assemble-my-people-november-december-1999 by Modern Reformation

WORSHIP FOR 2000 AND BEYOND | MUSIC ACCEPTABLE TO GOD | IS EMOTION IMPROPER

MODERN REFORMATION

ASSEMBLE MY PEOPLE The Worship Event

VOLUME

8, NUMBER 6, NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 1999, $5.00

C N

N D

T B

E 9

N V

T M

S N

ASSEMBLE MY PEOPLE The Worship Event

12 Worshiping the Lamb or Entertaining the Sheep? Whom is worship for? And who does the worshiping? “Seeker service” proponents offer quite different answers than do the Orthodox, Catholic, and Reformation traditions. by Bryan D. Spinks

18 Worship for 2000 and Beyond The President of the Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod offers seven theses about the purpose and nature of worship—past, present, and future. by A. L. Barry Plus: Reflections on Contemporary/Alternative Worship

25 The Word Proclaimed One helpful key to Pauline theology is the contrast between hope in a promise announced (hearing) on the one hand, and vision of a reality fully experienced (sight) on the other. by Michael Horton Plus: Is Contemporary Worship Becoming Self-Critical?

34 Music Acceptable to God In the worship wars of recent years the nastiest battles have erupted over music. But how hard have we tried to think theologically and biblically about the matter? by W. Robert Godfrey Plus: Psalm 22 in meter

39 How Does the Word of Christ Dwell in Us Richly? How does congregational singing relate to other elements of the Sunday morning gathering of our large, adopted family? by Leonard R. Payton

COVER PHOTO BY STOCK MARKET

42 Is Emotion Improper? Contrary to caricatures, Reformation churches do not deny that our emotions are involved in worship. We simply maintain that the focus should be on God, not us. by Ronald Feuerhahn In this Issue page 2 | Letters page 3 | Ex Auditu page 5 | Speaking of page 9 | Between the Times page 10 | Resource Center page 28 Free Space page 44 | Reviews page 46 | On My Mind page 52 N O V E M B E R / D E C E M B E R 1 9 9 9 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 1

MODERN REFORMATION Editor-in-Chief

Dr. Michael Horton Executive Vice President

Diana S. Frazier Assistant Editor

Benjamin E. Sasse Production Editor

Irene H. DeLong

by Michael Horton

Worship

Book Review Editor

Dr. Mark R. Talbot Column Editor

Brian Lee Copy Editors

Ann Henderson Hart Deborah Barackman Layout and Design

et me tell you first what this issue is not about: musical preferences—classical, pop, jazz,

Lori A. Cook Proofreader

country, or any other style. In fact, the issue is not directly about music at all. Nonetheless,

Alyson S. Platt Production Assistant

Lydia Brownback

as we aim to talk about Sunday morning (“worship service,” “divine service,” or “covenant

renewal meeting” depending on your tradition), it seems that we must go through the “lightning rod” issue—music—to reach our larger topic. Obviously our age is thoroughly permeated by music. Audio reproduction and transmission have made it easy and inexpensive to listen to all sorts of music in a variety of environments without ever having to actually share physical space with the performers. And Madison Avenue has harnessed such technologies to consistently link the appearance of fun to their products. In such a music-laden culture (for good and ill), we should not be surprised that music has become a hot topic in most areas of life—including whenever believers consider what the gathering of the saints should look like. So of course music is a part of the discussion in this issue of MR. But Evangelicalism has seen far too many fruitless debates recently over music, which have been reduced to mere matters of taste. Now I do not believe that style is neutral, nor that whether we sing “Shine, Jesus, Shine!” or “O Sacred Head Now Wounded” or, for that matter, Psalm 23, is entirely a matter of preference. Nevertheless, in this issue, we need to step back a bit to develop a theology of worship—which clearly encompasses much more than music. Next Issue Therefore, the first thing A Wish List for the we must establish is that 21st Century the practice of simply equating “worship” with singing (“Let’s just take some time now to worship”) is terribly flawed. When the church meets corporately with her God, he acts and we respond. He calls us to the

2 M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N | N O V E M B E R / D E C E M B E R 1 9 9 9

Marketing Assistant

John J. McClure

meeting, he gives himself in Word and Sacrament, and he blesses us as we leave the meeting and return to our earthly callings. In turn, we confess our sins, receive his gifts, praise and thank him in song for what he has done, and express our needs to him in prayer. Congregational singing is, thus, one of the important tools by which we participate in this dialogue. But we should be very suspicious if anything that we do becomes central in this meeting. For God has called the assembly, and he is the chief Actor in the event. Worship then is not about entertainment, and it is not even primarily about evangelism (though it is indeed the best place for a nonChristian to hear God speak). For this occasion is chiefly about God himself creating and nurturing faith in his people. One day we will meet with him not by faith but by sight (“face to face”). Until that day, though, we must be content with his humble but appointed means: the minister’s voice, ink and paper, water, bread and wine.

Alliance Council

The Rev. Alistair Begg Dr. James M. Boice Dr. W. Robert Godfrey Dr. John D. Hannah Dr. Michael S. Horton Mrs. Rosemary Jensen The Rev. Ken Jones Dr. J. A. O. Preus Dr. Rod Rosenbladt Dr. R. C. Sproul Dr. Mark R. Talbot Dr. Gene E. Veith, Jr. Contributing Scholars

Dr. Allen C. Guelzo Dr. D. G. Hart Dr. Carl F. H. Henry Dr. Arthur A. Just Dr. Robert Kolb The Rev. Donald Matzat Dr. John W. Montgomery Mr. John Muether Dr. Richard A. Muller Mr. Kenneth A. Myers Dr. Tom J. Nettles Dr. Leonard R. Payton Dr. Lawrence R. Rast Dr. Kim Riddlebarger Mr. Rick Ritchie Dr. David P. Scaer Ms. Rachel S. Stahle Dr. David F. Wells Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals

© 1999 All rights reserved. The Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals exists to call the church, amidst our dying culture, to repent of its worldliness, to recover and confess the truth of God’s Word as did the Reformers, and to see that truth embodied in doctrine, worship and life. For more information, call or write us at: Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals 1716 Spruce Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 546-3696 ModRef@Alliance Net.org www.AllianceNet.org

SUBSCRIPTION INFORMATION

US US Student Canada Europe Other

1 YR $22 1 YR $11 1 YR $25 1 YR $34 1 YR $35

2 YR $40 2 YR $45 2 YR $62 2 YR $65

The Benefits of Solid Hermeneutics At the risk of sounding too domestic for this weighty periodical, dare I say it? Hermeneutics is for kids too! While we theological adults are discussing hermeneutics and postmodernism, we should not forget that our children are likely being swept away in our evangelical Sunday schools. Even in Bible-believing churches, Sunday school teachers are often untrained, new Christians; the curriculum is “dumbed-down” and merely therapeutic; and the primary “doctrine” our children learn is: “You are special to Jesus.” Those of us who teach the catechism at home cannot

from the wrath to come. On the other hand, when they learned about redemption in Ruth, they spontaneously danced around the living room for I don’t know how long. The Law makes the Gospel good news indeed! God in his wisdom gave the responsibility of Christian education to parents. There is no doctrine too complicated for them if taught in the context of the biblical narrative. When we were studying the temptation of Jesus in the wilderness, I brought in Romans 5 to contrast Jesus and Adam. Too much for a seven and five year old? Think again. My girls still mourn the sin of Adam and thank God for their New Representative. How about an issue on catechesis? Christian parents need to give more serious thought to the development of their children’s hermeneutical skills. Priscilla F. Lohrmann Grand Ledge, MI

The recent issue on hermeneutics proves why MR is such an excellent and timely publication. I took special Romans 5 to contrast Jesus and Adam. Too much for a seven and five delight that you included works by Leland Ryken in the year old? Think again. bibliography. Doing so reinforced the message echoing throughout the issue rest on our laurels either. For though systematic that attention to literary concerns heightens both the theology is an invaluable tool, it can never replace God’s accuracy of interpretation and the appreciation of the revelation in a story, in a narrative, in a real history that Bible’s beauty. It also pays tribute to a great teacher who has geography, culture and language. When my seven has, through his writings, life, and lectures, upheld the year old daughter discovered that she could locate Ur, highest degree of commitment to both the truth and the Susa, and Goshen on a map, her spirituality jumped out beauty of God’s Word. I count it among the highest of the world of fairy tales and took on flesh and blood. privileges of my life to have sat in his classroom. May Our children need to be taught the flow of salvation your readers take up these recommended books and find history, and should be able to identify where certain in them a gateway to even greater riches in the Holy characters figure in. And they need to be taught to ask: Scriptures. What does the passage teach about God? About man? R. F. About sin? About redemption? We cannot be afraid to Oak Harbor, WA teach on God’s holiness or wrath. For if we don’t teach them this, no one else will. When I taught my children about Noah, they were literally hiding in the corners of the room, begging me to stop and praying to be saved

hen we were studying the temptation of Jesus in the wilderness, I brought in

N O V E M B E R / D E C E M B E R 1 9 9 9 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 3

The Vision-Impaired on MR’s Redesign Though I am of the bi-focaled generation, upon opening the July issue of Modern Reformation, I thought I had been smitten with an instantaneous case of macular degeneration. I realized after changing glasses and struggling through the first articles that the print had been reduced to pocket Bible-size. And I am likely not the only one hoping for audio tapes of MR. For, alas, I shall soon—most reluctantly—have to transfer my subscription to someone forty or under. Having found your e-mail address with a magnifying glass, I am now sending on a request to encourage you to go back to your previous format. Diane W. Anderson Via Internet

Has God Said? Has God said it in a font that small? Gary Bryant Wilmington, Delaware

Editors’ Note: We will be increasing the point size of the type in the January/February issue.

Encountering God in History You recently (May/June) reviewed John Piper’s new book on Jonathan Edwards, God’s Passion for His Glory. The title sounds great, right? For the emphasis is on God. But I wonder if this type of book doesn’t have something to do with evangelicals’ ongoing flirtation

Join the Conversation! Modern Reformation Letters to the Editor 1716 Spruce Street Philadelphia, Pa 19103 215.735.5133 fax ModRef@AllianceNet.org

4 M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N | N O V E M B E R / D E C E M B E R 1 9 9 9

with Karl Barth. Because at least Barth gives them something that Piper’s book and most evangelical Sunday mornings do not: an encounter. Notice that not once does the review need to mention actual redemptive-historical events. The emphasis in the Christian life is then (ironically, given that the book aims to be God-centered!) turned back on us—as we attempt to see if we are truly finding our satisfaction in God’s glory. But we could instead be told that we already are satisfied in God because we are seated with Christ. We should be turned from abstractions to our present union with Christ. Matthew Ashley Morgan Westminster Theological Seminary Escondido, California

Thanks for the Relief Wow! I recently finished my first issue of Modern Reformation magazine, the May issue on vocation. I cannot begin to tell you how relieved I am to finally know that it is okay for me to work in the secular world. Moreover, I now understand why it is God-honoring. Thanks. Agnes Kamau Via Internet

Thank you for the recent review article by Diana S. Frazier on her visit to the Christian Booksellers’ Convention (January/February). It was like a breath of fresh air—or should I say “sanity”? It is extremely sad that when a Christian who is eager to grow in the Lord and hungry for the truth enters a “Christian bookstore” today, he or she is confronted primarily with knickknack, paddy-whacks. And those books that are there seem to edify self instead of our Savior. I am increasingly convinced that our modern commercialized Christianity would be confronted by our Lord Jesus by the turning over of display tables and discount bookshelves. Rev. Billy Crone Sacramento, California

E E

X X

A O

U H

D -

I T

T D

U M

Acts 11:26; Heidelberg Catechism Q/A 31–32

Why Are You Called a “Christian”?

reated in the image of God, man was endowed with true righteousness, holiness, and knowledge of God, “that he might rightly know God his Creator, heartily love him, and live with him in eternal blessedness to praise and glorify him” (Heidelberg Catechism, Q/A 6). Put another way: in Paradise, man was created as prophet, priest, and king. As prophet, man was created with a true and right knowledge of God, to think and to speak God’s thoughts after him. As priest, man was created to love God with all his heart, to dedicate his life to God. As king, man was created to reign with God, to exercise dominion over the works of God’s hand. Prophet, priest, and king—created in the image of God—this was man’s high calling. But man fell from his high calling. The image of God within him became marred, tainted, warped, stained, corrupt. From true righteousness to corruption; from true holiness to impurity; from true knowledge of God to holding the truth in unrighteousness—such was man’s fall. Man became a false prophet, no longer speaking and thinking God’s thoughts after him, but exalting his own word and his own thoughts as the standard of right and wrong. Man became a false priest, no longer dedicating his life to God, but to wickedness and evil. Man became a false king, no longer ruling over God’s creation as God had commanded, but exploiting it for his own ends. Paradise stands ruined—the image of God in man shattered and stained. He is no longer the prophet, priest, and king that God created him to be. How, then, can we be restored in the image of God? How can we be made prophet, priest, and king once again? How can we regain this true righteousness, holiness, and knowledge of God? The Catechism tells us there is but one way: through Christ, the Anointed— through Christ, the True Prophet, Priest and King. Why is he called Christ, that is, Anointed? Because he is ordained of God the Father, and anointed with the Holy Spirit, to be our chief Prophet and Teacher, who has fully revealed

From BRIAN VOS

Pastor, Trinity United Reformed Church, Grand Rapids

to us the secret counsel and will of God for our redemption; and our only High Priest, who by the one sacrifice of his body has redeemed us, and makes continual intercession for us with the Father; and our eternal King, who governs us by his Word and Spirit, and defends and preserves us in the salvation obtained for us. (Heidelberg, Q/A 31).

Old Testament Prophets, Priests, and Kings In order to fully understand what it means that Christ is our Prophet, Priest, and King, we must consider this threefold office in terms of the Old Testament. When viewed in this light we see that the outstanding feature of these offices in the Old Testament was their anointing to office. Prophets were anointed to carry out their task as prosecutors of God’s covenant: warning of the judgment to come, heralding the grace of the New Covenant. Caught up into the divine counsel of God (Is. 6; Ezek. 1), they were sent forth as the “mouthpiece of God” (1 Kings 8:15). With holy oil they were anointed to office (1 Kings 19:16). The Lord said of his prophets “Do not touch my anointed ones; do my prophets no harm” (Ps. 105:15). Throughout the Old Testament, prophets were anointed to office. Priests were anointed in the Old Testament to stand in the presence of God and intercede for his people. The books of Exodus and Leviticus give detailed commands regarding the anointing of the priests (Ex. 28:41, 29:7, 30:30, 40:13-15; Lev. 8:12). Psalm 133 pictures this anointing very beautifully: “It is like precious oil poured on the head, running down on the beard, running down on Aaron’s beard, down upon the collar of his robes.” Throughout the Old

N O V E M B E R / D E C E M B E R 1 9 9 9 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 5

intercession—without blood there is no forgiveness of sins. But another Priest would come as both Sacrificer and Sacrifice, whose blood alone forgives sins. Yes, there will be another Priest! We see the True King foreshadowed in God’s promise to David in 2 Samuel 7:11 and following: “The Lord declares to you that the Lord himself will establish a house for you: When your days are over and you rest with your fathers, I will raise up your offspring, to succeed you, who will come from your own body, and I will establish his kingdom. He is the one who will build a house for my Name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever.” Solomon was but a shadow of the King to come. In the kings, God revealed his rule over his people through the sons of David. But another King would come, the true Son of David, to whom belongs the hen Christ died, the Christian died. When Christ rose from scepter and the throne. Yes, the dead, the Christian was raised from the dead. When Christ there will be another King! Do you see it? In Christ, the offices of prophet, priest, ascended into heaven, the Christian ascended into heaven. and king are united! He is the One to whom the Old Testament prophets, priests, and It is noteworthy that in the Old Testament, these kings pointed. As Prophet, he proclaims salvation. As three offices of prophet, priest, and king were never Priest, he merits salvation. As King, he applies salvation. united in one person. There were some in the Old Testament who functioned as both prophet and priest. Christ the Prophet, Priest, and King Others functioned as both priest and king. But God Christ has been ordained by God the Father to be never permitted any one person to hold all three offices. our prophet, priest, and king. Christ has been anointed These offices pointed beyond themselves—they were not with the holy oil used in the Old Testament, but with shadows and types—pointing to the fulfillment of the the Holy Spirit himself (Is. 61:1; Luke 4:18). At his One who is the Prophet, Priest, and King. baptism the Spirit came down upon him in the form of a We see the True Prophet foreshadowed in dove, anointing him to carry out the office that God the Deuteronomy 18. The Lord said to Israel through Father had called him to: the threefold office of prophet, Moses: “The Lord your God will raise up for you a priest, and king. prophet like me from among your own brothers. You Christ is anointed to be “our chief Prophet and must listen to him…. I will raise up for them a prophet Teacher, who has fully revealed to us the secret counsel like you from among their brothers; I will put my words and will of God concerning our redemption” in his mouth, and he will tell them everything I (Heidelberg, Q/A 31; see Deut. 18:15; Acts 3:22, 7:37). command him. If anyone does not listen to my words Indeed, it was Christ who spoke through the prophets in that the prophet speaks in my Name, I myself will call the Old Testament; it was his Word that went forth. But him to account.” Moses was but a shadow of the Prophet he is the Word of God made flesh (John 1:14). He to come. In the prophets God revealed himself— perfectly and completely reveals the will of God for our warning of judgment, heralding his grace. But another salvation (John 1:18; 15:15). He comes as the prophets Prophet would come, embodying the judgment of the of old, warning of the judgment to come, heralding the world, embodying grace for his people. Yes, there will grace of the New Covenant. He is the supreme mouth be another Prophet! of God, for he is God. He not only proclaims the way We see the True Priest foreshadowed in of salvation, he is salvation. He is the True Prophet. Melchizedek, Priest of God Most High. We read in It is a glorious thing that Christ proclaims and Genesis 14:18, “Then Melchizedek king of Salem reveals the way of salvation, but it is not enough. Christ brought out bread and wine. He was priest of God Most could stand before us all day long proclaiming the way High, and he blessed Abram, saying, ‘Blessed be Abram of salvation, and we would not walk in it. Christ could by God Most High, Creator of heaven and earth. And stand before us all day long warning us of the judgment blessed be God Most High, who delivered your enemies to come, and it would strike no fear in our hearts. Christ into your hand.’ Then Abram gave him a tenth of could stand before us all day long heralding the grace of everything.” Melchizedek was but a shadow of the Priest the New Covenant, and it would mean nothing to us at to come. In the priests God revealed the way of Testament, priests were anointed to office. Kings were also anointed in the Old Testament to reign over God’s people as an earthly representation of the heavenly King. Saul, David, and Solomon were all anointed as kings (1 Sam. 9:16; 15:1, 17; 16:3; 1 Kings 1:34). Throughout the Old Testament, kings were anointed to office. Why did those chosen for the offices of prophet, priest, and king need to be anointed with oil? What was behind this strange practice? Their anointing set them apart to the Lord. The oil with which they were anointed was symbolic of the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of glory and life. Endowed with the Spirit, through their anointing with holy oil, these prophets, priests, and kings, were transformed into the likeness of the Lord of Glory.

6 M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N | N O V E M B E R / D E C E M B E R 1 9 9 9

all. Christ could stand before us all day long calling us to repent and believe, and we would not repent; we would not believe. How can the dead make themselves alive? How can the blind make themselves see? How can the deaf make themselves hear? We are sinners— dead, blind, and deaf in our sins. We need more than a Prophet to proclaim the way. We need someone to open the way. And the glorious thing is that Christ, our Prophet who proclaims the way, is also our Priest who opens the way! He not only proclaims our salvation, he merits our salvation. He accomplishes our salvation, for he is Salvation! Christ has been anointed as “our only High Priest, who by the one sacrifice of his body has redeemed us, and makes continual intercession for us with the Father” (Heidelberg, Q/A 31; see Ps. 110:4). Read the book of Hebrews. Over and over again, Christ is set before us as our Chief High Priest, who by the one sacrifice of his body has opened the way into the true Holy of Holies, even heaven itself (Heb. 9:24). He offered himself upon the altar of Calvary. When he hung his head in death, the temple veil was rent from top to bottom, opening the way past the guardian cherubim embroidered on the curtain, opening the way to the other side of the curtain, opening the way to the Holy of Holies, opening the way to Heaven, opening the way to Paradise, opening the way to God himself (Heb. 10:19-20)! He is the only Priest who is both Sacrificer and Sacrifice—the Sacrifice of our salvation (Heb. 10:12, 14; 9:12, 14, 28)! Just as the priests of the Old Testament made intercession for the people, so Christ our Priest ever lives to intercede for us before the Father (Rom. 8:34; Heb. 9:24; 1 John 2:1). And so we can approach the throne of grace with boldness and confidence, for we have a Great High Priest, who makes intercession for us. He is the True Priest. And yet it would still not be enough for us if Christ were only Prophet and Priest. We need more than One who proclaims the way of salvation. We need more than One who merits the way of salvation. We need One who also applies that salvation to us. This he does as our eternal King. Christ has been anointed as “our eternal King, who governs us by his Word and Spirit, and defends and preserves us in the salvation obtained for us” (Heidelberg, Q/A 31; see Ps. 2:6; Zech. 9:9; Matt. 21:5; Luke 1:33; Matt. 28:18; John 10:28; Rev. 12:10-11). He applies salvation to us by defending us and preserving us in that salvation. And he does it by his Word and Spirit—the sword that proceeds from his mouth (Rev. 1:16; cf. Heb. 4:12), the sword of the Spirit (Eph. 6:17)—by which we are brought into greater conformity to him. He is anointed as our Prophet, Priest, and King. That is why he receives the title “Christ” —Anointed One.

