemed almost determined to drive away those who were less than whole-hearted in their decision to follow him and obey his commands.
Baptismal candidates should be baptized quickly, but not without being warned of the seriousness of sealing forever their decision to follow Christ.
Sunday, April 18, 2004
Worshipping For The Fun Of It (April 18, 2004)
I'm feeling guilty over having recommended a couple weeks ago to sing louder because it was "more fun" - as though the goal of fun should motivate praise. Should it?
Probably not. Not that there is anything wrong with fun. Like sex, fun is a gift of God, but also like sex it is a dangerous thing when pursued for its own sake and in the wrong way. Just as we must channel sexual appetite into the confines of marriage, so also we must channel the yearning for fun into those areas best designed for it. A person who indulges sexual impulses indiscriminately becomes a rapist, a pervert, an adulterer. A person who seeks fun without regard for appropriate channels or restraint becomes a rude buffoon at best, a psychopath at worst.
The rush to locate "fun" at the heart of worship is a disease plaguing our churches, and I never fail to be alarmed by efforts to attract people to our houses of worship on the basis of how much fun they'll have. I have before me three letters mass-mailed to me by local churches, and all three feature the word "fun" either in boldface or all caps. Example: "At Westbrook Church you'll find friendly, accepting people and a comfortable place to ask questions - and you might just discover that church can be a lot of fun!"
So I'll have fun if I attend, but is there any chance that I, an unchurched visitor, will be convicted of sin and discover my soul's peril apart from God? When the Apostle Paul wrote to the Corinthian church, he instructed them to conduct their worship with such powerful and reverent prophetic utterance that a first-time visitor would be "convinced by all that he is a sinner and will be judged by all, and the secrets of his heart will be laid bare. So he will fall down and worship God, exclaiming, 'God is really among you!'" (1 Corinthians 14:24-25). It is hard to imagine such conviction of sin occurring in a church that has labored to show its visitors that "church can be a lot of fun!" As C. S. Lewis said, "Repentance is no fun at all."
More than 100 years ago, in a message titled "Finding Sheep or Amusing Goats?", Charles Spurgeon wrote the following:
[P]roviding amusement for the people is nowhere spoken of in the Scriptures as a function of the church. If it is a Christian work why did not Christ speak of it? "Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature." That is clear enough. So it would have been if He has added, "and provide amusement for those who do not relish the gospel." No such words, however, are to be found. It did not seem to occur to Him...I do not hear Him say, "Run after these people, Peter, and tell them we will have a different style of service tomorrow, something short and attractive and with little preaching. We will have a pleasant evening for the people. Tell them they will be sure to enjoy it. Be quick, Peter, we must get the people somehow!" Jesus pitied sinners, sighed and wept over them, but never sought to amuse them.
Offering up our hearts in worship and proclaiming the gospel of Jesus are not occasions in which we should seek to amuse ourselves or others. If singing to the Lord is fun - as it was for King David (2 Samuel 6:14-15)- then wonderful! Praise God. But to proceed from that truth to the thought, "We could make this a lot more fun if we do such-and-such" is to take the first step away from the goal of glorifying God and toward the goal of indulging our desire for a good time. That selfish path leads to corruption and sin.
I'm feeling guilty over having recommended a couple weeks ago to sing louder because it was "more fun" - as though the goal of fun should motivate praise. Should it?
Probably not. Not that there is anything wrong with fun. Like sex, fun is a gift of God, but also like sex it is a dangerous thing when pursued for its own sake and in the wrong way. Just as we must channel sexual appetite into the confines of marriage, so also we must channel the yearning for fun into those areas best designed for it. A person who indulges sexual impulses indiscriminately becomes a rapist, a pervert, an adulterer. A person who seeks fun without regard for appropriate channels or restraint becomes a rude buffoon at best, a psychopath at worst.
The rush to locate "fun" at the heart of worship is a disease plaguing our churches, and I never fail to be alarmed by efforts to attract people to our houses of worship on the basis of how much fun they'll have. I have before me three letters mass-mailed to me by local churches, and all three feature the word "fun" either in boldface or all caps. Example: "At Westbrook Church you'll find friendly, accepting people and a comfortable place to ask questions - and you might just discover that church can be a lot of fun!"
