Hour of Power

When I was a kid I remember watching a television program called "The Hour of Power."  It was a religious broadcast of the services from the Crystal Cathedral, pastored by Robert Schuller, and for a time was the most watched church service in the world.  The show usually consisted of a testimony of some well know professed Christian, a special music number, and a brief meditation by Schuller.  In time, Schuller went off the theological rails, embracing a form of universalism, and the Crystal Cathedral closed in 2010, about five years before Schuller died.

While Schuller's ministry and the Crystal Cathedral eventually met their demise, the title of the television broadcast is worth considering.  The "Hour of Power" referred to the length of the church service at the Cathedral, and it seems to me that an "hour or power" is a powerfully accurate way to describe what happens on Sunday mornings at Bible believing churches all around the world.  I'd refer to Riverview's service as an "hour of power," but our services usually last about 75 minutes, and "An Hour and Fifteen Minutes of Power" just isn't as catchy.

Nevertheless, I would argue that perhaps the greatest act of power that a Christian can enact is simply to attend a worship service at a local church on a regular basis.  There is unquantifiable power that is part of a church service, and Christians can tap into that power every time they gather for worship.

Just consider all that takes place within a worship service: dozens, scores, and even hundreds of voices unite in song, declaring truths about who God is and what he has done.  These truths serve to bind up the broken-hearted, give confidence and courage to those who are weak, drive out fear, and inspire hope.

Moreover, when churches come together in prayer those same dozens and hundreds unite their hearts in petitioning the Lord of the universe, who answers them when they call.  Indeed, cities, nations, and the hearts of rulers are changed and affected by the joined prayers of God's people in worship.  Consider that: God's people have more power in prayer than do the mightiest of rulers.

When we read the word of God together, we remember his mighty works, the wonders he has performed, and the miracles he has done.  And we remember that God has promised that same power is available to those who believer.

When the word of God is preached it does not return void.  That is, it accomplishes all that God purposes to accomplish through it, either to soften hearts to his truth, or to harden them.  Either way, the word of God is powerful, and when it is declared faithfully, authoritatively, and prophetically it likewise has the power to build up, tear down, transform stony hearts into hearts of flesh, and make the dead come alive.

When we gather around the communion table, we "declare the Lord's death until he comes."  This, too, is an act of great power.  Participation in communion is described by Paul as equivalent to a declaration of what Jesus has done.  And not only that, but also a declaration of what he will do (when he comes).  It is a symbolic and powerful act that declares the power of Christ in conquering death and sin and providing victory over the same through his death and resurrection.  When we proclaim the Lord's death, we are literally tapping into resurrection power.

Furthermore, when we gather together as a community, we have the power to encourage one another, to provide divine support, confession, service, correction, and to intercede for one another through prayer.  All of this comes from spiritual power provided by God.  Were it not for him, we would have no such power to minister to one another.

But there's more.  In fact, the church itself is a sign of the power that is ours.  The church is a band of disparate sinners who have all rallied under the banner of Christ.  This is no small feat, considering the multitude of differences that exist between us, and that would otherwise serve to divide us.  But in Christ, we have the power to overcome those differences and unite under our common allegiance to our Savior.  Through Christ we have the power to overlook our differences (or, probably more accurately, to see our differences for what they are in light of our unity in Christ).  Our unity in Christ is an action of God-fueled power.

And we are also empowered to serve God and one another through the miraculous, supernatural gifts given to us by the Spirit of God.  All believers, regardless of their "natural" abilities, have been given supernatural gifts by God for the benefit of serving the church and reaching out t the world.  These gifts are not common, but are Spirit-empowered.  When we use the gifts God has given to us through his Spirit, we are enacting a great amount of divine power.

Too often we think of attending church as something rather common, or perhaps more unfortunately, something that has become rote, or that we take for granted.  May it never be!  Instead, going to church to gather with the body of Christ is a supernatural act of power.  May we see it as such, and may we tap into this unending source of power.  But in order to do so, you have to actually go to church.  Better yet, you should join a church - better even still, become a member at Riverview!  The local church is the context that God has chosen to display his miracle working power.  Come, and be a part of it.

Politics and the Pulpit

Last week President Trump signed an executive order on "Promoting Free Speech and Religious Liberty."  This order, among other things, states that the Trump Administration will not enforce the Johnson Amendment that forbids non-profit organizations from endorsing political parties and candidates.  In short, churches and pastors now have the legal freedom to endorse a political candidate in local, state, and national elections (although this Order does not guarantee that they will not be prosecuted for doing so in the future - see here).  Joe Carter has written a very helpful piece that explains in more detail what is accomplished by this Executive Order.

Although this Order gives churches and pastors the freedom to become more visibly and publicly involved in the process of political campaigns, as a pastor, I have no intention of endorsing a political candidate or backing a particular party as part of my ministry, and nor will Riverview Baptist Church do so as a non-profit entity.  There are at least three very clear reasons why:

1. It might be a stumbling block.
We live in a polarized political world where most people are clearly on one side of an issue or the other, and support either this candidate or the other, and never between the two shall meet.  In other words, everyone has their opinion and is sticking to it - no matter what.  It would seem unwise to me, then, when in the position to be a minister of the gospel, that I would cloud that message with an endorsement of a political candidate.  Such an endorsement may hinder someone who disagrees with my candidate of preference from hearing the message that I really want to declare: the gospel.  In other words, if I endorse a republican candidate from the pulpit, it's going to be hard for democrats to hear the gospel, and vice versa.  If there will be a stumbling block in front of a person, it will be the word of God, not the pastor's political persuasions.  I don't want to put any stumbling block of my own creation that does not come from the Bible in front of a person who needs to hear the greatest news ever given.  For this reason, I will gladly sacrifice my right to endorse a candidate from the pulpit.

2. The marriage between the church and politics has largely left the church weak and ineffective.
In my opinion, much of the present weakness in the American church is the result of its close association with political parties.  Far too many Christians have put their hope in the government for their salvation, believing that elected officials have the power to enact biblical change.  This is not true, nor is it the role that God intends for government to perform.  Additionally, far too many Christians have abdicated the work that the Bible clearly calls the church to accomplish, and has left that work up to the government.  The church has given up much of its authority to the government, and has looked to government programs to achieve change instead of the gospel, leaving it weak and ineffective.  The results of this marriage have been tragic.  Since the church has abdicated its work to the government, many of America's 300,000+ protestant churches have become entertainment centers that focus on life-enhancement rather than the gospel.  The endorsement of political candidates from the pulpit would only further this weakness.

3. The church is a divine entity created by God - not a political party. 
The church is distinct from all other institutions in the history of the world.  We are the called-out-ones; the disparate band of sinners redeemed by a great Savior.  We come from a variety of backgrounds, cultures, political persuasions, and every other qualifier imaginable.  We are to partner with God in his mission to bring the gospel to every corner of the earth.  In this process we are to call all people to repentance and faith - from the lowliest peasant to the highest king or president.  We are to call all politicians and political parties to repentance - not to get into bed with the party we prefer and call the other one to repentance.  To endorse a candidate or party would muddy the waters of knowing what the church is and its purpose in the world.

