Superior Affections Yet a Christ-less Conception of Worship

There are a variety of reasons for the “worship wars,” as they are called. And for fundamentalist Christians, most of the arguments center on the worldliness or immorality of the very musical instrumentation itself — the contemporary, beat-driven sound that makes up CCM. Growing up, I was trained to recognize a strong beat in musical accompaniment and to envision that anyone singing to such music was worldly. As I started thinking through the subject in more detail, I wanted to find a Biblical argument for my stance against pop musical styles. And Frank Garlock and David Cloud had to suffice. Even then, I could see the arguments were quite weak, so most of the rationale had to depend on an analysis of the psychological affect of rock music on people and of all things, potted plants. Yes, plants!

Well, after I walked away from strict fundamentalism and re-evaluated my position on cultural matters in light of an open-minded examination of the Bible, I came to embrace contemporary worship and I was then able to really enjoy worshiping God in music to a whole new degree. I encountered deep, Christ-exalting lyrics (more meaningful to me than some of the shallow and almost trite hymns we sang growing up). And the music resonated with me – it moved me. It was like speaking in the language of my own culture — which I had been trained to deny and put down, but that really was a part of who I was. I was able to express myself in worship, to lift up my soul and exult in new, powerful ways. And I have since come to really appreciate the contemporary worship song for all its worth.

Don’t get me wrong. I still value the old hymns, and I value traditional music as well. I sing in choirs and enjoy harmony and special numbers. I also don’t enjoy any new song, indiscriminately. There is a lot of shallow music without much doctrinal depth out there, for sure. But there are some great songs which bridge the gap between traditional and contemporary. I have written, years ago now, on the Modern Hymn movement. UPDATE: USA Today just did a piece on the Gettys who I also feature in the article linked above. And I still enjoy a balanced worship approach that seeks to unite styles and generations, as well as ethnic affinities, together into a blended, unified, corporate celebration of worship. And I appreciate John Piper’s emphasis on gravity alongside our gladness in worship too.

Now, to the point of my post, after having come to where I am now on worship, I became aware of a newer position on music in fundamentalism. This position eschewed some of the more Gospel-ish hymns, and didn’t take to the sentimental songs that were written in the late 1800s and early 1900s. They took to more doctrinal-centered, high sounding hymns. And they also stressed “religious affections” — an approach which majored on appropriate feeling in worship, and stressed that God desired the best aesthetics in music. I didn’t get sucked into that movement, although it did seem appealing and intellectual. But it didn’t sit well, especially when it was not Scripture that was judging between various music forms but research and supposed universal aesthetic principles.

I say this to encourage anyone who is following me here, to go read Bob Bixby’s recent post pointing out some grave errors in this “religious affections” approach to music. This approach stresses that there is a right way of feeling, and that how you sing and what you sing in church, reveals if you are having right feelings toward God. It sounds right, but it isn’t. Of this movement, Bixby notes:

They’re separatists by condescension. They don’t practice separation; they practice superiority. And that separates them….

Theirs is a Christ-less conception of worship. It’s Gospel-free. It’s enraptured by form. It’s old-school fundamentalism. And it has little to do with the religious affections that Jonathan Edwards wrote about.

Bixby’s piece is worth reading if you have ever tended toward frowning on contemporary worship styles. If you have preferred traditional music, his post will help you examine your own heart. It will also show how this stance toward the worship wars can so easily turn into a pharisaicalism that looks down on others and in turn, becomes an empty shell of externally focused religion.

I have to quote one more bit from Bixby’s post before encouraging you to read the whole thing.

Consider the God-ward, God-glorifying form of the Pharisee in Luke 18:9-14. “I thank thee God that I am not like that poor Chris Tomlin singer over there who shuts his eyes and lifts up his hands with the pitiful, artless, crude hip-swaying style of corrupted orthopathy.” Ah, yes! The feelings of thankfulness were genuine in the Pharisee. He had, in fact, religious affections of sincere gratitude that God — indeed, he credited God! — had not made him as that poor loser in the corner, crying out to God with bad poise, seemingly unconscious of God’s glorious transcendence and preference for hymns. No one had more concern about form worthy of God than the Pharisee. No one.

Now if you really want more after reading Bixby, you could try to wade through this old post in my archives, with its 50 plus pages of debate on the subject of the morality of music! But you probably have better things to do!

Jonathan Edwards on the Problem of Evil

With the recent tragedy at Newtown Connecticut, the problem of evil is on everyone’s mind. How could such an evil act be perpetrated? How could God allow such evil? Would a loving God really allow the deaths of 20 innocent children?

Tragedies like this, and the questions it raises, lead meany people to blame God. Others point to this problem as evidence that a true God does not exist. Or they reshape their thoughts about God. He is nice and helpful and all, but limited. Like an old grandfather, he is saddened by our losses and didn’t want this to happen. He was just unable to prevent it – or worse, he didn’t see it coming.