So I'll have fun if I attend, but is there any chance that I, an unchurched visitor, will be convicted of sin and discover my soul's peril apart from God? When the Apostle Paul wrote to the Corinthian church, he instructed them to conduct their worship with such powerful and reverent prophetic utterance that a first-time visitor would be "convinced by all that he is a sinner and will be judged by all, and the secrets of his heart will be laid bare. So he will fall down and worship God, exclaiming, 'God is really among you!'" (1 Corinthians 14:24-25). It is hard to imagine such conviction of sin occurring in a church that has labored to show its visitors that "church can be a lot of fun!" As C. S. Lewis said, "Repentance is no fun at all."
More than 100 years ago, in a message titled "Finding Sheep or Amusing Goats?", Charles Spurgeon wrote the following:
[P]roviding amusement for the people is nowhere spoken of in the Scriptures as a function of the church. If it is a Christian work why did not Christ speak of it? "Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature." That is clear enough. So it would have been if He has added, "and provide amusement for those who do not relish the gospel." No such words, however, are to be found. It did not seem to occur to Him...I do not hear Him say, "Run after these people, Peter, and tell them we will have a different style of service tomorrow, something short and attractive and with little preaching. We will have a pleasant evening for the people. Tell them they will be sure to enjoy it. Be quick, Peter, we must get the people somehow!" Jesus pitied sinners, sighed and wept over them, but never sought to amuse them.
Offering up our hearts in worship and proclaiming the gospel of Jesus are not occasions in which we should seek to amuse ourselves or others. If singing to the Lord is fun - as it was for King David (2 Samuel 6:14-15)- then wonderful! Praise God. But to proceed from that truth to the thought, "We could make this a lot more fun if we do such-and-such" is to take the first step away from the goal of glorifying God and toward the goal of indulging our desire for a good time. That selfish path leads to corruption and sin.
Sunday, April 11, 2004
Whose Prayers Does God Hear? (April 11, 2004)
A question was put to me the other day about whether God hears the prayers of Muslims. If they grew up addressing their Creator as "Allah," and that is all they know, can it really be wrong for them to pray that way? Won't God still answer them? Or what about those who pray to saints - does God receive those prayers?
The first thing I would say is that God is gracious, and he is free to respond to any prayer no matter how errant, misguided or malformed it is. All of us pray amiss to some degree. We pray with selfish motives, and we pray to our idea of God rather than to God as he is. Since our limited conception of God only dimly resembles him, I believe that in order for him to hear the petition of even the wisest, holiest and most theologically accurate saint he still has to reach out and snare it like a baseball player catching a bad throw.
A prayer to Allah is a bad throw indeed, but I do not feel it is for us to say whether God is willing to stretch out and grab it. I do see from Scripture that God hears prayers from people who have a minimal understanding of him. Hagar stood outside the covenant that God made with Abraham, and knew him apparently only by the name she gave him, "The God Who Sees Me," (Genesis 16:13). But God heard her (and her son - Genesis 21:17), and met her need. Though Naaman was a pagan idolater at the time he sought a cure from Elisha, (2 Kings 5), he received healing nonetheless.
But it would be wrong to assume that just because God graciously condescends to receive wrong-headed prayer and worship, it is fine to keep rendering him wrong-headed prayer and worship. We must grow. When I play basketball with a 7-year-old, I don't call him on every traveling violation. But if he is to mature as a player he will have to learn the rules, all the rules, and follow them.
The rule now is that we must pray to God the Father in the name of, or through, his Son Jesus Christ. (See for example John 16:24, where Jesus says, "Until now you have not asked for anything in my name. Ask, and you will receive, and your joy will be complete.”) One of our jobs as Christians is to make plain that this is how God is to be addressed and worshipped and glorified. God has shown us his love by sending Jesus to be our Savior, and Jesus by his death has opened the way for us to be united with the Father. Our communication with God must now be mediated through Jesus.
And only through Jesus. The Bible says that "there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus" (1 Timothy 2:5). Protestant Christians grieve that our Catholic brothers and sisters direct some of their prayers to other mediators - the departed saints - and we plead with our separated brethren to abandon this practice immediately. The Bible forbids contacting the dead (Deuteronomy 18:12: "Let no one be found among you who...consults the dead"; Isaiah 8:19: "Should not a people inquire of their God? Why consult the dead on behalf of the living?"). The one time in the Bible when someone (Saul) sought help from a dead person he was roundly rebuked for it and the results were disastrous (1 Samuel 28).