All of this being said, the church is still bound by God to address topics and issues that are often political in nature in our culture.  We will still talk about moral issues, and we will do our best to speak clearly where the Bible speaks clearly.  The influence of the gospel permeates all areas of life - including our engagement with politics.  But make no mistake: we don't speak about these issues and take the stances we do because of an allegiance to a political party, but to God.  We are ambassadors of God's kingdom, not ambassadors for the kingdoms of the democrat and republican parties.  We will endorse the King of kings, and no one else.

As Christians who follow King Jesus, we understand that there are times when we may be called to sacrifice our earthly rights for the sake of the gospel.  I, for one, feel that sacrificing the right to endorse a political candidate for the sake of the gospel is a good one to make.

Thinking About Politics as a Christian

On September 25 a roundtable discussion was held at Riverview Baptist Church entitled “Finding Our Voice: Engaging in Politics as a Christian.”  This discussion covered several aspects of entering into political discourse through the lens of a Christian worldview.  In light of the difficult decisions that Americans – and especially Christians – must make during this election cycle, Pastors Joel and Levi present portions of their answers from that discussion.  

What is government? What is its purpose? 

Government is a system that God has put in place for the primary purpose of protecting its people through the enforcement of laws, for punishing evil and promoting good (Rom.13-3-4, 1 Peter 2.14).  Scripture is clear that government is a good thing that has been put in place by God – not by any man-made system.  The question then becomes, “How is the government to promote good and punish evil?”  It does so by enacting just laws – laws that are not evil and are instead fair.  And it does so by punishing those who break laws and by doing so impartially.

Along these lines, the Founders declared that the purpose of government was to recognize that all men were created equal and endowed by our Creator with certain, unalienable rights, and “that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”  Government is not the source of our rights; God is (Acts 17.25).  Therefore the government is accountable to him.  The government does not give us our rights but instead acts on God’s behalf by protecting them based upon its delegated authority from the consent of the governed – the people.   It is not the chief authority, but it answers to both God and man.  

For these reasons, Christians are commanded by scripture to submit to and pray for the government that God has put in place, inasmuch as it does not command us to sin (Rom. 13.1-2, 5-7, 1 Tim. 2.1-2).  

What are some things all Christians should be united on when it comes to politics? 

We acknowledge that there are several areas in which the Bible does not speak clearly regarding current political issues, and there is much room for constructive disagreement and debate.  In general, however, Christians should be united on political issues about which the Bible speaks clearly, and there are many.  These issues include but are not limited to (in no particular order):

1. The gospel of God in Jesus Christ is the source of our hope and salvation – not any government or human ruler (Ps 33.16-17).  

2. A Christian’s true citizenship does not lie in any earthly nation, but in heaven (Phil. 3.20). 

3. Our hope is in the future kingdom of Christ in the new creation – not in a political party (Rom. 1.16). 

4. We must submit every aspect of our lives – including political involvement – to the authority of Christ our Lord (2 Cor. 10.5).

5. All men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain, unalienable rights (Gen. 1.27, Acts 17.25). 

6. Innocent human life is to be protected and preserved in all forms (Gen. 1.27, 9.6).  

7. Marriage was instituted by God as being between one man and one woman (Gen. 2.24, Matt. 19.4-6).  

Why is politics important?  Why is it not important? 

Engagement in politics is important because it is vital to the functioning and flourishing of our country and government.  Because we live in a constitutional representative republic, political engagement is necessary for the preservation of freedom and for our system of government to “work.”  We are a self-governed nation, and as such we are all rulers to an extent.  As such we must attempt to self-govern in such a way as to show our ultimate allegiance is to Christ (Phil. 3.20).  We must remember that our political activity is an area which is under the lordship of Christ and therefore – even and especially when considering difficult and complicated issues – our goal should be to obey Christ and to identify with his morality and his kingdom above the factions of this world (2 Cor. 10.5).  For these reasons, it is incumbent upon all American citizens to take part in the political process.

At the same time, it can be difficult for American Christians to find the balance between our involvement in politics and trusting in the sovereignty of God to direct the affairs of nations (Ps. 44.7-8).  It is easy for us to adopt a self-important view of our role in the political process, assuming that the course of our nation is determined solely by a majority of votes.  In fact, our system of government is set up in such a way as to emphasize the sovereignty of the voter, and not the sovereignty of God.  We should take care not to think that our nation’s course depends solely on votes and voter turnout.  In this sense, politics is “not important” because it is God who directs the affairs of nations, and the king’s heart as a stream of water in God’s hand (Is. 46.9-10, Ps. 75.7, Prov. 21.1).  

Considering these realities, we believe it wise to regard our role in the political process as participating in what God is doing in the world, in submission to his sovereign will (Est. 4.14).  When we engage politically, we do so with wisdom and the counsel of scripture in order to participate in what God is doing in our cities, states, and country.  

What is the role of the church in politics? What is the role of individual Christians? How are they different? 

The primary role of the church in the world is to spread the kingdom of God per the great commission (Matt. 28.19-20).  As the church goes about this mission it is not to endorse a candidate or party, nor are we to seek to set up our church, religion, or denomination as the “ruling religion” like the Roman Catholic church did for many centuries.  There is a separation between the church and the state in which the church does not seek the authority to run the country, and the state does not seek to control the church.  That being said, there are indeed ways that the church can and should influence the realm of politics, such as:

1. The church can and should set the cultural tone in which political discourse takes place.  The church shapes the marketplace of ideas in which we engage political ideas by informing public discourse with biblical principles (Acts 17.16-31, 2 Cor. 10.5).  

2. The church is to preach the gospel and teach the Bible to believers so as to inform and influence their individual political involvement (2 Tim. 2.15). 

3. The church is to call the nation, political parties, the government, and government officials to repentance (Luke 3.19).  When the government acts wickedly, the church identifies their sin and calls them to repentance. 

It must be acknowledged, however, that the influence of the church in cultural and political discourse has been diminishing in recent decades, and its influence has been declining exponentially in recent years.  It has been said that we are now living in a “post-Christian” culture in which the influence of the church has waned and we no longer have the collective power to be the culture shaping entity that we once were.  In this sense, the role of the church in politics has, and most likely will continue to, diminish.  

The role of the individual Christian in politics is to first and foremost engage in and challenge political issues through the lens of a Christian worldview informed by scripture.  Individual Christians should be leaders when it comes to fulfilling their civic responsibilities and taking positions of leadership in political arenas.   

What would you say to a non-Christian who says religion has no place in the public square, or in politics in general? 

