Last Sunday, we sang “The Gospel Song”. This is a very moving, yet simple song. It captures the essence of the gospel in a glorious way.
I hope that you will use this song, no matter what musical style you prefer to accompany it. I am sure it will prove a blessing.
The Gospel Song
Lyrics by Drew Jones
Music by Bob Kauflin
Holy God, in love, became
Perfect Man to bear my blame
On the cross He took my sin
By His death I live again
The simple verse is repeated several times, but slowly and reverently. To get an idea of the melody, click here for sheet music, and here for a song sample. You can also click here and scroll down to the first song listed to find other resources on this song.
The song was composed for the production of a CD entitled Songs for the Cross Centered Life, put out by Sovereign Grace Ministries. This CD is based on C.J. Mahaney’s book The Cross Centered Life (I blog about it here). The CD includes some of the most gospel-focused modern songs you can find out there, as well as some new arrangements for timeless hymns. I recently bought it and have been enjoying it greatly.
Again, I encourage you to listen to this song and let it bless you. Purchase the MP3 of it, if you like, or better yet, get the CD mentioned above (you can purchase it by clicking here). God bless!
∼striving for the unity of the faith for the glory of God∼ Eph. 4:3,13 “¢ Rom. 15:5-7
Hi,
I just recently ran across your blog… Hadn’t seen nor heard from you for quite sometime now… Was just reading a couple of your blogs… The one before this one… I know I’ve never been as “theological” as you or Tom Ross, but I really don’t see a problem with preaching against sin, I mean you are saying that preaching should be “Christ-centered” well, wouldn’t “Christ-style” be just as effiecent? I mean when Christ preached he pointed out sin to the Pharisees and faults in his disciples. He told parables so that those who wanted to listen would and I really don’t think he was saying, “eh-hem, excuse me could you please leave My Father’s house” while he was flipping tables over and whipping people. Now, I know this is not characteristic of Christ, but He did do it… But then again, like I said I’m not the Biblical Language Theologians like you guys are… Hope you all doin’ well
Chris,
My wife ran across your blog the other day and enjoyed looking at the pictures of some of her old students… Glad to hear from you.
The point I was driving at in that post was not that a preacher should not preach against sin. Rather, my point was that when a pastor preaches against sin he should not simply heap guilt on people and call them to “do better”. Rather he should explicitly make clear that we in and of ourselves cannot “do better”. He should praise Christ for having done what we could not do and offer Him up as one we can look to in hope.
In the audio message by Dr. Bryan Chapell I linked to, he stressed that many sermons preached even in evangelical circles (as opposed to fundamental circles) would be acceptable in a Muslim mosque or Mormon temple. There is nothing distinctly Christian with a message on “honoring your parents”, “doing good to others”, “being diligent”, “spending time in prayer”. All of these things we are to do and should be reminded of our duty to do them. But we should also be reminded of the only means and ability we have to do them–the strength Christ supplies through the Holy Spirit.
The goal of a message should not be to get people to feel bad and guilty, but rather to let them see their sin and also see and cherish the hope that Christ offers to overcome that sin. Rather than letting them walk away from the message with drooping heads and a determination to do better next time. Have them walk away with hearts filled with hope and faith in Christ and amazed anew at the glories of a God who accepts them despite their sin because of the sufficient sacrifice of Christ.
I would really encourage you to listen to that message, it is available here. (You can also right click on that link and download it to listen to it later.)
God bless.
Bob
But ultimately what happens to a group of people who don’t all agree. Friction begins and last I checked friction isn’t unity. Even non-spiritual people, or even the Berkelian Spiritualistic people, know that too many cooks will spoil the broth. Seperation is about purity. Uniformity is what a child needs when he/she is growing up. It just dosen’t make sense to me to be part of a group of people who allow varying beliefs to be taught. That would confuse my 3rd grade students and ultimately drive them away from this so called “unity.” That, in my opinion, is what preaching on sin is for. Because if everyone has a uniform interpretation of Scripture from Scripture there is unity, not from a man-organized system. I sincerly hope I’m not misrepresenting you or what you believe in. I’m just trying to understand.
Have A Nice Day
California Chris
Chris,
Perhaps this age-old maxim might help: “In essentials, unity. In Non-essentials, liberty. In all things, charity.”
