Worship Leaders: Lead!

Dr. James K.A. Smith, professor of philosophy at Calvin College, has a very important and timely open letter (though I do hate open letters) to praise bands.

1. If we, the congregation, can’t hear ourselves, it’s not worship. Christian worship is not a concert. In a concert (a particular “form of performance”), we often expect to be overwhelmed by sound, particularly in certain styles of music. In a concert, we come to expect that weird sort of sensory deprivation that happens from sensory overload, when the pounding of the bass on our chest and the wash of music over the crowd leaves us with the rush of a certain aural vertigo. And there’s nothing wrong with concerts! It’s just that Christian worship is not a concert. Christian worship is a collective, communal, congregational practice–and the gathered sound and harmony of a congregation singing as one is integral to the practice of worship. It is a way of “performing” the reality that, in Christ, we are one body. But that requires that we actually be able to hear ourselves, and hear our sisters and brothers singing alongside us. When the amped sound of the praise band overwhelms congregational voices, we can’t hear ourselves sing–so we lose that communal aspect of the congregation and are encouraged to effectively become “private,” passive worshipers.

Read the rest here.

(HT: Jake Belder)

Lloyd-Jones on the Historicity of Adam

There are several books that assert the historicity of Adam is not important to the Christian faith (see, for example, here). I found Kevin DeYoung’s recent article very helpful in this debate, where he gives 10 reasons to believe in the historical Adam.

In the same vein, I’m currently preparing to teach on Romans 5:12-21 and could not continue without posting this quote by Martyn Lloyd-Jones from his exposition of Romans 5:

“[Romans 5:12-21] is a most important passage with reference to the historicity of the first three chapters of the Book of Genesis. Alas, there are many Christian people who say, ‘Oh, it does not matter whether you accept the first three chapters of the Book of Genesis as history or not; it makes no different to our salvation’. Quite apart from the attitude displayed to the authority of the Scriptures by such a statement, it is entirely wrong from the standpoint of the doctrine of salvation. [Romans 5:12-21] insists upon our accepting the story in Genesis as literal actual fact and history. You do not really understand the need of salvation unless you believe that history, and understand what happened in Adam, and our relationship to Adam. So it is a most important section, and it is only those who have understood its teaching who have not allowed certain scientists to stampede them into accepting the theory of evolution.”

Who Changed the Sabbath Day?

I remember reading an article by Justin Taylor a little over a year ago, in which he put a plug in for Tom Schreiner’s book, 40 Questions about Christians and Biblical Law. In his book, Schreiner argues that Christians are not compelled to observe the Sabbath Day. He says:

Believers are not obligated to observe the Sabbath. The Sabbath was the sign of the Mosaic covenant. The Mosaic covenant and the Sabbath as the covenant sign are no longer applicable now that the new covenant of Jesus Christ has come. Believers are called upon to honor and respect those who think the Sabbath is still mandatory for believers.

The comments section of that article exploded with emphatic votes for and against Schreiner’s conclusions. But who is right? Has there always been disagreement on the (seventh day) observance of the Sabbath? Are we to cease from labor on the Lord’s Day?

I spent three years working with a church in Scotland, which is part of the Free Church of Scotland denomination. It is an evangelical, Presbyterian, Reformed family of churches. I’ve never met a more caring or hospitable people than those who were in my church. However, there was one thing that I never quite understood: why is the Lord’s Day still so strictly observed?

Friends in the church told me stories of how they would only be allowed to read their “Christian books” on Sundays and were not permitted to engage in any form of play outside, including soccer (or football in their words) and swinging on the swing set. Others informed me that I should not be out buying groceries or eating a meal at a restaurant on a Sunday. To be fair, not all Free Church Christians are this strict, but it is still understood that there are certain things one cannot do on a Sabbath. On one hand, I thought it very Pharisaical. On the other hand, I praised God that these folks were taking seriously an entire day’s worship of the Lord.

But that brings me back to my question—are we compelled to observe the Sabbath? If so, was it really changed to Sunday? Is this biblical?

I will admit that I have a long way to go on this doctrine. I certainly do not look down on those who hold to strict Sabbath, but I also don’t like that some hold others to the same standards (which seem more from the Shabbat than from the Bible).

Since I confess to being a Reformed Christian, I think it’s only fair that I first look at what other Reformed Christians have confessed throughout history. For brevity’s sake, I’ll simply compare two documents. First, the Westminster Confession of Faith (Chapter XXI, Sections VII & VIII) states:

As it is the law of nature, that, in general, a due proportion of time be set apart for the worship of God; so, in His Word, by a positive, moral, and perpetual commandment binding all men in all ages, He has particularly appointed one day in seven, for a Sabbath, to be kept holy unto him: which, from the beginning of the world to the resurrection of Christ, was the last day of the week: and, from the resurrection of Christ, was changed into the first day of the week, which, in Scripture, is called the Lord’s Day, and is to be continued to the end of the world, as the Christian Sabbath.

