Checkin' In

For all of those faithful readers of my blog, I just wanted to check in and give you an update as to my whereabouts. It has been quite a while since I last wrote. And it's not all because of the arrival of my little guy. I have been in rainy Maine for the last week and a half for Camp Pitch and Camp Meeting. I've been very busy. And even now I gotta run! But I will be back in the saddle in a week or so.

Life is a Mission Field

I came across these thoughts this morning in my devotional time. I was extremely blessed by the reminder. This is definitely something I need to keep at the forefront of my mind as I think about what life is all about - and what should fill my day.

True education is missionary training. Every son and daughter of God is called to be a missionary; we are called to the service of God and our fellow men; and to fit us for this service should be the object of our eduction. . . .

Let the youth be impressed with the thought that they are not their own. They belong to Christ. They are the purchase of His blood, the claim of His love. They live because He keeps them by His power. Their time, their strength, their capabilities are His, to be developed, to be trained, to be used for Him. . .

God desires them to become all that He has made it possible for them to be, and to do their very best with the powers He has given them. . . .

He desires that we shall constantly be growing in holiness, in happiness, in usefulness. All have capabilities which they must be taught to regard as sacred endowments, to appreciate as the Lord's gifts, and rightly to employ. He desires the youth to cultivate every power of their being, and to bring every faculty into active exercise. He desires them to enjoy all that is useful and precious in this life, to be good and to do good, laying up a heavenly treasure for future life.

It should be their ambition to excel in all things that are unselfish, high, and noble. Let them look to Christ as the pattern after which they are to be fashioned. The holy ambition that He revealed in His life they are to cherish - an ambition to make the world better for their having lived in it. This is the work to which they are called. (Ellen White, Ministry of Healing, pp. 395-398)

For the Love of . . .

I think it was Big Bird who said, "Everyone . . . is always talking about love." He then promptly added, "Yuck." He was right. Everyone does talk about love.

And rightfully so. What it all boils down to is love. And it's precisely what God requires of us.

Those of us who like to debate theology and promote our beliefs can sometimes forget that. And those of us who like to emphasize overcoming sin and reaching perfection - yours truly included - sometime betray ourselves by neglecting this important component.

I was delighted to read, when I first came across Colossians 3:14, how important love is in the pursuit of perfection. As Paul writes, "But above all these things put on love, which is the bond of perfection." In the grand scheme of things, it doesn't matter how I keep the letter of the law to a "T," so long as I am neglecting love. Quite simply: no love, no perfection.

Unfortunately, as often happens, when we get quite zealous about our beliefs, our opinions, our understanding, we can get downright nasty (this, of course, is true of people on either side of the debate - including me). I am not implying, as many seem to suppose, that saying someone is wrong necessarily means you are being unloving towards him or her. But I will admit that there are times when many of us lose the "love" part of perfection. As John McVay asks, "What if victory in theological disputes were judged by the Christlike behavior of the disputants rather than the ferocity of the rhetoric?" He then adds, "And who's to say it isn't?"

I have had a number of people remind me of that all-important principle of love when I am emphasizing the importance of beliefs or doctrines. They are right, of course. In the end, love is what really matters. Christ calls us to love. He says it is non-negotiable.

But let's allow love, as the Bible treats it, to have its full place at the table. Because, as much as the Bible - and specifically Jesus - talks about loving our fellow human beings, we are also invited to love the truth. In fact, loving the truth seems to be an integral part in determining if one is saved or not. The same Paul who writes about the importance of agape love in the pursuit of perfection also informs us that those who are lost will be so "because they did not receive the love [agape] of the truth, that they might be saved" (2 Thess 2:10). What happens with these people is that, instead of receiving the love of the truth, they are swept away with deception.

Elsewhere, Paul achoes this idea in the great "Love Chapter" when he says that "love . . . rejoices in the truth" (1 Cor 13:6).

So truth - and a love for that truth - does seem to matter to God. And He places a premium on human beings pursuing that truth.

Now, I have had many people tell me - especially recently - that "truth" has its place but, utlimately, it is not going to really matter if we have the correct information or not. After all, there are so many ambiguities in the Bible - which people have argued over for centuries - and God doesn't expect us to have all the right answers. Others have also expressed the sentiment that God is not going to ask us if we "believe in the Trinity," or whether we can "explain the 2300 days accurately" or whatever other particular doctrine they seem to be upset about or unconvinced of.

Maybe not. And maybe God doesn't expect us to have all the answers before we can be translated (then again, maybe He does). But what He does require of us is to at least (a) believe that there is absolute truth and (b) have a love for that truth. Anything less than that will result in us being swept away with deception.

But God doesn't simply expect us to have a love for the truth for truth's sake. This is not an arbitrary requirement He places upon us. He understands that a love for the truth and a love for our fellow man are inseperable. So, no, God may not ask us at the Pearly Gates, "Explain the postlapsarian view of the nature of Christ," but He will be able to tell whether we know the information based on how we act. So, essentially, our beliefs will be reflected in our behavior and how we treat others (and Him). This is why He has such a huge concern for truth - and that we not only have a love for it, but an understanding of it.

A Little Camden to Brighten Your Day

For those who may be wondering where I have been lately, see below.

In Support of David Asscherick

I don't really know David Asscherick. We've corresponded via e-mail a few times. We have a number of mutual friends and acquaintances. And, in the grand scheme of things, I am just a "nobody" whose voice is hardly heard. But I do want to voice my support for him.

By now, many people have, no doubt, read the letter he wrote to Jan Paulsen, Don Schneider, and Ricardo Graham about his concern that La Sierra University - a Seventh-day Adventist institution - is openly teaching and promoting Darwinian evolution. It is not that they are presenting it as one scientific theory. They are presenting it as the authoritative theory, with little mention of any alternative views (ie., intelligent design or creationism).

Asscherick never meant for the letter to get a public viewing. And it is too bad that it has seen the light of day. But now that it has, his thoughts and sentiments are open to debate, I suppose. And many people have and will address them.

What he basically argues is that it is unethical and dishonest for a professor at a Seventh-day Adventist university to be paid to teach one thing, and yet teach another. When people sign their name on a piece of paper that says they will uphold the 28 Fundamental Beliefs of the Seventh-day Adventist Church (with number six being the belief in a literal, six day creation), and then they turn around and teach the opposite, such is a grossly unethical practice which would be grounds for dismissal or legal action in any other corporation or setting.

And, contrary to popular opinion, the idea of a literal, six day creation (which, as mentioned above, is officially affirmed by Seventh-day Adventists in our statement of 28 Fundamental Beliefs) is not a "minor" issue. We are not talking about women's ordination here, or whether or not a person should be able to wear a wedding band. The belief in a literal, six day creation is foundational to our Adventist identity and mission.

Of course, there will be many who try to claim that Adventists are a people of "new light" and progressive truth - and if this weren't the case, we would still be practicing indulgences and worshiping on Sunday. Fair enough. But we want "new light," not some stale scientific theory that is heralded by a community whose agenda is to do away with God.

And, aside from that, though I am no scientist, the more I understand about Darwinian evolution, the more I realize it is simply bad science, fraught with philosophical and theological agendas and presuppositions. And it is hardly "objective" at all (Darwinian naturalists declare, before they even begin, that there can only be "naturalistic" answers. Limiting the field by 50 percent before one even starts can hardly be classified as "objective." Excuse my gross analogy, but it would be like a detective, starting on a murder case, declaring that only a Canadian American could have committed a murder before he even looks at one shred of evidence).

Since Assherick's letter has gone public, the president of La Sierra sent out a formal letter addressing his concerns (click here for a text version of the letter - which is below Asscherick's letter) four days ago. Essentially, what I got from it is that, at La Sierra, they are baptizing a number of students this year, and they go on a lot of mission trips, but there was scant mention of the issue at hand. The only thing that seemed to come close is that, for some reason, professors at universities are allowed the privilege of so-called "academic freedom."

But I wonder: is it really "academic freedom" when you're simply regurgitating what 98% of biologists in the world are already saying? It sounds more like "academic slavery" to me than freedom. Of course, if those same biology professors would ever dare try to teach intelligent design in a biology class at a secular university, they would find out just how quickly "academic freedom" is not a two-way street (see Expelled as Exhibit A).

All in all, what Asscherick is hoping is that someone in a position of significant influence will step up to the plate and say "enough is enough." And I applaud him. He has put himself out there - especially now that his letter has become public. But we need more people who are in positions of influence within our church to confront this issue. It is not going to die quietly in the night. Unless it is addressed head-on, the teaching and promoting of Darwinian evolution is just going to gain more and more momentum. (And, again, we are not talking about shutting down the teaching of good science. We're talking about putting an end to the promotion of bad science that is saturated with subjective presuppositions.)

So will someone step up to the plate? Someone? Please.

Darwinian Propaganda

Can someone say that these scientists are taking the art of media propaganda to a new level?

Intent

Note: Per request of one of my family members (who may or may not read this whole post) for future blog posts, I have posted links to certain words or concepts that may not be understood by the "layman." Please click on the links if you want further explanation of what is meant by a certain word or phrase.

One of my most enjoyable experiences in the seminary was being able to sit at the feet of Dr. Richard Davidson for a few hours while taking an independent course with him. It was my last semester and in order for me to leave a little early, I had to sign up for a 4 credit independent course and complete it the summer before I technically graduated. I had no doubt in my mind who I wanted to take the independent course with, and I was very grateful when Dr. Davidson agreed to mentor me in this endeavor.

So I spent 10 or so hours over the span of the summer visiting with him in his office and just talking about Old Testament studies. It was truly a delight. Having known him for a number of years already, since I would frequent his house while playing in a Christian band with his son as an undergraduate, I had always admired his kind spirit and Christian heart.

He was also the one, as well, who really turned me on to the Old Testament and the Hebrew language a year and a half earlier when I took a class from him on the Prophets and Writings. And so I met with him sporadically throughout the summer and enjoyed simply talking about whatever it was that I wanted to talk about as it related to the Old Testament, Hebrew, intertextuality, etc.

One of the things that stands out in my mind, however, that I was just reminded of this past week, was towards the beginning of our time together. I can't remember exactly what I said to him, but it was something along the lines of, "I know that the job of the biblical exegete is to determine what the author intended to say." This, after all, is what had been pounded into my head throughout my undergraduate studies, as well as all my seminary studies heretofore. If the person truly wants to understand what a certain text means, I had been told, he must try to figure out what the author was trying to say. What was his intention when he wrote what he wrote?