Essentials– What exactly is the broth? Can someone who disagrees with you on pre-trib rapture or local church only ecclesiology still agree with you on the gospel? And if he does is not this a much more major agreement than the disagreement you have?
Non-essentials– When you speak of purity you delve into the realm of morality–right and wrong. It is right to affirm the Bible’s truthfulness and submit to it. It is wrong to deny the clear, essential truths of Scripture. Yet holding to opposite beliefs on the pre-trib rapture, for instance, is a wholly different matter. Only one person is correct, sure. But both equally revere Scripture and equally believe they are interpreting it correctly. Neither thinks they are twisting Scripture, nor wants to. Due to human frailties and the fallen world both people are susceptible to faulty logic and finite reasoning. Further, Scripture is not as clear on this issue as it is on others–Absolute authority/inerrancy of Scripture, substitutionary atonement of the blood of Christ, Deity of Christ, etc. Plus, an abundance of thoughtful works on either side of the issue further muddy the waters. So it is not a simple question of purity or morality. Can someone hold an incorrect position on a minor issue and still not be burning the broth?
We all desire uniformity. It would be so much easier if everything was black and white and everyone looked and thought just like me! But life isn’t this way. In Rom. 14 and 15, the clear teaching of the text is that there are weak and strong positions. In other words, one position was correct and one was not. In fact other scriptures bear on these issues–they are not merely issues which Scripture is silent on. But Paul does not just instruct us to get with the program and take the strong (i.e. correct) position. He says to accept differences of opinion and realize that to their own master each one will stand (or fall). In other words, we aren’t to call down fire on those who are not of us–if they are not against us they are for us, remember. Scripture calls us to a “unity of the faith”–this is not a uniformity whereby we all dress one way and speak one way and we all interpret each text infallibly one way…. It is a unity around the central and supremely important matters of the faith.
You speak of separation. If you check out the concept in Scripture, most of the time it is spoken in regards to unbelievers or believers who we assume to be clearly apostate. Grave sins merit separation. Grave false doctrine too. We do not see a “hum-ho” attitude with regards to separation. Paul did it only through tears. Fundamentalists seem to miss this–they also miss the emphasis and stress on unity throughout the NT. I know your pastor likes to stress that each church is entirely sufficient. Why is it then that the NT models a wholly interdependent relationship among churches? Why is there such unity and cooperation–is it just an added extra? Or is it something that was extremely beneficial and without which each individual church would be much less adequate and prepared to stand and exist for Christ’s glory. When Christ prayed that we would be one, did he envision his own writing off everyone except those they got along with? Did he envision thousands of totally autonomous island-churches with no connection to any other churches–this “oneness” being how the world would know Christ and the Father were one?
Now by all means boot sinners out of fellowship. But let us let Scripture define sin. Not toting the line on your preferred form of music does not cut it. People raise hands and sometimes clap in the music part of our church worship services–and such actions are expressly modeled in Scripture. We utilize rhythmic instruments, also modeled in Scripture. Sometimes the music is loud, praise is often said to be loud in Scripture. Sometimes the beat is syncopated–this is not mentioned in Scripture. Now you can say syncopated beat = sensuality. Then you can go further and separate from us because we are quote, “sensual”. But you must first prove that syncopated beat = sensuality. Quoting some secular rock musician does not go for proof. Now when he sings he identifies sensuality with his music. But as culture has been totally pervaded by this style of music, in the mind (and actual heart) of almost any average Joe out there, syncopated beat causes as much reaction (and a very similar one) in his physical body as his reaction to a marching band-type music. His foot might stomp, his head or body may sway, he even might tap his fingers, but such is a wholly amoral reaction to music. David danced in Scripture you know. I like butter pecan ice cream–this has no bearing on whether eating such is sin. If I like the sound of contemporary music better than the vanilla-music of yesteryear, again such does not mean the music is inherently sinful. Again, I like the color green…
Again, many churches, like yours, would ultimately make women wearing pants a matter of separation or limitation of fellowship. Now gender distinction is taught in Scripture, but you won’t find the matter of pants on women. “That which pertains to a man” is defined by how a culture views this. Culture today does not define pants as a male-only garment. In fact there are many styles of pants you and I wouldn’t dream of wearing because they are patently women’s pants. Now a conscientious female believer could stumble upon Deut. 22:5 and the teaching in 1 Cor. 11 related to gender distinction and conclude that she will make every effort to be feminine in everything she wears. So she wears feminine pants as well as dresses and feminine looking shirts, blouses, etc. Mr. Fundamentalist comes along and adds his definition to Deut. 22:5 and seeing no reaction writes this woman off as an abomination worthy of more scorn than the unbelieving….