In contrast to such man-centered thoughts, the Scripture’s teaching on evil and suffering is that God permits it, and works behind it, to accomplish His purposes. For those who love God and believe in Him (the elect), God works everything together for their good (Rom. 8:28). And ultimately, God “works all things according to the counsel of his will” (Eph. 1:11). God “does according to his will among the host of heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth; and none can stay his hand or say to him, ‘What have you done?'” (Dan. 4:35). He “has made everything for its purpose, even the wicked for the day of trouble” (Prov. 16:4). And Amos 3:6 declares soberingly, “Does disaster come to a city, unless the LORD has done it?”

If God is truly sovereign, then, why did He choose to allow such sin and suffering in this world? Theologians refer to this as “the problem of evil.” Why does evil exist, in such poignant and powerful measure as displayed so chillingly just this last week? This question is not merely for theists. What explanation can atheists give to this puzzling question? They would have to explain how evil, as a category, can exist without a holy God. If there is no God, than who’s to say what evil is?

Ultimately, Jonathan Edwards has perhaps the clearest answer that I have found. I delve into his thought a bit in this article, but here I want to share a quote I recently included in my SS class this past Sunday. May it help clarify your thinking on this point, and see how truly great and glorious God really is.

God’s awful majesty, his authority and dreadful greatness, justice, and holiness… would not shine forth as the [other parts of divine glory] do, and also the glory of his goodness, love, and holiness would be faint without them; nay, they could scarcely shine forth at all… There would be no manifestation of God’s grace or true goodness, if there was no sin to be pardoned, no misery to be saved from. No matter how much happiness he might bestow, his goodness would not be nearly as highly prized and admired…. and the sense of his goodness heightened. So evil is necessary if the glory of God is to be perfectly and completely displayed

[quoted in Chosen for Life by Sam Storms (Crossway, 2007), pg. 186-187]

As a follow up to this thought, here are some earlier articles of mine along these same lines.

What Makes a Church a Cult?

I was reading through a detailed article in Chicago Magazine (starts on pt. 78) on Jack Schaap’s fall and the history and legacy of First Baptist Church of Hammond, IN (HT: Sharper Iron Filings; more on Schaap here), and I came across an excellent description of what makes a church a cult. I added the numbers to the quote below to list out the four marks of a cult that were mentioned.

What makes a church a cult? I asked Rick Ross, whose nonprofit institute maintains an online archive of data on cults and controversial movements. (He says he is not familiar with the details of First Baptist.) Ross points to a landmark 1981 Harvard study on cult formation, which suggests that all cults, destructive or not, share three elements: [1] an absolute authoritarian leader who defines the group; [2] a “thought program” that includes “control of the environment, control of information, and people subordinating themselves and their feelings to the demands of the leader”; and [3] a lack of accountability for the head of the group. Another common characteristic of cults, Ross says, is that [4] they use shame and some sort of exploitation–financial, spiritual, or sexual–to exercise control. Members of a Bible-based group for example are made to believe that “it’s a sin of pride for you to think for yourself,” he says. “It’s your ego or a demon or Satan’s influence that causes you to doubt the edicts of the leadership.” [bold emphasis added]

Most people I know who have come out of a strict fundamentalist background refere to their former church as cultic. The points above seem to validate this concern. The group I was connected with would qualify as cultic according to this definition.

I shared this quote at Sharper Iron, where they are discussing this article as a whole. I wanted to share it here too, for my audience. What do you think? Are we off base to point to a fundamentalist church and say it is cultic?

How Important is the Old Earth vs. New Earth Debate?

Justin Taylor recently posted a video clip from the 2012 Ligonier Conference. The clip was a portion of a panel discussion on how Christians should understand the age of the earth.

The full discussion on this question, available on video here, starts at 42:09 on the video and lasts through 75:40 (the end). It is mostly R.C. Sproul Sr., Stephen Meyer (a Christian scientist and author who subscribes to Intelligent Design), and Del Tackett (known for Focus on the Family’s The Truth Project), although Michael Horton and R.C. Sproul Jr. also make some brief comments.

I appreciated both R.C. Sproul Sr. and Stephen Meyer’s emphasis that this debate should be intramural and congenial. Good people can disagree on this issue and still mutually affirm the inerrancy of Scripture and stand against the materialistic drive of this age.

Taylor went on to quote from and point us to a report from the 2000 PCA report on the question of differing interpretations of the days of Creation. That report carefully defines terms, explains most of the various positions which aim to remain true to the text, and evaluates each view helpfully. A historical review of the position of the Church on the days of creation is also provided. The PCA concludes that this issue shouldn’t divide their church and aims to show that people holding to the various views can have unity in standing for Biblical supernaturalism when it comes to creation, and against a naturalistic worldview. I recommend you check out that paper.

In recent years, this debate has become more and more caustic. And some of the participants have moved farther and farther afield from the Bible’s account of creation. Peter Enns has gone so far as to deny the existence of Adam, and the historicity of the Exodus and much, much more! That being said, although a slippery slope does exist, the Church has always had varying positions on this issue. Holding to supernatural creation is more important than holding to a young earth or literal 24 hour days. There are many exegetical reasons offered against the young earth view, and some of them, in my mind, are convincing. But as Stephen Meyer points out in the panel’s discussion, the Church has to be careful not to get sidetracked into an intramural debate over the days of Creation instead of confronting head-on the new atheists denials of the existence of God and the Bible’s supernatural claims.