We hold that any and all political discourse necessarily rises from a moral foundation, be it Christian or otherwise.  In fact, we assert that the notion that one can engage in political issues or in the marketplace of ideas without appealing to a definitive standard of truth is erroneous.  All people engage ideas through the lens of their worldviews, and each worldview has the right to be represented in the marketplace of ideas.  Christians should not be expected to abandon their worldview or standard of truth in political engagement any more than others who represent an opposing worldview.  In fact, even the statement “religion has no place in the public square” is an inherently moral statement that arises from a particular worldview.  If the worldview that generates this moral way thinking is welcomed in the public square, then on what basis should the morality of the Christian worldview be excluded?  

Along these lines, a common refrain is that morality can’t be legislated, and that to insist that laws be written based on a particular moral standard is to “force your morality” on others.  In fact, morality is the only thing that can be legislated.  All laws are moral and rest upon a moral foundation.  Many American laws are founded on the basis of Christian morality.  Other laws are not, but they are no less moral legislation.  

In the end, everyone always engages in political discourse and the marketplace of ideas through the lens of a worldview rising from a foundational morality.  If we truly desire for the marketplace of ideas to be a free marketplace, all worldviews must be equally welcome. 

What does it mean to vote for someone? 

In the most basic sense, to vote for someone is to give your delegated authority to a candidate to represent and govern on your behalf.  For this reason, we believe it is vitally important to prayerfully consider the candidate(s) to whom we give our authority, for in so doing we tie ourselves to the candidate and his or her actions and become, at least to some extent, accountable for them. 

For example, if a candidate runs on a promise to invade Canada and take all of their natural resources and does just that, and you voted for him then you are responsible on some level for giving him the authority to do what he said he was going to do.  It is true that candidates lie about what they are going to do in office and do things that we cannot anticipate, but we should be vigilant to be as informed as possible when it comes to giving our authority to (voting for) anyone.  This reality should give us pause as we consider the promises made by political candidates, and especially when considering party platforms.  By voting for candidates we give them the authority to accomplish what they have said they will do, and to promote the things that they value.  It is our belief that we will be held accountable by God for this decision.  

We have heard a lot about voting for the lesser of two evils, or not doing so this year.  Is voting for a third party candidate a waste?    

One thing is certain: every candidate in the history of the United States has been a sinner and, to some extent or another, a “lesser evil.”  On this side of heaven we will never have a ruler who is not stained by sin (Rom. 3.10-11, 23).  So we should not expect or demand perfection from our candidates, because such a thing is not possible.  

In this sense, perhaps we should reframe the question from asking “Which candidate is the lesser of two evils?” to “Which candidate will further biblical righteousness more?” (Micah 6.8, Amos 5.24)  Even if both (or more than two) candidates are not Christians, one will certainly govern in a way that is more in line with biblical principles than the other(s).  We should support candidates who will lead us closer to biblical righteousness.  

Furthermore, the Bible makes it clear that God reigns as the Supreme Ruler over the nations.  God has foreseen and ordained the results of this election – and every election – since before the foundation of the world.  Put simply, one vote (or any number of votes, for that matter) is not going to thwart God’s plan, and he won’t be surprised by the way anyone votes.  If this is true, then it should reshape the way we think about voting.  God uses people to accomplish his purposes in the world – including through voting.  God uses voting and elections to “remove kings and set up kings” (Dan. 2.21).  Since God is in control of our elections, voting, then, becomes not so much determining the course of our country, but participating in God’s foreordained plan for our country.  A good question to ask ourselves might be, “Which candidate, if elected, will move our country closer to the righteousness God has revealed in the Bible?”  If we will be faithful to use biblical wisdom to vote in accordance with biblical principles, our vote will not be wasted, regardless of whom we are led to vote for. 

No Wolves Allowed

Since becoming the Senior Pastor at Riverview Baptist Church a little more than a year ago, I have had three unique experiences wherein I was approached by people who wanted to attend Riverview as their home church.  This is a common occurrence in my position, as many people want to meet and talk to the pastor and introduce themselves before committing to attend a local church.  But these three instances were unique in that each one involved a person or people who were blatantly engaged in sinful behavior.  The specific details of each situation were unique, but it was clear that these three groups of people were living lifestyles that were not conducive to biblical truth.  In each instance, the inquiring party wanted to know from me if their chosen lifestyle would be problematic in regards to them attending our church.

In each instance, my response to their question was something like this: "All people are welcome to come to Riverview to hear the gospel preached.  At this church we call all people to continually turn from their sin and toward Christ so that they might grow in holiness and righteousness and become more like him.  And this includes you - you will likewise be called to turn from the sin in which you are living and turn to Christ, because we do not believe that the Bible condones your lifestyle.  We believe that it is sinful, and that you need to turn from it and turn to Christ.  So, yes!  You are welcome to come to Riverview and hear that message."

The church is called to be a beacon of light and hope to an unbelieving world drowning in sin.  And it is a place where sinners in search of redemption can come and find the healing that the gospel provides.  For this reason, those who are lost in sin are welcome to come to our church to hear the glorious, life-giving message of the gospel.  Indeed, all are welcome!  In the end, however, none of the three groups of people I spoke to decided to come to Riverview as a regular attender.

But as we affirm that all sinners are welcome at our church to hear the message of the gospel, in the next breath we must also affirm that those who would seek to lead us away from the truth of God's word are most definitely not welcome at our church.  For instance, those who are living sinful lifestyles are welcome to come to our church, but they are not welcome to promote or propagate their sinful lifestyle or thinking among those in our congregation.  Nor can they promote or teach any thinking or doctrine that would lead our people away from the truth of God's word.  There is a difference between sinners seeking redemption and wolves in sheep's clothing, sneaking into the fold to devour the sheep.  We welcome lost sheep with open arms, but to allow wolves into the fold would be foolish and negligent.

This was John's instruction to the church which he was writing in 2 John.  They were a struggling church, in which there were many false teachers who were in the church and drawing people away from the truth.  John's instruction to that church was to have nothing to do with those who would lead the sheep astray.  2 John 1.10-11 says: "If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house or give him any greeting, for whoever greets him takes part in his wicked works."

The house that John describes in these verses is most likely not anyone's actual house, but probably refers to the "house" of God, or the church.  So when John instructs them not to take any false teachers into their "house" he probably means not to let them into the church.  Furthermore, John instructs them to not give a false teacher any greeting.  The reason for these restrictions is a matter of appearances.  John doesn't want the true believers of this church to give the impression that they condone or approve of the false teachings or teachers that were threatening the church in his day.  To give such an impression could cause genuine believers to become confused, to doubt what they had been taught, or for some to even fall away from sound teaching.  In other words, to give quarter and welcome to false teachers is to give the impression of approval of or agreement with, or at the very least, indifference to false teachings and teachers.  The results of this impression are disastrous, no matter how you slice it.  In fact, this is why John says that to give the impression that false teachers and teachings are approved is to "take part in his wicked works."