Overall, I believe it is worse to pray to a saint than it is to pray to Allah. You could argue that Muslims don't know any better, but Christians definitely should know better than to pray to the dead. We are without excuse, since our Bibles give us clear instruction about how to pray, and to Whom, and through Whom. Also, Muslims at least could be said to pray to one whom they regard as the Supreme Being, who alone is worthy to receive the worship of prayer. But prayer offered to a mere saint is an abomination. If the saints in heaven are aware of the prayers made to them, I believe they recoil with the same kind of revulsion shown by the angel in Revelation 22:8-9. When John bowed to worship him, the angel insisted, "Do not do it!...Worship God."
Having said that, I believe that God may re-direct to himself some petitions errantly sent to his creatures - especially if the petitioners are humble and ignorant and the victims of bad teaching. Of course, it is not a good thing to remain the ignorant victim of bad teaching. It is the duty of all God’s children to learn and grow, to practice what is true and discard what is false. This includes how and to Whom we address our prayers.
A question was put to me the other day about whether God hears the prayers of Muslims. If they grew up addressing their Creator as "Allah," and that is all they know, can it really be wrong for them to pray that way? Won't God still answer them? Or what about those who pray to saints - does God receive those prayers?
The first thing I would say is that God is gracious, and he is free to respond to any prayer no matter how errant, misguided or malformed it is. All of us pray amiss to some degree. We pray with selfish motives, and we pray to our idea of God rather than to God as he is. Since our limited conception of God only dimly resembles him, I believe that in order for him to hear the petition of even the wisest, holiest and most theologically accurate saint he still has to reach out and snare it like a baseball player catching a bad throw.
A prayer to Allah is a bad throw indeed, but I do not feel it is for us to say whether God is willing to stretch out and grab it. I do see from Scripture that God hears prayers from people who have a minimal understanding of him. Hagar stood outside the covenant that God made with Abraham, and knew him apparently only by the name she gave him, "The God Who Sees Me," (Genesis 16:13). But God heard her (and her son - Genesis 21:17), and met her need. Though Naaman was a pagan idolater at the time he sought a cure from Elisha, (2 Kings 5), he received healing nonetheless.
But it would be wrong to assume that just because God graciously condescends to receive wrong-headed prayer and worship, it is fine to keep rendering him wrong-headed prayer and worship. We must grow. When I play basketball with a 7-year-old, I don't call him on every traveling violation. But if he is to mature as a player he will have to learn the rules, all the rules, and follow them.
The rule now is that we must pray to God the Father in the name of, or through, his Son Jesus Christ. (See for example John 16:24, where Jesus says, "Until now you have not asked for anything in my name. Ask, and you will receive, and your joy will be complete.”) One of our jobs as Christians is to make plain that this is how God is to be addressed and worshipped and glorified. God has shown us his love by sending Jesus to be our Savior, and Jesus by his death has opened the way for us to be united with the Father. Our communication with God must now be mediated through Jesus.
And only through Jesus. The Bible says that "there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus" (1 Timothy 2:5). Protestant Christians grieve that our Catholic brothers and sisters direct some of their prayers to other mediators - the departed saints - and we plead with our separated brethren to abandon this practice immediately. The Bible forbids contacting the dead (Deuteronomy 18:12: "Let no one be found among you who...consults the dead"; Isaiah 8:19: "Should not a people inquire of their God? Why consult the dead on behalf of the living?"). The one time in the Bible when someone (Saul) sought help from a dead person he was roundly rebuked for it and the results were disastrous (1 Samuel 28).
Overall, I believe it is worse to pray to a saint than it is to pray to Allah. You could argue that Muslims don't know any better, but Christians definitely should know better than to pray to the dead. We are without excuse, since our Bibles give us clear instruction about how to pray, and to Whom, and through Whom. Also, Muslims at least could be said to pray to one whom they regard as the Supreme Being, who alone is worthy to receive the worship of prayer. But prayer offered to a mere saint is an abomination. If the saints in heaven are aware of the prayers made to them, I believe they recoil with the same kind of revulsion shown by the angel in Revelation 22:8-9. When John bowed to worship him, the angel insisted, "Do not do it!...Worship God."