This Sabbath is to be kept holy unto the Lord when men, after a due preparing of their hearts, and ordering of their common affairs beforehand, do not only observe an holy rest all the day from their own works, words, and thoughts about their worldly employments and recreations, but also are taken up the whole time in the public and private exercises of His worship, and in the duties of necessity and mercy.

Seems pretty clear-cut. The Westminster Divines believed that the Sabbath has been changed to Sunday and that all “worldly employments and recreations” must cease. Would it surprise you, then, if I were to tell you that another Reformed document states something contrary to the Westminster Confession of Faith?

The Augsburg Confession was presented to the Diet of Augsburg in 1530. Though Martin Luther did not draft the document himself, he did add his stamp of approval upon it. Consider what the Augsburg Confession (Article XXVIII, beginning in Section LVII) states regarding the Lord’s Day:

Of this kind is the observance of the Lord’s Day, Easter, Pentecost, and like holy-days and rites. For those who judge that by the authority of the Church the observance of the Lord’s Day instead of the Sabbath-day was ordained as a thing necessary, do greatly err. Scripture has abrogated the Sabbath-day; for it teaches that, since the Gospel has been revealed, all the ceremonies of Moses can be omitted. And yet, because it was necessary to appoint a certain day, that the people might know when they ought to come together, it appears that the Church designated the Lord’s Day for this purpose; and this day seems to have been chosen all the more for this additional reason, that men might have an example of Christian liberty, and might know that the keeping neither of the Sabbath nor of any other day is necessary.

There are monstrous disputations concerning the changing of the law, the ceremonies of the new law, the changing of the Sabbath-day, which all have sprung from the false belief that there must needs be in the Church a service like to the Levitical, and that Christ had given commission to the Apostles and bishops to devise new ceremonies as necessary to salvation. These errors crept into the Church when the righteousness of faith was not taught clearly enough. Some dispute that the keeping of the Lord’s Day is not indeed of divine right, but in a manner so. They prescribe concerning holy-days, how far it is lawful to work. What else are such disputations than snares of consciences? For although they endeavor to modify the traditions, yet the mitigation can never be perceived as long as the opinion remains that they are necessary, which must needs remain where the righteousness of faith and Christian liberty are not known.

So which is correct? I know many of my Reformed brothers and sisters would rather err on the side of piety, but is it right for us to hold our congregations to the same standard?

Again, my study on the Sabbath has been limited, so I will definitely be spending more time searching for the truth. In the meantime, what say you?

Veggie Tales: A Case Study on Christ-Centeredness

My daughter has finally decided she wants to sit for extended periods of time to watch cartoons and children’s programs. Before, she couldn’t be bothered, and would find something else to play with after about 45 seconds of Big Bird. But now she has reached the stage where she can sit and enjoy an entire episode of Sesame Street without blinking (her favorite character is Elmo; I’m still wondering what his purpose is on the show, but that’s another post for another day).

Veggie Tales were (and still are, right?) a big hit about 10 years ago. This was just past my childhood, but the videos and DVDs were just coming out when my younger brother was growing up. So they were always in our house, and he enjoyed watching them over and over again (as my daughter does now). Veggie Tales, for those who don’t know, are short, biblical stories with a twist. They are told through the eyes of animate vegetables, e.g. Bob the Tomato and Larry the Cucumber.

What I’ve noticed, and I know this criticism is not new, is that Veggie Tales are not very Christ-centered. In other words, Christ is not always the center of the story. Christ is not always the hero. Though “God” is in every episode, Christ is not. I noticed this when watching one of my all-time favorites, Dave and the Giant Pickle, which is, of course, about David and Goliath.

There is a time at the end of the episode where Bob and Larry discuss the purpose of telling the story. In this case, the “lesson” was that you are special because God has made you that way. David was a “little guy” and was still used by God to defeat Goliath and defend Israel. Now, there is nothing inherently wrong with this message. We are all created uniquely in God’s image, and our value is not found in how big or how little we are but in who we are as God’s creation. However, is this really the purpose of the story of David and Goliath? Does this focus too much on the “moral” of the story and not on how God used David in redemptive history?

That question led me to another: should Christ always be at the center of our message? If we are teaching the Ten Commandments, for example, should Christ be the center? And I don’t mean to ask, Should Christ be mentioned? I mean, should Christ be the focal point? If the answer to that is “yes” (which is what I believe), then, as parents, we must teach our children that these stories in Veggie Tales are about more than just being special. They are about King Jesus. After all, anyone who isn’t a Christian could tell a story about being special. The uniqueness of our faith is that it is all about Jesus.

Though we don’t need to dump all our Veggie Tales VHS tapes in the trash, should we not entertain discussions with our children after watching an episode? That way, we make sure Jesus is always the “moral of the story.”