United to Christ; Receiving His Name And his name is given to us. We bear the name “Christian.” And the Catechism rightly then asks us, Why are you called a Christian? Because I am a member of Christ by faith, and thus a partaker of his anointing, that I may confess his Name, present myself a living sacrifice of thankfulness to him, and with a free and good conscience fight against sin and the devil in this life, and hereafter reign with him eternally over all creatures. (Heidelberg, Q/A 32) Why are you called a Christian? “Because I am a member of Christ by faith, and thus a partaker of his anointing.” Christ and the Christian are never separated. When Christ died, the Christian died (Rom. 6:1-6). When Christ rose from the dead, the Christian was raised from the dead (Rom. 6:8-11; Eph. 2:6). When Christ ascended into heaven, the Christian ascended into heaven (Phil. 3:20; Col. 3:3). In Christ’s anointing, the Christian is anointed (1 John 2:27; Acts 2:17). Christ is Prophet, Priest, and King; the Christian is prophet, priest, and king. Why are you called a Christian? Because you are anointed as prophet to confess his Name (Matt. 10:32; Rom. 10:10). Do you confess his Name? Do you confess his Name not only in word, but also in deed? Do you confess his Name at home? Do your children witness your devotion to Christ? Does your spouse see your love for Christ? Do you speak freely about Christ with your family members? Does your life bear witness to what you confess? Do you confess his Name at work? Do you speak of Christ not only to Christian co-workers, but also to those who do not believe? Does your life set an example for them? Does your light so shine among them that they see your good works, and give glory to your Father in heaven? Young people, do you confess his Name? Do you confess his Name at school among your peers? Do you confess his Name when you are at the game on Friday night? Does your life demonstrate your love for him when you go out with your friends? Does he come first in your life even when you are alone with your girlfriend or boyfriend? Do you confess his Name in all that you say and in all that you do? Are you worthy to bear the name “Christian?” Why are you called a Christian? Because you are anointed as priest to offer yourself to him as a living sacrifice of thankfulness (Rom. 12:1; 1 Pet. 2:5, 9; Rev. 1:6; 5:8, 10). Do you give your utmost for the Highest? Do you offer your whole life in sacrifice to the Lord? Do you deny yourself? Do you take up his cross? Do you follow him? Do you put that which pleases him before that which pleases you? Do you do all things to the glory of his Name? Are you worthy to bear the name “Christian”? Why are you called a Christian? Because you have been anointed as king to fight against sin, and afterward to

N O V E M B E R / D E C E M B E R 1 9 9 9 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 7

reign with him (2 Tim. 2:12; Matt. 25:34). Do you fight the good fight of the faith? Do you strive with a good conscience against sin and the devil? Do you give in to temptation without so much as a fight? Do you gird yourself up with the armor of the Lord? Do you stand firm with the belt of truth buckled around your waist? Do you stand firm with the breastplate of righteousness in place? Do you stand firm with your feet fitted with the readiness that comes from the Gospel of peace? Do you take up the shield of faith with which you are able to extinguish all the flaming arrows of the evil one? Do you take the helmet of salvation? Do you take the sword of the Spirit, which is the Word of God? Do you pray in the Spirit on all occasions with all kinds of prayers and requests, being alert and always praying for all the saints? Do you pray for that brother or sister in Christ who has offended you so greatly? Do you remove the plank from your own eye before the speck in your brother’s? Do you fight the good fight? Do you stand for the truth of God’s Word? Are you worthy to bear the name “Christian?” The disciples were first called Christians at Antioch (Acts 11:26). They fought the good fight of the faith; they offered themselves as living sacrifices to God; they confessed the Name of Christ. And the world knew that they had been with Jesus. Can the same be said of you?! Be honest with yourself. Why should you be called a Christian? You who are ashamed to speak his name, even among Christians, why should you be called a Christian? You who show so little gratitude to God, why should you be called a Christian? You who are so reluctant to fight the good fight of the faith, why should you be called a Christian? Why are you called a Christian? There can be but one answer: because I have been united to the Lord Jesus Christ. In and of myself, I am not worthy to bear the name. I increase my guilt daily. Daily I deny him whose Name I bear. Daily I deny him with my words. Daily I deny him with my deeds. There is so little of a prophet in me. Daily I put myself before him. Daily I live a life of ungratefulness. There is so little of a priest in me. Daily I lay down the sword and refuse to fight. Daily I compromise the authority of God’s Word. There is so little of a king in me. But Christ is the True Prophet! Christ is the True Priest! Christ is the True King! And though there is in me only a small beginning of the life of Christ (Heidelberg, Q/A 114), he is my all in all! He is my hope! He is my redemption! He is my Prophet! He is my Priest! He is my King! In Christ I am restored to what I was created to be: prophet, priest, and king. In him, the image of God is restored within me. In him, I have been restored unto true righteousness, holiness, and knowledge of God. Now I see in a mirror, dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part, but then I shall know just as I also am known. Now I confess his Name imperfectly, then I shall confess perfectly. Now I love

8 M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N | N O V E M B E R / D E C E M B E R 1 9 9 9

him in part, then I shall love in full. Now I fight the good fight of the faith, then I shall reign forevermore! In Christ, Paradise is mine once again! Gladly you will bear the name of Christ when you stand before him on Judgment Day, but will you bear it today? ■

Brian Vos (M.Div., Westminster Theological Seminary in California) is the pastor of Trinity United Reformed Church in Grand Rapids, Michigan. This sermon was preached at the evening (catechetical) service on April 25, 1999.

SPEAKING OF

n a society doing all it can to make people

cozy, somehow we must convey the truth

that God’s Word, rightly read and heard,

will shake us up. It will kill us, for God

cannot bear our sin and wants to put to death our self-

centeredness. The apostle Paul exclaims that he has

been “crucified with Christ” and therefore that it is no

longer he who lives, but Christ who lives in him (Gal.

2:19-20). Once worship kills us, we are born anew to

worship God rightly.

— Marva Dawn, Reaching Out Without

Dumbing Down, 205-06.

Speaking of... T

herefore, since we are receiving a kingdom which

cannot be shaken, let us have grace, by which we may serve God acceptably with reverence and godly fear. For our God is a consuming fire. Hebrews 12:28-29

“T

he right Faith is, that we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ…is God and Man…. Perfect God and perfect Man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting….Who although He be God and Man, yet [He is] not two, but one Christ” [Athanasian Creed]. There is the essential doctrine, of which the whole elaborate structure of Christian faith and morals is only the logical consequence. Now, we may call that doctrine exhilarating or we may call it devastating; we may call it Revelation or we may call it rubbish; but if we call it dull, then words have no meaning at all. That God should play the tyrant over man is a dismal story of unrelieved oppression; that man should play the tyrant over man is the usual dreary record of human futility; but that man should play the tyrant over God and find Him a better man than himself is an astonishing drama indeed. Any journalist, hearing of it for the first time, would recognize it as News; those who did hear it for the first time actually called it News, and good news at that; though we are apt to forget that the word Gospel ever meant anything so sensational. Dorothy Sayers, Creed or Chaos?, 8-9

any people complain that old liturgies are dead, and they’re often right. In many places they are dead, for churches have turned them into mere traditionalism, which Jaroslav Pelikan calls “the dead faith of the living.”…[But many of us] who advocate using the Church’s historic liturgies are searching instead for what Pelikan calls “the living faith of the dead”—that is, worship within a tradition that enables us to be actively conscious of the Church’s past as well as of its eschatological future in Christ. Marva Dawn, Reaching Out Without Dumbing Down, 256.

herefore, brothers, since we have confidence to enter the Most Holy Place by the blood of Jesus, by a new and living way opened for us through the curtain, that is, his body, and since we have a great high priest over the house of God, let us draw near to God with a sincere heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled to cleanse us from a guilty conscience and having our bodies washed with pure water. Hebrews 10:19-22

N O V E M B E R / D E C E M B E R 1 9 9 9 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 9

Dear Reader:

s we hope you have noticed, we have added a number of regular departments to MODERN REFORMATION in 1999. “Between the Times”

is the final addition. Each issue, these two pages will be tracking developments on the American religious scene—the

good, the bad, and the ugly. In addition to offering our readers a sampling of the major religious headlines, though, we hope to accomplish one other, slightly narrower task. We aim, over time, to highlight especially denominational decisions and study committees, as well as developments in the daily life of the local congregation. Put another way, we hope to focus on churches a bit more, and parachurches a bit less, than the standard evangelical take on religious news. This doesn’t mean that we will be ignoring the seemingly countless, news-making, non-churchly, evangelical organizations. Rather, we will simply be biased, where possible, toward drawing attention to new or rejuvenated church practices, both those worthy of emulation and those worthy of critique. Examples of such developments might include resources for church musicians attempting to respond thoughtfully to the “worships wars,” liturgical alterations, principled church planting methods, urban diaconal options, etc. Toward this end, we would love your input, suggestions, and direction—a la the “Drudge Report.” Obviously we will not be able to reply to these emails, but we would be grateful for any leads you could provide, as well as individuals we could contact for further information. MR aims to facilitate discussions among and within churches anchored in Reformation theology, and we hope that this new department—in addition to simply providing some typical news—will be a helpful instrument toward the end of more thoughtfulness about the church’s doctrine, worship, and life. Please send us summaries of such constructive and/or interesting churchly developments at: betweenthetimes@AllianceNet.org —EDS.

1 0 M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N | N O V E M B E R / D E C E M B E R 1 9 9 9

The Imaginative Church

ust when one might have concluded that even the “church growth” industry was growing tired of innovation, a new player has entered the market: Disney. The entertainment conglomerate— which specializes in movies, broadcasting (via its acquisitions of ABC and ESPN), professional sports team and arena management, and America’s most popular theme parks—is apparently adding “worship experience” consulting to its menu of entertainment products. At a September conference in Orlando, presented by the Joy Leadership Center of Arizona, and sponsored in part by Aid Association for Lutherans, a team of experts from the Community Church of Joy (Glendale, Arizona) and the Disney Institute led a group of primarily mainline clergy in a four day “adventure in imagination.” According to conference literature, the event aimed to help the ministers gain “insights into how the Disney approach to imagination and creativity can help you build a more effective church ministry.” Emphasizing “Service, Disney Style,” the seminars and workshops were “designed for those seeking proven ideas for providing consistent service.” By

using Disney’s “innovation and imagination” as a model, the Community Church of Joy and Disney Institute staff explored “philosophies and strategies for understanding customers’ needs and expectations, implementing a sound service infrastructure, and communicating quality standards throughout the organization.”

LCMS President Comments on ELCA Decisions

. L. Barry, president of the 2.6 million member Lutheran Church— Missouri Synod (LCMS), says it is a “sad fact”—but true nonetheless— that recent decisions by the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) will drive the two largest Lutheran churches in America even farther apart. At its Churchwide Assembly in Denver in August, the 5.2 million member ELCA voted 716 to 317 in favor of “full communion” with the Episcopal Church. The Episcopal General Convention will consider the matter next summer. If approved, the two bodies would allow complete sacramental fellowship, the exchange of clergy, and common missions. ELCA approved a similar agreement with the United Church of Christ (UCC), the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. (PCUSA), and the

Reformed Church of America (RCA) in 1997-98. The LCMS believes that “full communion” requires “full doctrinal agreement.” Without such agreement, Barry insists, there will be “an even more serious erosion of a genuine Lutheran identity” in the ELCA. “Because of our desire to be faithful to God’s Word and the Lutheran Confessions, and motivated by our love and concern for the people and pastors of the ELCA, it is important for our church body to express to ELCA our profound regret and deep disagreement with these actions.” Officials from the two Lutheran bodies plan to meet in St. Louis February 14-15 for further discussion.

www.messiahcam.org

he virtual world has offered live camera shots of many aspects

ÍOn September 28, President Clinton told the annual White House prayer breakfast that he continues to make time for his accountability group, formed one year ago during the Lewinsky scandal. He publicly thanked his spiritual counselors: pastor of Washington’s Foundry Methodist Church Philip Wogaman, pastor of Lexington, Massachusetts’ Grace Chapel Gordon MacDonald, and Eastern College professor Rev. Tony Campolo. ÍIn an effort to broaden the constituency of the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE) to include more Hispanic and African-

Darg, “We’re a multimedia ministry. Webcams are popping up like mushrooms all over the world. This seemed like the obvious thing to do.”

of the real world for a few years now—views of Times Square, the Fort Lauderdale coast, even the entire life of a woman named Jenny (as in “www.jennycam.com”). But an evangelical group called Daystar International Ministry, from Richmond, Virginia, has recently gotten a bit more ambitious. According to the Wall Street Journal, Daystar plans to broadcast the Second Coming of Christ. With a constant shot of the Eastern Gate to Jerusalem, Daystar hopes to aid “virtual watchmen” as they “pray for the peace of Jerusalem, right over the computer.” According to Daystar’s president, Christine

American groups, the new president of the NAE, Rev. Kevin Mannoia, announced that the organization’s headquarters would be moved from Carol Stream, Illinois, to southern California. ÍPerhaps the nation’s most important ecumenical agency, the National Council of Churches, celebrates its fiftieth anniversary this November. But don’t expect grand festivities, as the organization—which longtime Time magazine religion editor Richard Ostling once called a “bureaucracy without a constituency”—struggles with an annual budget deficit of over $3 million.

Evangelical Uncertainty in the PCUSA

he Presbyterian Coalition, an evangelical group in the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. (PCUSA), continues to debate whether leaving the denomination should be an option in the face of seemingly endless debate over the interpretation of Scripture generally, and the ordination of homosexuals particularly. At a fall meeting in Dallas, Rev. Mark Toone of Olympia (WA) Presbyterian Church spoke for a number of young West Coast evangelical clergy who said that they are unwilling to spend years of ministry time fighting for standards of ordination,

ÍIn a statement called “The Indianapolis Affirmation,” a group of evangelicals within the United Methodist Church has called on that body to submit to the Bible on questions of homosexuality and abortion, and more generally to return to the “constitutionally established doctrinal standards” of the church. In what some see as a hint of more serious battle at the Methodists’ May General Conference in Cleveland, supporters of the statement claim that they have the backing of at least 600,000 in the more than 9 million member denomination.

especially when Scripture is entirely clear about the matters in question. A majority at the meeting disagreed, however, saying that they were opposed to congregationalism, unwilling to build a new denomination, and unsure about where they could go. In a reference to the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) and the Evangelical Presbyterian Church (EPC), Rev. Peter Barnes of First Presbyterian Church in Boulder said, “We’ve already wrestled with that in seminary....But they’re fighting battles we don’t want to fight.” He was apparently referring to what were described as “fundamentalist” battles in the PCA, and women’s ordination battles in the EPC. Fighting for non-geographic presbyteries within the PCUSA was discussed as a possible interim solution.

ÍIn a sign of the growing popularity of alternative education, most of the Republican candidates for president spoke at a home schooling conference in Washington on September 24. All candidates saluted the movement, which likely includes around 1.5 million youngsters—up from probably less than 100,000 twenty years ago. Democratic candidates declined to speak at the event, and a Democratic National Committee member questioned how quality could be ensured in the movement, given what she called inappropriately low levels of regulation.

N O V E M B E R / D E C E M B E R 1 9 9 9 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 1 1

A S S E M B L E M Y P E O P L E | The Worship Event

Worshiping the Lamb or Entertaining the Sheep?

Evaluating Evangelical Practice By the Reformed Principles of Worship s members trickled in for the later service, folks greeted each other with either short, happy hugs or long and comforting embraces. A musician encouraged the members to join in the songsâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;accented by bongo drums and electric guitarsâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;when the spirit filled them. A large screen projected the words, but many of the members knew the hymns by heart and instead closed their eyes in meditation. Young and old raised their hands and waved their palms upward, swaying and tapping their toes to the beat. An energetic singer put a new spin on traditional hymns, singing 2,000-year-old teachings like they were Mariah Carey hits. The audience loved it.

B Y B R YA N D . S P I N K S

Ushers race to the rescue of some members who have been overcome, and tissue boxes line the windowsills for those overwhelmed with emotion. As he preaches, [the pastor’s] voice fluctuates between that of a mellow DJ introducing romantic tunes and a loud coach scolding his players for not living up to their potential.1 This summary in a local newspaper of a worship service at a new and growing independent evangelical church in Connecticut reflects an increasingly common trend across many Protestant denominations, as well as in other newly formed independent community churches. In some churches—Willow Creek (suburban Chicago) being the prime example—this is the normative Sunday worship; in others, it is one of a spectrum of worshipstyles.2 The sanctuary becomes a stage, the minister becomes the talk-show host, and the congregation becomes an audience. Furthermore, such worship styles seem increasingly to attract larger numbers. For pastors and congregations with static or falling rolls, and/or with rising financial burdens, a change to this style of worship is alluring. The dream of box office takings can tempt those with meager offerings in the alms dish. Yet before any congregation or pastor embarks upon this panacea, serious questions need to be asked about the purpose of worship and the nature of these services.

bring an entirely different agenda. As consumers, their expectations differ dramatically from those of believers. When irreligious people visit a congregation, they come asking, “What’s in it for me? How will this worship service make me feel? Will it help me meet my goals in life? Does it have anything relevant to say to me?” Consumers come to worship with a unique set of values that is often at odds with the teachings of the church. By recognizing and responding to these values, however, congregations will more effectively reach new people.3

Amongst the values that Wright lists are innovation, instant gratification, short-term commitments, concern with the immediate present, intimacy, experienceorientation, and pragmatism. But his choice of “consumer” defines the make-up of the “audience.” Worship here is based on the world of the marketplace and the entertainment media. This entails identifying consumer needs. “Instead of driving guests away with unintelligible services, outreach-oriented churches turn to alternative worship experiences by designing and implementing innovative services that cater to the needs of their guests.”4 This requires that “guests” are put at ease, and as far as possible religious language is excluded so that people may meet Jesus. Modern musical instruments, with a good sound system replace a cappella singing, or an organ with choir. An overhead projector replaces hymnal and prayer book. Take Finney and add contemporary musical instruments, microphones, overhead Microphones and a sophisticated sound system replace screens, and the television talk-show host style, and we have contemporary pulpit and lectern. As new as the technology evangelical worship. might be, the rationale for such services is older, and can be traced back at least as far as the early nineteenth century Until this time, worship in the Christian tradition— with the revivalist preachers such as Charles Finney be it Orthodox, Catholic, or Reformation—has been the (Presbyterian) and Samuel Schmucker (Lutheran). business of the ecclesia, the qahal, the people of God. Indeed, in some of the earliest rites we possess, Finney’s concern with the unchurched was admirable, thanksgiving is made for “having been counted worthy but in his writings he seems to suggest that the criterion to stand and minister before you.” Packed into those few is “whatever works.” The test for worship was not, “Is it words is the whole concept and experience of traditional?”—or, in the case of his own denominational justification, of grace, of standing as fellow heirs of affiliation, “Is it scriptural?” Instead the test was its Christ (rather than prostrate as servants), and of being “in effectiveness in making converts. Christ” and thus being a Royal Priesthood which can The revival worship which he encouraged and offer the sacrifice of praise in, with, and through Christ, developed consisted of three parts: the preliminaries, in the Holy Spirit. which were heavy on music of an emotional type; the Yet the very foundation of the evangelical seeker sermon; and the harvest of converts, all drawn from services is that worship is entertainment directed toward an theater and drama paradigms. Finney wrote: audience, and an audience that is unchurched. One exponent of this new style of worship, Timothy Wright, explains: Now, what is the design of the actor in theatrical representation? It is so to throw himself into the When nonchurched people or marginal members spirit and meaning of the writer, as to adopt his from another church visit a congregation, they sentiments, and make them his own: to feel them,

1 4 M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N | N O V E M B E R / D E C E M B E R 1 9 9 9

throw them out upon the audience as a living reality. Now, what is the objection to all this in preaching? The actor suits the action to the word, and the word to the action. His looks, his hands, his attitudes, and everything, are designed to express the full meaning of the writer. Now, this should be the aim of the preacher. And if by “theatrical” be meant the strongest possible representation of the sentiments expressed, then the more theatrical the sermon is, the better.5 Take Finney and add contemporary musical instruments, microphones, overhead screens, and the television talk-show host style, and we have contemporary evangelical worship. It is concerned primarily with entertaining and converting the individual in the audience, and much less so with the presence of God, or a worship which is directed toward God. Indeed, using the marketplace and media paradigms, a church can do whatever it takes to attract the audience, and use whatever means are successful. The Proper Object of Worship ut are success and popularity appropriate criteria? No doubt in Old Testament times sacral prostitution was successful and popular, but that did not make it theologically appropriate. Likewise, as historians such as Eamon Duffy have shown, the medieval western religious cult was alive, flourishing, and popular, but the Reformers did not think it theologically appropriate. Many of the “seeker services” center on an evangelism which not only makes few demands on the worshipers as worshipers, but also makes few demands of any sort. The god mentioned in passing is frequently the deus ex machina who will crown each individual with success, with no mention of cross, tears, blood, and death. The Sacraments are bypassed, as being too full of strange “religiosity,” and thus the baptism of Jesus and the mandate given at the Last Supper become an unmentionable embarrassment. Whereas the Gospel is narrative, and places believers in a specific tradition of a chosen people, here the tradition becomes subservient to numerical growth. Whereas the tradition is about a people, a koinonia, the seeker services are about the individual. Though evangelism is important, nurture in communal worship is here sacrificed to a mission to affirm the human ego. The Sacraments from which the Church is born and nourished are dismissed. All this might just be tolerable if in such services the canon of Scripture was faithfully expounded. Sometimes it is. More often, however, preaching is topical and moralistic, and almost congratulates God that he did himself a favor by becoming human. Such services are often a modern version of the traders in the Temple—selling what people believe they need in order to make a quick profit.