So it came as a great shock when Dr. Davidson stopped me ever-so-politely mid-sentence and said, "Actually, that is not entirely true." He then explained, "It is not the job of the exegete to figure out what the author intended to say, but what the text itself intended to say and is saying." He continued, "After all, we can never really know what the author was intending to say. We do not have Moses or Solomon or Paul sitting here next to us 2000 or 3000 years later, telling us what they meant when they wrote what they wrote. All we have is the text itself. That's all we have to go on."

And it suddenly hit me in the last few days that this is an important distinction that must be made. I read a paper that someone sent to me about a certain topic that the Pentateuch addresses. And this person was trying to convince the reader that Moses (or whomever the writer believes wrote the book) was really addressing this subject when he wrote what he wrote, and this is really what he means to say.

The problem is, the text itself does not say that it is addressing this particular subject (as opposed to another one). And we do not have the benefit of having Moses sitting next to us, whispering into our ear what he really meant when he wrote what he wrote. All we have is the text itself.

Now, don't get me wrong. We do need to take the proper steps to get our context straight. It is important for us to try to recreate the setting in which the author wrote - you know, the historical setting, the geographical setting, etc. But even if we have the context down to a "T," this is still no guarantee that the author really had what we think he had in mind, actually in mind. We cannot read his mind. All we can do is read what he wrote.

As an example: I could read an article in a newspaper that someone has written that talks about a baseball field that has green fences and thousands of seats. But even if I could prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the author was sitting in Fenway Park at the time he wrote his article, unless he explicitly tells me that he is writing about Fenway Park (or there are enough particular details in the article so as to remove all doubt), there is no way I can prove with 100% certainty that he was, in fact, writing about Fenway Park. For all I know, he could be writing about Wrigley Field, or some other baseball park. And unless I have that author sitting right next to me, explaining to me what he intended to mean, I cannot presume that I know exactly what his intention was. All I have to go on is the text itself.

How much more so does this apply when we are talking about the biblical authors, who wrote thousands of years ago, about places I have never been or people I have never met? So we must be ever humble in presuming to say that we know what the author really meant to say, when all we have is the text itself.

A Letter from Mimi

Last week, as I was leafing through one of my many books that I have started in the past but never finished, I noticed a letter stuffed in the middle of the book. The letter was in an envelope and there was a simple "Shawn" scribbled on the outside. Immediately recognizing the distinguishable handwriting, I eagerly pulled the letter out.

Sure enough, it was from my grandmother (who we call "Mimi") - my only living grandparent. The letter was dated August 26th, and though there was no year given, based on what she wrote, I know it was from 2001. I was just about to head to Scotland to serve as a Student Missionary for a year and she was sending me off with well wishes.

What is so significant about this letter is that she was diagnosed with Alzheimer's the next summer. And now, seven years later, I am not sure if she really even recognizes me anymore when I see her. It has been a constant struggle for our family, of course (all of whom are very close), and it seems as though she gets worse and worse by the day.

I shared the letter with my mother this past weekend, when she was visiting for Mother's Day. Tears immediately came to her eyes. She informed me that she had not been able to find any letters from her mother. Quite obviously, reading something from her mother when she was still "with it" was highly significant.

I want to share that letter with you. It probably won't mean as much to anyone who reads it, but I hope you can still appreciate its significance. Particularly touching - especially in retrospect - is the last sentence of the first paragraph.

I cannot wait for the day when Mimi's memory will be turned on and she will fully be able to recognize and appreciate the company of all her family again - just as I cannot wait to see my grandfather alive very soon as well (and meet my other grandfather for the first time, alongside my grandmother who passed away nine years ago). May we all do all that we can to hasten that day.

(Click on the image below for a larger image)

No Longer Agnostic

"If the foundations are destroyed, What can the righteous do?"

Psalm 11:3

I was wrong. I repent. And I'm truly sorry that I didn't see it before. A few weeks ago, I wrote about my agnosticism and fence-sitting when it comes to the issue of music and worship (here and here). No more. Since then, I have done a lot of reading, studying, listening, and thinking about the subject and come to the conclusion that there are clear biblical principles when it comes to this subject. And perhaps the conclusion that most people will be interested in is that drums have no place in worship. Let me explain.

In the wake of an unfortunate situation that I encountered a little while ago, I started once again studying this topic that, for so long, has had me baffled. Though I have been very uncomfortable with much of what takes place in the name of worship, I couldn't quite place my finger on how to justify such an attitude (and, just to let you know where I'm coming from: I am a person who likes my Casting Crowns and has written a Christian "rock" song or two in my life. I am not someone who had some life-altering "coming to the Lord" experience who is now bitter about my past life). But then a young lady at one of my churches - all of 14 years old - recommended that I read a book on drums, rock, and worship. Someone had sent me this book a little while back and I had never read it.

So I decided to pick it up and give it a read. Some of what the author said was interesting and I could agree with, but there was a lot of it that didn't seem to make sense to me. There were some missing pieces. So I decided to e-mail the author, who I went to Andrews University with, and asked him to clarify some things. In response, he referred me to some presentations he did last year that are a lot more developed than his book. The presentations were given in 2008, while the book was published back in 2002 or 2003.

To put it mildly, his presentations are extremely convincing. And what he shared in them is something that makes all the sense in the world. They totally bring all these things together and I'm not sure why I didn't see it before.

I will summarize what he said in his presentations, but let me just give you a little background - and shout out - to this gentleman. His name is Karl Tsatalbasidis and he is getting his PhD in systematic theology at Andrews University - specifically focusing on this whole issue of worship forms. He is no dummy. He used to be a very accomplished jazz drummer before he came a Seventh-day Adventist. His book, Drums, Rock, and Worship, is available here, and his audio presentations are available here. I would strongly recommend listening to his audio presentations because his ideas are a lot more developed there (though it is not "light listening" for most people). Please note that the first presentation on the web page is the presentation, "If the Foundations are Destroyed, What Can the Righteous Do? Part I," and then it moves back from there. In other words, the presentations are listed backwards.

So here is a basic summary of his ideas on this subject, with a few extra insights from yours truly.

1. Worship is a theological issue. This idea is almost anathema to many people, of course. They would like to maintain that worship styles are merely subjective. But this is not the case. The style we use for worship is a reflection of our theology.

2. The way we worship should be informed by the sanctuary and its services. If we do not utilize this as our hermeneutic, then we will be adrift at sea. As Psalm 11:3 asks, "If the foundations are destroyed, What can the righteous do?" The Psalmist answers his own question in the very next verse when he says, "The Lord is in His holy temple."

The sanctuary must be foundational when we approach this subject, otherwise we are merely addressing symptoms. This is especially helpful for Seventh-day Adventists, who understand the sanctuary as, according to Ellen White, "a complete system of truth." Thus, the idea of the sanctuary informs all of our theology, how we dress, the attitude we have, how we eat, and, yes, the way we worship. The sanctuary, as I said above (and I will repeat many times more before I die), is foundational to any discussion we have.

And, as more and more people turn their backs on the sanctuary truth, there is less clarity on how we worship. This is not a coincidence. As the sanctuary concept continues to be diminished among our ranks, so, too, will there be a loss of the one thing that can anchor our judgment of what is, and what is not, proper worship styles.

3. When God instructed Moses to build the sanctuary, He showed him a pattern that he was to fashion it after. He showed him not only the dimensions of the sanctuary and its furniture, but also the services that were to be implemented. When David came along and made plans to build the Temple, God told him which instruments were to be utilized in the services. And, when King Hezekiah brought about reform in Israel years later, he reestablished the instruments that were to be used in the Temple service, in accordance with David's instructions. We are told that Hezekiah "set the Levites in the house of the Lord with cymbals, with psalteries, and with harps, according to the commandment of David, and of Gad the king's seer, and Nathan the prophet: for so was the commandment of the Lord by his prophets" (2 Chronicles 29:25).

In other words, Hezekiah used only those instruments that God instructed David to use in the sanctuary service, and they did not include drums (in those days, the only "drums" that were used at all were timbrels/tambourines). And we must remember that God never does anything arbitrarily. He always has a reason for doing what He does. And if He was very specific in which instruments were to be used in the sanctuary service, there must have been a very good reason behind that.

4. If the earthly sanctuary is merely a copy of the heavenly sanctuary (see Hebrews 8:1-5), we can therefore conclude that these instruments are the instruments that are utilized in the heavenly sanctuary. And no drums are involved. (The question will naturally come up: so are we to use only harps and psalteries, etc.? No, that is not what we are saying. We must search for the principle behind these instruments, and use those ones that stress the same things in our contemporary context. The instruments that God instructed Israel to use stressed melody and harmony, whereas drums stress rhythm - to the diminishing of melody and harmony.)

5. Israel always slid into apostasy and Baal worship when they turned their back on God's sanctuary (see 1 Kings 12:26-28 as an example). Reform always came when they cleansed the sanctuary and re-introduced the worship of God the way He designed. The same holds true for us. When we turn our backs on the sanctuary - which is happening to a great degree today - then we lose our context for proper worship. It is only when we go with Christ into the Most Holy Place of the heavenly sanctuary that we can find a foundation for our worship.

It is little wonder, then, that as many of our young people within Adventism have no idea what the sanctuary doctrine is all about, they are not able to determine - or even care about - an objective criteria by which to judge worship styles.

6. Platonic philosophy has us, whether we recognize it or not, buying into the idea that heaven is not a spaciotemporal place (meaning it is not comprised of time and space), and that God, Himself, is spaceless and timeless. Thus, any spaciotemporal representations on earth of heavenly realities are culturally conditioned. So there is no real sanctuary in heaven, and there was no real, literal pattern of worship that God has shown (and any talk of there being stringed instruments, etc., in the heavenly sanctuary is folly in their mind). Moses and David were merely expressing these timeless realities in the way that their culture could facilitate. (This idea that God is timeless will also creep into our views on the Sabbath, by the way. Because, if God and heaven are timeless, why is it important if we keep a specific day?)

So anything that they set up in the Old Testament as a representation of the way to worship is peculiar to their culture, and is not binding upon us. We are allowed to worship God in whatever way our culture allows, because this is how we express these spaceless and timeless realities.

