Men and Worship

I don’t think we ever really grasp the weight of what we claim to believe as Christians. We make statements routinely like “God loves me,” or “Jesus rose from the dead,” or “God will judge sinners in the end,” as if they are old hat and just commonplace to say these things. Now they may be commonplace in a culture such as ours that has been so profoundly influenced by Christianity, in our little church world that we live in. When we make off-hand comments like “let’s go worship God in the church building,” there’s a lot that we take for granted and that we subconsciously downplay I think. Do we really understand what it means that we worship the King of the universe? Would this change how we worship? Can we imagine physically standing in the presence of Christ and still mumbling the words to the songs we sing and the prayers we recite with little to no emotion? I can’t, and yet I still fall prey to this often. I’m as conservative theologically as anyone, but most of these kinds of churches can generally tend to be pretty dull. This goes for all aspects of worship, not just music. It’s really confronting at my church since it’s not huge and we meet in a recreation center gym. It is tempting to just try and be silent and not stand out, and just sort of go through the motions without getting too excited or involved. It would seem a little startling and tacitly unthinkable to yell out “Amen!” to the preacher, and I think he senses this also in the congregation. But Bill made a comment last time I was there that caught my notice and made me think of a verse in 1 Timothy where Paul expresses:

I desire then that in every place the men should pray, lifting holy hands without anger or quarreling.

(2:8)

This verse is in the context of praying and giving thanks for all people, even those in high positions that have God-given authority over you (2:2), even those that are false teachers (1:3), even blasphemers (2:13, 20), persecutors (2:13), and insolent opponents (2:13), all of which Paul formerly was but was delivered by His mercy and grace (2:13-14); and certainly the women (wives, mothers, children, etc.) in the church (2:9-15), of whom God has made men stewards and leaders. This letter is written specifically to the church in Ephesus, of which Timothy was a pastor, and Paul commanded that men raise hands to the Lord Jesus, the mediator between God and all men. So Paul was commanding that men take the lead in the church, to initiate a worshipful response to God and in so doing encourage the women to follow likewise, not adorning themselves in trashy and inappropriate apparel and thereby dishonoring Christ and the appointed stewardship and leadership of godly men in the church, but

in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire, but with what is proper for women who profess godliness—with good works.

(2:9-10)

It is not my intention to get into the issue that vs. 2:9-15 bring up, which is that of women in the highest position of authority in the church (pastor, teacher, elder, etc.), but suffice it to say that women are repeatedly told to respect the authority put over them in the church. So is the command to men in the same passage, to make intercession and prayer for those in authority over them and to lead well their wives and families by looking to Jesus, the mediator between us all and God the Father. This is why Paul planted all of his churches, including the one at Ephesus, and why he was appointed by Christ

a preacher and an apostle (I am telling the truth, I am not lying), a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth.

(2:7)

Paul did this to instill in men leadership and a sense of responsibility for the direction and well-being of the church, including the office of overseer (3:1) and teacher (3:2) of the family of God. Women are likewise told to submit themselves to this and to learn quietly (2:11) in this context. Obviously this is one of the most hotly debated verses in all of Scripture, but again it is not my intention to get into that here (perhaps another post).

My point is that what Pastor Bill commented on briefly brought this to mind, and convicted me that I and fellow guys do need to feel a sense of responsibility for how the church responds in worship. In most “conservative” churches, where generally the Bible is taught well, there is not much liveliness in the congregation on Sunday. People tend to try and stay quiet and unnoticed, presumably from a desire to not stand out and to not draw attention away from the worship of God in the sanctuary. But I would submit that this is not necessarily the right way to go (even though I am grossly aware of my rampant failure here). What does it say about us as worshippers of Jesus that it often seems lifeless during what is supposed to be our celebration and heartfelt thanksgiving to our great God and King? Do we fully grasp what the redemption of our souls implicates? When we stand with our hands in our pockets, mumbling words to songs, checking our watches because God forbid the service goes long, and having a general attitude of complacency, do we equate this to actual knee-bending, on-your-face worship to the exalted Lord of Heaven, or is it just a “worship service” with neat and/or cheesy guitar songs, a few pithy statements made about God’s love, some prayers scattered throughout, and a cheap and inaccurate imitation of what the Reformers had in mind for the worship of God? Do we really worship during “worship”, or is it just another day of complacency that we call the Holy Sabbath?