Such a criticism should not be read as a condemnation of modern technology or modern methods of communication, or even experiments in contemporary worship. What is at stake here is the proper object of Christian worship. According to the Reformed theologian, J-J. Von Allmen, worship is not per se addressed to outsiders, and neither is it even specifically directed to the Church. Worship summons the Church together, making it visible, in order to glorify God.6 And, as Calvin noted, “God, in vindicating his own right, first proclaims that he is a jealous God, and will be a stern avenger if he is confounded with any false god; and hereafter defines what due worship is....” (Institutes, 1.12.1). In his “The Necessity of Reforming the Church,” he elaborates: Let us now see what is meant by the due worship of God [cultum Dei legitimum]. Its chief foundation is to acknowledge Him to be, as He is, the only source of all virtue, justice, holiness, wisdom, truth, power, goodness, mercy, life, and salvation; in accordance with this, to ascribe and render to Him the glory of all that is good, to seek all things in Him alone, and in every want to have recourse to Him alone. Hence arises prayer, hence praise and thanksgiving—these being attestations to the glory which we attribute to Him. This is that genuine sanctification of His name which he requires of us above all things. To this is united adoration, by which we manifest to Him the reverence due to his greatness and excellency, and to this ceremonies are subservient, as helps and instruments, in order that, in the performance of divine worship, the body may be exercised at the same time as the soul. Next after these comes self-abasement, when, renouncing the world and the flesh, we are transformed in the renewing of our mind, and living no longer to ourselves, submit to be ruled and actuated by Him.7 To put it bluntly, worship is about worshiping God and the Lamb (Rev. 5:6-14), and not about entertaining the sheep! Here, the Reformation principles of worship contrast strikingly with what seems to be the basis of modern evangelical worship. Components of the Reformed Service ith reference to Acts 2:42, Calvin wrote: “Luke relates in the Acts that this was the practice of the apostolic church, when he says that believers ‘continued in the apostles’ teaching and fellowship, in the breaking of the bread and in prayers.’ Thus, it became the unvarying rule that no meeting of the church should take place without the Word, prayers, partaking of the

N O V E M B E R / D E C E M B E R 1 9 9 9 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 1 5

Supper, and almsgiving.”8 It is worth exploring these elements further. First, the Word. Not only must worship be scriptural, but it must also center on the Word read and preached. In the case of Zurich, Basle, Bern, and Neuchatel, the main Sunday service was based upon the late medieval preaching service called Prone. In the Reformed tradition two types of Scripture reading coexisted: the lectio selecta, following a lectionary, and the lectio continua, where one book was selected and read through in course. The latter was the most common, and the advantage is that the whole message of a particular book is heard. It is not subjected to the preacher’s own expurgated selection or the congregation’s vested interests. Preaching was expository, and did not steer away from doctrinal concepts, and did not shy away from the passion, death, and atonement, or the nature of the Trinity. But other elements in Reformed worship also show the importance of the Word. Often the Ten Commandments were recited or chanted (as at Strasbourg). Scripture not only spells out God’s Law, but also calls us all—Christian and non-Christian—to repent. A formal confession and absolution are found in Zwingli’s rite for Zurich, Calvin’s rites, Poullain’s rite, and the Dutch Reformed rite of Petrus Datheen.9

worked with patristic texts and fully believed that from these they had an insight into the ancient forms of worship, and ordered their own forms accordingly.11 The rites were not designed for an audience. They were forms of the Church for the Church. Third, unlike seeker services, the Reformed ideal was that Sacraments should be part of regular worship. Baptism was supposed to be celebrated after the Sunday sermon in the presence of the Church. The Eucharist, ideally, was to be weekly, but Calvin had to settle for a quarterly rite imposed by the Genevan magistrates. Whereas Zwingli’s Sunday morning service was derived from the non-sacramental service of Prone, Calvin, via Bucer at Strasbourg, compiled a rite which was based on the mass. When there was no communion, it was the fore-mass or liturgy of the Word which was celebrated. Though some Reformed churches have been reticent to say too much on the Eucharist, the mystical union taught by Calvin was rediscovered by John Nevin, and more recently presented by Brian Gerrish.12 If Calvin himself was not creative in liturgy (he was too willing to borrow from Bucer and Farel), another Reformed figure, Richard Baxter, was more so. In his Savoy Liturgy or Reformed Liturgy of 1661, the Eucharist is described as three actions of consecration, commemoration, and communication. He actually sees Whereas the Gospel is narrative, and places believers in a specific tradition of a these actions as being appropriations of the three chosen people, in revival or seeker worship the tradition becomes subservient to persons of the Trinity, and the prayer could be prayed as a numerical growth. Whereas the tradition is about a people, a koinonia, the seeker unity, or as three, each one addressed to the appropriate services are about the individual. person of the Trinity. Thus, consecration is the concern of the Father who gave his The Apostle’s Creed (listed by Timothy Wright as Son to reconcile the world to himself; the religious language!) was chanted or recited regularly, commemoration is chiefly concerned with the Son, who proclaiming the orthodox doctrine of the faith. One gave his life as a sacrifice; and communion through the might also note that Zwingli wanted Mary to be elements is the work of the Spirit. For the fraction and recognized as the theotokos (literally, God-bearer, but libation, Baxter gave the following words: “The Body of usually rendered as Mother of God). Although the Christ was broken for us, and offered once for all to Marian cult in terms of statues and intercessory prayer to Mary was abolished, Zwingli’s Zurich Sunday Service sanctify us: behold the sacrificed Lamb of God, that kept the Ave Maria—presumably on the grounds that if taketh away the sins of the world.” “We were redeemed Catholics said far too much about the Mother of God, it with the precious blood of Christ as of a Lamb without was poor theology to respond by saying nothing at all, blemish and without spot.” This is, of course, religious and denying her ancient ecumenical title.10 language—but such is at the heart of the Gospel! Finally, almsgiving. Of course no church can live The second important principle of Reformed worship without some income; maintaining plant and ministers is prayer to God, and particularly forms of prayer which costs money. But Calvin and the Reformers had in mind are in line with ancient tradition. Thus Calvin entitled his liturgy: “The Form of Prayers and Church Songs, with the a specific concern for the poor here, as part of the love manner of administering the Sacraments, and Hallowing of neighbor. This manifests itself in intercession for the marriage: according to the custom of the ancient Church.” It is true world, as in Zwingli’s preaching service, and, in Bucer that the Reformers did not have access to the many and Calvin’s liturgies, in what is called the “Long Prayer.” liturgical texts from the pre-Nicene and early post-Nicene In the rite compiled for Basle by Oecolampadius in 1523, Church, and thus the claim seems today to be wide of the the congregation was dismissed thus: “You are mark. But as H. O. Old has demonstrated, the Reformers commended to have love among yourselves, and

1 6 M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N | N O V E M B E R / D E C E M B E R 1 9 9 9

especially toward the poor. The peace of Christ be with you. Amen.” Rightly understood, the intercessions and alms were an expression of koinonia. The Church becomes the Church when the object of its worship is God, and thereby through its fellowship, it has outreach in prayer and work to the world, leading to evangelism. The liturgical rites of the Reformers are not cited here as the correct forms for the Church today. We cannot go back to the past, for that can be a form of idolatry of a golden age. But we do well to heed the basic principles which their rites expressed. There is nothing inherently wrong with modern instruments in church music, or modern technology. But these tools should not become primarily entertainment for an audience. Music and its words, like all our worship, should be directed toward God, and the content of our worship should be about what God has done in Christ. Leaders of modern evangelical worship should be commended for their concern with the outsider, but to make worship the vehicle of evangelism to an audience is to misunderstand the nature of Christian worship, and ultimately, to misunderstand God. Pastors and congregations do well to take a careful look at Revelation 5:6-14, which is the true paradigm for authentic worship of God and the Lamb. ■

SPEAKING OF Novelty, simply as such, can have only an entertainment value.

And [believers] don’t go to

church to be entertained. They go to use the service, or, if you prefer, to enact it. Every service is a structure of acts and words through which we receive a sacrament, or repent, or supplicate, or adore. And it enables us to do these things best—if you like, it ‘works’ best—when, through long familiarity, we don’t have to think about it. As long as you notice, and have to count, the steps, you are not yet dancing but only learning to dance. A good shoe is a shoe you don’t notice. Good reading becomes possible when you need not consciously think about eyes, or light, or print, or spelling. The perfect church service would be one we were almost unaware of; our attention

Bryan D. Spinks (D.D., Durham) is Professor of Liturgical Studies at Yale University.

would have been only on God. But every novelty prevents this. It fixes our attention on the service itself; and thinking about worship is a different thing from worshipping…. A still worse thing may happen. Novelty may fix our attention not even on the service but on the celebrant…. It lays one’s devotion waste. There is really some excuse for the man who said, “I wish they’d remember that the charge to Peter was Feed my sheep, not Try experiments on my rats, or even, Teach my performing dogs new tricks.” Thus my whole liturgiological position really boils down to an entreaty for permanence and uniformity....But if each form is snatched away just when I am beginning to feel at home in it, then I can never make any progress in the art of worship. You give me no chance to acquire the trained habit…. — C. S. Lewis, Letters to Malcolm, 4-5

N O V E M B E R / D E C E M B E R 1 9 9 9 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 1 7

A S S E M B L E M Y P E O P L E | The Worship Event

Worship for 20 Thesis I: The Main Purpose of Worship Is to Receive God’s Gifts If you were to ask what “worship” is, most people would probably respond, “Worship is praising the Lord”; or “Worship is what human beings do to express their thanks to God”; or “Worship is going to church”; or something like that. While there is some truth to each of these answers, they do not adequately describe the main purpose of worship, according to the Lutheran tradition. For we Lutherans believe that God’s Word and his Sacraments—which are his precious gifts to us—are the tools the Holy Spirit uses to give us forgiveness, life, and salvation. Therefore, the main purpose of worship is to receive these gifts from God.1 do not believe this important truth has been sufficiently emphasized in American Christianity. God gives gifts; we receive them. This is why we gather. God acts as his Gospel is proclaimed, as his Word is read, as his forgiveness is announced and sinners are absolved, and as we receive our Lord’s body and blood in Holy Communion. In these wonderful ways, God is present with us, his people, drawing us to himself and giving us what we need so desperately: his mercy, forgiveness, love, joy, peace, power, and comfort! The purpose of worship, therefore, is to be gathered by God around his gifts. Having clearly established this important point, I need to say that it would be wrong, however, to assume that we are merely passive participants in the worship service. Listen to the beautiful introduction to our hymnal, Lutheran Worship:

Our Lord speaks and we listen. His Word bestows what it says. Faith that is born from what is heard acknowledges the gifts, received with eager thankfulness and praise…. Saying back to Him what he has said to us, we repeat what is most true and sure…. The rhythm of our worship is from him to us, and then from us back to him. He gives his gifts, and together we receive and extol them. We build one another up as we speak to one another in psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs.2 How true! God speaks. We listen. Then we speak the great “amen” of faith, saying, “Yes, yes, this is true!” Praise God for his mercy in permitting us to receive his gifts! Praise God for drawing us together around his gifts! Thesis II: Worship Must Be Christ-Centered If the main purpose of worship is to receive God’s

Seven Luthe 1 8 M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N | N O V E M B E R / D E C E M B E R 1 9 9 9

b y A . L . B A R RY

000 and Beyond

eran Theses N O V E M B E R / D E C E M B E R 1 9 9 9 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 1 9

gifts, then it follows that worship must be Christcentered, for Christ is the greatest gift to us. This fact should have effects all the way through our liturgical orders of service. We must hear Christ in the Word read and preached. The hymns sung in our services must give him the glory, honor, and praise. Consequently, Lutheranism insists that we should spend a great deal of time singing his praises, and less time singing about our own personal spiritual experiences. The service thus takes our eyes and sets them firmly on the cross of Jesus Christ, for there the Lord of the Universe suffered and died for the sins of the world. Christ-centered worship points us to the Resurrected Lord who lives and reigns to all eternity, and promises us everlasting life. Our place is in Christ’s kingdom as his redeemed people. Thus, again, to say that worship is Christ-centered is not to say that those who gather for worship are mere blocks of stone! Our worship focuses on Christ, who is present for us and with us in his Word and Sacraments. We are united to him as his people, and he is truly among us. We are not gathering to contemplate a far-off Christ, or to meditate on abstract ideas. This is not like going to a self-help group or a therapy session. Instead, it is a gathering initiated by God, and centering on the gifts he gives to us through Word and Sacrament. We are worshiping the One who is very near, as close as the preaching of the Word. We are worshiping the One who is actually present under the bread and wine of Holy Communion. He promised, “I will be with you always.” In our worship service he fulfills that wonderful

promise. He is living and active among us, right here, right now, where he has promised to be: in his Word and Sacraments. Therefore, it is important to say that while our focus is on Christ, his focus is always on us! Thesis III: A Church’s Worship Reflects Her Theology The ancient Church had a saying: “The law of prayer is the law of belief.” In other words, how you pray reveals what you believe. Similarly, how a congregation conducts its worship service is a reflection of its theological convictions. In the Lutheran tradition, in order to emphasize continuity with the Church across time and place, this has meant that great care must always be taken before discarding any of the treasures of the Christian liturgical tradition. For we recognize that these are good forms that transcend time and culture. We learn this from Martin Luther, who sought to reform—not to re-create—the Church. Thus, he would not throw out the historic liturgical worship of the Church, but instead sought carefully to remove the errors that had crept into Roman Catholic practice. He brought the Gospel to the forefront of the service and got rid of what conflicted with the Gospel. To this day, our tradition retains a strong emphasis on the proclamation of God’s Word, in both spoken and sung form. We also take seriously our Lord’s presence in his Sacraments, with a particularly high regard for the Lord’s Supper. Lutheran worship is shaped and molded by our firm belief that God the Holy Spirit is present and active in

Reflections on Contempo By the Commission on Worship, Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod n Revelation 5 the apostle John records a wondrous vision of heaven in which the whole heavenly host is gathered around the throne of the triune God.1 In joyous song they proclaim the work of salvation accomplished by the Lamb of God—our Lord Jesus Christ—and raise their voices in thanksgiving to Him who has made them to be a “kingdom of priests” to serve their God (Rev. 5:10). Although we do not directly experience the splendor of St. John’s vision, the worship of God’s people in every age is no less profound. Where the Word of God is purely proclaimed and the sacraments faithfully administered according to Christ’s command, there God is surely present to save. In worship we are in the throne room of the triune God to receive His gifts and respond to His grace. Our voices are joined to that heavenly host as we acknowledge our Savior and

2 0 M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N | N O V E M B E R / D E C E M B E R 1 9 9 9

Lord: “To Him who sits on the throne and to the Lamb be praise and honor and glory and power, for ever and ever!” (Rev. 5:13). In recent years a significant debate has emerged in our Synod [as well as across Evangelicalism] concerning our way of worship. Partly out of a desire to communicate the Gospel more effectively both to members and to the unchurched, a number of congregations have altered the orders of service provided in our hymnals. For some this foray into what is commonly called “contemporary worship” entails substituting new materials for various parts of the liturgy. For others the services go well beyond altering existing worship patterns; rather, they have chosen to design services that clearly depart from the historic pattern of worship that has been handed down to succeeding generations of Christians for nearly 2,000 years. A topic as crucial as worship demands careful thought and reflection, for the Church’s worship is the place where God Himself distributes His

Word and Sacrament, creating a people for God and continually renewing the people of God. While it is certainly true that we can and should borrow what is good from many traditions, Lutheran worship reflects the historic patterns of worship the Church has known for thousands of years. Sometimes we hear people say that because the Reformation occurred in Germany, Lutheran worship is “German.” This is really not true. Our Lutheran worship reflects traditions that are Palestinian, African, East Asian, Greek, Italian, French, Spanish, German, and more. This historic worship service is rooted in thousands of years of tradition and reflects the contributions of many ethnic groups. In this way, Lutheran worship transcends contemporary culture and does not bind us to any one culture. No one should be surprised then if Lutherans are hesitant to begin conducting worship services in a manner similar to a Pentecostal church or a nondenominational evangelical church. For if Lutherans worship like such groups, how long will it be before we embrace the doctrine and practices of such movements— which obviously inform their services? As Christians evaluate their services, and all proposed changes to them, it is essential to recognize that worship reflects theology. Thesis IV: Worship Must Be Characterized by Reverence and Dignity Building on our first three theses, I am troubled when I see some pastors conducting the liturgy as if they were entertaining friends in their home, with little quips and

humorous asides sprinkled throughout the service. This conduct robs the people of the opportunity to focus their thoughts on Jesus Christ. Such self-indulgence has no place in a worship service. A sense of reverent awe and dignity needs to permeate public gatherings for worship. Worship services should be known as truly sacred events, marked by a deep sense of the holiness and majesty of God. We need to realize that when we attend the worship service, truly holy things are going on. God is with us. He is present among us through Word and Sacrament. The great struggle of God against Satan is taking place as life and salvation are given out. These are serious matters. The angels in heaven sing, “Holy, holy, holy is God the Lord of Sabaoth!” and cover their faces at the sight of the holy God. Dare we behave in a manner that clearly conflicts with this wonderful sense of reverence and dignity? Thesis V: Worship Transcends Culture It is very tempting for the Christian Church to do whatever is popular for the moment in the culture around us. We need to recognize that worship transcends culture. I am not saying that Church is an “escape” from the world. This can never happen. I am saying that our worship services need to help us see clearly that when we gather as God’s people, we have stepped out of our own human opinion and passing fads, and have moved into God’s world. We need to take great care in our worship practices that we not allow our Church to be caught up in the latest trends

orary/Alternative Worship life-giving Word and Sacraments. Certainly the Church has a great responsibility to act faithfully in its worship as God’s gifts of forgiveness, life and salvation are bestowed on His people…. Reaching the Unchurched …That there has been a renewed interest in recent years in reaching the unchurched is beyond dispute, and we thank God for it. There are billions of people who do not know Christ, meaning that they do not have a share in the life that He has won for them. Without faith in Christ they will be forever lost. This sad reality should rightly grieve us and fill us with the same compassion that Jesus had as He looked out over the shepherdless crowds (Matt. 9:36). The Commission on Worship is keenly aware of the challenge of reaching the unchurched. It regrets any lack of evangelistic zeal among those who promote the use of the Church’s rich liturgical heritage. But

it also laments the unfortunate mind-set that has pitted the Church’s worship against her task of taking the Gospel to the nations. The Commission believes it is not helpful to ask whether the congregation’s worship is for confessing Christians or for the unchurched. Inasmuch as the service is the place where God comes through Word and Sacrament to grant life to His people, it is obviously beneficial to both. To those who do not have faith, the service will be, in one sense, incomprehensible, since the things of the Spirit of God are only received by those who possess the Spirit (1 Cor. 2:14). Nevertheless, the reading, singing, and preaching of God’s Word are clearly means whereby the unchurched may be edified (see Is. 55:10-11). Furthermore, the service demonstrates that God is in our midst, and may therefore lead the unchurched to further instruction, to Holy Baptism, and finally to admission to the Lord’s Table (1 Cor. 14:24-25)….

[ C O N T I N U E D O N PA G E 2 2 ]

N O V E M B E R / D E C E M B E R 1 9 9 9 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 2 1

that come along in our culture. We also need to take care that what we do in worship does genuinely communicate God’s truths to God’s people today. A recent article in a journal for church musicians made the point very well: Today’s culture tells us that we deserve whatever we want whenever we want it. This mentality is rapidly invading the church. The ultimate blasphemy of a consumer culture is its desire to consume God. Though not church-growth advocated, televangelism has turned religion into magic, instead of the mystery we may all need. If the church roots itself in marketing and consumerism, it will always seek to please the customer. Worship planners will seek to use the “immediately familiar.” The result will be the “tyranny of the familiar” that changes every few years even while we ignore our own traditions. The long-term implication will be that we can cut ourselves off from deeper and longer-lasting Christian roots and even our own unique denominational roots…. In a “get and go” culture, and in one which says, “Don’t worry, be happy,” how are we to proclaim that we depend on God, rather than having God depend upon our ceaseless activities that may masquerade as gospel?3 These are strong words, but we need to consider them carefully. As we seek to reach out boldly with the Gospel, let us take care always to remember that our worship services are not merely one more way people can be amused or entertained. We need to be gathered by God to receive his gifts, and to hear his Word applied to our lives. Then we are equipped to go out into our

Reflections on Contemporary/Alternative Worship

Thesis VI: Worship Seeks to Edify Christ’s Holy People There is a beautiful prayer that we say at the end of some of our services: “Grant, we implore you, almighty God, to your Church your Holy Spirit and the wisdom which comes down from above, that your Word may not be bound, but have free course and be preached to the joy and edifying of Christ’s holy people.” When it comes to worship, we could modify this prayer to conclude: “…which comes down from above, so that our worship services may be done for the joy and edifying of Christ’s holy people.”