7. The only occasions that timbrels were used in the Old Testament was when Israel was victorious in war (this is true about dancing as well). They were never used in worship or in the sanctuary service. And, though Christ has certainly paid the price for our victory and won the battle on the cross, the war is not over yet. The conflict between Christ and Satan still continues. And so why should we be celebrating as if God has beaten Satan?

I raised this point this past weekend when I was in Arkansas, and a lady responded by saying, "Yes, but Christ has won the victory for me. He won salvation for me on Calvary. The atonement is complete. And that makes me want to just raise my hands and my voice in gratitude and thanksgiving to Him." But I like to think of it this way: if you fell off a pier into some dangerous waters, and someone jumped in to save you, and he was able to help you out, but he was still in the water, would you go all out and hold a victory celebration, or take great concern for the fact that he was still endangered in the crashing waters? You would, no doubt, be grateful that you have been saved, but you would also be terribly concerned that he now needs to get out of the water.

And this is the reality of our current situation. Christ has saved us, yes, but the Great Controversy with Satan still continues. He still needs to get out of the "water," in some ways. And this concept, by the way, only really works for those who have an understanding of this Great Controversy, and an understanding that Christ could, in fact, lose. (In light of this, Tsatalbasidis asks if we are going to watch and pray, or dance and play. Most of us want to do the latter, ignoring the fact that God is "in the dock," as C. S. Lewis says.)

It also fits in with our understanding of the antitypical Day of Atonement, which finds its explanation in the truth of the sanctuary. We are living in that Day of Atonement, which was a time of incredible solemness, humility, and concern for the work of the High Priest. Christ is in the Most Holy Place right now, trying to finish His work of atonement. Only after it is over and we are in the Feast of Tabernacles (which followed the Day of Atonement in the yearly Hebrew calendar) can we celebrate.

8. God is not arbitrary when it comes to choosing the instruments for worshiping Him. It is in our best interest to follow His instructions. And God's last day people are identified as those who "keep the commandments of God" (see Revelation 14:12). This includes doing our best to follow natural law, and the drum set, for one, is a polyrhythmic instrument that contradicts the body's natural rhythms.

Now, unfortunately, most people will not understand all of these points, or agree with them. And this goes back, for the most part, to the fact that they do not understand the sanctuary and its implications. And they think that there is far too much thought and theology that has gone into this. Can't we just worship God in whatever way we want to, and not put so much thought into it? It is almost heretical to stand in judgment of someone's worship style.

But doesn't God ask us to come and reason with Him? And didn't He tell His people to worship Him in a very specific way (Cain and Abel comes to mind)? He wasn't being merely arbirtary when He did this, either. It was for our own good. He wants to protect us from spiritualism, emotionalism, and fanaticism.

Thus, shouldn't we have good, biblical reasons for doing what we do? Is the attitude that it "feels good" or "sounds nice" the best criteria for determining whether a particular type of music or worship is acceptable or not?

There are other ideas that Tsatalbasidis addressed in his presentations, but these are the main points, as I understand them. There are naturally questions about the details that come up, and he doesn't claim to have all the answers. But I think what he has shared is very foundational to any discussion on these issues and provides a very good framework for the topic.

For me, the bottom line is that confusion about worship has arisen because we have turned our backs on the sanctuary. And when that happens, anything and everything goes.

Waiting . . .

So this may seem a little cheesy to some, but I thought I would just share the first "film" I have produced. We got our new HD camcorder yesterday and I have been experimenting with it. I made this movie last night (much to the chagrin of my wife). I trust that you are able to understand what the "waiting" is all about.

The "Erotic" Song

As many may already know, the Song of Songs (known also as the Song of Solomon) is my favorite book in the Bible. I have gleaned many wonderful insights from this amazing book, and I continue to do so every time I encounter it. This tiny little book, all of eight chapters long, has been the cause of many scintillating and provocative interpretations over the years. I have been amused by many.

What I do not find acceptable, however, is when people say that the Song is "erotic." I have heard this over and over again. Even the Pope seems to hint at this idea. Just yesterday, while listening to a Podcast by a conservative Christian philosopher I highly respect, I heard him repeat this idea as well.

The problem is, such a claim does not hold water when one studies the evidence. There is no doubt that the Song is highly sexual; but this doesn't necessarily make it "erotic." And anyone who insists that erotic love is necessary for any sexual relationship - and points to the "sanctified" Song of Songs as an example - is greatly mistaken. The book simply does not make the case for this.

What it does make the case for is the fact that agape love - othercentered, alterocentric love - is the basis for sexual relationships. After all, when translators came along and translated the Old Testament into Greek, they had a perfect opportunity to bring out the supposed erotic nature of the Song by translating the Hebrew word for love (ahabah) as eros. Quite surprisingly, they did the opposite. Over and over again - 19 times, in fact - they utilized the word agape, while never using eros.

Of course, the LXX translators weren't necessarily inspired like the original Old Testament authors themselves. They were prone to making mistakes. But I don't think that they did in this instance. After all, when the New Testament authors came along, never once did they use the word eros either. They didn't use it in reference to God (and yet the Pope, in the above article, mysteriously would have us believe that God's "love may certainly be called eros"), nor did they use it in reference to the love that husbands and wives should have for one another. Quite simply, the Bible (with the exception of two instances in the book of Proverbs) does not touch erotic love.

To put it simply: erotic love is unbliblical.

Why all the fuss? Because we have subtly bought into the idea that selfish "love" is somehow acceptable. And that is what eros is, plain and simple (despite what others may have us think at times). Sexuality, in its pure and biblical sense, is not about erotic love; it is about agape love. And the same holds true, of course, for all of our interpersonal relations - sexual or otherwise.

Thus, Carsten Johnsen fittingly reminds us:

I am not saying one single disparaging word about the natural beauty in a woman's body. It certainly is not Eros who has had anything to do with creating that. The Creator's name is Jesus Christ, and He is Agape. It is not Eros who has made sex a pleasant experience, any more than he has made strawberries taste delicious. It is God, and God only, who has prepared all things that are good - really good. It is He who has invented feminine beauty (Agape and Eros, p. 40).

He then goes on to say, quite appropriately:

Accordingly, there could be nothing whatsoever wrong with that beauty; that is - and here is the important point - as part and parcel of the woman possessing the beauty. And when I am speaking about a "woman," I am again speaking about a totality, including an endless number of realities such as her God-dependence as a creature, her rights and responsibilities as a person endowed with freedom of will, etc., etc.

In fact, there need not be anything wrong at all about that woman as the gorgeously beautiful one, in terms of a real object, reasonably seen. On the other hand, there may be something terribly wrong with the eyes that see. For an eye that stares its eyeballs out at torn-off (that is bleedingly lacerated) particles of an original totality, or at sheer emptiness, that eye is bound to become torn and empty itself. That is where the tragedy comes in (Ibid., pp. 40, 41).

So let's make sure we get it right about eros and agape. That is, erotic love has nothing to do with the Bible, God, or Christians.

"Evolution's" All-or-Nothingness

I came across this article this morning that references Robert Gentry, a Seventh-day Adventist scientist who advocates creationism. It is somewhat interesting because there is growing concern in Canada over the fact that its Science and Technology Minister does not believe in "evolution." The concern is so great because, according to one zoologist and evolution expert, "we're hampered in our ability to develop cures for diseases" if the Minister does not believe in evolution.

Two things strike me as odd in this article:

1. As so often happens when talking about this subject, the term "evolution" is ambiguous in the article. This leads the reader to believe that, because the Science and Technology Minister does not believe in "evolution," this will somehow prevent the country from developing cures for diseases.
2. It is not clear, however, why a belief in the idea that all life formed from a common organism billons of years ago is a prerequisite for developing cures to diseases. Isn't the acceptance of, what many label micro-evolution, enough?

The simple reality is, for many evolutionary biologists, if a person does not accept evolution from a common organism billions of years ago, then that person cannot accept anything else that is wrapped in the "evolution" package. You have to accept the whole package they insist upon, or you cannot accept any of it. It's all or nothing.

And, when this is the case, they are the ones who are really hampering our ability to develop cures for diseases.

Ellen White's "PETA" Agenda

One of the unfortunate realities of Seventh-day Adventist's emphasis on health is that we, far too often, approach it from an egocentric agenda. This manifests itself in a number of different ways, but the net result is that we speak out very little against the cruelty that is inflicted upon animals for the sake of a good meal.

This should not be the case. Adventists should be at the forefront of the movement that urges proper treatment of animals. Though we should not partake in some of the unethical methods of PETA, we should certainly do all we can in our power to promote the wellbeing of all of God's creatures. This alone, I believe, is reason enough to eliminate meat from our diets.

Certainly Ellen White thought so. And this is probably lost far too often when we examine her writings in relation to flesh foods. Notice what she says, for example, in The Ministry of Healing:

Animals are often transported long distances and subjected to great suffering in reaching a market. Taken from the green pastures, and traveling for weary miles over the hot, dusty roads, or crowded into filthy cars, feverish and exhausted, often for many hours deprived of food and water, the poor creatures are driven to their death, that human beings may feast on the carcasses. . . .

Think of the cruelty to animals that meat eating involves, and its effect on those who inflict and those who behold it. How it destroys the tenderness with wich we should regard these creatures of God!

The intelligence displayed by many dumb animals [dumb, in her day, did not have the same connotation it does today. She simply meant "mute, silent; not speaking"] approaches so closely to human intelligence that it is a mystery. The animls see and hear and love and fear and suffer. They use their organs far more faithfully than many human being use theirs. They manifest sympathy and tenderness toward their companions in suffering. Many animals show an affection for those who have charge of them, far superioer to the affection shown by some of the human race. They form attachments for man which are not broken without great suffering to them.

What man with a human heart, who has ever cared for domestic animals, could look into their eyes, so full of confidence and affection, and willingly give them over to the butcher's knife? How could he devour their flesh as a sweet morsel? (pp. 314, 315-316)

No, Ellen White probably wouldn't be a part of PETA today, or condone their behavior in lot of situations, but she would certainly do all that she could to promote the ethical treatment of these creatures. And we should do the same - even if she had never said anything to that end.

Epistemology, Utilitarianism, and Music - Part 2

To read Part 1, click here.