Having said that, I believe that God may re-direct to himself some petitions errantly sent to his creatures - especially if the petitioners are humble and ignorant and the victims of bad teaching. Of course, it is not a good thing to remain the ignorant victim of bad teaching. It is the duty of all God’s children to learn and grow, to practice what is true and discard what is false. This includes how and to Whom we address our prayers.
Sunday, April 4, 2004
The Joy Of Zealous Singing (April 4, 2004)
May I be bold and ask you all to sing louder?
This past week I had the pleasure of participating in a Haitian
worship service in Rogers Park. It was the second time I've heard
Haitian Christians sing, and the second time I've been happy to hear
how loud they are. The roof rattles not because of electric
amplification but because the thronging worshipers like to belt it
out.
Seventeen years ago a Catholic friend of mine came to visit the
Protestant church where I was speaking, and afterward he talked about how different the singing was at our church. "Catholics sing in a
whisper," he said. "You guys sing LOUD." He wasn't complaining - in
fact he wished his fellow Catholics sang as we did. I'm reminded of an
old Reader's Digest anecdote where a Catholic choir director told his
singers, "I'm going to pay you the ultimate compliment. Today you
sounded like Protestants!"
Maybe some day I'll say at Faith Bible Church, "Today you sounded like
Haitians!"
I know that not everybody likes to sing, and some can't sing at all.
And I know that voice volume corresponds less to spirituality and
maturity than it does to simple enthusiasm. I also know that decibel
level will often be dictated by cultural expectations: Asians will
sing softer than Blacks as surely as Episcopalians will stand stiffer
than Charismatics. And I even know that my hero, C. S. Lewis, despised congregational singing and wanted less of it. (I never dismiss anything Lewis wrote without first thinking very hard about why I might be wrong.)
But with all those qualifications duly noted, it is still inescapably
biblical to sing loud to God. See Isaiah 12:6: "Shout aloud and sing
for joy, people of Zion, for great is the Holy One of Israel among
you," or Psalm 95:1: "Come, let us sing for joy to the Lord; let us
sing aloud to the Rock of our salvation." It is more fun to sing loud.
I think it makes visitors more favorably disposed to us. I know it
encourages the song leader. And, I believe, when matched with purity
of heart and zeal of spirit, it brings greater glory to God.
May I be bold and ask you all to sing louder?
This past week I had the pleasure of participating in a Haitian
worship service in Rogers Park. It was the second time I've heard
Haitian Christians sing, and the second time I've been happy to hear
how loud they are. The roof rattles not because of electric
amplification but because the thronging worshipers like to belt it
out.
Seventeen years ago a Catholic friend of mine came to visit the
Protestant church where I was speaking, and afterward he talked about how different the singing was at our church. "Catholics sing in a
whisper," he said. "You guys sing LOUD." He wasn't complaining - in
fact he wished his fellow Catholics sang as we did. I'm reminded of an
old Reader's Digest anecdote where a Catholic choir director told his
singers, "I'm going to pay you the ultimate compliment. Today you
sounded like Protestants!"
Maybe some day I'll say at Faith Bible Church, "Today you sounded like
Haitians!"
I know that not everybody likes to sing, and some can't sing at all.
And I know that voice volume corresponds less to spirituality and
maturity than it does to simple enthusiasm. I also know that decibel
level will often be dictated by cultural expectations: Asians will
sing softer than Blacks as surely as Episcopalians will stand stiffer
than Charismatics. And I even know that my hero, C. S. Lewis, despised congregational singing and wanted less of it. (I never dismiss anything Lewis wrote without first thinking very hard about why I might be wrong.)
But with all those qualifications duly noted, it is still inescapably
biblical to sing loud to God. See Isaiah 12:6: "Shout aloud and sing
for joy, people of Zion, for great is the Holy One of Israel among
you," or Psalm 95:1: "Come, let us sing for joy to the Lord; let us
sing aloud to the Rock of our salvation." It is more fun to sing loud.
I think it makes visitors more favorably disposed to us. I know it
encourages the song leader. And, I believe, when matched with purity
of heart and zeal of spirit, it brings greater glory to God.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)