[ C O N T I N U E D F R O M PA G E 2 1 ]

The Liturgy Is a Teacher of the Faith Changes in the Church’s liturgy have always been made cautiously and, therefore, slowly. One factor that has contributed to this caution is the liturgy’s role as a teacher of the faith. Modern technology has made it relatively easy for the Church’s historic liturgy to be displaced by other forms, and this raises some important questions. Chief among them is the question of why the liturgy has been retained by the Church for centuries, despite dramatic changes in diverse human cultures. While there have been numerous additions and deletions to the historic liturgy over the years, there remains a basic structure—with standard texts [e.g., the Kyrie, Creed, Sanctus, Agnus Dei, common responses]—that has survived one reformation after another. What is to explain this preservation of the liturgy? Over the centuries, the Church has recognized the vital role its worship plays in the formation of faith in the lives of God’s people. Through weekly repetition of basic, Gospel-centered texts from Holy Scripture, the people of God are schooled in the fundamental teachings

2 2 M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N | N O V E M B E R / D E C E M B E R 1 9 9 9

world to serve him who so wonderfully serves us with his Gospel. We gather in worship to be strengthened for service to our Lord in our daily callings in life, whatever they may be, wherever they may be. If our worship only reflects what we find in our world, then something has gone seriously wrong. If our worship services become only slightly different from what we might experience at a rousing musical concert or an exciting sporting event, haven’t we missed the mark? We do not want to give people the impression that there is one specific and distinct period of time we must emulate. That is why the Christian Church’s worship has developed slowly and gradually down through the centuries and why, from culture to culture, there are differences in the style of music and the forms used. Underneath it all, at least in the historic traditions of which Lutheranism is certainly a part, there are common patterns and forms of worship that have come down through the ages. These forms have served the Church well, and will continue to serve us well as we move toward the year 2000 and beyond.

of the Christian faith. The liturgy and hymns serve as building blocks for a lifetime of receiving God’s gifts through Word and Sacrament. Inextricably joined to this concept of the liturgy as a teacher of the faith is the discipline of the lectionary. Each year the Church enters into the story of Christ and His work of salvation, beginning with the anticipation of His coming (Advent) and proceeding through His ascension and sending of the Holy Spirit (Pentecost). Here again the worshiper is schooled in the fundamentals of the faith by being linked to the life and work of Jesus. One of the important blessings of the Church’s liturgical heritage is repetition. Through repetition of basic, important truths, Christians learn by heart. With the heart we believe and with the mouth we confess (Rom. 10:9). By repeated confession in the Church’s public prayer, the Christian faith is so grounded in the worshiper that it provides a foundation on which the person can build for a lifetime. When, on the other hand, the repetition of texts is abandoned in favor of new materials each week, the opportunity to impress unchanging truths onto the hearts

In the Missouri Synod today (as nearly everywhere else!) there is a genuine tension between wellintentioned people who feel differently about worship. Some have referred to these debates as “worship wars.” As we express our concerns about what are sometimes even dramatic novelties and shifts away from the Church’s historic worship practices, we want to take great care that we do not trample underfoot those who may disagree with us. Nor do we need to pull out our six-guns and start blasting away. In fact, those of us who are most concerned about these liturgical departures—which, as argued above, usually reveal theological departures—need to recognize that the greatest challenge is the need for catechesis, that is, teaching. As we struggle with questions of what is in the best interest of edifying Christ’s people, we must be aware that many people have never had the opportunity to learn what worship is all about. And it is dangerous when a congregation just goes through the liturgy without ever knowing why. If a congregation’s only explanation of why they worship the way they do is, “Because that’s the way we’ve always done it,” there is a great need for catechesis in that congregation. Ignorance about the liturgy is as great a danger as throwing out the Church’s liturgical worship. As we move toward the year 2000 and beyond, we have before us an incredible opportunity to teach the faith, and all the good, wholesome, Gospel-centered traditions of our faith. Just as the congregation must be patiently taught to respond with understanding, so pastors must be encouraged to be familiar with their parts of the liturgy and to do them excellently, at a lively pace. All we do in our worship services is a reflection of our love for God and a response to the tremendous gifts he gives us in the

service. A well-done liturgical service is truly a joyful and edifying experience, drawing us away from the humdrum hype and hoopla of Madison Avenue and Hollywood Boulevard and bringing us into the “holy of Holies” of the Lord’s presence where we receive his forgiveness through the Word and Sacraments. Another important way to make sure worship is truly edifying is to be sensitive to the needs of visitors. But I believe it is overreacting to insist that our services must be designed for visitors. Hopefully, the person who visits one of our Synod’s congregations will be impressed with the truth that something awesome is taking place. The visitor may not immediately understand everything going on in the worship service. This will take time and patient instruction. But isn’t this the case with all significant events? Even more casual events make this point. For instance, suppose you knew nothing about baseball, but were invited to a major league game. Do you suppose they would change what was happening down on the field just because you were a visitor who didn’t know much about baseball? No, of course not. (And, frankly, you probably wouldn’t think the game itself was very important if the entire event changed because of your presence.) They would play the game as it always has been played. But they would perhaps provide a scoreboard that would help you keep up with the game. Maybe someone would take you to the game, explain it to you, and talk about it with you afterwards to help you understand it even more. There would be books for you to read so you could learn more about baseball. I think you see the point I am making. We need to take great care to help our visitors appreciate and understand what is happening without

and minds of God’s people, especially children, is seriously compromised. The benefit that is gained through repetition of crucial texts is the development of a common language. In every community and profession there is a unique vocabulary or a standard procedure that enables the work to be done as efficiently as possible. Architects have symbols that cause a blueprint to come to life with information. Carpenters learn how to drive a nail in as few hammer blows as possible. Bankers have formulas that make the compounding of interest a simple matter. Likewise, the Church has a common language that speaks of sin and grace, repentance, forgiveness, reconciliation, righteousness, etc. These expressions of the faith are taught in the sermon and Bible class, to be sure. But this common language is also imparted as the liturgy and hymns are sung week after week. Together with the Small Catechism, they develop within the Church a common way of speaking that equips us to be faithful witnesses as we confess the saving truth before this increasingly confused and darkened world. One of the reasons often given for simplifying or discarding the

liturgy is the concern that the Church’s liturgy and hymnody contain elements and concepts that are not understandable, both to the unchurched and to the average church member. Obviously, the Church does not want to promote a liturgical order that confounds or confuses people. That does not mean, however, that whatever is done in worship must aim for the lowest common denominator. The genius of the liturgy is that even as it speaks a clear message of Gospel, it also continually invites us to further reflection and devotion. As an example of this principle, consider the Lord’s Prayer. None of us can count how many times we have prayed that model prayer. We even prayed it as children when its meaning was relatively obscure to us. But does that mean that we shouldn’t teach this prayer, or other texts, to children? Or that once the meaning has been mastered, we needn’t pray it anymore? Hardly. Instead, we learn the Lord’s Prayer, the Apostles’ and Nicene Creeds, and other fundamental texts so well that we can spend the rest of our lives growing into them. Only after these texts have become a part of us can we be freed to appreciate the fullness of their message….2 ■

N O V E M B E R / D E C E M B E R 1 9 9 9 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 2 3

changing things just so that every point is perfectly clear to the visitor who is unacquainted with God’s meeting with his people. Our Synod is attempting to provide both visitors and long-time members with tools ranging from bulletin inserts to books, to facilitate better understanding of—and appreciation for—the divine service.4 “The joy and edifying of Christ’s holy people” is one of the important goals we must continue to hold high before us as we discuss and work through these important issues. I commend to you the goal of careful catechesis, that is, teaching the people of our congregations what is involved in being a confessional church member in our world today. Thesis VII: Uniformity in Worship Practices Is a Blessing As we look ahead toward the year 2000 and beyond, there is one more important question we need to ask ourselves. It is this: “What is the value of uniformity in worship practices across a denomination?” This question is certainly one of the burning issues our denomination faces. I think there are two extremes to be avoided in answering it. The one extreme would be the view that every congregation should simply do whatever it wishes, however it wishes, without any regard for the other congregations of our fellowship. The opposite extreme would be the view that everyone in the Synod must do precisely the same thing every Sunday, with the same words, the same songs, the same liturgy, on the same page, from the same order of service, without any deviation, variety, or change. I believe that neither of these extremes is acceptable. There are those in our Synod who propose that every congregation in the Synod should simply “do its own thing.” They base this argument on the principle of adiaphora. In the Lutheran Church, the notion of adiaphora came up during a time when the Catholic rulers of portions of Germany attempted to force Lutherans to do certain things in their worship services, claiming that these things were part of the very Gospel itself. For instance, the Lutherans were told, “You must wear a certain kind of liturgical vestment or else you do not have a true worship service.” The Lutherans responded, “If you tell us we must do this, then we cannot do it, for the Gospel does not depend on it.” Adiaphora refers to things neither commanded nor forbidden by God. But I would suggest to you that we have gone a bit wrong with the principle of adiaphora recently in our Synod. The principle of adiaphora has become more than a rejection of what is being legalistically imposed on us in place of the pure Gospel. Instead, it has been turned into a license to do whatever pleases anyone, anywhere, and anytime, without due regard for the benefit of the Church and the edification of the people of our Synod. Clearly, none of our Lutheran fathers anticipated a day when liturgical anarchy and near chaos would be viewed

2 4 M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N | N O V E M B E R / D E C E M B E R 1 9 9 9

as helpful for the Church. The concern has always been, and must always be, on what best serves the need for good order in our Church, so that the Gospel can have “free course and be preached to the joy and edifying of Christ’s holy people.” Martin Chemnitz, one of the most important early theologians of the Lutheran Church, had this to say about why uniformity in worship practices is important: …it brings all sorts of benefits that in ceremonies, as much as possible, a uniformity be maintained, and that such ceremonies serve to maintain unity in doctrine, and the common, simple, weak consciences be all the less troubled…it is therefore viewed as good, that as much as possible a uniformity in ceremonies with neighboring reformation churches be effected and maintained.5 Our Synod has always been concerned that uniformity in liturgical practices be maintained, for the good of the Church. For without uniformity in practice, as I have mentioned earlier, how long will it be before we find ourselves no longer united in doctrine? Conclusion Looking ahead, I see many wonderful opportunities for the Church to teach her members about the beauty of meeting corporately with our God where he may be found—in Word and Sacrament. One could look at the liturgical chaos so prevalent around us, and at the lack of emphasis on the Gospel, and be overcome with fear and trembling. And indeed, even within our Synod, there is cause for concern. But we must remember that it is not really our Church; it is the Lord’s Church. He is and always will be very much in control. The gifts he gives are his gifts. It is his Word. They are his Sacraments. The children of the Church are his people. He promises to do what is best for us. He will continue to speak and we, by his grace, will continue to listen to him. For we do not yet see him face to face. But by his mercy, some day we too will join the countless number before his throne who worship him day and night. There the saints who are now on earth will join with angels, archangels, and all the company of heaven in singing the praises of him who is the beginning and the end, the first and the last, the alpha and omega, even our Lord Jesus Christ, who with the Father and the Holy Spirit reigns as one God, world without end. ■

A. L. Barry (D.Div., Concordia Theological Seminary, Fort Wayne) is the president of the Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod. By President Barry’s permission, this article is an edited version of an address he delivered to the Real Life Worship Conference in Denver, Colorado, in February, 1998.6

A S S E M B L E M Y P E O P L E | The Worship Event

The

Word Proclaimed Romans 10 and How the Gospel Comes roposed: God has promised to save and keep his people through the means he has appointed and through no others; the ordinary means of grace are limited to the preached Word and the administered Sacraments; God’s rationale for these means is made explicit in Scripture. This thesis, which was so widely accepted as to be almost taken for granted by many Protestants in the past, somehow looks remarkably controversial in our day. Remarkably, some professing evangelicals apparently believe that God can be found apart from any means, if only people will look deep enough inside themselves. Others think that, of course, the Bible is important, but preaching is not essential, and staged dramas might well be more effective. Few would defend the efficacy of the

Sacraments. Many assert that emotional music is a “medium” to connect us to God (see this article’s sidebar). And perhaps most evangelicals believe that Scripture really does not speak about methods or means; it is concerned only with message. In reality, though, there is a great deal of biblical support for the old view that God not only accomplished our redemption by grace, he also applies this redemption by grace. When you read Romans 10 (actually beginning at 9:30), for instance, it provides a single line of thought that has much to do with the questions at hand. First, there is Paul’s well-known lament concerning the offense of the cross—a lament because so many of his flesh and blood stumble over the Rock.

by M I C H A E L H O RT O N N O V E M B E R / D E C E M B E R 1 9 9 9 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 2 5

But the Rock cannot be moved. It cannot be softened, broken into pieces, or absorbed into the environment. It’s just there—in the way. God demands a perfect righteousness, which Paul says the Jews seek by their own works rather than by faith in Christ alone. He has been working out the logic of grace quite clearly throughout this epistle to the Romans, but especially beginning in chapter 8, it becomes a tight logical argument: “Those whom he foreknew he predestined, those whom he predestined he called, those whom he called he justified, and those whom he justified he glorified. What shall we therefore say? If God is for us, who can be against us?” (8:29-31). And then here in our passage, at the start of chapter 10, Paul further adds that the “righteousness which is of the law” leads to conclusions which are antithetical to those reached by the “righteousness which is by faith.” He will then restate the point more succinctly in chapter 11: “If then it is by grace, it is no longer of works; otherwise grace is no longer grace” (11:6). That’s the logic of the Gospel.

But what does it say? “The word is near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart,” (that is, the word of faith which we preach):…for “Everyone who calls on the name of the LORD will be saved.” How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? And how can they preach unless they are sent?…Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word of Christ (Rom. 10:5-17).

Do you see the logic of the method which Paul outlines here? Certain methods just go with certain messages, and that is true in the case of the Gospel. Paul is saying that grace has its own method. The spirit of worksrighteousness says, “How can I climb up to God and bring Christ down to me, where I am, in my own experience?” Like Ulysses crossing the expansive seas to conquer The Logic of the Message Controls the dragons and finally to arrive at his reward, the logic of Logic of the Method works-righteousness conceives of salvation by personal This summary is familiar to many of us. To be sure, conquest. Martin Luther would talk about ladders that there are two ways of salvation: our way, which leads to people climb to reach God’s presence: mysticism, merit, death, and God’s way, which leads to life everlasting. and speculation were the ladders he had in mind. These Each road has its own destiny and its own method of same ladders are plentiful today. Scores of methods redemption (works or grace). abound for pulling God down out of heaven, to manipulate him into doing what we want him to do when we want him to do it. Judging by practice, many Protestant churches apparently believe (despite This, of course, is what the Israelites attempted in the Calvin’s insistence on weekly communion) that the Sacraments can be foregone, wilderness. While God was giving his redeemed people a even for a long time, without worship being injured. And according to some, written and preached Word even preaching can be set aside. But I wonder if a service might be canceled if we through his servant Moses at the top of the mountain, they were busy fashioning a golden calf lost electricity during a storm. Thus we discover how we have made music a which they could see and touch—and control. means, not even of “grace,” but of climbing, ascending, grasping.... Today people still want to see, touch, and control God. They will do almost anything to be But what may not be so familiar is Paul’s argument in where the “action” is, where God has been conjured down Romans 10; namely, that each road not only has its own out of heaven, whether it is flying to Toronto, Pensacola, or destiny and method of redemption, but also has its own means of attaining or receiving that redemption. In other even Lourdes. Not content with hearing God’s Word, they words, it is possible to accept the logic of the message want to see God’s glory. But God warned Moses, “No man (“salvation by grace alone through faith alone because of can see me and live” (Ex. 33:20). In fact, it was in this Christ alone”), while missing the logic of the method episode, just after God agreed not to destroy his idolatrous (receiving this by grace alone). Note Paul’s argument closely: people, that Moses too pleaded to see God’s glory. Informing Moses that this would spell the prophet’s doom Moses describes in this way the righteousness rather than delight, God agreed to allow his goodness rather that is by the law: “The man who does these than his glory to pass by. And he did this by preaching a things will live by them.” But the righteousness little sermon: “I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy” that is by faith says: “Do not say in your heart, was the introduction, body, and conclusion. ‘Who will ascend into heaven?’” (that is, to bring Christ down) or “‘Who will descend into the Seeing vs. Hearing deep?’” (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead). Throughout the Old Testament, idolatry was the Big

2 6 M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N | N O V E M B E R / D E C E M B E R 1 9 9 9

One. It was not adultery or fornication, greed or theft, even murder or being disobedient to one’s parents. These were all important, each with its own sanction under the Mosaic civil code. Nevertheless, idolatry was the sin from which all else was understood to flow. The Canaanites and other nations in the region were much more culturally sophisticated and technologically advanced than the children of Israel, and they credited their prosperity to both their own efforts and the gods’ approval. They could see these gods: there were visible manifestations or points of contact with these deities in the form of huge statues and altars raised up on the horizon’s highest points. Israel was tired of hearing, which corresponds to patiently waiting for God’s timetable in hope. Instead, Israel wanted to see, which corresponds to the reality itself. When someone tells me I’ve been offered the job of my dreams after it has been intimated and then even promised to me before, I might say, “Seeing is believing.” And that really is true for us as fallen creatures, born untrusting and cynical. But as Paul reminds us, “For in this hope we were saved. But hope that is seen is no ‘hope’ at all. Who hopes for what he already has? But if we hope for what we do not yet have, we wait for it patiently” (Rom. 8:24-25). Therefore, there is a correlation in biblical faith between faith/hope and a promise announced (hearing) on the one hand, and vision/sight and a reality fully experienced on the other. Those who demand the eschaton (i.e., the Vision of God) here and now will be particularly susceptible to idolatry. And they would not be as inclined toward idolatry if they were patiently waiting for the salvation which they have in Christ as it is mediated through the broken and not so spectacular vessels of human messengers, and the common elements of water, bread, and wine. Why are these effective means of grace? Not because of either the minister or the elements themselves, but because of God’s promise. God has promised to deliver his grace at these humble venues. It is not that we get one sort of grace in the preaching, another in baptism, and another in the Supper, but that in these divinely instituted means God offers and gives the same grace: namely, forgiveness and new life. The revival down the street may promise the Vision, but God’s Spirit calms us down and says, “Give ear to my words.” The logic of the righteousness which is by works may attract us to a forty-day fast as a method of gaining victory over all known sin, but the logic of the righteousness which is by faith says that we don’t have to cross the seas to find God and “appropriate” his power. Rather, he is as near as the means of grace; in this passage specifically, the preaching of the Gospel. This is great news! For God has not only saved us by grace in sending his Son two thousand years ago, but he has also applied this grace by grace alone in sending his Spirit down to us here and now to make his preached Gospel and his administered Sacraments the means of grace, creating faith and confirming it until the end.

Distinguishing God’s Action and Our Action in the Service But if God has spoken on methods/means—on the ways by which he comes to us—then why do we continue to neglect his provisions and fashion our own ladders into heaven? Sadly, many believe these are merely matters of preference. As one writer in Worship Leader, a magazine of the Contemporary Christian Music (CCM) industry, puts it: “Those that champion the cognitive suggest that worship should center upon the proclamation of the Word.”1 But the “preference” for the cognitive is emphatically not why the proclamation of the Word should be central! It is not as if “intellectual people” are free to choose their intellectual worship (centered on preaching), while “emotional people” can choose emotional worship (centered on singing). Instead, what Paul is directing us toward is not distinctions among human preferences, but a distinction between God’s action and our action, between when we are active and when we are passive. Hearing the Word read and preached (and receiving the “visible Word”—i.e., the Sacraments) is not about preference. It is about the action of God. Preaching is not merely the minister’s talk about God, but actually God’s talk. It is the law-Gospel encounter through which God himself takes the judge’s bench, arraigns us as sinners by the standard of perfect justice and then finds a way to be both just and the justifier of the ungodly in Jesus Christ. All of this happens to us, before our very eyes. It is worked upon us and in us by the Holy Spirit as the Word is preached. Despite the fact that many conservative preachers, including Calvinists, often confuse the ministry of the Word with teaching, the argument Paul makes here in Romans 10 (and the Scriptures make elsewhere, especially in Ezekiel 37 with the valley of the dry bones) is really quite different. For the biblical writers, “the preached Word of God is the Word of God” (Second Helvetic Confession). It is not an event chiefly of instruction, motivation, encouragement, inspiration, or exhortation. All of these may be involved, depending on the passage, but the preached Word is primarily a means of grace. As the Heidelberg Catechism puts it: “The Holy Spirit creates faith in our hearts by the preaching of the holy Gospel and confirms it by the use of the holy Sacraments” (Q/A 65). That is what Paul argues especially here, but elsewhere in various forms: viz., that the Gospel is “the power of God unto salvation…” (Rom. 1:16; also 1 Cor. 1:22-25). God makes sure not only that the good news is preserved, but that it remains good news in the way in which it is delivered. Just as faith is the sole instrument of justification, so too “faith comes by hearing2…. the Word of God.” The ears are organs of reception, not of attainment. There is too much talk of God “manifesting” or “revealing” himself to us. It is not that these are bad things, nor that God has not manifested or revealed himself in some ways. Rather, manifesting and revealing [ C O N T I N U E D O N PA G E 3 0 ]

N O V E M B E R / D E C E M B E R 1 9 9 9 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 2 7

In Print November/December Book Recommendations Reaching Out Without Dumbing Down: A Theology of Worship for the Turn-Of-the-Century Culture Marva Dawn (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995) One of the most significant books on worship written for our age, this best-selling volume offers biblical suggestions for deepening the worship life and practices of every local church. B-DAW-1 PAPERBACK, $18.00 A Royal "Waste" of Time: The Splendor of Worshiping God and Being Church for the World Marva Dawn (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999) In this sequel to her book, Reaching Out Without Dumbing Down, Marva Dawn helps churches navigate beyond today’s worship wars and develop effective worship practices that are truly Godcentered. B-DAW-3 PAPERBACK, $18.00 Lutheran Worship: History and Practice Fred L. Precht (St. Louis: Concordia, 1993) This companion volume to Lutheran Worship examines the roots of Lutheran worship practices and critiques. It studies present corporate worship practices and contemplates future developments. B-PREC-1 HARDCOVER, $24.00 Meaningful Worship James Leonard Brauer (St. Louis: Concordia, 1994) For use with Lutheran Worship, The Lutheran Hymnal, Lutheran Book of Worship, and Service Book and Hymnal. Explains each liturgical section. Includes discussion questions and a glossary of liturgical terms. B-BRAU-1 PAPERBACK, $9.00 Leading in Worship: A Sourcebook for Presbyterian Students and Ministers Terry L. Johnson (Oak Ridge, TN: Covenant Foundation, 1996) Johnson’s book helps pastors lead their flocks in scriptural worship with dignity and without distraction. It contains biblical prayers, collects, and forms for services that keep our focus on God, not man. B-JOH-1 HARDCOVER, $18.00 Liturgies of the Western Church Bard Thompson (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1980) The liturgies of the Word and the Lord's Supper that are included in this volume range from those of the church fathers through the Roman Mass, to the great Reformation liturgies, as well as the Middleburg Liturgy of the English Puritans and the Westminster Directory. B-THOMP-1 PAPERBACK, $23.00 Trinity Hymnal (Philadelphia: Great Commission Publication, 1990) The Trinity Hymnal has been prepared to nourish and equip those in the Presyterian/Reformed community for worship that is pleasing in the Lord’s sight. The hymnal is rooted in the rich tradition of the Reformation—with a zeal for the gospel, a high regard for doctrinal purity, and a focus on worship as defined in Scripture. B-TRH-1 HARDCOVER, $17.00 To order, complete and mail the order form in the envelope provided. Or call 215-546-3696 between 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. ET (credit card orders only).