Thus far, it would appear as though the bulk of my conclusions have been that conservatives are wrong when it comes to the music debate. But this is not quite true. In fact, I find myself agreeing with conservatives theoretically and philosophically when it comes to music, for the most part, but perhaps disagreeing with their application of that philosophy when it comes to the details. Or at least I think I disagree with them on the details (or most of the details).

The truth is, there are a number of things that I am a bit troubled by when it comes to the “contemporary” Christian music movement. Let me share those with you.

1. I am troubled by the presuppositions of those on the “liberal” side when it comes to the reason for doing the music we do. One of those presuppositions that I often hear is essentially a Utilitarian philosophy. Utilitarianism, simply put, is the “ethical doctrine that virtue is based on utility, and that conduct should be directed toward promoting the greatest happiness of the greatest number of persons.”

And how does this manifest itself when it comes to music? I have often heard this type of logic used when talking about Christian music: “You know, we have these young people who are leaving the church in droves and we need to keep them coming.” In other words: in order to keep young people coming to church, we need to let them play and listen to the type of music they like.

How many times have you heard this type of logic? Granted, this is not to say that this necessarily makes their music wrong, but anytime this is the motivation for doing a certain type of music, or doing anything, we are walking on thin ice. Certainly such a use of logic does not have biblical support. God desires us to worship Him in “spirit and truth,” (John 4:24) not in whatever way is going to promote the greatest “happiness” or fill the most pews.

This applies to anything, of course, and is certainly not limited to music. If our goal is simply to get as many young people coming as we can, then we could use some pretty questionable methods to accomplish that. And many have. This does not mean, however, that we should make our church services un-enjoyable, boring, or uninteresting. But we need to make sure that our primary goal is to uplift the crucified and risen Savior, and that any methods we use are in accordance with biblical truth.

Of course, this is not only true for contemporary music, but the old-time hymns as well. I’ve heard old-timers say, “They’re playing that music because the young people like it.” And I’ve responded by saying, “Yes, and don’t you like your music that is played?” It is silly to say that we should not play contemporary music because it is just what the young people like, while maintaining that the old time music is somehow sanctified, when, in reality, it’s just what we like.

2. Along similar lines, there is a belief out there which maintains that we need to use contemporary music so that we can appeal to non-Christians. This just doesn’t seem to hold any water, though.

Truth be told, non-Christians scoff at our Christian contemporary music and, really, the only people that like it are those within our walls who want to mix their worship of God with a little bit of U2, Beyonce, or Coldplay. Let’s tell it like it is: Christian contemporary music is really for us who have been Christians our whole lives. And I find, over and over again, that those who have been on the “outside” generally want to leave that type of music behind when they come “inside.”

It also seems to me that there was very little debate on this issue before Christians, and Adventists specifically, started listening to secular “rock music.” For some reason, before Adventists ever started listening to rock music, we didn’t independently produce music that sounded like it. Why didn’t we independently arrive at it without the influence of the secular arena?

Furthermore, if our contemporary Christian music is so objectively wonderful, why is it simply always keeping pace with secular music? I appreciate Risieri Frondizi when he writes, “The essence of the moral reformer and of the creator in the field of the arts lies in not adjusting to the predominant norms, or tastes, but unfurling the flag of what ‘ought to be’ over and above people’s preferences” (Quoted in Stefani, p. 414).

Shouldn’t Christian music be the head, and not the tail, of the arts? For centuries it was. Handel gave us Messiah. Now it just seems like we’re simply trying to keep up with everyone else by copying their music.

3. It also troubles me that we typically approach music with an egocentric attitude. Far too often I hear people say, “I feel like I’m worshipping God when I am singing this type of music?” or, “I am so blessed by this particular song?” I’ve responded by saying, “Why don’t we ask what God would want in our music? Why don’t we ask Him what He would be blessed by?” Someone responded to me recently by saying, “But don’t you think God would want us to play music that we are going to enjoy and be blessed by?” That sounds good in theory, but I don’t necessarily find this to be biblical.

One example of this would be Cain, who felt pretty happy about the worship he was offering God. No doubt he felt blessed by bringing the fruits of his labor to the altar. But this simply wasn't acceptable to God because it was not what He wanted or was blessed by. To say that it doesn't matter how we worship God, so long as we have a seemingly sincere heart and we are blessed by it, doesn't seem to jive with what God requires of us.

Furthermore, what would happen if we approached music with an other-centered attitude? What would happen if we asked ourselves, “What type of music would Sister Jones be blessed by?” or “What song would little Jacob really enjoy?” Music is not necessarily about us. It’s about God and it’s about others. As Barry Leisch writes, “It’s often overlooked today that we have a responsibility to one another in worship” (The New Worship, p. 39).

4. I am going to call a spade a spade: I am greatly bothered by the lack of lyrical and theological depth and clarity in many contemporary songs. And, quite simply, we have got to go deeper in our songs. (And this is coming from a guy who has written many a shallow song, and continues to do so. So I am part of the problem.) What may come as a surprise to many of us is that, according to Paul, we are supposed to use songs for the purpose of “teaching and admonishing” (see Colossians 3:16). Singing songs is not for the sole purpose of getting a warm tingly feeling about God. They are also to teach us doctrinal truths about Him.

As Leisch points out, most contemporary songs “excel at expressing celebration and intimacy, but, in general, lack intellectual rigor and fail to offer a mature exposition of the broad range of biblical doctrines” (Ibid., p. 21). There has been a movement of late to go deeper in contemporary songs, but even these have their problems. As scholar Jerry Stackhouse has written on his blog (to the ire of many), “We are the most educated Christians in history, and yet our lyrics are considerably stupider than our much less educated Christian forebears.”

What do our contemporary songs reveal about our theological depth, understanding, or experience? Sadly, I’m afraid that many of us who are supposed to be “12th graders,” spiritually, are stuck singing Kindergarten songs, lyrically.

This is why I love hymns. They actually have spiritual/theological depth to them. You don’t exhaust their meaning in one singing of them—unlike most contemporary songs. (As Leisch writes: “Must all texts be immediately accessible? . . . . Isn’t it healthy to have some lyrics that are dense in meaning—that keep yielding new insights to us each time we sing them?”)

When I shared this with someone recently, she responded, “Well, that may be true for you, but when I sing hymns I don’t even think about the words.” To me, that’s like saying, “When I read the Bible, I don’t even think about the words. Therefore, I am not going to read the Bible anymore.”

What is even more troubling is the fact that many of us sacrifice theological clarity and truth for a nice tune. Very few people actually exegete a song’s lyrics (this is true of hymns or contemporary songs, of course), or realize that they are unwittingly singing about their dead grandparents who are now looking down from heaven at them, or how God controls our destiny and we could, therefore, never be lost.

I think it is also worth noting that, in the Old Testament, only those from the tribe of Levi were given the job of leading out in music. These individuals were not only trained musically, but also theologically. This tells me that, though others were, no doubt, free to express themselves musically to God personally, when it came to corporate worship, only those who were trained in music and theology could lead a congregation.

What are the implications of this? We should be a lot more careful and intentional when inviting individuals to lead out in worship because, how they lead in worship affects not only them personally, but the corporate group as well. Thus, although I am sympathetic to doing all that we can to get people involved in ministry and worship, I am not sure it is worth jeopardizing the welfare of the corporate group for the involvement of one. Simply placing a guitar in someone’s hand and inviting them to lead out in music so they will keep coming to church doesn’t seem to reconcile with what I understand “worship” to be all about.

Each person, be it the pastor who is preaching or the Sabbath School teacher who is teaching, has a moral responsibility toward those they are leading. And just as none of us think it would be appropriate for someone to play the role of a doctor—though they have no knowledge in medicine—simply so they will keep coming to the hospital, neither should we invite others who have very little or no knowledge in theology or the things of God to lead out in worship, simply to keep them coming to church.

Where to?

So where does this leave us when it comes to music? I think it leaves us with the realization that we need to be ever more prayerful when it comes to this important topic. I wish that all of us, myself included, would take music—and the leading of music—more seriously. We cannot afford to be nonchalant or casual about it.

As one who appreciates the writing of Ellen White, I think she offers us some helpful guidelines as well. I think it would be beneficial to consult with her on this subject. And, in reading some of what she says, as well as reflecting upon biblical principles and continued scientific understanding of music’s effect, here are some broad principles that I think are helpful when pursuing the music of heaven. Perhaps all of us should reflect upon these principles when we are leading out in music.

1. No worship should be entered into without a great deal of prayer, preparation, and biblical reflection. I need to remember this as much as the next guy.

2. We are to worship God in “spirit and truth” (John 4:23). This means I will avoid songs where the lyrics do not reflect an accurate understanding of biblical truth. We need to be especially careful with this because, far too often, the lyrics that are being sung enter into our psyche subconsciously and often with little intelligent reflection.

3. If I am confronted with the possibility that the way my music is played may inherently prevent a person from using their reasoning abilities, I will want to avoid performing in such a way.

4. We should never perform music that may be injurious to people’s health. This is not simply subjective. It can be empirically judged. For example, I need to make sure that the music is not so loud that it damages a person’s eardrums.

I also will want to avoid screaming. Such affects the vocal chords in a negative way. So if this means I need to turn down the volume on other instruments, then I need to be prepared to do this.

I will also avoid performing in such a way that encourages people to smash into each other. This is just one other example.

5. Similarly, if we are singing for the purpose of coherent biblical and spiritual reflection—which should be our goal—I will never want to lead out in music in such a way that any accompanying instrument monopolizes the music and leaves the singing undistinguishable. Thus, I will definitely want to make sure that any other instrument is turned down and serves as a supplemental “dish,” rather than the main course.

6. I must recognize that certain types of music have worldly “associations” for some people, and I need to respect their views. If such is the case, I will want to avoid those types of music so as not to place those individuals in a situation where they unwillingly have to recall their former experiences that they are trying to put behind them.

7. If my music offends someone, I need to be willing to lay it aside for the sake of my brother or sister. It is not worth alienating relationships over, or destroying the work of God for the sake of “food.”

At the same time, if I disagree with someone’s music, even if I am convicted that it is “evil,” I need to approach the subject lovingly and treat others how I wish they would treat me. I must follow the example of Christ, who, instead of running away from evil, not only ate with sinners, but took up residence in sinful human flesh.