John wants clear, distinct lines to be drawn between the true and the false - both in matters of doctrine and in true believers and false believers.  If the lines in either case are blurred, it creates questions and doubts among many in the church, and can cause them to fall away.  For this reason, there needs to be a clear delineation between true doctrine and false doctrine, and true believers and false believers.  And those who are found to be false must not be given a platform for their teachings, nor should they be made to be seen as being a part of the church, as such appearances can have serious consequences.

As a shepherd, one of my highest priorities is the health and well-being of the sheep, and I take my job seriously.  These principles have guided my interactions with unbelievers who have desired to be regular attenders at Riverview.  By all means, we want all who will, to come and hear the glorious gospel.  But we must guard the purity of the church, and we will not sacrifice or endanger the Christian walk and growth of those who are in Christ in any way.  We will give no greeting to those who would seek to lead others astray, and they are not welcome in this house.

Why We Do Baby Dedications

Three families from Riverview brought
their children to be dedicated on 4.24.16.

This past Sunday at Riverview, three families from our congregation brought their newly-born children to be dedicated in front of our church.  To me, this is a serious, yet joyful, celebration that acknowledges the sovereignty of God over the lives of parents and children, and affords parents an opportunity to publicly dedicate themselves to raising their children in the fear and discipline of the Lord.  I think it is a great practice, and it is one that we will continue to observe at Riverview for the foreseeable future.

This week, however, I providentially read an article by Andrew Wilson entitled "The Problem with Baby Dedications."  In this article, Wilson lightheartedly outlines what he perceives as four potential problems with the practice of baby dedication ceremonies in evangelical churches (it should be noted that while Wilson finds the practice of child dedication problematic, he readily admits that both of his children have been dedicated, and he has performed dedication ceremonies as well).  I find myself partially in agreement with him, but mostly not.  In large part, Wilson's main point of contention seems to be the use of the word "dedication," in that he believes it is a misunderstood term.  This may be, and perhaps it would be wise to change our terminology in what we are actually doing in a baby dedication (more on that below).  In light of this article and the fact that we just dedicated three babies at Riverview this past Sunday, I figured now would be as good a time as any to think publicly about why we do baby dedications at our church.  In what follows, I hope to respond to some of Wilson's concerns, and make an argument for why baby dedication ceremonies are a good practice for the church.

1. Wilson asserts that there is no biblical precedent for baby dedications, and he cites Jesus' dedication at the temple after his birth as an instance that is not parallel to our present-day baby dedications.  This may be true, but there are several practices, traditions, and symbols within the church today that do not find their source from the pages of scripture.  The church is free to institute practices and traditions that are God-honoring, edifying, and in accordance with the principles of scripture.  In other words, the lack of biblical precedence for baby dedication ceremonies does not forbid their presence in the modern church.

2. Moreover, there is precedent of people bring their children to others in order to receive a verbal blessing.  Sometimes these blessings had a prophetic element to them (see Genesis 48-49, for example), and we would not have that as our intention in the dedication of children.  Rather, we would have the same intention for our children that Jesus had in Mark 10.13-16: that of prayer and verbal blessing for children.  These verses describe parents who brought their children to Jesus so that he might pray for them and offer them a verbal blessing, and that is a noble and right process for the church (as representatives of Christ) to duplicate with children in our day.  There is power and significance in verbal blessings and the church is free to follow Jesus in his example in blessing children. (David Michael has argued well for the benefit and power of verbal blessing in this book.  Also, the power of a verbal blessing is important enough for the church to incorporate a benediction - blessing - at the conclusion of its service.)  It is in this sense that perhaps the term "baby dedication" is unhelpful if what we are doing is praying for and blessing children and parents.

3. Wilson also argues that, theologically speaking, "to dedicate something or someone is to set apart something as holy to the Lord.  To dedicate a baby, then, is to act as if the baby is already holy..." Here I think Wilson potentially misunderstands what it means to "set apart something as holy to the Lord" in the context of infant dedication, both in ancient Israel and in modern evangelicalism.  The dedication of firstborn children and animals was a common - and commanded - practice in ancient Israel, whose primary purpose was - I believe - to symbolically remind the people of their dependence upon God, and how everything they had came from him.  For this reason, they would set apart their firstborn children and animals as "holy to the Lord" (the word "holy" means "separate").  Certainly there were thousands of Israelite children who were dedicated to the Lord, but did not live up to the dedication made for them by their parents on their behalf.  Their dedication didn't make them holy or separate in a spiritual sense, and they proved that by not obeying God.  The same is true with modern baby dedications.  I think it is good and right for parents to make a declaration that they are making their child holy to the Lord (separating them for a specific purpose) in that they intend to raise that child in the fear and admonition of the Lord.  If, as that child grows and departs from the instruction of his parents, that has no bearing on what happened at the dedication in their infancy.

To be fair, Wilson's main point with this argument is to guard against making baby dedications akin to infant baptism, which is a valid concern, and one that I share.  Indeed, I am aware of one family at Riverview who declined to have their children dedicate out of a concern that their children would regard their dedication as a means of grace, or as having accomplished something for them spiritually.  This is certainly not the message we want to send through our baby dedication ceremonies, and it is right to guard against it, and if a father and mother decides against it for that reason, I would be supportive of them (although I wouldn't agree with them).  Rather, the dedication of a child to the Lord is simply, I think, a commitment to set oneself and one's child apart for the service of the Lord in all aspects in life.

4. It is in this sense that, for me, the primary focus of a baby dedication ceremony is not so much the infant, but the parents.  The parents are the ones who must dedicate themselves.  To what?  First, to an acknowledgement of God's sovereignty over the child.  Second, to profess their dependence upon God in the rearing of their children.  Third, to dedicate themselves to do their best, by God's help, to raise the child in the fear and discipline of the Lord (Ephesians 6.4).  Moreover, this dedication of parents to these things is done in front of the church.  In other words, parents have accountability for what they have dedicated themselves to, and the church is there to hold them accountable and love and support them in the process.  I see much value in this, especially in the sense that we are one body, and we love and support each other in all ares, including the rearing of children.  It is in this sense, that perhaps we should change the name of the ceremony to "Parent Dedication" rather than baby dedication!

The Bible is clear that children are a gift from God (Psalm 127.3-5), and there is much to be gained in acknowledging this fact through the dedication of our children to the Lord.  Let us praise God for the wonderful gift that children are, and let us commit ourselves to showing them his glory and worth as often as possible (Deuteronomy 6.7-9)

Minions, Ironman, and Jesus

Easter is a big deal for churches, and rightly so.

Recently, my Facebook feed has blown up with advertisements from local churches trying to entice people to attend their Easter services.  Seeing as Easter is often one of only two times in a year that many people attend a church, many churches want to make the most of it.  So in order to draw people in, there are all kinds of promotions and gimmicks that churches use.  Here are a couple examples from my Facebook feed:

Our Good Friday service is going to be EPIC!  Huh.  I can think of a lot of adjectives to describe a Good Friday service (such as serious, sober, somber, etc.), but "EPIC" isn't one of them.