2 8 M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N | N O V E M B E R / D E C E M B E R 1 9 9 9

On Tape From the Alliance Archives Christian Liberty James Boice If you’ve been a Christian for any length of time, then you know one important truth—we’re all very different from one another. And because we’re different, tensions and arguments can arise between the very people who have the most important thing in common— Jesus Christ. From this tape series in Romans, you’ll learn how to focus on Jesus Christ instead of dwelling on the differences between believers. And you'll see how your relationship with God deeply affects your relationship with others. C-CL 4 TAPES IN AN ALBUM WITH A STUDY GUIDE, $27.00 So Now What? The Christian Life in Reformation Perspective A White Horse Inn series This new White Horse Inn series focuses on the doctrine of sanctification, and how it comes into play in day-to-day life. Mike, Ken, Kim and Rod present the doctrine in light of the gospel with discussion on the law, the individual, the church, evangelism, eschatology, and Christian responsibility. C-SANC-S 2 TAPES IN AN ALBUM, $13.00 Christianity and the World A White Horse Inn series In this four-part White Horse Inn series, Mike, Ken, Kim and Rod discuss the relationship of modern Christianity and contemporary culture. Four specific areas are addressed: The family, art, science and education. C-CATW-S 2 TAPES IN AN ALBUM, $13.00 The Megashift Debate A CURE Conference series This 16-tape audio series features Clark Pinnock, Richard Rice and Robert Webber setting forth the “New Model” and Michael Horton, W. Robert Godfrey and Robert Strimple defending the “Old Model.” C- MS-S 16 TAPES IN AN ALBUM, $86.00

Authority of Scripture An International Council on Biblical Inerrancy series James Boice, Norman Geisler, Walter Kaiser, R.C. Sproul The battle for the Bible is more than believing that God exists—it gets down to the spiritual issue of whether or not we believe God. At risk is the integrity and trustworthiness of the Word of God itself. Order this series and study manual and revolutionize your own understanding of what the Bible is and how it impacts your daily life. C-SS-1 8 TAPES IN AN ALBUM, $43.00 B-AOS STUDY GUIDE, $6.00 Introducing Dr. D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones Martyn Lloyd-Jones Hailed by many as the finest British preacher of the 20th century, Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones was famous for his clear and systematic style of preaching. Through verse by verse study, he opens up the scriptures and reveals their importance and relevance to today’s world. This collection of four introductory messages to Romans, Acts, Ephesians and John gives you a great overview of each book as well as conveys something of the life, vitality and depth of this man of God. C-MLJ-3 4 TAPES IN AN ALBUM, $23.00 Christmas Celebration The Westminster Brass A selection of brass renditions of traditional Christmas favorites by the brass ensemble that heralds the opening of The Bible Study Hour radio broadcast. C-WB-3 STEREO CASSETTE, $10.00 White Horse Inn single cassettes, $5.00 • The Sentimentalization of Christmas C-WHI-211 • CURE's Basic Doctrine Quiz C-WHI-149 • CURE's Church History Quiz C-WHI-203 • The Jesus Seminar C-WHI-226

Subscribe to Modern Reformation Magazine Six times a year, Modern Reformation will sharpen and challenge you. Why not subscribe today?

U.S. One year $22 (MR1YR) Two years $40 (MR2YR) U.S. Student One year $11 (MRS1YR) Two years not available Canada One year $25 (MR1YR) Two years $45 (MR2YR) Europe One year $34 (MR1YR) Two years $62 (MR2YR) Other One year $35 (MR1YR) Two years $65 (MR2YR) To subscribe, complete and mail the order form in the envelope provided. Or call 215-546-3696 between 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. ET (credit card orders only). N O V E M B E R / D E C E M B E R 1 9 9 9 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 2 9

[ C O N T I N U E D F R O M PA G E 2 7 ]

Is Contemporary Worship Becoming Self-Critical? In preparing for a lecture recently, I picked up an issue of Worship Leader, a publication of the Contemporary Christian Music (CCM) industry. Having experienced that world, I was not surprised that one of the first articles (written by a minister calling himself “Reformed”) was premised on the assumption that music is somehow a means by which we commune with God. And the subtitle read: “Music as Medium to Connect Us to God.”1 Rather than looking to the preached Word and the administered Sacrament (where God actively gives the gifts and we, the needy, receive them), as Protestants have traditionally done, the author suggested that music (where we are the actors) is one of the primary means of grace. For “music can be spiritually generative,” and “Spiritually generative events are things that ‘connect’ people with God and have a self reproducing quality.”2 But there is more to learn concerning things “spiritually generative”: In antiquity we see this concept in the conversion of Celts in Ireland during the sixth century. Celtic orbs, knots and images about the Creation were incorporated into what we know as the Celtic cross…At the same time, the orb and knots were christianized. To look at the cross was to see Christ. To look at Celtic art was to think of the cross, wherever one might be. This is a good example of a spiritually generative event.3 But isn’t it rather a good example of what at least Reformed folks have called “idolatry”? That is why it seems strange for the author to then cite Calvin in his favor for “a lot of freedom when it comes to music…” In the author’s church, he tells us, “we pluck our themes right off of alternative and Top 40 radio. We are hoping for a spiritually generative result.”4 Lest I be misunderstood, I want to say explicitly that I do not regard alternative and Top 40 songs as inherently sinful or idolatrous. Some people do, but I don’t. In fact, if any of our readers have listened to the White Horse Inn radio program, it should be obvious that we have no objections to Joan Osborne’s “(What If God Was) One of Us” being played as a way of listening to popular culture. But in worship we are talking about something different. Here it is not the culture—popular, folk, or high—which determines the shape of things. What we do on the Lord’s Day is already determined by God: preaching of the Word, the Sacraments, and the prayers (Acts 2:42). How can we “pluck our themes right off of alternative and Top 40 radio” when we have been sent out on someone else’s mission? The Worship Leader writer is clearly not alone; it seems to be widely held these days that God has said nothing about how we [ C O N T I N U E D O N PA G E 3 1 ]

3 0 M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N | N O V E M B E R / D E C E M B E R 1 9 9 9

are already heavily weighted toward vision and sight rather than hearing and hoping. Of course, this visual dominance is not new—even if television in particular and our image-obsessed culture in general may make the addiction to things of the eye seem more normal. Actually, though, the history of idolatry is largely the history of visual consumerism. We may easily observe the Hebraic suspicions—not of art, but of imagining God or the sacred in art; not of ritual, but of creating our own rituals, our own method of worship; not of music, but of a captivity to music which undermines the liturgy, preaching, and Sacrament. There is a contrast here between Hebraic and pagan attitudes. While the pagan could be as eclectic and innovative as possible within his or her range of creativity, the Israelite had to turn away from the impersonal “sacredness of everything,” which was represented by the idols as visual aids, to embrace the infinite-personal God who spoke through the patriarchs and prophets. God’s people recounted the stories of God’s redemptive acts in history, while the typical pagan would (and still does) find such a restriction (this God, this elect people, in this time and place, etc.) on sacred manifestation offensive. Some will reply, yes, that was true of Israel, but isn’t Jesus Christ the icon (eikon) of the invisible God? And doesn’t that mean that our worship should now be “incarnational” (a term under whose skirt all sorts of idolatry hide)? To use the Incarnation as a cipher for smuggling “sacredness” and idolatry into the Christian community is especially pernicious. To be sure, God has become flesh in the person of Jesus Christ. God was preserving a people from idolatry precisely for that event. But here we are 2,000 years later. We cannot see Christ, but we can see the bread and the wine which in the sacramental union become sacred because of the reality which the Holy Spirit gives through the Sacrament. And as Christ is preached each week, through the whole service as well as the sermon, he is as truly present and active by the Holy Spirit as if he were present bodily. So Paul can speak as if his preaching is a visual drama: “Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed [literally, “placarded” or “posted up on a billboard”] before you as crucified” (Gal. 3:1). Here also, as in Romans, he contrasts works-righteousness with whether “…you believe what you heard” (3:5). Even the Sacraments have their efficacy through the Spirit only by the Word. God has given us visual means of grace alongside his Word, but he has promised to bless, comfort, forgive, and cleanse only through these means, as the same Gospel promised in the preaching is sealed to us in the Sacraments. It is not a message of salvation by grace alone which is then discovered, attained, appropriated, or experienced by some way other than grace—by climbing into heaven or by crossing the seas. God has made the trip across the great expanse and has come all the way. But that was still not enough. In order to unite us “here and now” (late

1999) to that “then and there” event (Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection), he sent a minister. God is active through the minister’s voice now, as he announces what Christ has done and will yet do. Paul thus concludes his argument: “How shall they hear without a preacher and how shall they preach unless they are sent?” (Rom. 10:14-15). But this focus, of course, is not a popular idea today. While salvation may be by grace, receiving salvation (especially sanctification) supposedly comes by grasping, by traveling to this or that “spiritual” place, or by experimenting with each new evangelical fad. Many evangelicals thus believe that nearly anybody can qualify as a “minister” and anything as a “ministry.” One need not be “sent,” as Romans says here, but may send oneself. But Paul is clearly using “sent” here to mean sent by the Church through its appointed officers, as his insistence on the laying on of hands reminds us. Paul is arguing that if salvation is by grace alone, then it must be delivered by a medium in which the sinner is passive rather than active. That medium is preaching—as well as Sacrament. A service in which the congregation is almost exclusively active (for instance, in singing, especially in singing about what they are doing and will do) abruptly interrupts this Pauline logic. For the action here is moving in the other direction, from God to us. He comes to us; he gives us the gift of forgiveness and new life in Christ. There are, of course, many parts of the worship service where the faithful are active—but these times (confession, singing, prayer, etc.) are not “means of grace.” Rather, they are means of responding to the grace which has been delivered by God alone. See that Paul singles out preaching as the way that salvation comes to us, as the way that the Spirit effects salvation. And this is not just any preaching, but a certain kind of preaching: “that is, the word of faith which we preach” (10:8), “the word of Christ” (10:17). It is the preaching of God’s commands that brings conviction, and the proclamation of Christ in the Gospel that creates and keeps on creating faith and its fruit. This is not to divorce God’s Word from other elements (singing, prayers, the blessing), but it is to say that preaching is singled out as God’s chief means of grace. A methodology that regards God’s chief activity in terms of the extraordinary and spectacular will not settle for the wisdom and power of God in the Word. Salvation by grace alone may be solidly affirmed, but Paul argues here that methodology cannot be divorced from the message. It is by a deputized ambassador (and not a self-appointed mediator) so that it may be through the preaching of the Gospel outside of us (and not through the clever inventions of our idol-making imagination), so that it may be by faith alone. And it is by faith alone so that it might be of grace alone, so that it might be of Christ alone, to the glory of God alone. That’s the logic Paul is unfolding. So many people hear the good news when it comes to Jesus’ saving work: it’s by grace, not by works. But then

[ C O N T I N U E D F R O M PA G E 3 0 ]

should worship him. This silence, furthermore, prohibits us from making even preaching necessary to every worship service. Some conservative Presbyterian theologians, for instance, argue that a weekly service need not include the preaching of the Word, as God can speak his Word through a variety of other instruments: drama, liturgical dance, poetry, and so on. Repeatedly we are told by defenders of CCM worship that opponents are making too much of differences in style. One person prefers guitars, another prefers organs: Isn’t that all that this debate is about? It might seem so at first glance. But when theologians challenge the necessity of the preached Word to the service, clearly what is at stake is the status of the divinely ordained means of grace and the substitutability of other “means” appointed by us. Further, when a minister informs us that he and his staff “pluck our themes right off of alternative and Top 40 radio” (emphasis added), it is obviously not just a matter of taste, but of content. There were certainly times in Israel’s history when she plucked her themes right off of the high places around her. Hearing a Different Note? But then, when I was expecting the entire Worship Leader issue to offer more of the same, I discovered that there are some dissenting voices in the camp. In between ads for synthesizers and PA systems are articles written by CCM industry leaders raising concerns about the directions of the last twenty years. While most of these selfcritical arguments still appear to be merely pragmatic, it is nonetheless ironic to see contemporary worship movement leaders starting to have doubts—at the same time that many confessional folks (whose theological traditions ought to help them be more discerning) rush to join the alternative worship party just as it ends. The magazine’s managing editor David Di Sabatino observes: “Detractors of the contemporary worship movement have a legitimate complaint when they lament that current songs are devoid of theological acumen and have capitulated to the highly individualistic and commercially-driven zeitgest [sic] of our culture.”5 And remember, this is just as some Reformed theologians are scolding their peers (and pejoratively calling them “Historicus,” to imply that they almost idolize tradition itself)6 for making exactly these charges. But that’s not all. Another Worship Leader article calls our attention to the “quest of an ancient future: old hymns, contemporary context.”7 This piece cites Michael Card’s observation “that the contemporary worship movement has simply capitulated to cultural trends.” Card has discovered a new generation of young people for whom the old hymns are brand new. Fresh features, such as new harmonizations, are breathing new life into these old texts. Various seeker-oriented pastors are quoted as suggesting that the superficial era of contemporary worship may be nearing its end. What was old is now new. “By exposing new people to many of these old classics in a way that is musically familiar but non-threatening, we encourage a very healthy type of connection to our ancient faith.”8 It is not surprising, [ C O N T I N U E D O N PA G E 3 2 ]

N O V E M B E R / D E C E M B E R 1 9 9 9 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 3 1

[ C O N T I N U E D F R O M PA G E 3 1 ]

then, that the overly stereotyped “GenXer” is bored by CCM and is excited about liturgy and some intimation of transcendence. Donald C. Boyd recounts the story of a friend, a denominational official, who led a focus group of 20-something ministers. “While tossing on the table the idea of worship, one of the young pastors remarked, ‘Well, I’ve been raised on traditional worship. You know, praise choruses, music projected on the wall, drama—that sort of thing.”9 Another article in Worship Leader features an interview with a couple of “single adult ministry experts.” Where one might expect to find the usual hype, instead one hears “ministry leader Holly Rollins” arguing: In contrast to an application-oriented [seeker] church, through [our] seeker-friendly services…we decided to target this highly intellectual, very well-educated demographic with very deep, philosophical teaching....We spent a significant amount of time studying our demographic before we launched the new ministry. The premise of this was that we’re not hitting 80 percent of our target demographic….10 Remarkably, the same pragmatic marketing criteria are being used to move away from seeker-driven shallowness. The unchurched, especially the younger crowd, are burned out on hype. “That makes Soul Purpose [the singles’ ministry] probably the most ‘ecclesiastical’ ministry in our very non-traditional church.”11 Rich Hurst, the other “single adult ministry expert” being interviewed, says of these changes: I have a whole different view of ministry. I’m still stuck in a seeker mode and I’m trying to get out of it. That’s a big problem with our church world. I find it difficult to say anything positive about the church growth movement. In 1970 there were 10 megachurches, today there are over 400, and yet overall church attendance is off 35 percent. I was in Chicago recently with some pastors. I used to be on the pastoral staff of a seeker church, so I have a pretty good working knowledge of that kind of ministry and what it takes to raise a lot of money. I don’t think they have much of a future; they’ll wind up being tourist attractions or community colleges because they haven’t learned how to reach the next generation. The idea of seeker worship hasn’t been the answer to what ails Christianity in America.12 Interviewer Sally Morgenthaler adds, “That’s the difference between selfhelp and transformation. It is a whole different worldview if you believe in [human] depravity....” Rich Hurst replies, “Churches influenced by the seeker-church movement have just become big self-help places, sort of a Parks and Recreation Department for the middle class.” Note what these folks are saying: These former advocates of shallow seeker-services are recognizing that much of that movement carries a weak doctrine of sin and, consequently offers only self[ C O N T I N U E D O N PA G E 3 3 ]

3 2 M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N | N O V E M B E R / D E C E M B E R 1 9 9 9

trouble comes, for they are led to all of the gimmicks, techniques, methods, and means that are out there for climbing up to God and experiencing a vision of his glory, a touch of his power, a glimpse of his majesty. When they get burned out on this sort of religion, they will be ready either for atheism or for the theology of the cross. This theology of the cross is weakness, not power—and yet, it is “the power of God unto salvation.” It is foolishness, not wisdom—and yet, “the foolishness of God is wiser than men’s wisdom.” The weak things of God have become not so much despised as ignored in much of contemporary Christianity. Instead, we look for the powerful things of the world. And then we wonder why we get worldly results: consumers rather than disciples. The Wonder of the Divine Drama But traditionalism shouldn’t get off easily either. If believers are looking for an exciting encounter with God apart from the Word, we must ask why this is. Is it just because our age is like the Middle Ages, visual rather than verbal? Or could it also be that many of us have turned the service into a dry, purely rational and yet unreflective routine? Do we think of the Lord’s Day as exclusively didactic? If Christ is not preached as good news to believers who are still sinful and weak in faith, then it is no wonder that preaching has lost its power. The power is in the preaching of Christ, not simply in the medium of a man talking from up front. And if people are hankering after drama, perhaps it is because we are not demonstrating to them the wonder of the divine drama. As Dorothy Sayers reminded us, “The doctrine is the drama.” A famous English fiction writer herself, Sayers, in Creed or Chaos, is astonished that a story so full of dramatic interest as this narrative of redemption could be rendered benign and flat by the clergy. The Reformation spirit— more importantly, the apostolic spirit—is not one of conservatism any more than progressivism. It strives to faithfully bring God’s means of grace to each new generation. And if many of our folks want to turn our church into an aerobics class or a situation comedy, instead of merely resisting and retrenching, perhaps we should ask ourselves some tough questions. Are we really ministering God’s means of grace? If the preaching of Christ and the place of the Sacraments are unclear, it should be no surprise that people will set up golden calves—their own means of grace, whether through musical extravagance, emotional hype, visual drama, or other methods which we think will help us climb into the presence of One who instead seeks and finds us. Furthermore, God has provided baptism and the Holy Supper as means of strengthening our faith in Christ, assuring us, and delivering his blessings. They are not merely illustrations, as stage dramas in church are, but actually convey the promised deliverance. God has accommodated to our capacity already: in Word and

Sacrament. He has taken our weakness into consideration already. First, he accommodated in the form which his selfrevelation took throughout the history of Israel. Then he accommodated to our weakness in the Incarnation. He came down all the way to us, saved us by the death and resurrection of his Son, and continues to provide for our temporal and eternal welfare. But that’s not all. After this he still accommodates, coming all the way down to us again here and now as he uses the most everyday and common elements that are familiar to both the uneducated and the academic: water, bread, and wine. Here God even accommodates to our weakness by allowing us to “taste and see that the Lord is good,” to catch a glimpse of his goodness as he passes by. The writer to the Hebrews calls it “tasting of the powers of the age to come.” It is simply arrogant, therefore, for us to respond to God’s gracious condescension by asking, “But what about the teenagers?” When Hope Will Dissolve Into Sight Biblical faith is hyper-sensitive to idolatry—and not just of the First Commandment type, but of the Second as well (viz., the prohibition of worshiping even the true God according to our own imagination). Idolatry is, at least in part, the result of an over-realized eschatology— not being able to wait. Instead of patiently hoping, as that hope is propped up and strengthened each Lord’s Day, we want to experience it all here and now. Instead of the cross, we want to see God’s glory. Idolatry is what we get when we don’t want to hear promises anymore, but want to see the goods. But God sought to preserve his people from idolatry because he was saving his selfrevelation for the Incarnation. There in Palestine men and women saw God in the flesh, “and we beheld his glory” (John 1:14), not the blinding majesty which no mortal can see and live, but the goodness of God as he passed by, hiding us in the cleft of the rock. In this wilderness epoch between the two comings of our Savior, God is savingly present among us through Word and Sacrament. We need props to strengthen our faith, but we dare not invent our own, as Israel did at Mount Sinai. Only in glory will we no longer need faith, since hope will dissolve into sight. There will be no more promises, no more anticipation. But for now God has given us his means of grace to ensure that the method of delivery as well as the method of redemption itself is his alone. Here in the wilderness, God has given us both the preached Word and the visible Word, baptism and the Supper. Here is God’s drama, the liturgy of the Tree of Life, a drama in which God not only illustrates but acts in saving grace, and we respond in faith and repentance. ■

[ C O N T I N U E D F R O M PA G E 3 2 ]

help—that is, the righteousness which is of works, rather than the divine rescue which is actually needed! Jeff Peabody continues the thought in the next article, titled “Rethinking the Worship Leader: A Pastoral Vision.” He writes, “Many good books and gifted speakers have prompted me to rethink my concept of worship and worship leading. I have become increasingly aware that worship is more profound than what typically occurs on any given Sunday morning. We breeze through our worship, without giving it the theological reflection it deserves.” We need to start asking the question concerning “worship leaders”: “Do they show any theological understanding of their role, or are they musically gifted but biblically illiterate.”13 How Do We Go Forward? Of course, not everybody is moving in this direction. And a ministry based on pragmatism is built on sand regardless of whether it is more traditional or contemporary. Furthermore, it will take an entire generation of reeducation in the substance of Christian faith and practice for us to attain linguistic competence again in terms of the Christian grammar. We need to get beyond the “traditional/contemporary” categories and rediscover the biblical, confessional, theological warp and woof of worship. This will require new thinking, whether we’re either lazy praise-and-worship folks who are satisfied with a few guitar chords and undemanding content, or lazy conservatives who just want to sing familiar tunes even if they have lost their freshness. Neither innovation nor nostalgia should reign. Even now there are gifted pastors and musicians working in tandem to produce new lyrical constructions and musical composition. Every era of genuine reformation and awakening, as the Gospel is rediscovered in its astonishing depth, has generated a new era in liturgical and musical development. Like our forebears, we are reformers and not revolutionaries. We should challenge ourselves and each other to greater biblical fidelity, but be always suspicious of those who want to start from scratch. Reformation assumes change within continuity. Despite the challenges, the growing interest in reinvesting in historic Christianity represents an invigorating turn. It is ironic that more conservative Reformed and Lutheran writers are defending the Gaithers’ music as “contemporary” and “seeker-sensitive,” while the coming generation of evangelicals finds this music far more alienating than the Psalms of David and the great hymns which were written before the adoption of sentimental texts and tunes. While many of our own are defending “Shine, Jesus, Shine,” many of those on the vanguard of seeker-churches are seeking refuge in the Rock of Ages, though perhaps with James Ward’s new and, to my mind, definitely improved music. ■ Michael Horton

Michael Horton (Ph.D., Wycliffe Hall, Oxford and the University of Coventry) is associate professor of historical theology at Westminster Theological Seminary in California, and serves on the Council of the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals.