Music is an “arguable” topic, and is not a moral issue to the extent that any of the Ten Commandments are. It is not worth alienating relationships to make my point about music, one way or the other.

Epistemology, Utilitarianism, and Music - Part 1

Worship and Music. Music and Worship. Such hot potatoes. And something that I have been meaning to write about for quite a while. Until now I have put it off (though pausing for limited remarks here). But I think this is the perfect time to write on this subject - especially in light of some things that happened this past weekend at a conference that I attended.

Without going into a great deal of detail, or passing judgment on those involved, let me just share a brief sketch of what went on. I attended an evangelism conference this past weekend in Maine along with 175 other persons from my particular denomination. All Seventh-day Adventist pastors in Northern New England were in attendance, as well as "laypersons" from each church, and the church administrators in this region. We were all there to learn about evangelism and outreach.

Music inadvertently became one of the focuses, however, when the group that was leading out in the music chose to sing "contemprary" songs and utilized an electric drum set. To my thinking, this is probably the first time that such an ensemble has been used for a conference-wide initiative for a bunch of adults. It did not go over very well, to say the least. Each time the group got up to sing, a mass of people (numbering probably anywhere from 30-40) promptly stood to their feet and exited the gymnasium. When the music ended, they filed back into the gym, visibly showing their disappointment/disdain/frustration over the music.

It all came to a head on Sunday morning when one of the exiting individuals was granted a chance to address the whole audience for a few seconds. He did not get prior approval from administrators to do so, though he was allowed a chance to speak by an unsuspecting guest who was one of the weekend presenters. Before he could complete his talk, which revealed the fact that many attendees were upset about the music, a conference administrator took the microphone from him and politely, but firmly, thanked him for sharing, but said it would not be necessary to continue.

Unfortunately, a weekend that was supposed to be focused on reaching the lost turned into a discussion on music and worship. And, sadly, such things happen far too often.

Over the weekend, I thought and prayed quite a bit about the whole topic. The minute I sat down on Friday night and saw the electric drum set sitting on the stage, I knew that we were headed for trouble. And since I have returned home, I have spent much of the day studying the biblical witness on the subject, as well as consulting some other materials that people have written on it. And, of course, this topic has, for quite a while, been an ongoing self-debate in my mind.

And, really, the more I study and grapple with the topic, the more agnostic I become. Yes, I will admit that I am agnostic in this instance. I find myself agreeing and disagreeing with arguments from people on both "sides" of the issues. In a conversation with someone who is all about the modern "praise" music, I take the more "conservative" side. Similarly, with someone who is more traditional and conservative, I take a little more "open-minded" or "liberal" attitude. And then I find myself agreeing with good arguments that are presented by scholars on both sides of the divide. And all this lends itself to agnosticism.

With that being said, I have drawn some conclusions when it comes to this topic. And hopefully those conclusions will come out as I share my thoughts with you in the rest of this post.

But, first, I think one of the more unfortunate realities surrounding this whole discussion is that there is very little – or no – intelligent and dispassionate discussion on this topic. Usually these issues are discussed in a very emotional manner, spurned by a conflict that arises when one “side” tries to enforce its will at the expense, and without permission from, the other side.

But I think it would be very productive if we could get both sides to sit down with each other and prayerfully and unemotionally study this issue together. It seems to me that one of the frustrations that “conservatives” have is that they see this new music creeping in with very little questioning—except by their own. Liberals do not come to conservatives and say, “Hey, can we talk about the music issue?” Instead, conservatives show up to a weekend conference and there is a drum set, bass guitar, and new songs that no one knows. I think they feel that such music is being forced upon them to some degree.

Not to get “emergent,” but it would be healthy if we could come together to talk about these things in a coherent manner. That would go a long way in helping each side understand the other.

And now on to some of my musings.

A Few Conclusions Thus Far

As I’ve spent a little time thinking about this issue, I have come to conclude, first of all, that any discussion about music and worship needs to start with epistemology. Each side seems to make claims about music that could be cleared up if epistemological presuppositions were clarified. (Epistemology is, in simple terms, the study of how we know what we know.) As an example, at one of the mass exoduses during the worship time over the weekend, I slipped out and joined some of the demonstrating saints to try to get a feeling for what they were thinking. One of the ladies, when she saw me, said, "You don't like the music either?" Not wanting to take sides, I said, "Well, it's a tough issue." Without missing a beat, she responded: "What is going on in there is not worship."

What I wanted to say in response to her was, "Says who?" This is an epistemological issue. On what basis was the lady making the claim that the music was not “worship”? The Bible? Ellen White? Subjective feeling?

Similarly, when someone on the other side says that music simply comes down to personal taste, this sounds good in theory, but on what basis is he or she making such a claim? Is this what the Bible teaches?

And, while we’re on it, what does the Bible say about this subject? Surprisingly, very little that is conclusive.

I spent a little bit of time this morning studying the subject in the Bible. As one example, I looked at the 17 or so times that the Bible talks about the “timbrel” (one of the only percussion instruments that the Bible talks about) and it seems obvious to me that a person cannot make an argument one way or the other as to a timbrel’s moral position. Let’s be clear about this: nowhere does the Bible categorically and explicitly condemn drums or syncopation or rhythm. It's just not there.

Now, one could, perhaps, rightfully make the argument that a drumbeat is evil, but such a claim would not be based on the Bible. I wish people would recognize this. (Again: I want to make it clear that this doesn't necessarily mean a drumbeat is acceptable. All I am saying is that when a person makes the claim that drums are unholy, the source for their claim is not the Bible. It’s important we recognize this.)

Again, this comes back to epistemology. Are we going to simply use the Bible as the way we know what we know about music, or are we going to allow testimony from other sources (ie., science, music psychology, Ellen White, etc.).

Now, it is fine if we want to rely upon other sources. But we just need to recognize that we are doing this and not be caught making the claim that the “Bible condemns drums” or that your type of worship is “not worship according to the Bible.” I do believe that the Bible lays down principles for appropriate worship, but I am not sure that the Bible, alone, is enough for us to make black-and-white statements about whether other people’s worship is holy or not.

With that being said, I am of the conviction that there is an objective criteria by which music can be judged. I am not saying that I have discovered that criteria. It’s just that I do not buy the argument that music is a subjective art and one that is governed purely by “personal taste.” It seems to me that music is not necessarily “morally neutral.” Though I am not necessarily talking about syncopation or rhythm or the drumbeat, I think it is fairly obvious that music has the power to elicit certain emotional responses from individuals, whether they realize it or not. And when such a truth is realized, musicians must not be careless in how their music is composed, performed, or presented.

To this end, Wolfgang Stefani writes,

From a Christian viewpoint, emotions like anger, hate, fear, love, or joy are not intrinsically good or bad. However, to present the lyric, “Jesus loves me this I know” with an accompanying musical/emotional message of fear and suspense would not simply be a harmless mismatch of cognitive and affective communication. According to Christian belief it would surely be crass misrepresentation of the Gospel (especially in light of 1 John 4:18) and hence, morally wrong, not merely aesthetically poor. The same would be true if lyrics about Jesus’ love for humanity were presented accompanied by music portraying anger, violence, and aggression. Such mixed messages provide a confused communication of truth that is morally reprehensible, not just a matter of taste (“Is Music Morally Neutral,” in Here We Stand, p. 407).

But what this also tells me is that “worship wars” need not be wars at all. If the Bible does not categorically condemn certain “types” of music, this leads me to believe that music is not a moral issue, per se. And it certainly isn’t an issue worth alienating relationships over. Let me explain what I mean.

If I was at a “Christian concert,” and the musician brought his son or daughter on to the stage, took out a knife, and started slashing that child in front of the whole audience, I would be under moral obligation to speak out against this atrocity in a very vocal way. But someone playing a drum on stage is not of the same moral magnitude. And my personal obligation to speak out against it publically—even if music psychology reveals that syncopation has a mesmerizing effect—is not to the same extant.

This reality applies to all areas of ethics and informs my interpersonal relationships. (This is something that I have been grappling with in general as I think about interacting with people who may not be living the same ethical life I am.) One of my battle cries is that I try to “meet people” where they are. This seems to have been Paul’s approach. To the Jew he became a Jew. To those who were “under the law,” he became as one under the law (see 1 Corinthians 9:19-23). Of course, on the other hand, I recognize that you can only go so far in “meeting people where they are.” And this is the whole point: where does one draw the line?

For me, I think it revolves around the moral law—the Ten Commandments. Thus, if I am trying to minister to someone, I might be willing to put up with his/her music—which the Ten Commandments do not address (some might claim that a person’s music may reflect that he/she is worshiping other gods, but a person’s heart and motives cannot be read or judged. Thus, another person’s music—assuming the lyrics do not contradict the moral law—cannot be overtly condemned based on the Ten Commandments)—but I would not be willing to sit quietly by as he/she committed sexually immoral acts on stage.

Paul seems to address this in Romans 14 and 1 Corinthians 8 when he talks about food. He starts the former chapter by saying, “Receive one who is weak in the faith, but not to disputes over doubtful things.” Quite simply, as the Bible does not make any clear statements on music—to the extent that it does about murder or adultery or stealing—it is, to a large degree, a “doubtful thing.” In other words, as much as “conservatives” would like to believe that music is a “black and white” issue, it is a debatable and “doubtful” topic. If it were so clear, there wouldn’t be a continual debate over it.

Interestingly, what Paul is speaking about in these chapter is “food offered to idols.” He seems to indicate that this subject is disputable. But the irony of it is that, in the Jerusalem counsel, the church leaders already said that Gentiles should not eat food offered to idols. And yet Paul seems to downplay that—much to the chagrin of the “conservatives,” no doubt, who felt they already had a “thus saith the Lord” on the subject.

This tells me that a person has no right to stage a public demonstration when “disputable” music is being performed for worship. He might disagree with that music, and he may even have good reason to disagree with that music, but he has no right to put up a childish fuss over it and march out of an auditorium, with hands over his ears (as some have done in the past), in hopes that the rest of the audience will get the message. Such actions simply alienate and divide. And they are immature. And they are not following the biblical mandate to pursue reconciliation with your brothers or sisters if you have something against them. (UPDATE: I would not fault children for acting in such a way if this is what their parents would have them do. I know of a teenager that left each time these musicians started performing because - I believe - he/she knew this is what his/her parents would have wanted him/her to do had they been there. I think this is very appropriate, since honoring one's parents is a moral command.)