This Easter, experience something different.  Um, like what, exactly?  Something other than the glory and power of the resurrection?  No thanks.

Finally, one advertisement in my feed is for a church whose Easter service boasts 75,000 eggs | 4 Easter Bunnies | Princess Anna & Elsa | Ironman | Kaboom the Robot | Minions | and tons more! Well, you've definitely got my daughter's attention at the mention of Anna and Elsa, and although my son doesn't know who Ironman is, I'm sure he'd be excited when he saw him.  That's quite a guest list, although one name is conspicuously absent.  I'm sure you can guess who.

Let me be clear: I'm not trying to besmirch the reputation and work of other churches for their Easter services - on the contrary, I hope thousands of people are drawn and come and hear the gospel (assuming the gospel makes its way into the mix after Kaboom the Robot leaves the platform).  Rather, I'm pointing out the apparent reality that the culture in general, and the church in specific, does not seem to be amazed by the glory of the resurrection anymore.  It certainly seems that we don't think the resurrection of the Son of God is "enough" to draw people to church, and that is demonstrated by the gimmicks, themes, and marketing strategies that many churches employ in order to draw people.  Instead, now it has to be the resurrection of the Son of God plus Minions, or the resurrection plus Ironman, or have the guarantee that our service will be "EPIC" in some way.  What has happened?

I think there are two primary things that have happened that have caused our celebration of the resurrection to be lackluster, or to at least be ordinary enough that we have to dress it up with appearances by Disney princesses.

First, I think we've lost sight of the resurrection as an actual, historical event.  Is it possible that we believe in the resurrection more so as a story rather than something that actually occurred?  Let's be frank: most people have heard the resurrection story, and hear it year after year (and, at good churches, week after week).  I think it's possible, and even likely, that the resurrection has become just another thing that we know by heart.  And when we become familiar with a thing, its tendency to amaze us is diminished, and maybe even to the extent that we forget that Jesus actually, physically rose from the dead.  Seriously.  Jesus was dead - killed by God because of the sin of all those who would believe that he took upon himself.  He was buried in a tomb and stayed there for three days.  On the third day, his dead body was reanimated and he came alive again.  It wasn't just his spirit that resurrected; it wasn't a symbolic resurrection; it was an actual, physical resurrection that involved his whole body.  His heart started beating again; his brain began to once again send signals to his body.  And unlike Lazarus and others who were raised to life from death - but died again later in life - Jesus still lives.  He has never died again, and he is living at this very moment, as you read this, making intercession before the Father on behalf of all those who will trust in him (Hebrews 7.25).  This isn't just a story.  It's what actually happened, and is happening at this very moment.  If you need pop culture icons to help you get excited about the reality of what took place at the resurrection (and what is taking place right now as a result), you may have lost sight of what the resurrection actually entails.

Second, I think we try to gussy up our Easter celebrations because we've lost sight of resurrection power.  In Philippians 3 Paul talks about desperately wanting to know the power of the resurrection, and doing whatever it takes to get a taste of that power.  What Paul means by the "power of his resurrection" is the ability to tap into the implications of what Jesus' resurrection accomplished.  What did the resurrection accomplish?  For one, it broke the power of sin.  Death is the final enemy (1 Corinthians 15.26), the final and ultimate consequence of sin.  By rising from the dead, Jesus proved that he has power over sin and its disastrous effects in our lives.  This is what Paul saw as the resurrection power that he wanted a piece of: the ability to kill sin in his life and gain freedom from it and its horrible effects - both temporal and eternal.  This freedom would not have been possible had Jesus not risen from the dead.  No amount of effort, good behavior, positive thinking, or anything else can give you power over sin and its effects - only the resurrection of Christ can do that.  So because Jesus rose from the dead, believers have power.  Do I share Paul's desperation for tapping into that resurrection power?

For some reason, we have lost sight of these two realities: that of an actual, physical resurrection, and the power associated with it that is accessible by all believers.  And so now, in order to motivate us to celebrate the resurrection, we need epic services with pop culture characters.  My brothers and sisters, this should not be so.

This Easter I would urge you to put aside all of the external things that might draw your attention away from the glory of the resurrection and its power.  Thankfully, at Riverview, we're not clever enough to come up with marketing slogans and gimmicks for our Easter service.  We figure, Jesus rose from the dead, and that's more than enough reason to be excited.

The Church, the Government, and Syrian Refugees

Over the past few days there has been much discussion in the news and on social media as to what to do with the hundreds of thousands of Syrian refugees that have fled their war-torn region in hopes of a better life.  The issue is complicated by the reality that the country from which they are fleeing is full of terrorists, and it is quite possible (and even likely) that there are terrorists disguised as refugees who are using this opportunity to infiltrate other nations for the purposes of enacting violence and harm against their citizens. 

Some in the U.S. have insisted that we must not, under any circumstances, allow these refugees into our country for the reason described above.  To that end, several states have insisted that they will not harbor any refugees, while others have declared that they will indeed welcome them.  Others have said that to disallow a space for Syrian refugees betrays a severe lack of compassion for those in need.  Minnesota’s governor, Mark Dayton, much to the chagrin of his opponents, recently declared that our state would gladly welcome refugees seeking shelter and a better life.

As has become so common in our day and age with social and political issues, the question of whether or not to accept refugees from Syria has become a social media firestorm, in which the sides are black and white with no room for gray, and all those who disagree with the “correct” view are labeled bigots or heartless idiots.  Leaving aside the fact that social media has denigrated our overall ability to talk about issues seriously, it behooves us to think biblically and Christianly about this issue, as it has many biblical implications.  And indeed, there have been many from the Christian sphere who have done a good job doing just that (for instance, I would commend to you Kevin DeYoung’s article on this subject), and I appreciate their guidance in my own thinking on this issue.   At the same time, however, there is disagreement even in the Christian community on this issue.  So as we seek to form an opinion, let’s allow grace to drive our discussions with one another. 

To me, the issue of whether or not the United States should accept Syrian refugees  comes down to the answer to three questions: What is the role of the government?  What is the role of the church? and Who is my neighbor?  Allow me to take a shot at providing some answers.

What is the role of the government?

God has created the government to fulfill a specific purpose and to accomplish certain tasks.  Biblically (and constitutionally) speaking, government’s primary role is to protect its citizens through the enforcement of laws (Romans 13.3-4).  If the U.S. government is to allow Syrian refugees into our country, its primary concern in doing so must be the preservation and protection of American citizens – not Syrians.  While some may argue that the government should feel compassion for Syrian refugees, this is, frankly, putting the cart before the horse.   The U.S. government should primarily feel compassion for U.S. citizens, and express that compassion by doing everything in their power to keep them safe.  If the government receives Syrian refugees, they should only do so if they are certain that doing so will not bring an undo threat to the safety of American citizens. 