Now, I must not forget that last point of the motto–Charity. You could start thinking from the volume and tone of my last few paragraphs that I don’t like that part. We all need to be reminded of charity. Is it charitable to assume that those who do not ultimately agree with all of your minor positions to be one who is not led by the Spirit–not saved? Is it charitable to deny authentic unity while agreeing to disagree in some areas? Now you will not invite me to speak in a conference on eschatology (end-times doctrines) if you disagree with my position–this is not required for unity. But a mutual recognition of a common faith in our Lord, and a desire to fellowship, share, and work together as much as possible for the sake of Christ’s kingdom, and an avoidance of blackballing and harsh derogatory denunciations of me merely because I disagree on some minor points does seem to be required. For my part, I really am trying to disagree with issues and not people. I really am trying to speak for truth and desire to praise Christ in unison with all I speak about. I really would love to maintain an ongoing relation ship of iron sharpening iron, accepting some criticism, rejecting some as incorrect, and generally appreciating at least the spirit and motives of those who disagree with me–that they are trying to please Christ. But the reaction I get is rejection, castigation, disdain, a looking-down-the-nose-at, attempts to discredit me by “poisoning the well”, a refusal to believe what I have actually said, no regard for my well-being in Christ, no love, ridicule, etc. I hope I am not returning in kind. I know I conscientiously am avoiding that recourse. But I see some in their blogs slapping each other on the back while gossiping and slandering about me. Info not known to anyone is brought up and the facts are not even properly presented. While I see them jump all over those who have misrepresented them, they see no problem doing such to me. And they don’t seem to care. Love? You mean I am to love my enemies, let alone those who do not say they are my enemies?
I am going on and on, and you can feel free to tune me out. But if you are trying to understand, this is where I am coming from. You seem to not want unity from a man-organized system, but fail to realize that your enforcing unity and separation in such a way that you only unify with those who agree with you in virtually every particular is in itself a man-organized system.
Chris, I do not think you intellectually challenged. You do not need to throw such caveats out. Sometimes I just haven’t explained things well enough. Ultimately, Chris I do not necessarily want you to come to each and every position of mine. I feel they are all correct and important–but they are minor in comparison to the glorious truths of the atonement in Christ that we share. We can have this kind of interaction and benefit from each others’ fellowship in this way without seeing eye-to-eye.
I thank you for your interaction and invite you to point out where I fail to explain myself adequately, or where you respectfully disagree with me. I invite you to post from time to time on any of my posts and continue this interaction, for my part I feel it would be beneficial to me, personally, in understanding your side of the equation and in making sure I am not misrepresenting you guys. I think you may be benefited too. Don’t feel that you must read everything or anything really. I just am glad to have an ear.
God bless, and I sincerely mean that. May God grant you an ever increasing knowledge of and appreciation for the beauty of Jesus Christ. And may that cause you to grow in love and faithfulness as you seek to live for Him and to enjoy more and more His fellowship.
Bob
Wow! Thanks for posting the great Gospel chorus! I just forwarded the sheet music, and your post about it to the music director at my church, asking him to rotate it into his frequently sung choruses during our worship!
All that stuff you’ve read on my blog about keeping the Gospel at the center of preaching is totally a result of God’s leading me to discover “The Cross-Centered Life.” That book was in the right place at the right time, while I was transitioning from my IFB church to some place my IFB wife would be willing to join with me outside the IFB movement. We wound up in an SBC church where the pastor majors on the gospel of “the disciplines of ‘llove'” (for info on the gimmicky spelling, visit http://www.shadygrovebaptist.com) more than the Gospel of Christ. However, the pastor is a student of John McArthur and is a Calvinist, but hasn’t totally gotten on the “Reformed” bandwagon, particularly when it comes to a “gospel-driven sanctification.” He understands that faith without works is dead, so he continues beating a “dead horse” trying to get us all to try harder by preaching the imperatives more than the indicatives!!! Mahaney’s book helped me realize I can preach the Gospel to myself when I find I’m going without it in my own “worship experience.”