Of course, on the other hand, I think that those on the other side have the responsibility to not “offend” their brothers and sisters when it comes to this issue as well. Paul advised the Romans to “not destroy the work of God for the sake of food” (Romans 14:20). I think the word “music” could be replaced for “food.” He also told the Corinthians that they should “beware les somehow this liberty of yours become a stumbling block to those who are weak” (1 Cor 8:9).

As an example, I had a dear brother come to me a little while back, after I sang a song for special music in church that had a little drumbeat, requesting that I set a better example and not sing such music. I could have verily easily said, “It was just a little drumbeat. What’s the big deal? The Bible doesn’t condemn this!” That would not have been the loving or Christian thing to do, though. Why would I want to offend and cause division over something that is not a “moral” issue? Why would I want to alienate someone who I am trying to teach the Gospel to because of a stupid drum? I could have pulled out all the arguments as to why drums are not evil, but, though I may have won the “battle,” I probably would have lost the “war.”

Unfortunately, I think too many “liberals” choose to go to war over music, when it is not a hill worth dying on. Simply put, there are bigger fish to fry.

Click here for Part 2.

So what?

One of these days I am going to pick up a publication and see an advertisement for some ministry conference that features a presenter from East Podunk, Montana. And underneath a nice picture of the presenter, it will say, "Jed Smith pastors a 14-member church." And I'll smile and think, that's neat.

Let me explain.

The last few times I have picked up an unnamed publication that goes to many leaders in North America, I've noticed an advertisement for a seminar that features some well-known presenters. But one of the presenters, in particular, caught my eye. Underneath the presenter's picture was the obligatory bio-sketch, and the first line of the sketch said these words (or a variation of them - the name and location have been changed to protect the innocent): "Mike Jones pastors a 1300-member church in Florida." The first thing I thought when I saw that he pastors a 1300-member church was, so what? This fact is relevant to me in what way? And yet there it was, in the first line of this guys bio.

Is the fact that this presenter pastors a 1300-member church supposed to impress the reader? Does it add legitimacy to his or her presentations, and encourage attendees to pay special attention to the person? Or could it simply be a reflection of the pride that creeps into all of our hearts as we subtly boast of our accomplishments? After all, typically, when such advertisements are put together, the person is responsible for writing up a sketch about themselves and submitting it to the ones creating the advertisement. I have been there before. (In fairness, maybe I'm assuming too much about the situation. But then again, if the presenter didn't write his or her own bio, I wonder again what the relevance would be of including this information in the advertisement.)

Perhaps you're wondering why I am making such a big deal about this. Why so much fuss over a little thing?

Well, do you want to know the truth? The truth is, I find that my biggest struggle is battling with pride - and I think this is probably a common challenge for those of us who are pastors. It seems as though the ministry naturally lends itself to the worship of self. And so, because of this, I try to go out of my way to deflect any hint of recognition that might come my way. Sometimes it probably manifests itself in a bit of "false humility." But I hope - and pray - that I can turn people's attention to the One that I am working for, rather than anything that One has perhaps done through me.

Thus, I am particularly sensitive to the perception of pride in the hearts of others in ministry as well. I don't like it, for example, when ministers make sure the letters PhD are attached to their names whenever it is printed. In a recent article in Ministry magazine, one of the editors also amusingly observed that many multi-church district pastors will now identify themselves as "senior pastors," thus hoping to bolster their importance. (If it at all impresses anyone who's reading this, I'm not only the senior pastor in my district, but I am also the visiting pastor, the youth pastor, and the administrative pastor. Talk about an impressive resume!)

Of course, the irony of it all is that pastoring a 1400-member church may not be all that impressive to a pastor who has a 5,000 or 10,000 member church. And understanding that reality goes a long way in helping a person guard against pride. It's called perspective.

I may thump my chest because I have written a book, but it would be incredibly embarassing to thump my chest in the presence of someone who has written 20 books. I could boast that I have a Masters degree, but making such a proclamation in the company of a person who has a doctorate or two is kind of humbling. And the reality is, no matter how many accomplishments we have under our belts (or self-perceived accomplishments), there will always be someone else who has accomplished more. Of course, even if that weren't the case and we were the most accomplished person in our field, none of these accomplishments were achieved because any innherant abilities we may have. It's all God's grace - grace emanating from an entirely humble God.

As Carsten Johnsen - who, though the owner of multiple PhDs, use to refuse to wear his regalia for graduation and consecration processions because he thought it only fostered pride - writes,

It may sound bold in the midst of a Greek-inspired culture to speak about the humble God. Throughout our lives we have imbibed the arch-pagan throught-forms of platonic idealism with all its vain-glorious insistence on climbing, climbing - in one's own power - to the stars. What glory could there be to us - children of a Hellenist world - in meekness? But it is God Himself who uses this description about Himself:

"Learn of Me. I am meek and lowly in heart." Matthew 11:29. . . . True Christian love is revealed, not as a way of taking, but as a way of giving; not as a way of human pride, but as a way of divine humility (Agape and Eros, pp. 79, 80).

I don't know, maybe I'm making too big a deal. Or perhaps I am being hypocritical. But this much I do know: we could all take a page out of Christ's book of humility. His humility should humble us. And thus we will be able to sing alongside Isaac Watts,

When I survey the wondrous cross,

On which the Prince of glory died,

My richest gain I count but loss,

And pour contempt on all my pride.

Meeting New People - Part 3

Click here for part 1 and part 2.

I.                   A Quick Review

a.       Taking the first step

                                                  i.      Where to meet new people

1.      Anywhere and everywhere!

a.       Work, neighborhood, clubs/groups, service

                                                ii.      We need to be intentional about our relationships!

                                              iii.      Meeting new people opens up “networks” of others that we can meet as well

II.                Continuing to Develop the Relationships

a.       Relationships must be developed at a naturally slow pace

                                                  i.      This is one “rule” of relationships that can sometimes be easy to forget

1.      We must not “bombard” a person with attention

2.      Give them their space

a.       This is just a simple rule of relational etiquette

b.      Don’t call a person more than once or twice without hearing back from them

                                                                                                                          i.      If they don’t return your phone call, they don’t want to talk with you!

                                                                                                                        ii.      Wait 2 weeks to a month before trying to contact them again

3.      Don’t show up uninvited to their house

a.       This is a good idea in general in this day and age

b.      Continue to enjoy activities with them that you have in common

c.       Keep your conversations positive and affirming

                                                  i.      Discuss areas of commonality

                                                ii.      Don’t bring up religion or politics

1.      If they want to discuss these things, then let them be the one to bring them up

a.       Generally, you cannot win in a conversation about politics anyway. People get too passionate and it hinders the opportunity to share the Gospel

                                              iii.      Don’t make moral judgments on their behavior

1.      “You know it’s not right to smoke.”

2.      “You know the Bible says that homosexuality is wrong.”

                                              iv.      Don’t get into doctrinal disputes

1.      It is not now the time to give them a lecture on the “state of the dead” if one of their loved ones dies

2.      It is not now the time to tell them why the seventh day is the Sabbath

a.       If they ask, fine. Then you can explain your beliefs. But share them in such a way that will not be divisive

d.      Support the person unconditionally, offering love, help, and assistance whenever needed

                                                  i.      When someone in their families dies, send a card of support rather than a lecture on the state of the dead

1.      Let them know that you care

2.      “Be there” for them whenever needed

                                                ii.      When they lose their job, invite them over for dinner

1.      During this down economy, there are many people who are vulnerable and open to the Gospel

This is what it means to follow Christ’s method of friendship: minister to their needs

Anticipation . . .

Meeting New People - Part 2

Click here for Part 1.

“In order to lead souls to Jesus there must be a knowledge of human nature and a study of the human mind. Much careful thought and fervent prayer are required to know how to approach men and women upon the great subject of truth” (Ellen G. White, Christian Service, p. 226). 

I.                   A Quick Review

a.       Become a “People Person”

                                                  i.      Ask a lot of questions

                                                ii.      Listen to the answers

                                              iii.      Initial contact should be “agenda-less”

II.                Taking the first step

a.       Where to meet new people

                                                  i.      It is best to engage individuals in conversation that you have the chance of seeing repeatedly

1.      Quick “drive-by” witnessing may not be the most effective method

2.      Being friendly to everyone is important, but quick conversations with individuals probably shouldn’t be of the “are you saved” variety?

a.       There are exceptions, of course—but this should only happen when you know the Spirit is impressing you to do this

                                                ii.      Involve yourself in the community in which you live/work

1.      Use your hobbies/interests to meet new people

a.       Join clubs/groups that align with your interests

                                                                                                                          i.      Stamp collecting club

                                                                                                                        ii.      Book clubs

                                                                                                                      iii.      Photography clubs

                                                                                                                      iv.      Basketball leagues

b.      When you meet people this way, it is easier to converse with them because you naturally have a mutual interest to talk with them about

2.      Befriend co-workers

a.       Eat lunch with them

b.      Invite them over for supper

3.      “Use” your children (or grandchildren)—if you have any—to become acquainted with other kids and their parents

4.      Introduce yourself to your neighbor!

a.       This can be tricky, especially if you’ve had the same neighbors for 25 years and you have never taken much of an interest in them before

                                                                                                                          i.      Don’t knock on their doors and say, “Hello, friend, I am your Christian neighbor and I want to tell you about Jesus.”

b.      Here is an easy way to get to know your neighbors: ask them to do you a favor!

                                                                                                                          i.      Ask them if you can borrow a rake or shovel or some type of appliance that you don’t have but need for yard work

                                                                                                                        ii.      Ask them to keep an eye on your house while you are away for a few days

1.      You don’t necessarily want to give this information to someone who is “shady,” of course, but more people are trustworthy than we probably think

                                                                                                                      iii.      Ask them to pick up your mail for you while you’re gone

c.       Invite them over for a summer barbecue or pool party

                                              iii.      We need to be intentional about our relationships!