What is the role of the church?

The church’s role in the world is primarily to preach and declare the gospel of Jesus Christ.  One of the ways we express this message is to minister to people in who are in distress, who are displaced, who are in need, and so on.  This is a distinctly Christian mission, and it belongs to the church – not the government.  It is not the government’s job to provide charity to those in need.  The church can and should minister to Syrian refugees in the event that they are allowed into the U.S.  God cares about how his people treat and care for aliens and sojourners.  We are obligated to God and his word to be faithful ministers of the gospel to them. 

Who is my neighbor?

In the online Christian discussions surrounding this issue, the parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10.25-37) is frequently cited, and used as evidence for why we should allow Syrian refugees into our country: because the refugees are expressing real needs, and we are able to meet those needs.  While I applaud the desire to let scripture guide us in our thinking, I believe the application of this parable to this situation falls short and over-reaches. 

For example, by insisting that Syrian refugees are our neighbors, and therefore we should minister to them like the good Samaritan, we fail to acknowledge that we literally have neighbors that already live right next door who we are called to love also. If there are Syrian terrorists masquerading as refugees (as it appears there are), and we invite and welcome them into our country, we are putting our geographical neighbors (those who live next door) at risk.  To do so would not be loving to our current neighbors.  It is a false dichotomy to pit the needs of our Syrian refugee neighbors against the needs of our physical and geographical neighbors.  (Furthermore, it could be argued that the parable of the Good Samaritan is primarily speaking to our interactions with our physical neighbors – those located near us, geographically speaking – than those interactions with international neighbors across the world.)  If we are able to determine that no undue danger will come to our current physical neighbors by bringing Syrian refugees into this country, then we absolutely should bring them in. Then those refugees will become our physical and geographical neighbors, and then we can and should minister to them as we would anyone else. 

Worshipping the idols of fear and self-preservation

There are some Christians who have brought up the reality that we should not let fear of bodily injury or a desire for self-preservation dictate our obedience to scripture and dissuade us from ministering to those in need.  I whole-heartedly agree.  However, I would follow my statement of agreement with the assertion that we shouldn’t have to be afraid if the government is doing its job to keep its citizens safe.  If the government is fulfilling its God-given role of protecting us, we are free to minister those who have been displaced and are distressed.  Nothing would please me more than to be able to allow Syrian refugees into our country so they can know its freedoms and benefit from our society, and also to hear the gospel of Jesus Christ.  But we cannot do so at the expense of the physical and bodily safety of our citizens. We cannot lose sight of our obligation to love our current neighbors by advocating for their safety.

How now shall we live?

In response to these principles, let us pray that the government will fulfill its God-ordained role of keeping people safe and doing everything they can to minimize potential violence.  And let us simultaneously pray for more opportunities to be ministers of the gospel – to Syrian refugees and to all other peoples of the world.   

Time to Take a Stand

You may or may not know that this past Sunday was the International Day of Prayer for the Persecuted Church.  Churches all over the world united in prayer for those Christians scattered literally all over the world who face regular persecution as a part of their daily life and faith.  According to this site, there are more than 60 countries in the world with strict religious laws on the books, most of them designed to frustrate Christians.  It's something that we believers in the west are virtually unaware of.  Thank God for religious freedom.  Seriously.  It would be worth your time to Google "Christian Persecution" and just spend some time reading about those who suffer for Christ.

After church this past Sunday, a woman at our church approached me and asked me if I thought that the United States government should come to the aid of persecuted Christians throughout the world.  That question led to others, and we had a brief conversation on the topic.  Since that conversation, I've been thinking more about it and have amended the thoughts that I shared with her (which, to be honest, were rather off the cuff).  So what should governments do to protect or advocate for persecuted Christians across the world?

As I've thought about it, Romans 13 shows that God puts governments in place for essentially two reasons: 1) enforcing the rule of law, and 2) punishing evildoers.  As far as I can tell, this would apply when a nation's citizens (regardless of their faith) are being unjustly persecuted on account of their faith.  The government should enforce the law and punish the evildoers, thereby rescuing those who are persecuted.  The question becomes difficult, however, when we consider that there are Christians who are not, say, Americans who are being persecuted throughout the world.  Should the United States government intervene in those cases?

As of this moment (and I say so, because I could potentially be persuaded otherwise), I would say no, the United States should not seek to punish evildoers outside of its borders or come to the aid of persecuted Christians in other countries (at least in regards to Christian persecution - a just war is a whole other issue).  Rather, I would say that our government should pressure the government of the nation where the offense and persecution is being perpetrated to take action on behalf of those being persecuted.  It's not our job to punish evildoers in other parts of the world.  This is not happening currently in our country, however.  Our government seems oblivious to Christian persecution in other parts of the world - even when it comes to Americans.

So then, as I read the Bible, I think it is our government's job to protect its own citizens, and to advocate and come to the aid of its own citizens (again, regardless of faith, but the vast majority of persecuted religious people in the world are Christians).  It is not our government's job to come to the aid of people persecuted for their religious beliefs in other countries.

That being said, I take the polar opposite position when it comes to the church's role in defending and and advocating for persecuted Christians throughout the world.  The church should must come to the aid of those who are suffering, particularly its sons and daughters.  The church is not bound by geographical or political boundaries, nor is there a biblical restriction placed on it to only protect and support a certain people in a certain place in a certain situation.  In fact, it's just the opposite.  The church is commanded to care for the needy, stand up for the oppressed, fight for justice, and provide aid wherever needed.  Unlike the government, the church is a "universal" entity that exists where there is someone who names the name of Christ.

A good question for churches (including my own church) to ask would be, "What are we doing to stand with our brothers and sisters all over the world who are being persecuted because of their love for my king?"  We (the Western Church) need to start thinking about how we can engage in this war.  What can we do?  We can all certainly pray.  What else?  Could we support an indigenous missionary who ministers to persecuted Christians?  Could we send aid in the form of money or supplies to people who are putting their life on the line when they go to church?  It's time to take a stand.

A Time to Mourn

Today was a landmark day in Minnesota, as it was the day that the state senate voted to legalize same-sex marriage.  The bill has only to be signed by Governor Dayton, which he will do within the week, and the law will take effect August 1, 2013.

This news comes during the week in which I am preparing a sermon on Matthew 5.4: "Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted."  And in Ecclesiastes 3.4 it says there is "a time to mourn."

There is reason to mourn in Minnesota on this day, I believe.

There is reason to mourn, because the mayor of St. Paul apparently has the free reign to do this, an utterly and blatantly divisive and irresponsible thing to do, regardless of how you feel on the issue.

There is reason to mourn, because so many professing Christians are either falsely converted, or are so ignorant in the faith, that they believe homosexuality is a biblically viable lifestyle, exposing what seems to be a significant lack of good teaching (or an abundance of bad teaching) by the church.