N O V E M B E R / D E C E M B E R 1 9 9 9 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 3 3

A S S E M B L E M Y P E O P L E | The Worship Event

Music Accep I

n the worship wars of recent years the nastiest battles have erupted over music. What should we sing? Who should sing? What tunes should we sing? What instruments should accompany the Church’s singing—if any? Why do we sing? ¶ Most often it seems that the armies arrayed on the varying sides of issues have fought under the banner of preference. What do we like and what moves us? Preference has tended to pit older people against younger and high brows against low brows. But how hard have we tried to think theologically and biblically about music? How much are our convictions and practices shaped by the New Testament? In this article, we will examine some of the Bible’s key teachings on music and song, and try to relate them to the history of Reformed reflection and contemporary issues. Music in the Bible Music is not a prominent element in the New Testament. No bands or choirs accompany the preaching of Jesus. There is no evidence of musical instruments in the synagogues as described in the New Testament. Church music seems absent from the Acts of the Apostles— although Paul sings in prison and the praise of the churches may well have been sung. The only unambiguous reference to singing in the churches is in 1 Cor. 14:26—although Col. 3:16 (and Eph. 5:19) may well reflect the activities of public worship. No musical instruments are mentioned in relation to the worship of the New Testament churches. Music seems somewhat more prominent in the heavenly worship described in the Book of the Revelation.

This added prominence probably reflects the correspondence between the heavenly temple and the music of the earthly temple of the Old Testament. In the Old Testament temple, musical instruments and choirs of singers especially accompanied the offering of sacrifices (2 Chr. 29:25-36). Still, in the heavenly worship as described in the Book of the Revelation, the only musical instrument referred to is a harp (e.g. Rev. 5:8)—and the harp there is probably intended as a symbol of praise rather than a literal reference to harps in heaven (see Rev. 14:2). If the worship of the New Testament church is a model for the contemporary church, serious reexamination of contemporary practice is needed. Music—so peripheral in the New Testament—has become central and crucial in our time. Choirs, solos, and special music occupy considerable time. Debates rage over the style of music among champions of everything from classical to contemporary. For many churchgoers, it would appear that music has become a new sacrament. Intense, prolonged singing is a way in which God comes to bless the worshiper and in which the singer seeks a transcendent experience of God. That experience is so important that

An Argument for Grea 3 4 M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N | N O V E M B E R / D E C E M B E R 1 9 9 9

b y W. R O B E RT G O D F R E Y

ptable to God many judge a church on the character and quality of its music. In many churches the amount of time spent in prayer, Bible reading, and preaching is reduced so that more time can be given to music. Reformed Christians in particular have sought to follow the teaching of Scripture on worship. They have believed that only the directions or examples of the Bible can guide our worship. This conviction flows from the words of the Bible itself (e.g., Col. 2:23 and Matt. 15:6). Theologically, the Reformed passion for faithful, biblical worship flows out of the strong warnings in Scripture against idolatry. Idolatry is both the worship of a false God and the false worship of the true God. Idolatry is a violation of the first or the second of the Ten Commandments. The Reformed commitment to biblical worship must apply to music as to all other aspects of worship. Though music seems to be a relatively secondary element of worship in the New Testament, it is still one of the elements. Jesus sings with his disciples at the Last Supper and the Corinthian church clearly sang (as did the Colossian church most likely). Singing is an element in its own right as a distinctive act of worship. It may function in similar ways to other elements. It may share functions with teaching and prayer, for example, yet it remains a distinct element. (In the same way, Bible reading, preaching, and blessing may all use the same words of the Bible and all have in part a teaching function, though they remain distinct elements of

ater Use of the Psalms N O V E M B E R / D E C E M B E R 1 9 9 9 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 3 5

worship). As a distinctive element, it needs to be understood in terms of its unique function in worship as directed by the Scriptures. What kind of singing should be an element of Christian worship? The words used of singing in the New Testament (“psalm,” “hymn,” and “song”) are not technical terms, but simply seem to refer to songs. (In the Greek Old Testament, these three words are all used to refer to the canonical Psalms.) For example Jesus is said to sing a hymn (Matt. 26:30) where almost certainly one of the canonical Psalms is meant. By contrast the psalm referred to in 1 Cor. 14:26 is probably not a canonical psalm. (See also the references to songs in Rom. 15:9, 1 Cor. 14:15, and Jam. 5:13.) The kind of song used in New Testament churches cannot be established by the words used. Other indications are necessary to know what should be sung. Many argue that Christians are free to compose and sing any songs that are orthodox in content. The argument runs that singing praise to God is parallel to praying. Since we are free to formulate prayers, we are free to compose songs. But it is not self-evident that song should be seen as parallel to prayer. Perhaps it should be seen as parallel to Scripture reading.1 The worship element of Scripture reading is limited to the reading of inspired, canonical Scripture. Such a limitation may not seem to be strictly necessary logically. Many orthodox, edifying writings by Christians might be read in worship. But most Christians would agree that we should have as an act of worship the reading of the inspired words of God (see 1 Tim. 4:13). On reflection, at least in Old Testament worship, singing seems more like Scripture reading than prayer because while the Old Testament has no book of prayers, it does have a book of songs. God, for reasons that may elude us, has seen fit to inspire songs for worship, but not prayers. Actual reasons may account for the need of inspired songs. Song is an activity of the people of God that unites them in one activity of heightened emotional response to God. The heightened emotion of song and its potential for abuse might well be a reason for God to inspire the words of that response. Also the praying and preaching in public worship in the Reformed churches has been done by ordained leaders. The Church has set aside leaders who are gifted, called, examined, and ordained to that work. “Free” singing seldom meets those standards of care and supervision. Clearly the canonical Psalms were set for singing as Jesus and his disciples sang them at the Last Supper. Surely Paul’s call to sing “psalms and hymns and spiritual songs” includes the call to sing canonical Psalms. At a minimum then we should conclude from the examples and teaching of Scripture that the singing of the canonical Psalms ought to be a significant part of the Church’s singing.

3 6 M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N | N O V E M B E R / D E C E M B E R 1 9 9 9

Demonstrations of the Value of Singing the Psalms Let me list some of the strongest arguments I know for singing Psalms: • The Psalms are inspired, are meant to be sung, and are certainly orthodox in their content. Singing Psalms is commanded by God, is certain to be pleasing to him, and is an excellent way of hiding his Word in our hearts. At the very least the Psalms need to be a central element of the Church’s singing and must be a model for all that is sung. They are the inspired pattern of praise. • The Psalms are songs that are balanced. They balance the declaration of the truth of God and his works with our emotional response. The balance between truth and heartfelt response is delicate and difficult. Our songs can be either too informational and doctrinal or too subjective and man-centered. • The Psalms provide us with songs that have the full range of appropriate emotional responses to God’s work and our situation. In some ages of the Church, hymns seemed primarily filled with repentance. In our age they seem primarily filled with joy. The Psalms balance human confusion, frustration, distress, sorrow, and anger with joy, praise, blessedness, and thanksgiving. • The Psalms remind us that we live in a world of conflict. They impress upon us a biblical world of thought in which there is an ever-present antithesis between the righteous and the wicked, the godly and the ungodly. (Only two Psalms, I believe, do not make that opposition explicit.) How infrequently that antithesis is found in most hymns. • The Psalms remind us that we are the true Israel of God. We have inherited the history, the promises, and the status of Israel of old and must identify with that Israel (cf. Eph. 2-3, Rom. 9-11, Heb. 11-12, 1 Pet. 1-2, Jam. 1:1, Gal. 6:16). Especially as we find ourselves in an increasingly polytheistic world, the focused monotheism of the Psalms is valuable for the Church. • The Psalms are Christocentric. Jesus testified that the Psalms were written about him (Luke 24:4445). Martin Luther called the Psalter “a little Bible” and found it full of Christ. An ancient saying in the Church declares: “Semper in ore psalmus, semper in corde Christus” (“always a psalm in the mouth, always Christ in the heart”). The Psalms contain explicit prophecies of Christ (e.g., Psalms 22 and 110). They abound in the types which illumine the person and work of Christ. They open his redemptive work from

many perspectives. The Church must avoid the tendency of both liberalism and dispensationalism to miss Christ in the Psalms and miss the continuity of Israel in the Old and New Testaments. John Calvin recognized the value of singing the Psalms. He instituted major liturgical reforms in the Church of Geneva after careful reflection on the character and role of music in worship. He came to conclude that the Psalms were the best songs for the Church since God himself had given them to the Church. (In Geneva the church sang Psalms in unison without any instrumental accompaniment.) Most Reformed churches in Europe followed Geneva’s practice and Psalm-singing became one of the distinctive marks of the Reformed churches. Some Calvinists went beyond Calvin, arguing that Psalms were the only songs permitted in divine worship. This position was argued with particular vigor in Scotland where Presbyterians faced repeated government pressure to abandon their distinctive forms of worship. The Scots responded that they must obey God rather than man and applied that principle to the defense of exclusive psalmody. Serious debates on this issue took place among Calvinists in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries as some Reformed churches introduced the use of hymns in worship. Objections to More Psalmody It may be helpful to consider six common objections to greater (possibly even exclusive) use of the Psalms, and to offer reasonable responses to them. Objection 1: The imprecations of the Psalms (i.e., those statements calling God to judge his enemies) reflect a sub-Christian ethical position. This objection fails to understand the nature of the biblical imprecations. The imprecations are not the personal prayer of the Christian against personal enemies, but are the prayers of Christ and the Church against the enemies of God. They are really no different from the prayers of the Church for the return of Christ which will bring both blessing and judgment. Objection 2: The New Testament authorizes the use of uninspired hymns: Col. 3:16 (Eph. 5:19), 1 Cor. 14:26, and hymn fragments quoted in the New Testament. This objection is not as clear as it may appear. A) Neither Col. 3:16 nor Eph. 5:19 refers unambiguously to public worship or to the free use of uninspired songs in that worship. The words in those verses for song all may refer to canonical Psalms. B) 1 Cor. 24:26, I believe, does refer to songs other than canonical Psalms. But these others songs are most likely inspired songs given by the Spirit through Spirit-endued leadership in the early Church. (The psalm, teaching, revelation, tongues and interpretation of tongues in this text all seem to me to be divinely inspired.)2 Those inspired songs, however, were

not preserved as a part of Scripture for the use of the Church universal. C) Fragments of poems do seem to be quoted by biblical authors at points in the New Testament. Those fragments cannot with any certainty be seen as songs, much less as songs used in public worship. Objection 3: The Psalms seem strange as to poetic form and flow of thought. This observation is true as far as it goes. Those familiar with hymns are accustomed to a flow of thought and poetic form that is common to the western world. In such a world the Psalms do seem strange. But since the Psalms are inspired by God we should expend the effort to appreciate why they have the form they do and what we can learn from them. (We must resist the common tendency in church music only to like the familiar because it is familiar! That tendency is found among the devotees of every kind of church music.) Indeed the very strangeness of the Psalms may speak of our need for them. Perhaps John Updike captured this thought when he wrote of “fingertips sensitized by the sandpaper of an abrasive creed.”3 Objection 4: The singing of metrical psalms is not the singing of the real canonical Psalms. A good metrical version of the Psalms not only gives a very close translation of the Psalms, but also seeks to translate Hebrew poetry into a western poetic form. To communicate something of poetic form along with verbal translation is a strength of the metrical psalms. Objection 5: We do not have inspired tunes with which to sing the Psalms. Indeed we do not have inspired tunes. God has left his people free to compose tunes from various cultural and historical settings to support the singing of the Psalms. Two criteria would seem to provide adequate safeguards for the Church in writing and choosing tunes: first, song tunes should be appropriate to the content of the Psalms, and second, they should be singable by a congregation. Objection 6: The Psalms are not sufficiently Christocentric. The elaboration of this objection suggests that at each stage of the history of redemption in the Old Testament (e.g., establishment of the Mosaic economy, the celebration of the Davidic kingship and the exile), new songs were added to the canon. It is most likely, then, that at the most important development of the history of redemption—the actual revelation of the Savior—that new songs would accompany the new covenant in Jesus. The objection argues that we should obviously celebrate the name and work of the Savior in the most explicit terms. This objection is surely the most significant and weighty of any against exclusive—or largely exclusive— psalmody. Several responses might be offered. A) This objection as stated is abstract and speculative, a fault in Reformed theological reflection.

N O V E M B E R / D E C E M B E R 1 9 9 9 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 3 7

Psalm 22 [The Book of Psalms—which in Hebrew is entitled “the Book of Praises”—enables congregations to respond to God’s graciousness using his inspired word. Here Psalm 22, set in common meter (a line of 8 beats followed by one of 6 beats, 8, 6, etc.), helps the faithful proclaim the great saving work of God in Christ.]

My God, my God, O why have You Forsaken me? O why Are You so far from giving help And from my groaning cry? By day and night, my God, I call; Your answer still delays. And yet You are the Holy One Who dwells in Isr’el’s praise.

Now hurry, O my Strength, to help! Do not be far, O LORD! But snatch my soul from raging dogs, And spare me from the sword. From lion’s mouth and oxen’s horns O save me; hear my prayer! And to my brethren in the church Your name I will declare.

Our fathers put their trust in You; From You their rescue came. They begged You and You set them free; They were not put to shame. But as for me, I am a worm And not a man at all. To men I am despised and base; Their scornings on me fall.

Let those that fear the LORD sing praise! Give glory to me now, All Jacob’s seed; all Isr’el’s seed, In awe before Him bow. For He did not despise nor spurn The grief of one oppressed, Nor did He shun his cry for help, But heard and gave him rest.

All those who look at me will laugh And cast reproach at me. Their mouths they open wide: they wag Their heads in mockery. “The LORD was his reliance once; Now see what God will send. Yes, let God rise and set him free, This man that was His friend.”

When I proclaim my praise of You, Then all the church will hear, And I will pay my vows in full Where men hold Him in fear. The wretched poor will eat their fill And will be made secure. And those who seek will praise the LORD. So let your hearts endure.

You took me from my mother’s womb To safety at the breast. Since birth when I was cast on You In You, my God, I rest. Be not far off, for grief is near, And none to help is found; For bulls of Bashan in their strength Now circle me around.

Then men remember will the LORD To earth’s remotest shore, And all the Gentile kindreds turn To worship and adore. For all dominion in the earth Is only of the LORD. Among the nations He controls The power of the sword.

Their lion jaws they open wide, And roar to tear their prey. My heart is wax, my bones unknit, My life is poured away. My strength is only broken clay; My mouth and tongue are dry, For in the very dust of death You there make me to lie.

To Him will all the rich bow down Who feast and live in ease. And all those souls descend to dust Will fall upon their knees. There shall forever be a seed To serve Him faithfully; A generation of the LORD It shall accounted be.

For see how dogs encircle me! On every side there stands A brotherhood of cruelty; They pierce my feet and hands. My bones are plain for me to count; Men see me and they stare. My clothes among them they divide, And gamble for their share.

And they will come and will make known To people yet to be The righteousness that is His own, For none did this but He.

3 8 M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N | N O V E M B E R / D E C E M B E R 1 9 9 9

Only Scripture can tell us what songs are needed to celebrate the new covenant. Many elements in the worship of the Church will be explicitly new covenant: some Bible readings, some blessings, sermons, prayers, Sacraments. Must all be? The service as a whole must be explicitly new covenant, but must every element? Only the Scripture itself can answer that question. B) The Psalms are not a full and explicit statement and celebration of the old covenant. Many aspects of Israel’s history, law, and sacrifices are not mentioned in the Psalms. Key institutions like the Sabbath and the prophetic office are almost entirely absent. One could not really reconstruct the Mosaic economy from the evidence in the Psalter alone. Clearly the Psalms did not seek to carry the whole character of the old covenant. C) The inspired songs of the new covenant, such as the ones that we have in the Book of Revelation are no more explicitly Christocentric than the Psalms. The name of Jesus is not used and he is called the Lamb (Rev. 5 and 19), the Christ (Rev. 11), and God and King (Rev. 15). These are all titles found in the Old Testament. The distinction between the old song of creation and the new song of redemption, found in the Book of the Revelation (chaps. 4 and 5), is a distinction taken over from the Psalter (Psalms 40:3, 96:1, 98:1, 149:1). The Psalter abounds in the new songs of redemption. D) The titles and types used of Christ in the Old Testament generally and in the Psalter particularly do not veil him, but in fact reveal him, explaining who he is and what he has done. (Titles and types such as: Lord, shepherd, king, priest, sacrifice, temple, etc.) Without the rich background of Old Testament religion we would not understand the person and work of Christ as fully as we do. Indeed those titles and types are not fully comprehensible until the coming of Jesus. In that sense, the Psalter belongs more to the new covenant than to the old. Also, in that sense, the Psalter is more useful for the New Testament church than it was for the old covenant people. Opinions will probably continue to differ on the persuasiveness of arguments for the exclusive use of the Psalms for singing in public worship. I hope that these reflections on the value of the Psalms, however, will encourage all Christians to much greater use of the Psalms. My own experience has been that the more I sing them, the more I love them and the more I sense the completeness of their religious expression of the praise to God. In the music wars that beset the Church today the Psalms are little discussed or appreciated. Surely it is ironic that those who love the Bible seem often uninterested in singing it—and learning it in that way. We do need the Psalms for our spiritual well-being. ■

W. Robert Godfrey (Ph.D., Stanford), a member of the council of the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals, is president and professor of church history at Westminster Theological Seminary in California.

A S S E M B L E M Y P E O P L E | The Worship Event

How Does The Word of Christ Dwell in Us Richly? Blessing and honor and glory and power, Wisdom and riches and strength evermore Give ye to him who our battle hath won, Whose are the kingdom, the crown, and the throne.

Give we the glory and praise to the Lamb; Take we the robe and the harp and the palm; Sing we the song of the Lamb that was slain, Dying in weakness, but rising to reign.

hese words were written in 1866 by the Scottish Free Church pastor, Horatius Bonar. Bonar had begun to write poems to be sung by children while he was a young assistant to the minister in Leith. This he did because the children were lackluster in the singing of metrical psalms. In a sense, it was a kind of catechesis. Oddly enough, these texts were sung in churches of other denominations long before they were sung within the Free Church where Bonar was an ordained minister of the Word! It was as if to say, “we trust you when you stand in the pulpit, but not when you sing.” To this day, one can find Bonar’s texts in Presbyterian, Baptist, Lutheran, Methodist, and many other hymnals. Those who heard him preach from the pulpit are long dead and gone, but Bonar still preaches, and his preaching is heard widely. Here is a man truly preaching in and out of season, causing the Word of Christ to dwell richly in all sorts of people.

by L E O N A R D R . PAY T O N N O V E M B E R / D E C E M B E R 1 9 9 9 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 3 9

N O V E M B E R / D E C E M B E R 1 9 9 9 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 3 9

One of Bonar’s favorite themes was the Lamb of God and his work of redemption. Bonar was hardly unique in this. Pope Sergius I brought a now famous song into the communion liturgy about 700 A.D. which reads:

Till thy Gospel bring to me Life and immortality.

Because our Father in Heaven loves us, he calls us together regularly to receive all the blessings in Christ, chief of which is the forgiveness of sins. All real life and O Christ, thou Lamb of God, health come from the forgiveness of sins. That is why it that takest away the sin of the world, is listed first in the numerous blessings of Psalm 103. I have mercy upon us. think Martin Luther distilled this cleanly in his Small Catechism when he said, “for where there is forgiveness O Christ, thou Lamb of God, of sins, there is also life and salvation.” I belabor this point that takest away the sin of the world, because it is so simple, and because of its simplicity, in our have mercy upon us. modern sophistication we are tempted to pass over the forgiveness of sins quickly in the interest of getting on to O Christ, thou Lamb of God, the glittering particulars of sanctification. In so doing, we that takest away the sin of the world, gradually and unintentionally cut loose sanctification grant us your peace. from its moorings, namely, the forgiveness of sins. We need this continuous forgiveness of sins not because Christ has to die more than After the family conversation, we have the family meal, the Lord’s Supper. It is the once. No, Christ’s death on the “communion of the body and blood of the Lord” (1 Cor. 10:16). We eat it together. cross is sufficient for all. Rather, we need this ongoing forgiveness of sins because we There is no more intense expression of Christian fellowship this side of heaven. continue to sin. This is why our first order of business when God calls us together in his name is to confess our sins Aha! So this is a Roman Catholic accretion! Well, together and to receive absolution. Again, Montgomery: not really. Sergius was a Greek from Syria, where Christians had long consciously exalted the Lamb of While thy ministers proclaim God. Beyond this, is it truly outrageous to address the Peace and pardon in thy name, Lamb of God so directly in the communion liturgy? And Through their voice, by faith, may I in what way is this wrong, even if it is a Roman Catholic Hear thee speaking from the sky. accretion? After all, Jesus did say, “And this is the will of him who sent Me, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Having confessed our sins and received absolution, him may have everlasting life” (John 6:40). How does one we have the family conversation. God speaks to us behold the Lamb of God and believe and live? In some together in the preached Word, in the read revealed sense, we cannot divide seeing and believing. Word, and in “the Word of Christ dwelling richly in us,” that is congregational singing (Col. 3:16). We, in turn, The Family Gathering speak to God together in our prayers and in our singing. In 1812, James Montgomery wrote: We even speak to one another in psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs (Col. 3:16). To your temple I repair; Let me say a brief word about congregational singing Lord, I love to worship there as the Word. Right up front this assertion is When within the veil I meet counterintuitive. I think this is so for one of two reasons, Christ before the mercy seat. depending on the type of congregational experience. First, sometimes we can’t take congregational singing We are a large adopted family. Each of us from time to time seriously as the Word because what is being sung is so (indeed often) behaves like our old family. This is called thin and fatuous. It feels good, and we want to keep it “the flesh.” It is sin. It puts rifts in the bonds of affection right there. On the other side of the ledger, we can’t take between us and our Heavenly Father, and between us congregational singing seriously as the Word because we within the body of Christ. Our loving Heavenly Father is do so little of it in proportion to the other kinds of things deeply grieved by this, but cannot merely sweep the sin that happen in the service, or in proportion to the other under the rug, because he is holy. Again, Montgomery: kinds of music we consume the other one-hundred, sixty-seven hours of the week. Now, with this in mind, While I hearken to thy Law, would we negate the mandate of preaching merely Fill my soul with humble awe

4 0 M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N | N O V E M B E R / D E C E M B E R 1 9 9 9

because preachers give expositions of slogans on Tshirts? Of course not. Would we negate the mandate of the publicly read revealed Word merely because the reader wears a clown suit? Of course not. Rather, we would strive for more faithful preaching and more reverent reading. In the same way, let’s restore “the word of Christ dwelling in us richly” to its place. Bonar: Here would I feed upon the bread of God, Here drink with you (“O My Lord”) the royal wine of heaven; Here would I lay aside each earthly load, Here taste afresh the calm of sin forgiven. After the family conversation, we have the family meal, the Lord’s Supper. It is the “communion of the body and blood of the Lord” (1 Cor. 10:16). We eat it together. There is no more intense expression of Christian fellowship this side of heaven. We may not see it. Our senses are inadequate to the task. We may not feel it, but it is objectively so. In that moment, everything is right. We are ready to live out our lives together in the fellowship that occurs outside of and beyond the service.

five year old? No. Do I want anything from him? Of course I do. I want his love and affection. It is just like this when our Heavenly Father draws his family together. He gives us the forgiveness of sins, life and salvation in Christ. We give him the affection of much-loved children. To be honest then: This family gathering is man-centered, but on God’s terms. God meets our needs in gathered worship as he defines them. Asaph, speaking the Word of the Lord, said: “Call upon me in the day of trouble; I will deliver you, and you shall glorify me” (Psalm 50:15). What day is the day of trouble? Every day that we sin. We need to keep a sense of proportion in gathered worship and receive God’s gifts to us in Word and Sacrament with one simple word: Thanks. Montgomery once more: From Thy house when I return, May my heart within me burn, And at evening let me say, I have walked with God today…. Or perhaps, “I have beheld the Lamb of God today….” ■

Leonard R. Payton (Ph.D., University of California, San Diego) is chief musician at Redeemer Presbyterian Church, Austin, Texas.