I expect my readers hold a variety of positions on this issue as well, so drop a comment and we can discuss this further. Just how important is the age of the earth when it comes to defending the Bible’s claims that God created the world?

“40 Questions about the End Times” by Eckhard Schnabel

Book Details:
  • Author: Eckhard Schnabel
  • Category: Theology
  • Publisher: Kregel Publications (2012)
  • Format: softcover
  • Page Count: 352
  • ISBN#: 0825438969
  • List Price: $17.99
  • Rating: Highly Recommended
  • Rating: Highly Recommended

Review:
Few subjects spark such controversy among Christians as end times theology. For some, the only controversy lies in the inexplicable reluctance of some to fully embrace the truth. Why can’t everyone be so moved and excited by the very evident relevance of Biblical prophecy? Can’t they see just by picking up a newspaper how we are living in the last days? Others make it their mission to pop the bubble of the many believers who practice such a newspaper-theology. Whether they advocate preterism, pre-wrath, post-millennialism or some other minority position, they turn every conversation into a discussion of their favored end times view. Still others have been burned by churches for abandoning the official eschatological position. And many would rather avoid this subject than see another passionate argument arise.

Given the many opportunities to engender strife on such a volatile subject, we must assume that Eckhard Schnabel was perhaps a bit hesitant to put forth yet another book that aims to navigate the mine-field of eschatology. Whatever the case, Schnabel’s new book 40 Questions about the End Times (Kregel, 2012) will certainly prove to be an important and helpful contribution. I hope it receives wide attention as it offers a helpful corrective to careless end-times speculation and steers clear of divisiveness.

40 Questions is informative and expansive without being exhaustive. The format of attacking the subject by means of 40 separate questions allows the book to aim for a systematic treatment of the topic in small segmented bites. This approach means that it can’t cover every relevant passage and answer every conceivable question, but it has its merits too. The book can serve as a manual to be referenced when one is looking for information specific to one question (the millennium, the rapture, Hell and judgement, etc.). And the approach keeps the book moving and on track.

Schnabel masterfully employs charts and comparisons between parallel passages and betrays a true mastery of the literature. Yet he doesn’t write for scholars. He stays both practical and accessible, even as his footnotes point the way for further study. He tries his best to avoid discussing eschatological positions directly, preferring to cover the relevant Biblical texts exegetically. It is apparent that he is premillennial but not dispensational. He would be post-tribulational in a sense as well, but is more historic premil. And for the most part, he is right in the mainstream of evangelical scholarship: he defends eternal conscious punishment, but holds to a strange view of the millennium that sees the Gog and Magog rebellion at the end of the thousand years as a release of the unrepentant followers of Satan who are deceived and judged again. (This may just be strange to me, as I have not come across this view before. Yet, I can’t help but suspecting this is a minority view at best in scholarship today.)

Throughout the book, Schnabel obliquely references “end times specialists” who presume that certain prophecies can only be fulfilled given modern technological advances. Such views are anachronistic, and worse: they represent “new prophecies”, since they give a prophetic significance to history. He puts the claims that Babylon will be rebuilt and that a third temple will be built into this category. I have to agree with him that the false predictions and constantly modified interpretive declarations about end times theology (such as the identification of the European Union with the 10-kings who support the Beast) present a problem for the church. Schnabel elaborates:

If the prophecy writer tries again and adjusts his prophecy, and the new prediction does not come to pass, the end-time “specialist” is clearly neither a specialist nor a prophet. Prophecy writers who get it wrong must apologize and they should stop writing, speaking, blogging, and tweeting about matters related to prophecy. (pg. 311)

This book, however, is more than a mere eschatological handbook or polemic against modern-day false prophets. It is a call for the Church to live in light of the big central truths of prophecy. Christ is returning at any moment, and He will judge the dead and reward the faithful. His kingdom will never end and everything wrong will be made right.

Even if one disagrees with some of Schnabel’s particular interpretations, his discussion of the relevant arguments on each question will be both helpful and enlightening. But the book will especially be a help to those who remain “willing to consider the truth of other interpretations of biblical passages,” and when warranted, “willing to concede that [they] may have to adjust [their] understanding” (pg. 315). Ultimately, what Schnabel says of Revelation applies to this book: it is written “not to satisfy our curiosity about God’s timetable for the end times but in order to encourage believers who are suffering and to exhort believers who are in danger of compromising their faith” (pg. 316).

This book will both educate and encourage the believer. I highly recommend it.

Author Info:
Eckhard J. Schnabel (PhD, University of Aberdeen), is professor of New Testament at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School in Deerfield, Illinois. His publications include Early Christian Mission and a commentary on 1 Corinthians.

Where to Buy:
  • Christianbook.com
  • Amazon
  • Kregel

Disclaimer:
This book was provided by Kregel Publications for review. I was under no obligation to offer a favorable review.