1.      Luke 15:1-3

a.       If we understand the Gospel correctly, we will naturally initiate relationship just as Jesus did and does

                                              iv.      Free time must be utilized to foster friendships

1.      We cannot by “shy”

2.      There is no such thing as a “silent Christian”

a.       The phrase is an oxymoron

                                                v.      When we form friendships with individuals, it opens up a “network” of others that we can meet as well

1.      Friends

2.      Family

3.      Co-workers

Food for Thought

I picked up a book called Peppermint-Filled Pinatas on Saturday night while waiting for my wife and sister-in-law to "primp" themselves up before a wedding reception. With nothing to do, I had committed a cardinal sin: I didn't have a book with me. Fortunately, my sister-in-law had brought this book with her and so I retreated to the car to retrieve it.

Not too enthused by the title (it seems a little gimmicky), I was still intrigued by its contents - and it was certainly better than the alternative (sitting around for 25 minutes, doing absolutely nothing). So I opened it up and started reading. I immediately became interested in the book and I plan on reading it in its entirey at some point in the future. Specifically, here is one quote that caught my attention:

We tend to judge people who do not know Christ by the same standards we have for ourselves. We should not be surprised when people who have not surrendered their lives to God live indifferently. If we struggle to measure up to our high standards with God’s help and intervention in our lives, how can we possibly have the same expectations for others who have not sought or received God’s forgiveness and strength? It’s like getting mad at Stevie Wonder for not waving at us when we walk past him.

Our personal relationships often betray our feelings for the world as well. Rather than befriending and loving those who do not yet follow Christ, it seems that the longer we follow Christ, the fewer people we actually know who believe differently from the way we believe. We have created our own world within a world, a bubble in which we live with everything we need: Christian books, Christian shirts, Christian music, Christian jewelry, Christian movies, Christian sports leagues, Christian stores, Christian video games, and even Christian mints. I’m all for entrepreneurial ventures, but I’m afraid we have (inadvertently or perhaps sometimes purposely) isolated ourselves from the world around us. Perhaps there are some who have been reached by reading a T-shirt with "God’s Gym" on the front, finding a gospel tract on a urinal, or attending events featuring Christian bands, but most of the time we forget the importance of reaching out to others through these experiences. Instead, we choose to enjoy these events as an alternate reality outside of the rest of culture (p. 21).

I think there is a lot of truth to what the author, Eric Michael Bryant, is saying. What are your thoughts? I am planning on sharing it tonight at Prayer Meeting as I continue my series on meeting new people and sharing our faith.

How NOT to do Youth Ministry

The video below is making its rounds. It shows people how not to do Youth Ministry. It is quite humorous, so if you do not feel as though humor and God go together, please feel free not to watch it. Unfortunately, though it is humorous, there is a lot of truth to it. I just pray that when I work with youth I do not fall into the same trap.

Ignatius from travis hawkins on Vimeo.

More Than a Coincidence

When a word in Greek or Hebrew is used only a handful of times in the Bible, scholars take notice. This is especially true when there seems to be thematic links between the various passages. Such is the case with the subject of my sermon for this Sabbath (spoiler alert: please stop reading if you're one of my church members!).

I have made it my mission to study the Song of Songs for the past two or three years. I am convinced that this wonderful book typologically points to God and His relationship with His people. I want to make this connection on solid exigetical and intertextual grounds, though. I don't simply want to come to the Song of Songs and say, "Well, since Jesus said that all scripture testifies of Him, it must mean that this whole book is about Jesus. Thus, the Shulamites two breasts represent the Old and New Testaments, etc." There needs to be a solid foundation for such an understanding.

So last year, I decided to go through the whole book and trace the use of the Hebrew words throughout the Old Testament. I didn't get very far without realizing that there were incredible intertextual links to the temple/sanctuary. This was the case when the Shulamite would describe Solomon, for example. She would use Hebrew words that were used only to describe the temple. Thus, I was intrigued when I found one commentator make this connection as well, saying that "we resist using this fact to allegorize the text, but again we suggest that it associates her description with something exalted, even holy" (Tremper Longman III, Song of Solomon, NICOT, p. 174).

Well, imagine my surprise - long after I put my serious study of the Song to rest - when I discovered an amazing intertextual link in the Greek version of the book. While going over the story of Jesus' annointing at Bethany, both Mark and John say that the woman - identified as Mary in John - annointed Jesus with an "alabaster flask of very costly oil of spikenard" (see Mark 14:3; John 12:3). The Greek word for "spikenard" (nardos) is used in the New Testament in these two places alone. But, quite surprisingly, the word is used in the Septuagint version of the Old Testament three times - all in the same book. 

I'm sure you know the book: the Song of Songs. Notice, for example, how the Shulamite is described: "Your plants are an orchard of pomegranates with pleasant fruits, fragrant henna with spikenard [nardos], spikenard [nardos] and saffron, calamus and cinnamon, with all trees of frankincense, myrrh and aloes, with all the chief spices" (Song 4:13, 14).

But the one other place the word is used in the Septuagint takes the cake. Notice the Shulamite's words in 1:12, "While the king is at his table, my spikenard [nardos] sends forth its fragrance." Does this scene ring a bell with you at all? Notice Mark's full description of Jesus' experience in Bethany: "And being in Bethany at the house of Simon the leper, as He sat at the table, a woman came having an alabaster flask of very costly oil of spikenard. Then she broke the flask and poured it on His head" (Mark 14:3).

Jesus, the King, is sitting at the table, when the fragrance of Mary's spikenard envelopes the house. And such is the experience that God desires to have. Solomon enjoyed it with the Shulamite. Jesus enjoyed it with Mary. And God wants to have it with us today.

Meeting New People

I have been very busy lately, so I thought I would kill two birds with one stone and share on my blog what has been keeping me busy in other parts of my ministry. I am doing a series at one of my churches for Prayer Meeting on how to meet new people and "witness" to them. I have never done this before and I certainly am no expert. 

Two weeks ago was the first part, and here is what I shared with them. It is in outline form, so sorry for the disjointedness. As always, your thoughts are solicited.

Meeting New People (Part 1)

“Christ’s method alone will give true success in reaching the people. The Saviour mingled with men as one who desired their good. He showed His sympathy for them, ministered to their needs, and won their confidence. Then He bade them, ‘Follow Me’ ” (Ministry of Healing, p. 143)

 

I.                   Preliminary questions to ask yourself:

a.       Does this person have value only if he/she is a Seventh-day Adventist Christian, or does he/she have value for the simple fact that he/she is a child of God?

b.      If this person never became a Seventh-day Adventist, would I still be interested in him/her?

                                                  i.      When you enter into someone’s world and listen to them, you get every bit as much a blessing from them as they do from you

II.                Becoming a “People Person”

a.       Ask a lot of questions!

                                                  i.      As a general rule, people like talking about themselves

                                                ii.      Play a game of 20 questions with them!

1.      Where do you live?

2.      Where did you grow up?

3.      Tell me about your family. . . .

4.      What interests do you have?

5.      Note: Religious/spiritual questions should not be at the top of the list in this exercise

a.       Neither are we going through the rest of the preliminary questions simply so we can finally get to the religious stuff

b.      Religious/spiritual conversations should naturally come up in the course of a conversation, but it is best if the other person initiates that subject.

c.       And, usually, this will only come when the person has confidence in you and trusts you

b.      And then listen to the answers

                                                  i.      There is a reason we all have one mouth and two ears

1.      We are supposed to listen twice as much as we talk

                                                ii.      When we take a genuine interest in a person’s life, we are entering into that person’s world

1.      This indicates to the person that he/she has value to us—as well as to God

2.      Nobody is interested in being lectured on anything. Let them carry most of the conversation

                                              iii.      We are not necessarily trying to listen to their answers simply so we can force a religious “follow-up” question on them

1.      This doesn’t preclude a person from prayerfully looking for opportunities to talk about spirituality

c.       Initial contact with a person should be “agenda-less”

                                                  i.      You are not setting them up to invite them to church

                                                ii.      You are not trying to secure a Bible Study

                                              iii.      You are simply interested in who that person is as a person

1.      Recent experiences

a.       Nancy/Tim

b.      John

This is Why I Love New England!

This is the Mt. Washington Resort in Bretton Woods, New Hampshire. Mt. Washington - the tallest mountain in the Northeastern United States and home of the highest recorded windspeed on planet earth - is the mountain on the right. I took this picture earlier this evening. (Click on the picture for a larger view)

Book Review: "Pagan Christianity?" by Frank Viola and George Barna

I was really excited about Pagan Christianity? after reading the first three or four chapters. But by the end of the book, I was ready to rip it apart. I'm not sure how a book that really piqued my interest to begin with could crash so quickly. But that's what Pagan Christianity? did for me.

In case you haven't heard, Frank Viola (not to be confused with the former Boston Red Sox pitcher with the same name) and George Barna (although Viola is really the primary author) have crafted a provocative book that looks at traditional church practices that the "institutional" church promotes. Thus, they discuss everything from church buildings to the weekly sermon to tithing to baptism. In short, they take all of these practices and institutions - and a few more - and throw them in the garbage, saying that they are unbiblical and borrowed from pagan culture throughout the ages.

And I must admit that I buy some of what they are selling. I agree that there are many questionable practices we have that seem to be rooted in pagan culture. And they have a lot of good historical data, detailing how each practice arose many years after the New Testament church. As a Seventh-day Adventist reader, it is rather interesting to see how much overlap there is between the data that Viola uses in pointing out the sins of Constantine, for example, as it relates to church buildings, and what Adventists use to point out Constantine's sins in relation to Sabbath/Sunday worship. This should certainly resonate with the Adventist reader.

And I agree with Viola's overall premise that we are robbing many Christians of the opportunity to take a more active role in worship, in the church, and in ministry. I am even a little open to the idea that maybe, just maybe, we should not necessarily have a paid minister, who stands up and preaches a sermon every week. Addressing this, they quote one pastor who admits,

I began to analyze why I could preach a great sermon and people afterwards would shake my hand and say, "Great sermon, Pastor." But these were the very people who were struggling with self-esteem, beating their spouses, struggling as workaholics, succumbing to their addictions. Their lives weren't changing (p. 218).

I have had the same thoughts, though I try to keep in mind that one should not expect a person or a congregation to change over night, simply because they may have heard a good sermon. But I do also recognize that an interactive service - as opposed to a monologue - may actually have a longer-lasting effect on a person coming to church.