Again Bonar: I lay my sins on Jesus, the spotless Lamb of God; He bears them all and frees us from the accursed load. I bring my guilt to Jesus to wash my crimson stains Clean in his blood most precious till not a spot remains. The Centrality of God’s Action I often hear gathered worship described as “mancentered,” a pejorative appellation, or “God-centered,” an approbation. Of course, the former label is a no-brainer. We use it precisely because of its extravagant ad hominem value. But what about the latter label? What about statements like, “At X Church, we are Godcentered; our services are dignified and centered around the glory of God. We exalt God at X Church?” Isn’t this all really a bit like “I have decided to follow Jesus?” My youngest son is five years old. He is beginning to write by copying the words of “Go Dogs, Go!” A few days ago, he gave me a scroll of his writing, very proud of the accomplishment. He gave it to me because he wanted to give me a present, and in that spirit, I received it with great delight. But, truth be told, he didn’t understand a word he had written, the writing was difficult to read, and there were food stains on the paper. I could have done a much better job on my own had I decided that a scroll extracted from “Go Dogs, Go!” was necessary to my existence. Do I need anything from my

SPEAKING OF

he minister leads worship as a conversation between God and the people. In the movement of worship God speaks to his worshipers, and

they respond to him....The role of the minister in leading this dialogue between God and his people is sometimes unclear because in worship the minister both speaks for God to the congregation and speaks for the congregation to God. When the minister reads the Bible, preaches, administers the Sacraments, or pronounces the benediction, he speaks for God to the congregation. When he offers the pastoral prayer, he speaks for the congregation to God. —W. Robert Godfrey, Pleasing God in Our Worship, 36.

N O V E M B E R / D E C E M B E R 1 9 9 9 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 4 1

A S S E M B L E M Y P E O P L E | The Worship Event

Is Emotion Improper? motions, obviously, are a part of us. The emotional self, along with the physical, intellectual, and social, make up who we are. The Scriptures speak of us as body and soul or body and spirit. All these are parts of what makes us the persons we are; all are therefore gifts of God’s creation. But all are also under the curse of sin. They are all therefore flawed. When we use our minds, this can serve as a blessing; but sometimes that same intellect can be a will unto itself. So when we learn of God’s redemption for us, we are thankful that this salvation is not only for our spiritual being, but for our whole being. Thus, for instance, we confess the resurrection of the body. On one occasion, early in his ministry, Dr. Billy Graham was accused of exciting the emotions in his crusades. “The emotions are certainly involved,” he replied, “for I speak to people about God’s love, and love is an emotional thing!” So when we hear the Word of God’s Gospel in the divine service, we too respond with the emotion of love for him who so loved us. We are grateful for opportunities to use our intellect, our bodies, our whole being in his service. When we come to God’s worship, we are engaged in our whole being. We respond to God’s message both intellectually and emotionally.

by R O N A L D F E U E R H A H N 4 2 M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N | N O V E M B E R / D E C E M B E R 1 9 9 9

But is there an improper way to use our emotions or to give emphasis to our feelings in God’s worship? That may be the wrong question, for we don’t exactly “use” our emotions. So, to put it another way: Can we be too emotional? Again, that’s not the real question. But if we ask whether there is a way in which we expect or desire certain feelings in the divine service, perhaps we are getting closer to a proper concern. Imagine a scene in which three confirmands have received the Lord’s Supper for the first time. It is after the service, and one girl says to her friends: “Did you feel any different?” One of the friends responds, “I was nervous.” “But,” persists the first one, “did you feel anything different?” The third girl answers, “the wine burned on the way down!” The friends laugh. “Well, I kind of thought I would feel something, I don’t know, just different, somehow.” We don’t say the girl was wrong. Her expectation was quite understandable. But what might be a problem here is that her expectation was misplaced. She was looking for the wrong thing. The important concern is what God has done, has given. When she focused on her feelings, she may have been disappointed—and likely would always be. Feelings, as we know, can be very unpredictable. Emotions depend on so many different things, perhaps even things as mundane as indigestion. What Is Certain? But the one thing certain here, the one thing she can always find, no matter how she feels or thinks, is that God is here with his gifts. That’s God’s promise, a promise given substance in the flesh and blood of Christ here for her. Her Lord is there for her not because of her mood, her understanding, not even her faith; Christ is there because of his will and Word. She can come to the Supper feeling happy or sad, bright or blue, but that doesn’t matter. God and his gift will be the same. She is assured that she is forgiven, no matter how she feels. One of the greatest dangers of an emphasis on emotions or feelings is that this can imply that the way we feel affects our acceptance with God. This was one of the most spiritually debilitating features of Pietism. It actually caused people to believe that the sign of God’s acceptance was whether or not they felt accepted. When the level of our emotional uplift becomes the criterion of worship’s effectiveness, then we become prisoners of a very uncertain power. When I come out of church on a Sunday morning and don’t feel any different, does this indicate a failure in the service—or even in me? Does the fact that I am not “uplifted” by the sermon or hymns indicate that they were not up beat enough? We acknowledge that a sermon or other parts of the divine service might be ill prepared to serve God’s holy purpose; our own condition may even contribute to that. But is the blessing of God’s action finally dependent on the pastor or myself? No,

ultimately the blessing is God’s even through weak vessels, by the power of his Holy Spirit. His promise is there through Word and Sacrament, regardless of the pastor’s effectiveness or my mood. The divine service is intended to point us away from ourselves to God. In fact, that is one of the most important things about the divine service: it is meant to point us away from ourselves and point us to God, to Christ and his cross. This is a fact we need to be reminded of often. As one man observed, “we place ourselves at the center of our projects.” To focus on ourselves, for instance on our feelings, can threaten worship. We know that an improper use of our reason can usurp God’s will; but so can an improper emphasis on our feelings. When, for instance, we seek to be “moved” by worship, we focus on ourselves rather than on God. But when we begin with the stance of recipients of God’s gifts in Word and Sacraments, God is the one who decides the nature of the worship, including its mood. God’s Action When God comes to us in his service, he speaks, he pours water, he feeds. When his law says that we are guilty, we are guilty whether we feel guilty or not. And when God then declares us righteous, forgives our sins, gives us his promised blessing, we are blessed whether or not we feel good or different. God even calls us saints when we hardly feel like saints (or act like saints!). But when God declares it to be, so it is. Our emotions cannot hide or block the truth of God’s Word. We can hinder God’s Word, to be sure, but we cannot change the truth or sureness of his law and promise. So it’s not a question of whether or not our emotions are involved; it’s not a matter of whether we “use” our emotions or not. Basically we don’t approach God’s service thinking about our emotions or our intellect or our bodies. We approach God’s service, hearing his invitation and all his words, and receiving his gifts. The emotions and the intellect are involved, but in a way that we don’t think about them. We come to the divine service confident and thankful that God is thinking about our feelings and about everything else pertaining to the well-being of our lives. Then, when we are thankful for God’s gracious concern and promised gifts, the emotions are likely to be very much present in our worship. For a joyful response is the Christian’s natural reply to all that Christ has done for us, to all that he has given us. Praise be his Name! ■

Ronald Feuerhahn (Ph.D., Cambridge) is professor at Concordia Theological Seminary in St. Louis. An earlier version of this article appeared in Lutheran Worship Notes, 30 (1994).

N O V E M B E R / D E C E M B E R 1 9 9 9 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 4 3

R F

E D

E L

| O

S T

P O

A O

C I

E E

Interview with Gregory Boyd

Is God Dependent On Us? The last issue of MR was devoted to a critical examination of contemporary evangelical challenges to the classical doctrine of God. To conclude these discussions, we are including in this issue both a review by Paul Helm of John Sanders’ attempt to articulate an “Open” view of providence, and the following interview with an outspoken “openness of God” theologian, Gregory Boyd.1 MR: Briefly explain the “Openness of God” position, and its relation to the classical doctrine of God. GREGORY BOYD

Professor of Theology, Bethel Seminary (Minnesota)

GB: In my view, the “Openness of God” position is more about creation than it is about God. I’d rather call it “the openness of creation” position, or “open creationism.” The view simply states that the future is partly open to possibilities, and since God is omniscient and knows all of reality just like it is, he knows the future as being partly open to possibilities. In the classical view of God, the future is eternally settled. For God there are no genuine possibilities—no genuine “maybes.”

MR: Why do you think this alternative has attracted support at this time even among a growing number of evangelicals? GB: There are many factors, but one of the most important surely has to do with the fact that throughout the twentieth century we have been witnessing the gradual demise of the traditional western understanding of reality which was erected on the twin foundational pillars of ancient Greek philosophy and enlightenment rationalism. In many areas of science, for example, we have been witnessing the emergence of a more dynamic view of reality in which time as an irreversible process plays a central role. In my view, this paradigm shift has been positive, for it has allowed people to read Scripture and to think about God and the world in ways that are less influenced by Plato, Aristotle, the Stoics, and Newton.

MR: How can we justify Christian confidence in God’s promise of redemption if God does not even know all future events, much less have control over them?

4 4 M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N | N O V E M B E R / D E C E M B E R 1 9 9 9

GB: I justify it by appealing to God’s Word. God says he’ll redeem those who put their trust in him, and I believe it. God wouldn’t promise something he couldn’t pull off. I do not see that this promise logically entails that all future events be settled, either in God’s will or God’s mind. And I do not see that Scripture teaches that all future events be settled. In my view, it is a very insecure deity who needs to control everything in order to ensure anything.

MR: A typical objection to the classical doctrine of God has been that it rests too much on pagan (specifically, Stoic) philosophy. Whether or not that is true, is it not the case that your position reflects modernity’s interests in and notions of human autonomy, experience, and reasonableness? Clark Pinnock, for instance, has said that he and his circle have “finally made our peace with the culture of modernity.” Is that success or defeat? GB: I do not know what Pinnock meant when he spoke about “coming to peace” with the “culture of modernity.” If he meant that the Open view is completely harmonious with the “culture of modernity”—which you seem to imply—I would strongly disagree with him. But I doubt this is what he meant. In any case, in my view, the freedom which the Open view attributes to free moral agents is no different than what traditional Arminianism ascribed to them: it is just worked out with less influence from the pagan sources mentioned in the question.

MR: Throughout much of this century, process thought (viz., the unity of God and world in a single process of constant change) has gained popularity among mainline theologians. To what extent do

you think this new trend in evangelical thinking is indebted to process theology?

MR: What direction(s) do you think this new perspective will take in evangelical theology and do you think that classical theism will weather the storm?

GB: None. Despite uninformed protests to the contrary, the two movements have next to nothing in common. They both affirm that the future partly consists in possibilities, and that is it. Some Open theists (such as myself) find certain arguments of Process theologians for a dynamic view of reality, for a responsive God, and/or for a partly open future persuasive. But I don’t know of any who have become

GB: I do not see that this “new perspective” leads forward in any particular direction, though I do believe that it will bear a great deal of kingdom fruit as it gets increasingly worked out in the Church’s theology and life. Among other things, I hope and pray that the Church will become more aggressive in engaging in spiritual warfare as it frees itself from the illusion that everything in history follows a divine blueprint. Will classical theology weather the n many areas of science, we have been witnessing the emergence of a storm? If you mean by “classical theology” the view that God is more dynamic view of reality in which time as an irreversible process altogether devoid of change, potentiality, and passion, and plays a central role. that God experiences all of history in an eternal instant—I hope not. For I see this Open theists for that reason. They are Open theists view of God as being far more compatible with Aristotle because they believe Scripture teaches this. Consider than with the Bible. that L. D. McCabe, the renowned Methodist professor and chancellor of Ohio Wesleyan University in the nineteenth century, was a widely published “Open theist” MR: What do you think is the heart of evangelical theology? seventy years before Whitehead published Process and What are the three or four central tenets? Or, put another way, what Reality. Others in the nineteenth century held this view would place a professing evangelical outside the bounds of the as well (and, incidentally, were not judged as being “heretical” for doing so). tradition, as far as you are concerned?

MR: If God depends on the world (and on us), at least to some extent, for his happiness, knowledge, power, and success, can we really ascribe all glory and praise to God? GB: If God had to depend on something other than himself, my answer would be no. But by the same token, if God had to avoid all forms of dependency in order to be great, I would also say no. In my view, we can ascribe all glory and praise to God only when we recognize that he is free to be independent insofar as he chooses, and free to be dependent insofar as he chooses. The classical tradition denied God the second freedom, at least by logical implication, for it assumed that all forms of dependency exemplify weakness. But why think that? Doesn’t Scripture consistently depict God as suffering heartbreak and frustration when we turn from him and as changing his mind about us when we change our mind about him (e.g., Jer. 18)? And doesn’t this imply that God has chosen, by his own sovereign volition, to have his happiness and his planning to some extent dependent on what we do? Moreover, don’t we ordinarily see people who allow themselves to become dependent in certain ways on others whom they love as exemplifying a strength, not a weakness? Isn’t the unwillingness to do this a sign of insecurity and weakness?

GB: If someone alleges that Scripture is mistaken in something it teaches, if they deny that Christ is Lord or that God is Father, Son and Holy Spirit, if they deny that God is Creator of all that is or that he is the sovereign Lord of history, working in history to accomplish his desired objectives, I would have trouble calling them “evangelical.”

N O V E M B E R / D E C E M B E R 1 9 9 9 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 4 5

B O OK

| The God Who Risks: A Theology of Providence

Openness Theology and God’s “Project” for the Future

he God Who Risks: A Theology of Providence is, to my knowledge, the first book-length treatment of the idea of providence that one gets if one takes the “openness” of God view.1 As such it is to be welcomed by those who take an opposite view, a view of providence that is, as far as God is concerned, riskless. For one of the ways in which debate is fostered is by opposed points of view setting out their respective positions as clearly and fairly as they can. Clearly and fairly and courteously. One of the great virtues of this book is that Professor Sanders writes clearly. It is usually not difficult to know what he means. And he writes about the position that he dissents from almost always fairly and accurately, and always courteously. And so the pain that one sometimes experiences when reading material with which one sharply disagrees, particularly when that matter is fundamental to one’s entire outlook, is considerably alleviated by Sanders’ gentlemanly qualities.

The God Who Risks: A Theology of Providence by John Sanders InterVarsity Presss, 1998. $21.99, 367 pages.

Scope The scope of the work will be familiar to anyone who knows The Openness of God, written by several authors, including Sanders (InterVarsity, 1995). There are chapters on the biblical material, both Old and New Testaments; on historical theology; then two important chapters on the divine character and on divine sovereignty; and finally one on the Christian life. The opening chapter, “The Nature of the Task,” is about language and methodological issues; and in many ways it is the most important of all. But while there is considerably more detail in this exposition of the position than in the earlier book, it cannot be said that

4 6 M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N | N O V E M B E R / D E C E M B E R 1 9 9 9

there is anything here that is novel or that casts further light on the theology of “openness.”

Content The central theological claim is that the “openness” view of God, and it alone, entails what Sanders calls a relational view of divine providence. Let us briefly look at each of these—the “openness” view of God, and the relational view of providence. God’s “openness” consists in the outworking of the fundamental metaphysical idea that he has chosen to create individuals with free will, with whom he desires friendship and fellowship, with whom he reciprocates in time, and who have the power to thwart his purposes and often do so. As is shown by chapter five, “Divine Relationality in the Christian Tradition,” this claim seems to set the openness position apart from mainstream Christianity, even when that stream is allowed to flow between wide banks. How far apart depends upon the position’s understanding of divine foreknowledge. The multitudinous discussions of divine foreknowledge and human freedom by Augustinians, Thomists, Molinists, and Arminians (to name but a few) have been based upon the assumption that God does have complete foreknowledge of the future—meticulous foreknowledge, as Sanders puts it. In these discussions, the questions have always been: If men and women are to be responsible for their actions, then mustn’t they be indeterministically free? And if God has meticulous foreknowledge, then how can they be indeterministically free, if they need to be? There seems to be considerable confusion in Sanders’ mind over whether God foreknows the future or not. At certain places (196) he asserts that God has exhaustive foreknowledge of what his free creatures will do. If so, then although God may take risks, nothing can surprise him. Sanders cannot then take literally any of the scriptural anthropomorphisms which imply such surprise.

relationality is itself grounded in the relationality that exists between the persons of the trinitarian godhead. Sources and Implications This is the position. Let us turn to its sources: the biblical data and especially the openness way of understanding that data, and particularly its sensitivity to the charge of anthropomorphism (19f.). Sanders defends interpreting such anthropomorphism literally on the grounds that it is distinctively Israelite. He thinks that efforts to think of God non-anthropomorphically “depreciate” that mode of thinking (21) and inevitably “disparage” it, and even that they fail to take the Incarnation seriously. Moreover, what anthropomorphism truly implies is that all our language about God is derived from human categories (22). Each of these claims reveals misunderstanding, and we shall return to them. Sanders is nearer making a significant point when t is hard to see how, in the long term, the openness position can remain he says that God and we require a shared context (24). (I develop this point later on.) classically trinitarian. There is a general problem with Sanders’ talk of “models.” It suggests that no understanding of God from Scripture is who as a consequence read Greek ideas into the biblical possible until we devise certain models and then text.3 interpret the otherwise intractable data in terms of one of The relational view of providence follows from the them. In this way, the idea that Scripture provides openness position in the following way. Suppose that straightforward teaching about the essence and power of the future is open and that God has providential God is lost, and with it what the Reformers referred to as purposes. How is he to proceed? The answer must be, the perspicuity (or clarity) of Scripture. Significantly, by endeavoring to enter into relations with men and Sanders pays little or no attention to passages and texts women who have, by their freedom, the power to which straightforwardly teach God’s knowledge of the overturn his purposes. So it follows that God can err, be future, let alone his working of all things after the counsel fearful, and come to feel remorse and regret, surprise and of his own will; much less does he show appreciation of pleasure, just like you and me. The character of these the biblical wellsprings of the Gospel of sovereign grace. relations is very like the character of some inter-human The book’s doctrinal heart is found in chapter six, relations. Indeed, for those who accept the “openness” “Risk and the Divine Character,” which concerns the position, the best “model” (a favorite Sanders’ word) for conceptual intelligibility of the “openness” proposal, and thinking of divine providence is to think of it like the chapter seven, “The Nature of Divine Sovereignty.” relation that sometimes may exist between one human Although considerable emphasis is given in chapter six person and another. Each may want the other to do to the idea of divine grace and the free sovereign will of something. To coerce the other would be to violate the God (169), Sanders makes it clear, in standard Arminian truly personal quality of their relationship. Hence each fashion, that God’s sovereign will can be defeated and must reason and endeavor to persuade, with sympathy, that his grace may not be efficacious in respect to its respect, and love. When someone succeeds, in a truly intended effect. Trinitarian love, not the more abstract personal way, to get the other to respond, he will attributes of omnipotence and omniscience (175), is at experience pleasure and fulfillment; and when he fails, he the heart of the divine character. And love is precarious may suffer pain, frustration, and anguish. But in advance and vulnerable. Presumably love cannot be thus by of entering into the relationship there is no guarantee of definition, since, one supposes, the interpersonal love of the desired outcome. Hence each such relationship is the Trinity is both necessary and invulnerable. Sanders risky. This is how it is, according to Sanders, in any does not dwell on the fact that the Trinity is itself a prepersonal relationship, whether between human persons Augustinian theological construct which uses “alien” or between God and human persons. “God’s project Greek terms. In fact, as I show later, it is hard to see how, involves the creation of significant others who are in the long term, the openness position can remain ontologically distinct from himself and upon whom he classically trinitarian.4 In any case, Sanders himself showers his caring love in the expectation that they will respond in love” (169). It is claimed that this scarcely avoids the use of philosophical language with Yet elsewhere (199-200), Sanders sees the need to deny divine knowledge of future contingents in order to preserve the future’s openness. If this is to be his position, as I think it must be, it places the “openness” view of God’s knowledge firmly outside the Christian mainstream. Some hold the “openness” position for philosophical reasons. (For example, the main reasons offered by Swinburne, Lucas, Geach, and Hasker are all philosophical reasons.)2 But Sanders’ reasons are more directly biblical. He holds that this is what both the Old and New Testaments teach. Hence what he has to say about human language about God and about hermeneutical method is important. According to Sanders, much Christian theology has gone wrong due to the baleful influence of Augustine of Hippo, who favored Greek categories over biblical categories, and

N O V E M B E R / D E C E M B E R 1 9 9 9 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 4 7

clear Greek ancestry (e.g. 223-24). God’s providential “project” is an expression of his wisdom as he interacts in human history in ways which display competence and resourcefulness. According to Sanders, he has a good “track record” (183) of successfully engaging in reciprocal relations of love with humankind. God is faithful in the sense that there is a constancy in his program (186), but his faithfulness does not have immutability at its core, because God is not unchangeable in that sense. Similarly with his power; he has sufficient power to manage all that he undertakes (191). As for knowledge, “the key issue is not the type of knowledge an omniscient deity has but the type of sovereignty an omniscient God decides to exercise” (195). So all divine attributes are redefined in terms of their fittingness to enable God to carry out his “openness” project (206-7). Chapter seven is devoted to the issue of divine sovereignty. Predictably by now, such sovereignty is defined in terms of the sort of project God has (208-9). He has sovereignly chosen the “project” of reciprocal love (211); he is not a God of particular providence, because if he were he would not be as the Bible portrays him (212-13). Rather, he exercises general sovereignty—he is a boundary-setter—making rules which limit his own power and thus making genuinely

not all of which can be addressed here. But it should be noted that what is fundamentally at stake is not different understandings of the nature of God and of the interpretation of this or that passage of Scripture, but a profoundly different appreciation of mankind’s plight and God’s power. For Sanders, because our plight is not so great, the power of God need not be so great either. There is no need of a covenant of grace to which God is immutably faithful, with promises on which the sinner can utterly rely. This is, ultimately, why Sanders’ book is so superficial. In treating the language of accommodation, reciprocity and the rest, the book does not get to the heart of the issue: only a God of meticulous providence can ensure the salvation of his elect. However, in the hope of fostering further discussion I shall restrict myself to some of the book’s central issues— to those places where Sanders gives a misleading impression of the “no risk” view of providence, perhaps because he has misunderstood it, and to places where his own argument is unclear or deficient.