There is reason to mourn, because I can't talk about this issue without my peers thinking I'm a hateful bigot.  There is reason to mourn, because this reality is discouraging me from bringing my opinions to the marketplace of ideas - something that should never happen in a free society.

There is reason to mourn, because our society has come to the point that it believes that moral truth is decided by a majority opinion, and not by God.

There is reason to mourn, because this issue has become such a political hot button that it was shoved through the legislature as quickly as possible while other issues, many of which are arguably more worthy of the time and attention of our lawmakers, remain unaddressed.

There is reason to mourn, because the people of our state (and our country) seem to be less and less able to think rationally and logically, and instead are prone make decisions based on pragmatism and emotion.  There is reason to mourn, because at recently as 5 years ago the vast majority of our state and country were vehemently opposed to gay marriage.  What happened?  How was such a drastic change accomplished in such a short period of time?  I suspect it has something to do with the reason listed above.

There is reason to mourn, because it has become increasingly clear that God is removing his hand of grace from the collective mind of our country.

There is reason to mourn, because this legislation is further proof that much of the modern American church has failed in its job of proclaiming the gospel of grace.

There is reason to mourn, because the legalization of gay marriage will have untold and largely unknown effects on the worldview development of children, including my own.

There is reason to mourn, because the legalization of gay marriage is the first step down a slippery slope toward the validation of other sexually deviant practices, further confusing the idea of marriage and further encouraging people to venture deeper and deeper into depraved and destructive lifestyles that hurt the people in them, spiritually, emotionally, and physically.

There is reason to mourn, because the legalization of gay marriage is the a new frontier for the infringement of religious liberty in our land.

There you have it.  I think there are several reasons why this is a time of mourning, and not just as Americans or Minnesotans, but as Christians - as the church.

At the beginning of this post I referenced Matthew 5.4, in which Jesus says, "Blessed are those who mourn..."  But he doesn't end there.  He speaks a word of comfort as well.  But for right now I'm going to let the sting of the reality that is gay marriage sit with me a while, and allow it to sting.  It needs to sting all of us: the church, the world, and everyone in between.  There is a time for mourning, and this is it.

And let us all take heed of James 4.8-10 - me, you, and everyone else in our state and our country: "Draw near to God, and he will draw near to you.  Cleanse your hands, you sinners, and purify your hearts, you double-minded.  Be wretched and mourn and weep.  Let your laughter be turned to mourning and your joy to gloom.  Humble yourselves before the Lord, and he will exalt you."

Holy Week = Busy Week

This Sunday is Palm Sunday, which kicks off the Christian celebration of Holy Week.  This is the week that Christians celebrate Jesus' passion, beginning with his triumphal entry into Jerusalem on Palm Sunday.  Later in the week we celebrate the Last Supper that Jesus had with his disciples on Thursday.  Then, of course, Good Friday marks his crucifixion, concluded of course by Easter Sunday: the celebration of the Resurrection, the final triumph over death.

In the ministry world, Holy Week is probably the busiest of the 52 weeks in a given year.  This might be a bit non-intuitive on the surface, as most would probably guess that Christmas is the busiest season of the year.  This could be true, but there is a significant difference between Christmas in Easter, namely that the Christmas season is celebrated over the course of a month, while the Easter holiday is focused all in one week.

This week I have a total of five worship services to plan and conduct, five rehearsals to facilitate, one special event to coordinate, one meeting to attend, six newsletter articles to write, and probably dozens of other things that I'm not thinking of.  All in all, it's an exceedingly busy week.

One of the primary dangers of working in ministry is neglecting one's own spiritual health.  Quite frequently ministers will only spend time in the Bible for presentation purposes.  That is, our only Bible reading takes place for the purpose of presenting what we have learned to an audience, such as in a class or worship service.  Another danger is that ministers can sometimes lose the corporate sense of worship.  They might feel detached from the rest of the congregation, as they bear the burden of preaching the word and conducting the worship for the rest of the community.  Believe it or not, ministry is a dangerous profession in that it has the potential to disconnect a minister from the word and from the fellowship, which is ironic, considering that a ministers main duties are to the word and to the fellowship.  Often times, these failings come as a result of pride, selfishness, sinful busyness, and a lack of humility.

These dangers are especially evident during busy seasons, like Easter.

But what's especially comforting about this reality, and particularly because it is especially intense during Holy Week, is that Holy Week is all about inabilities, shortcomings, and oversights.  For these things Jesus faced the cross and death.  Because I am sometimes proud in my ability to study the Bible to the extent that I have made it a subject to be mastered rather than a word from the Lord to transform my heart, Jesus went to the cross.  Because I have the tendency to selfishly and pridefully think that things won't get done without my expertise as though I am the missing piece of the puzzle, Jesus went to the cross.  Because I sometimes put myself above others, Jesus went to the cross.

It is during these busy seasons when it is especially beneficial for me to slow down and remember why it is I am running around like a chicken with his head cut off.  This simple reality helps to change the way I approach things and conduct my business in the church.  What a comfort and blessing to know that even my efforts in leading the bride of Christ in the worship of her Bridegroom fall short, and that those failings are covered.

May God be glorified during this Holy Week by his church at Riverview, and by my restful obedience in his finished work.

Aradhana

The title of this post refers to the Telugu word for "worship."  It's also the title of a song the worship band played this morning, accompanied by Samuel Mande on a set of Indian drums that I can't remember the name of, and David Yalla singing the melody.  "Aradhana" is a traditional Indian hymn sung by the Telugu people of India, and the lyrics are at left.  A translation of these lyrics can be found at the bottom of this post.

Samuel informed me that in India they don't have traditional hymnbooks.  Rather, they have printed lyrics, and the congregation is informed that they will sing the lyrics to a traditional tune that they are all familiar with.  Rather than use the traditional melody, however, Samuel composed his own melody for the lyrics, and an intricate set of melodies for accompaniment by drums, guitars, bass, violin, and keyboards.  Samuel said that he has always wanted to do a piece that combined Indian music, lyrics, and musical style with Western instruments.  He did it, and I think it worked out very nicely.

Personally, as one of the instrumentalists, I found the piece challenging and a lot of fun to play, which is a testament to Samuel's musical abilities.  David's voice matches perfectly what I perceive to be the style of Indian music.  Have a listen.



What's especially cool about this presentation is that it came on the last Sunday of our "Values" series at Riverview.  The series explored some of the main values that we as a community hold dear.  The value we looked at in worship today was that of "life together," focusing especially on the diversity that exists within the Body of Christ.  And with that diversity comes a diverse set of ways to express worship and praise to God.  This was a fantastic expression of worship, and I believe that God was glorified by it.  It was my pleasure to be a part of it.