Similarly, I am sympathetic to their disdain for ritual. I have always wondered why we do communion the way that we do - why we insist that only elders can pray over the emblems, or why we eat a small piece of bread and drink a cup of grape juice that is smaller than a thimble. Viola and Barna argue that these things are not biblical. There should be, first of all, no separate class that can only facilitate the Lord's Supper. And, secondly, the New Testament idea of communion was not a once-a-quarter meal ritual, but a regular event that involved open and (almost) casual fellowship. I think if we did implement this, communion would probably have more significance for us, and we would get more out of it. I know that I, as the pastor, would be more blessed by more of an agape supper experience, rather than sitting up front three times a quarter (since I have three churches) behind a table that requires two deaconesses to carefully and reverently uncover the bread and grape juice - all the while supposing that this ritual has been handed down from God, Himself.

Similarly, I appreciated Viola and Barna's views on "Sunday morning costumes" and the "order of service." Regarding the former, they argue that the NT never required anyone to dress up when it came to "worshipping" God, and such a ritual is based more on the industrial revolution, than anything in the Bible.

At the same time, our order of worship each Saturday or Sunday is often lifeless. It is so rote that it has lost most of its meaning. And yet there is nothing sanctified about having a particular order of service, and certainly there is nothing holy about insisting we do it one particular way.

For all of these things, I applaud Viola and Barna. We probably should become less pastor-dependent, less ritualistic, less hierarchical, less building-focused.

But then they lose me. And I started to notice some things in the latter half of the book that I realized had been present all along - which others had been quick to point out but that I refused to notice.

To begin with, I realized that the authors are not balanced at all. They use very broad, sweeping statements, and make gross and exaggerated over-generalizations (I realize, of course, that this is ironically a broad and sweeping over-generalization). I can't help but think that such a method is borne out of the fact that they (or at least Viola) is very bitter and cynical about the "organized" church system. Any organized church seems to be public enemy #1 to Viola. And it seems almost impossible for him to ever concede the point that, maybe, the organized church has been used by God to be a blessing.

Another challenge is that Viola essentially views the Old Testament as purely pagan. It has no relevance to the New Testament Christian. Thus, tithing is out because the New Testament does not mention this. Choirs are out (even though David formed huge choirs and wrote music for them in the book of Psalms) because, not only does the NT not mention choirs, but choirs encourage a passive/non-participating audience, and that is bad. Thus, as Viola argues, some things can be "biblical" (because they're mentioned in the OT) but "unchristian" (in other words: pagan).

But this attitude presents serious hermeneutical errors. While I will grant the fact that there are some things in the OT that are no longer binding or relevant to the NT Christian, I cannot say that everything in the OT is wrong carte blanche. Does the NT need to mention an OT practice in order for it to be still relevant? I wrote about this in my last post, and I think Viola would be well-served to read that.

At the same time, I am not sure how one can make the argument that the description of the NT church is necessarily prescriptive and normative. Nowhere does the New Testament, that I have seen, ever set forth the admonition, "Thou shalt do church this way." While I am comfortable with the idea that the NT Christians met in houses, and they didn't usually have one person preaching, etc., nowhere do I read, "Thou shalt have house churches."

Ironically, Viola wants it both ways when it comes to this issue. When he caricatures a well-meaning Christian who wants to start a home-church and sets up elders because Acts tells us that "Paul and Barnabas also appointed elders in every church" (Acts 14:23), Viola says "No, no, no" and insists that this was not normative but localized. "The verse is referring to an event in south Galatia during the first century," he writes, " ' Every church' means every church in south Galatia in AD 49! Luke is talking about the four churches that Paul and Barnabas just planted" (p. 235). But he must allow the reader to use the same reasoning when it comes to the alleged normative practices that Acts elsewhere describes.

Now, as it relates to specific topics, here are some of my challenges:

1. I understand his contention with the sermon and how it can produce passive and non-participatory Christians, but he doesn't seem to want to allow for the fact that a lot of good has been accomplished through preaching. Jesus preached. Paul preached. The Reformation - which he almost downplays altogether - resulted more from the preaching of the Word than anything else.
2. He claims that accepting Jesus as Savior and the act of baptism should not be two separate events. He is mostly railing against the "sinner's prayer" method popularized by Dwight L. Moody, et al, which I am sympathetic to. However, I have put a lot of thought and study into this subject, and I do not necessarily think that a person who accepts Jesus should be instantly baptized, nor is it biblical to baptize someone apart from them joining the body of Christ (ie., indoctrination).
3. He greatly denigrates American revivalism that saw such figures as Moody, Sankey, etc., and really harps upon "personal" and "individual" salvation. He does not like the idea of Jesus as a "personal Savior," and he spends a lot of ink tearing that apart. I understand what he is saying, but I think, above all, this rant reveals more the fact that he's grown cynical about popular Christian jargon than anything else.
4. Where he really loses me is his tearing down of the Christian educational system. He claims that seminaries, Bible colleges, etc., are based more upon Aristotelian methodologies and logic than what the Bible uplifts. He seems to want to get rid of any reliance upon reason and logic, instead trading our brains in to rely upon some quasi-spiritual learning that we do. What he neglects to see - or, at least he mentions it in passing - is that Paul was trained by some of the best thinkers of his day and was quite a logician. Now, I don't doubt that, for many of us, we have way more "head knowledge" when it comes to our religious experience than we do heart-knowledge. And a PhD certainly doesn't necessarily qualify anyone for ministry, or secure our ticket into heaven. But God invented Wisdom. Indeed, He is Wisdom personified, and He invites us to come "reason" with Him. But the irony of all ironies is that, not only does he necessarily have to use the same type of logic to communicate his points to the reader, but he so often refers to authors, who will bolster his arguments, as "scholars."
5. He laments the order that the New Testament canon is presently arranged and wishes that chapters and verses were never invented - as if this were the single greatest challenge to true Christianity. We do not really understand the true picture of the NT church, he claims, if we don't recognize that Galatians was the first letter Paul wrote, and 2 Timothy was the last, etc. We get a distorted picture of what God intended for NT Christians. This is all well and fine, but there are a few problems with his citing this as a problem. First, Paul's epistles themselves do not indicate the order that they were written, or the exact time they were written. Thus, any dating or ordering of Paul's books is extra-biblical conjecture and thus pagan (as he defines "pagan"). Secondly, the "average" Christian does not know the correct order of the books, or when they were written, and the only way to find out is to rely upon the "guesswork" of scholars (the same scholars that Viola decries because they received their pagan doctorates from pagan seminaries). Hence, such an exercise naturally sets up a hierarchy between the "enlightened" scholars who know all about the Bible, and the uneducated and uninformed "laity" who don't have the time, resources, or knowledge to figure these things out. And such a hierarchical set up is pagan.
6. Viola necessarily has to downplay doctrine and theology (in fact, the word "theology" itself is anathema to him, having been invented, or at least popularized, by Peter Abelard in the 11th century). These are, for the most part, unimportant to him. All that matters is a bunch of "Christ-centered" people, who get together (face-to-face), sing songs, pray, and spontaneously do whatever the spirit leads them to do. But this watering down of theology and doctrine - which, at their best, are simply insights into God's loving character - is very problematic, not the least of which is because God cares about how He is represented to the world.
7. Viola's favorite phrase, by far, is "organic church." This is what the church should look like today. But I'm not quite sure what he means by this, even though he explains it over and over again. For example, he writes: "The New Testament church was organic, not organizational. . . . The church was a living, breathing organism" (p. 248). Okay. So is the Baptist church, or the Catholic church, or the Seventh-day Adventist church not "living" and "breathing"? What does it even mean to say that a church is "living" and "breathing"? This concept does not even make sense to me and I'm not quite sure what he means by it. Furthermore, is "organizing" necessarily pagan and bad? If he would accept the OT as every bit as valid as the NT, he would recognize that God certainly condoned organization as it related to the 12 tribes of Israel - though I suppose we could also go to Revelation 7 to see that as well. At the same time, unless a church "organizes," how would foreign missions, for example, ever work? His way of doing church would be to have some type of "vanilla" church (with very basic "historic creeds" that serve as a doctrinal foundation, even though these creeds are themselves extrabiblical - or should I say "pagan") in each community that is totally isolated from any other church in any other community. Thus, under his model, I would go to Massachusetts and not know another Christian soul, and I would have to "reinvent the wheel" to plant another church there. But I don't believe this is necessary, nor do I think having an overarching structure is bad (ironically, those who have gone the organic/house church route have "organized" a website that can be resourceful to those who are interested: www.housechurchresource.org). And, to be quite honest, there is something refreshing about going to virtually any Seventh-day Adventist church in the world, and meeting someone who knows someone you know, or knows someone that knows someone that you know. It gives a sense of connectedness; of common mission. It gives the sense that God's work is, indeed, a global movement.
8. Finally, Viola is very inconsistent with his views on pagan practices that have crept into the church. When I picked up the book, for example, I assumed that he would certainly touch upon the issue of Sabbath/Sunday worship, seeing how it is very well documented that the NT church continued worshiping on Saturday, and it wasn't until the second century when Sunday-sacredness starting creeping in (ultimately culminating in Constantine's decree in the 4th century that Sunday would be the day of worship). But there was no mention of this at all. In fact, on his website, someone asked him why he did not address this subject in the book, and he answered by saying that there was "no evidence whatsoever that the early church gathered for their meetings on the Sabbath." This, of course, is a very faulty use of logic, since the burden of proof would rest upon the Sunday worshiper to demonstrate that the NT Church worshipped on a different day than was practiced by Moses, Ezekiel, and Jesus - to name a few. Instead, Viola violates his own disdain for proof-texting and taking verses out of context by citing Acts 20:7 and 1 Cor 16:2 as examples that the NT believers worshiped on Sunday. But this is just plain fallacious. Paul simply says in 1 Cor 16:2, for example, "On the first day of the week let each one of you lay something aside, storing up as he may prosper, that there be no collections when I come." I'm not sure how anyone could make the case for Sunday-sacredness from this, though, especially in light of the fact that the word "day" is supplied in our English versions, and the Greek actually literally reads, "On the first Sabbath, each of you should lay something aside." Talk about lifting a verse out of context!
   

And so, that's where I will leave our friends Frank Viola and George Barna. I am not sure that I will buy Viola's sequel, Re-Imagining Church - mainly because I didn't "buy" all of this book.