1. The Nature of Risk, Determination, and Permission Let us first be clear on what the “no risk” view of providence does and does not imply, avoiding the sort of misunderstanding Sanders falls into (54-55). God’s riskless government is for the or Sanders, because our plight is not so great, the power of God need not most part what I shall call positive government. Positive government be so great either. There is no need of a covenant of grace to which God is government in which the governor brings about whatever is immutably faithful, with promises on which the sinner can utterly rely. he governs. But God cannot bring about evil in the sense in which he would be the author of sin. indeterministic, risky-for-God choices possible. He is Does this mean that a God who cannot positively govern not so much like a chess Grand Master (229) as a theater evil takes risks? I do not think so. For there is at least director (217), allowing the actors their own creativity. one way of safeguarding God’s risk freeless control in the The final chapter applies the openness position to case of human actions which are morally evil; namely, the Christian life, to grace and evil, and particularly to the idea of God willingly permitting particular evil actions. those two perennials—guidance and prayer. Grace must Such permission is not compatible with positive be resistible and only efficacious when the sinner government as I have characterized it, but it is consistent provides independently willed cooperation. One of the with risklessness. God does not and cannot will such evil ways in which God’s purposes fail is through our failure actions, but he may nevertheless be willing for them to to pray (273), and he acts only because we have freely occur. But is not anyone who is willing for an evil action chosen to ask him to do so (274). On guidance, God to occur the cause of that action, or at least an accessory seeks to cooperate with our freedom in guiding us, but to it, and so himself evil? But why should this be? the success of his project cannot be guaranteed—for we God positively governs acts which are not evil. He may choose to thwart it. In general, take any Christian governs all other acts (evil acts) by permitting them, since doctrine—e.g., the Cross, election—and Sanders he cannot positively govern them. However, if such produces a defeasible version of it: the Cross could be permission is to be consistent with the absence of risk, unavailing (100-1); the divine election of A requires that then it has to be a particular kind of permission; it has to A accepts his election (61); and so on. be knowingly and willingly given, and it has to be permission of particular actions. So God positively Comment governs all acts which occur except those which are evil, Sanders’ position, so very different from the and he negatively governs evil acts by willingly orthodoxy that has come down to us through Paul, permitting them. Augustine, and countless others, raises serious questions,

4 8 M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N | N O V E M B E R / D E C E M B E R 1 9 9 9

So one may make sense of the idea of divine permission in a way that is compatible with risk-freeness if one is prepared to maintain that there are types of actions which God can prevent but which he nevertheless cannot cause, even though he may be willing for them to occur. Then God can only control an evil action by willingly permitting it, by deciding not to prevent it. And the evil action occurs because it is caused by the natures and circumstances of those who perpetrate it, but not caused by God—because God cannot cause it—though willingly permitted by God— because though he cannot cause it, he can willingly permit it, and does so (we might presume) as a necessary component part of some broader overall will. 2. Accommodation The fundamental methodological issue raised by this book is how to treat the various types of biblical language about God. One of Sanders’ serious misunderstandings is that Calvin and others thought of the language of accommodation as second best. (Sanders is sometimes stronger than this; he writes that Calvin and others think of such language, anthropomorphism, as a “dustbin” [68]). Nothing could be further from the truth. The fundamental point is that such language is not dispensable but necessary, not necessary only for the ploughman but necessary for us all, in view of our moral and metaphysical position vis-a-vis God.5 If the eternal God is to communicate to embodied intelligent creatures in space and time and to bring about his purposes through them, then he must do so by representing himself to them in ways that are not literally true. For instance, how could he put Moses to the test, apart from appearing to change his mind? On the theory of divine accommodation statements such as “God repented” are false, if taken literally, because God does not literally repent, and cannot do so. But in what sense are they false? Someone who upholds the principle of non-contradiction in logic nevertheless may, when asked if it is raining, say “It is and it isn’t.” In saying this he does not believe that he has flouted the principle, but he nevertheless succeeds in conveying something intelligible using language which, strictly speaking, is incoherent. Similarly, someone who denies geocentrism as a theory about the heavenly bodies may nevertheless say “It’s warmer in the garden now that the sun has come out from behind the clouds.”6 Each of these sentences, though literally false, may be taken to convey a truth. Sometimes looseness in speech signifies waffle. But at other times language may be loose (when judged from the standpoint of some theory) but economical, the very opposite of waffle. It is hard to believe that such language, the language of accommodation, is typically misleading or wrong; it is language which records the appearance of things in an unpedantic and vivid way.

3. Relationality Sanders makes much of relationality, and it is certainly a popular theological theme. But there are at least two difficulties. One is his and others’ use of the Trinity as the paradigm of a reciprocal relationship of love to which God aspires in his endeavor to establish relations with humankind. The problem is that (at least on an orthodox understanding of the Trinity) the relations in which the trinitarian persons exist are necessary—they could not be other than they are—and so can hardly be a condition to which creatures who are (and must ever remain) indeterministically free can aspire. So reciprocity can only be contingently connected with indeterministic freedom. The irony of this situation seems to have escaped Sanders. The second difficulty concerns the idea that parity between the partners and the ensuing reciprocity is necessary for a relationship. Of course it is possible to define a relationship in this way, but the result is that you will simply talk past those whom you are trying to convince and misdescribe many genuine human relations in the process. For such a definition is surely unconvincing as a claim about ordinary human relations. You may have a relationship with someone who cannot reciprocate: with a baby or someone with very low intelligence, or with someone who is in a coma, or who has fallen through the ice and is stuck beneath it. Someone in a coma has to be brought back to consciousness and to life; but this process is itself a case of a personal relationship. Divine rescuing and bringing to life, and all that that implies, is the establishing of a relationship the key to which is not indeterministic human freedom but the unilateral establishing of a relationship of love that will not let go until it has secured reciprocal love by re-creating it. According to Augustinianism, God establishes a genuinely personal relationship with people who are incapable of establishing it for themselves. And God does this by an act of condescension and power; condescension because he is the infinite Creator, and power because our plight is such that without that power the relationship could neither be established or continue. This is a different sort of divine-human relationship than that envisaged by Sanders. But isn’t it the biblical sort? 4. The Scriptural Basis As we have already noted, Sanders argues for the openness position a posteriori, that is, from the Scriptures.7 Hence the importance to him of hermeneutical method. Pursuing this, from time to time he asks a question like: “Calvin says that in the use of certain expressions God is accommodating himself to us; but how does he know?” (66, 68, 156). Surely the answer to this is obvious: it is that besides the accommodated language of Scripture there is non-accommodated language. For example: “Then Joseph said to them, ‘Do not interpretations

N O V E M B E R / D E C E M B E R 1 9 9 9 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 4 9

example, that the story of Joseph must be interpreted in openness terms because of the presence of human responsibility and evil. But, as we have seen, the no-risk view embraces responsibility and evil; as Joseph said, his brothers meant it for evil, but God meant it for good (5455). In sum, this book presents a view of divine providence which is sharply ivine rescuing and bringing to life, and all that that implies, is the divergent from the Christian consensus, both Protestant and establishing of a relationship the key to which is not indeterministic Roman Catholic. I submit that it offers what is, intellectually human freedom but the unilateral establishing of a relationship of speaking, an unstable position. This is because, like Adolf Harnack many years ago, love that will not let go until it has secured reciprocal love by re-creating it. though it warns against what it regards as the intrusion of Greek terms into the biblical book before one of them came to be” (Ps. 139:16). “I will world picture, in its trinitarianism it employs such raise up Cyrus in my righteousness: I will make all his terms—substance, person, essence. If it is to be ways straight. He will rebuild my city, and set my exiles consistent, it must adopt an anthropomorphic free” (Is. 45:13). “I make known the end from the trinitarianism which is not trinitarianism at all, but beginning” (Is. 46:10). “I foretold the former things long tritheism. More important than all of this, the proposals ago, my mouth announced them and I made them which are embodied in the book depend upon an known....[T]herefore I told you these things long ago; inadequate diagnosis of human need. For the issues before they happened I announced them to you” (Is. raised do not simply concern how one may interpret the 48:3-5). “This is what the Lord God Almighty, the God narratives of the Old Testament and so how one may of Israel, says: ‘If you surrender to the officers of the king come to have a reasoned preference of one interpretative of Babylon, your life will be spared and this city will not “model” of Scripture over others. The issues raised go to be burned down; you and your family will live. But if you the heart of the Gospel. For our plight is such that only will not surrender....’” (Jer. 38:17). “For Jesus had known a God who can effectively bring about his redemptive from the beginning which of them did not believe and aims, a God who works all things after the counsel of his who would betray him” (John 6:64). “This man was own will—that is, the God of Scripture—can help us. handed over to you by God’s set purpose and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men, Paul Helm put him to death” (Acts 2:23). “Nothing in all creation is professor of history and philosophy of religion hidden from God’s sight” (Heb 4.13). These passages King’s College, London show that Sanders is simply mistaken when he says that literal talk about God is impossible because all our language about God is derived from human categories (22). Sanders mostly ignores such data. That such clear language should have theological priority over the unclear, the figurative, and anthropomorphic, is a matter of decision, but given that God is pure spirit it is surely a reasonable decision. If we decide the other way, then biblical data such as that cited above has to be explained some other way, and in turn the anthropomorphisms have to be taken literally. It then follows that God literally has a physical shape, he is located in space and time, and so on. No? Then language about God’s location must be regarded as an instance of accommodated language. Sanders makes much of the narrative language about God, particularly in the Old Testament. That there are such narratives cannot be denied. But he does not adequately face the fact that such narratives can only be made intelligible within a framework in which God is able to bring about what he has promised. Sanders says, for belong to God? Tell me your dreams’” (Gen. 40:8). “‘Will the citizens of Keilah surrender me to him? Will Saul come down, as your servant has heard? O Lord, God of Israel, tell your servant.’ And the Lord said, ‘He will’” (1 Sam. 23:9). “The Lord searches every heart and understands every motive behind the thoughts” (1 Chr. 28:9). “All the days ordained for me were written in your

5 0 M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N | N O V E M B E R / D E C E M B E R 1 9 9 9

E N D N O T E S Free Space

Worshiping the Lamb or Entertaining the Sheep? by Bryan D. Spinks New Haven Register, Sunday April 11, 1999, B1 and B5. 2For this distinction see Lester

For further interaction with Boyd’s positions, see John Piper’s critique in the

Ruth, “Lex Agendi, Lex Orandi: Toward an Understanding of Seeker Services as a New

September/October 1999 issue of MR.

Kind of Liturgy,” Worship 70 (1996), 386-405. 3Timothy Wright, A Community of Joy: How to Create Contemporary Worship (Nashville: Abingdon, 1994), 18-19. 4Ibid., 54. 5Charles

Openness Theology and God’s “Project” for the Future by Paul Helm

Finney, Lectures on Revivals of Religion (New York: Fleming Revell, [1868]), 247. 6J-J. von

Allmen, Worship: Its Theology and Practice (New York: Oxford, 1965), 77. The opening

September/October 1999 issue of MR. 2Richard Swinburne, The Coherence of Theism

words of the Larger Catechism of the Westminster Assembly: “Q. What is the chief and

(Oxford:

highest end of man? A. Man’s chief and highest end is to glorify God, and fully to enjoy

Blackwell, 1989), chap. 11; Peter Geach, Providence and Evil (Cambridge: Cambridge

Him forever.” 7ET in Tracts Relating to the Reformation (Edinburgh: Calvin Translation

University Press, 1977), chap. 3; William Hasker, God, Time and Knowledge (Ithaca:

Institutes (1536 edition), 4.17.44. 9Some Genevan officials

Cornell University Press, 1989 ). 3But as Gerald Bray points out in his helpful

Society, 1844), 1:126-27.

For a more complete explanation of the “openness of God” movement, see the

Clarendon Press, 1977), chap. 10; J. R. Lucas, The Future (Oxford:

worked to prevent Calvin from including a clear absolution after the confession of sin.

response to the “openness” position (The Personal God [Carlisle: Paternoster Press,

This remains a good reason for not using “Mother” for Jesus and God as some more

1998]), the Greek terms which came to be used in Christian theology already had a

unecumenically aware feminist groups are demanding. 11H. O. Old, The Patristic Roots of

fluid use and then Christian theologians further adapted these terms for their own

Reformed Worship (Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 1975). 12See John William Nevin, The

purposes (50). 4It is interesting to note that openness ideas were propounded by

Mystical Presence: A Vindication of the Reformed or Calvinist Doctrine of the Holy Eucharist

Socinians in the seventeenth century. The Puritan John Owen subjects the work of

(Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott, 1846); Brian Gerrish, Grace and Gratitude: The Eucharistic

one representative Socinian, John Biddle, to careful scrutiny (Vindiciae Evangelicae

Theology of John Calvin (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993).

[1655], in Works ed. W. H. Goold [reprinted, Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1966 Vol. XII]). His remarks on the ascription of passions to God (chap. IV) and on what Sanders calls “presentism” are worth consulting. “For mine own part, I will not own

Worship for 2000 and Beyond by A. L. Barry 1

Apology to the Augsburg Confession, Article IV.310. 2Lutheran Worship (St. Louis: Concordia,

nor worship him for my God who is truly and properly afraid of what the men in the

1982), 6. 3“The Tyranny of the Familiar,” The American Organist (March 1995), 39. 4Our

world will or can do; who doth, can do, or hath done any thing, or suffered any

Synod’s Commission on Worship produces an excellent quarterly insert in our Synod’s

thing to be done, of which he doth or can truly and properly repent himself, with

monthly newspaper, Reporter. There is a tremendous book available, which is perhaps the

sorrow and grief for his mistake; or that sits in heaven divining and conjecturing at

most thorough-going, confessionally Lutheran presentation on worship that has ever

what men will do here below” (119). “That God cannot accomplish and bring about

appeared in English, titled, Lutheran Worship: History and Practice. And there is a pocket-

his own purposes by free and contingent agents, without the destruction of the

sized book titled Meaningful Worship: A Guide to the Lutheran Service, which would be good to

natures he hath endued them withal, is a figment unworthy of any who indeed

use with new members and visitors. (Each of these is published by Concordia Publishing

acknowledge his sovereignty and power” (131). 5Accommodation is a recurring

House, St. Louis.) J. A. O. Preus, The Second Martin: The Life and Theology of Martin Chemnitz

motif in Calvin’s thought. But unlike some who have used the idea, he does not do

(St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1994), 21-22. 6For the complete address, see

so for elitist purposes, to make a distinction between the real and the merely

www.lcms.org/president/lw2k.html.

superficial.

Other

helpful

material

available

www.lcms.org/wor/.

(I have discussed this point further in “John Calvin and Moses

Maimonides on Divine Accommodation,” in Referring to God, A Jewish-Christian Symposium, ed. Paul Helm [Curzon, 1999]). 6For these examples, see Peter van

Reflection on Contemporary/Alternative Worship

Inwagen, Material Beings (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1990), 101. 7It is possible

This sidebar is only an excerpt of the LCMS Commission on Worship statement. For

to argue a priori about such things, from the idea of the divine attributes: I attempt

the entire document, which first appeared as an insert in the January, 1998 edition of the

this in my symposium with William Hasker, “Does God Take Risks in Governing the

LCMS Reporter, see www.lcms.org/wor/. 2See footnote #1.

Universe?” in Contemporary Debates in the Philosophy of Religion, ed. Michael Peterson (Oxford: Blackwell, forthcoming).

The Word Proclaimed by Michael Horton Worship Leader, May/June 1999, 22. 2In Latin, this “by hearing” reads “ex auditu.” Hence,

this is where the preaching column in MR finds its name.

Is Contemporay Worship Becoming Self-Critical?: by Michael Horton Worship Leader, May/June 1999, 14. 2Ibid. 3Ibid. 4Ibid. 5Ibid., 22. 6See, e.g., John Frame,

Contemporary Worship Music: A Biblical Defense (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian & Reformed, 1997), especially chapter 7. 7Worship Leader, op. cit., 24. 8Ibid., 26. 9The Asbury Herald, Winter 1999, 6. 10Worship Leader, op. cit., 30. 11Ibid., 31. 12Ibid., 32. 13Ibid., 34.

Music Acceptable to God by W. Robert Godfrey See the articles by Sherman Isbell on Psalm-singing in The Presbyterian Reformed Magazine,

beginning in the summer, 1993 issue. 2See my article, “Leadership in Worship,” The Outlook, Dec. 1992, for the argument. 3John Updike, A Month of Sundays (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1975), 136.

N O V E M B E R / D E C E M B E R 1 9 9 9 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 5 1

James Montgomery Boice

Children’s Sermons

don’t do children’s sermons. I know they are popular with parents and that they are a staple in

children’s sermons I have heard. We have thought about this the Sunday services of most evangelical churches. But I don’t like them, and I don’t do them. challenge at Tenth Presbyterian Church in Philadelphia and have Let me explain why. ¶ My first reason is that children’s sermons distract people from the worship of God. developed a few ideas that we find work pretty well. First, we keep the children in church from a much They are meant to involve children in the worship service by younger age than we used to do. We still take the very offering something appropriate to their age. But the effect, little ones out for the parents’ sake as much as for theirs. whether intentional or not, is to focus the attention of the We don’t want excessive distractions for anyone. But we adults on the children, and that is not what we should be keep the children in church from the second grade up. coming to church to do. We should be focusing on God. I They can read at this age as well as participate, and we find that when children are invited forward to hear some cute think it is good for our families to be worshiping together. word from the minister, the adults perk up and begin to pay Second, we prepare a children’s bulletin which the close attention to the children. They are amused. They laugh. children pick up when the adults receive theirs. The It is a bright spot in the service. But it is not worship. JAMES children’ s bulletin contains the text of such service items as the Children’ s sermons sidetrack worship even if it has been going MONTGOMERY Apostles’ Creed, and there are side bars and added texts with on previously, which often it has not. In practice children’ s BOICE arrows to explain what various words or phrases occurring in sermons come dangerously close to idolatry since they invite the service mean. The third page contains a one paragraph worship of the fruit of our loins rather than the Lord. Senior Minister, Tenth Presbyterian summary of the sermon with several questions about it for the My second reason is that children’s sermons are part Church older children and a “word alert” section for those who are of what I see as an overall bad direction in which services younger. “Word alert” lists words they can listen for. have been moving. They are a part of what we call Third, both the organist and I come to the opening “dumbing down” in other disciplines. exercises of the Sunday School to talk about the sermon Let me put it this way. The goal we should have with and the hymns. I explain what I am going to be talking our children is to bring them up to the level of the adults— about and what the children should look for. I even ask that is, to enable them to begin to function on an adult level in their relationships to God. But what we have them to pray that people who are not Christians may succeeded in doing instead is to bring the adults down to hear what God has to say and be converted. The the level of the children. In many churches the sermon is organist tells about the hymns we will sing, who wrote hardly suited to any genuinely adult mind, the praise them, and why we sing them as we do. choruses would fit better at a high school rally than in the By the way, we teach the children hymns instead of worship of the Bible’s God, and the children’s sermons choruses, since they learn them easily at this age. We have probably speak as much to adult immaturity as to the them memorize a children’s catechism and large blocks of children. In fact, the children’s sermons are usually geared Scripture too, believing that it is a serious mistake to waste to the smallest children, and the older children are ignored. precious Sunday School time with mere games or trivia. The defense of this bad practice is probably that I would like to get pastors and other church leaders to children cannot follow what goes on in church. But that rethink what we are doing with our children. There is is not true. They can. And even if they cannot follow more than one way of causing these little ones to stumble. what goes on at first, our task is to teach them so they both can and will. And why not? It does not require James Montgomery Boice (D.Theol., University of Basel) is the much more time to teach children to participate in the president of the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals and senior worship service than it does to prepare some of the minister of Tenth Presbyterian Church, Philadelphia.

5 2 M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N | N O V E M B E R / D E C E M B E R 1 9 9 9