Are we really interceding for others, offering prayers of thanksgiving for God’s blessings and appointed leaders, and are the men in the church really leading their churches and their families and their wives, pointing always to the great Mediator and lifting holy hands to Christ to intercede for this broken and desperately needy world? I haven’t been. Lord God help me repent and to follow the leadership appointed above me and those that would be entrusted to me, to always look to the Mediator in prayer for all people, without resisting or getting angry about it (2:8), but sensing the need and putting the joyful burden of responsibility on myself. I pray others would do likewise. Amen.

"A New Kind of Christian" - Emergent Church - Part 1

The "emerging" or "emergent" church (whatever it is) is a tricky thing to get your mind around because it's such a non-tangible movement if you are not involved in it, but the thinking in this philosophical upsurge is or has probably affected whatever church you're in to some extent, especially if you're in college or are involved in a young church. However visible this movement is to you, the thinking associated with it can be evaluated with a little concentrated effort. I hope to provide at least a jump start for anyone curious.

The leaders in this movement, some of them being Brian McLaren, Rob Bell, Doug Pagitt, and Karen Ward are closely tied to the Emergent Village, presumably a voice for leading this mission. I won't go on about its history, but its leaders play an important role in understanding it. You can read on if you want by going to the Almighty Wikipedia.

What I do want to do is address what they actually teach and believe. So here goes. Please forgive me for some of my wordings. It is difficult to arrange my ideas in a way that is effective especially for this topic because it's so broad. Bear with me, I have a point.

The emerging (or emergent, I'm not entirely sure if it matters which one I use) type church people have a strange view on truth. They seem to want to claim they hold to historic Christian beliefs such as the inerrancy (or at least the authority) of Scripture. But if you look closely at their practice, it seems a little on the side of postmodern rather than Christian (if you are unfamiliar with postmodernism, again check out Wikipedia if you desire). Postmodernism is roughly defined as a rejection of absolute truth, whereas Christianity is sort of the opposite in that our truth lies on the Gospel, and it is unshakable.

Moving on, the emergent church is all about "questioning truth" and knowing why we believe what we do, which is fine and should be encouraged to a point. The central problem comes in when they start questioning God Himself and the sacrifice of Jesus. There is a move by this movement, whether admittedly or knowingly or not, to place emphasis off the substitutionary atonement of Christ for our sins and think of him more as a really nice guy that took a beating and was merely a great example of how to live, giving to the poor and whatnot. He very much was this, but there shouldn't be confusion here. There can never be too much emphasis placed on the Event that divides and reworks history as we know it. The entire New Testament, for that fact the entire Bible, is ripe with emphasis on the Gospel. It's all that's talked about really.

The postmodern, emergent crowd wants to be very "new" and have a new way of "being a Christian," as Brian McLaren might put it, but if we are trying to be "new and different Christians," what are we to say about those Christians that came before us? Is our Christianity better than that of Paul, Augustine, or Aquinas? I would submit that we should not lose focus on the faith that was "once for all delivered to the saints." (Jude 3) Faith is faith. Trust in Christ is never shifted from definition, its importance, or its truth. Christians 2000 years ago have the same faith as Christians today: faith in God who alone rescues us from certain doom. I would submit that the emerging crowd wants to be "cutting edge" so badly that they have left sound reason somewhat and trying to reinvent rather than reform the church. Reform is good; it led to measureless progress and correction from Roman Catholic heresies, but even the Roman Catholic Church was originally built on the same Foundation and Faith originally dispensed by the Holy Spirit. The root of the problem with emerging church thinking is that they take questioning of truth too far, in that they end up questioning God Himself, His nature, and His character. At least this is the only logical outworking of what they are seeking to accomplish, that being, I suppose, a postmodern church: something hip, philosophically cutting edge and new.

Part of this I think is a noble attempt at reform and correcting some of the tremendous problems with modernistic, Enlightenment type thinking. Part of it however is unavoidably a decrease of faith and recognition of God's authority, unchangingness, and sovereignty over our lives. Where do we draw the line in questioning the basic pillars of Christianity? Rob Bell thinks it's "okay" for a Christian to not believe in the virgin birth of Jesus (in his book Velvet Elvis). He claims that the virgin birth is merely a "brick" of doctrine in the "wall" of Christian teaching that will not bring down the whole "wall" if removed. This is very faulty logic and is like taking a metaphor that sounds good, running with it, and ending up with no point in the end, as if he is only using this metaphor of a wall to try and sound new and hip in his writing, in my opinion.

The fact is if you take away the virgin birth of Jesus, you not only lose Jesus, you take away the authority of Scripture because it reporting lies, and we are left with only a feel good religion that lacks authority and absolute truth and you can be a "Christian" any way you want to. If you don't like the fact that unrepentant sinners spend eternity in anguish in hell, you don't have to believe it, but it still doesn't change the fact that it's true and will occur. All the efforts to be "tolerant," "open," or "welcoming of other faiths," only result in a lack of authority, tons of questions with no answers, and inevitably a complete loss of hope. I am not saying we should not be welcoming in terms of loving people and wanting them to trust in Christ, but are we to begin questioning God Himself? Are we to begin questioning the justice of God? His love? His wrath? His incarnation? His death? His resurrection? Are they merely bricks in the wall of Christianity? Paul is clear in 1 Corinthians 15 that if Jesus didn't rise from the dead, our faith is in vain and we are without hope. All we are left with is another empty human religion with false hope.

How do emergent types deal with this inevitable outworking of their philosophy and theology? I see no other way out. No, I think we must take a cue from Scripture here. Jude 3-4 warns us of false teacher:

Beloved, although I was very eager to write to you about our common salvation, I found it necessary to write appealing to you to contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints. For certain people have crept in unnoticed who long ago were designated for this condemnation, ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into sensuality and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.

Jude exhorts us to contend for the faith once delivered to the saints, us Christians. Ephesians 4:4-6 echoes this well:

There is one body and one Spirit--just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call--one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.

There is one faith, faith in Christ who took our sin upon himself and not only rescued us from the deserved wrath of the Father, but took the punishment by bearing our iniquities. We must contend, fight for the faith delivered to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Isaiah, David, Samuel, Noah, Peter, Paul, Jesus, and us today, because it's the same faith: faith in Christ for our redemption. Paul warns also against false teaching in 1 Tim. 6:3:

If anyone teaches a different doctrine and does not agree with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching that accords with godliness, he is puffed up with conceit and understand nothing.

I am compelled to think that this means that all wisdom comes from a healthy understanding of the Gospel, which is unchanging. Fools that don't understand the Gospel malign the word of God and formulate their own theologies that are full of conceit and really end up understanding nothing.

According to Paul, there are doctrines we should contend for and some we should not tolerate in the family of God because of the destructive, misleading nature of the latter. God cares about His people and does not wish them to go astray. It is the responsibility of pastors primarily to guard their flocks from dangerous teaching that threatens and diminishes the sovereignty of Jesus and the utter importance of his work on the cross, that alone is our hope and object of faith. It is also the responsibility of each family, each father, each mother, each husband, each wife, each individual to guard against false teaching brought into the church by wolves in sheep's clothing. This carefulness cannot be simply written off as "fundamentalist" or "intolerant" thinking. Would you let your kids be taught that you really are not their father/mother? Would you let them be taught to question your authority and loving commands? Would you watch your child run in front of oncoming traffic, stop, and say "well, that's his opinion?" No! We guard those we love and warn them against lies spread by wolves. It's the same in the family of God, the Church. We should be on guard at all times, even when a hip new theology comes along.

None of what I say here is to imply or express that certain "emergent" types thinkers are not sincere or that they are not Christians. It really matters not who is teaching something. We should judge what is being taught either way.

"A New Kind of Christian" - Emergent Church - Intro

If you have been around the buzz circle in Christianity lately, though it sounds so lame to even say and a large part of this "circle" is really just the blog world with a bunch of internet freaks with high speed connections, you may have heard a lot of choice phrases and terms being thrown out. Words like "emergent" and "emerging" (they are somehow different, though really the same). Words like "postmodern", "missional theology," "ecclesiology,", "theological trajectory," and "new monastic communities." What the heck is all this stuff?

I hope to try and answer these questions the best I can with the research I've done on it through a few different entries in the near future. Also, I want to present concerns and worries about this "new movement" in today's Christianity. I believe many good things are coming forth from this movement (the 'emerging church movement'), but I also believe there are some serious dangers that exist in these types of theological lines.

I would like to explain how this subject came up.

I was thinking a lot about missions, as can be seen in the past few blog entries, and I've also been hearing a lot about "emerging" churches from my own circle around the internet with the aforementioned freaks. I am witnessing some of my former bubble of Christian friends/buddies start to peak interest in this new movement, and many of them seem to be doing so because they sense a need for change or reform in today's church, which is largely denominational, and appears to be seeking revitalization from dead an dying traditions. This can be a good thing, but can also be a dangerous thing if it is not handled carefully I think.

So please indulge me if you would be so kind.

Later, all 1 of you.