"Aradhana"
Worship to you - abundant praises to you I offer, O Jesus
My Jesus, I offer you my everything

Even as the mighty army of the arch-angels worship you
With a thousand tongues I sing
Lo!  I am a sinner and I plead you 
To accept me and take me into your presence

Then your rays of love and compassion 
have touched me and flowed through me
And all of my sin has been cleansed
And now I dedicate my life to you and sing praises

The Decline of the Church Organ

I came across this article this morning, and found it incredibly interesting (then again, I'm a nerd).  Actually, it's not so much of an article as it is an outline for a lecture that was delivered at a recent doctoral colloquium.

The outline lists several bullet points about why the use of church organs has been, and is, in decline in churches across the country.  Some of the reasons listed are simply preferential, and some are significant.  For instance, there's not much to be done about a "lack of qualified organists."  Also, organs are expensive - tens of thousands of dollars at a minimum, and hundreds of thousands if you're talking pipe organs.  Some churches just can't afford an organ.

It's also interesting to note that the lecturer assumes that the decline of the use of the church organ is a detrimental thing to church culture, and to worship in general.  I am inclined to agree, albeit tentatively.  Allow me to explain.

For example, he asserts that use of the organ is in decline because of the influence of popular culture on churches and Christians, and he implies that this is a negative thing.  This is no doubt true, but to me, this is not something that the church should necessarily push back against.  After all, the inclusion of the church organ in Christian worship was undoubtedly a product of cultural influence.  That is, there was a time when no churches had organs, nor would they probably have considered including one.  But as culture developed, having an organ in church became a desirable thing, and so the church organ became a staple of American churches.  For that church culture, and at that point in time, organs served their purpose well.  An honest look at culture and the church today, however, might point us in a direction away from an organ, and I think that's OK.  Maybe not ultimately desirable to everyone, but it's OK.  So to say that it's bad that cultural influence is diminishing the use of the organ in worship is necessarily a bad thing is not totally without it's own set of cultural influences.  It's not as though the organ is a divine instrument that was handed down to the church by God.

Worship style is, in large part, informed by cultural trends.  We are all cultural beings who live inside of a set of cultural norms.  Over time, those norms change, and the church changes with them because the church is made up of people who live in culture.  As what we all like and appreciate changes, so will how we do things in the church change (at least in a temporal sense - there are obviously many things about the church that don't and can't change, regardless of cultural influence).  Nowadays we see a lot of guitars and drum sets in churches.  Why?  Because those instruments have become a more mainstreamed part of our culture.  It's natural and perfectly acceptable to have a band be a regular part of a worship service.

I, for one, grew up in a church that, for half my life, had no other instruments in worship aside from a baby grand piano and an organ.  I am not attached to the organ, though.  Why not?  Because other than church, the organ has played no part in my life (pun intended).  For better or for worse, I have been much more influenced by the popular music of the culture, and I am inclined to appreciate the musical style of drums and guitars.

But the author also makes some great points about why churches seldom use organ music.  He points out that a lot of churches these days are focused on seeker-sensitive worship, and are therefore obsessed with every cultural trend in order to draw new people through their doors.  In this respect, I agree with the author that this would be a terrible reason to get rid of your organ, and an even more terrible way to "do" church.  We don't conduct our worship based on what people want to hear or don't want to hear, and we similarly don't build our worship around what the unbelieving world wants to experience through it.  To do so would be to cater our worship to sinners rather than God - a horrible thought.  Churches want to be "cool" in how they do things, and the public perception of the church organ is rather square, so the organ is being eliminated.  What a shame that churches would operate so pragmatically.

The lecturer also makes some points about how to "restore" the use of the organ in churches.  His best point in this section is this: "Educate our congregations and worship leaders about the true nature of worship itself.  God is interested in our hearts much more than the "art" which we offer to him in worship."  Amen, and amen.  In this sense, it doesn't matter what instrument is playing, or what style of music a congregation uses to worship, as long as the attitude of the heart of the worshiper is right.  Somebody who says they just can't worship to organ music doesn't understand the true nature of worship.  To get rid of an organ because a portion of the congregation "can't" worship to it is wrong, and exposes a significant lack of understanding about the theology of worship.  God can and does accept the worship of those with nothing more than a slide whistle and some empty coffee cans to bang on, provided they are focused on his glory and praise.

But there's another reason not to abandon the organ that I'd like to add to the author's list if I might, and it comes from my own experience of 32 years of worshiping with a diverse group of people at Riverview.  I believe there is still a place for the organ in the church because it reflects the diversity that exists in the church (at least in my church).  There are several members of Riverview who grew up singing old, beloved hymns on the organ, and for them, it is still a rich part of their heritage and culture.  To take that away from them would be unwise and unloving.  Moreover, our use of the organ speaks to our diversity.  We love each other, even though we're very different, and we express our differences through worship.

Yet another reason is the simple difference of feel one gets between an organ and say, a worship band.  contemporary worship music, I think, communicates a feeling of closeness and intimacy, while an organ communicates a feeling of grandeur and transcendence.  Both are intricately part of God's character.  He is definitely near to us and intimate with us.  But he is also the God of the universe who sits as Lord and judge over all people.  I think the organ communicates the latter very well.

On the other hand, we also utilize more modern instruments and worship for a significant segment of our service through the use of a worship team that includes the usual guitars, drums, bass, piano, etc.  To me, it's a wonderful blend of the various preferences felt and expressed in our congregation.

So for me, I would like to keep the organ.  Is it my favorite thing?  Probably not.  Is it my "default setting" when it comes to worship style?  Definitely not.  But there's a lot of value to having it, and I hope we have it for a long time to come.

The State Church

If you don't follow religion in politics very closely, you probably haven't heard about Louie Giglio withdrawing his acceptance to pray at President Obama's inauguration.  Obama asked Giglio to pray, and he initially accepted, but when it was discovered that he has preached against homosexuality in the past, a firestorm erupted.  Amid all the craziness, Giglio withdrew his acceptance, citing a desire to not have the prayer turn into a political ordeal.  You can read his letter to the inauguration committee, and some other thoughts he has on the topic, here.

Who is Louie Giglio?  He's come to the public eye in recent years as he's been attached to the wildly popular Passion conferences, and through his work with Chris Tomlin and others.  I've seen him speak before, and his messages, while a bit on theologically light side, are actually very engaging and eye-opening.  You can watch what is probably his most well-known sermon here.  I may not mesh with him on everything he does, and there are definitely some issues he and his ministry need to think through, but overall, Giglio is a great pastor, communicator, and preacher, and would have been a great choice to deliver the prayer at Obama's inauguration.

But to begin with, something like this isn't new.  As many have noted, the same firestorm erupted after Rick Warren offered the prayer at Obama's 2009 inauguration.  Warren stayed in, however, despite the criticism. That being said, it is becoming more and more difficult to practice religion in America these days, especially when that religion doesn't fall in line with the government.  What's the big deal?  Here's one liberal blogger's point of view on the issue.

There's a bit of uncertainty about whether or not Giglio rescinded his acceptance to pray, or whether the inauguration committee uninvited him to play.  The way I see it, it's kind of like six of one, half a dozen of the other.  Basically, Giglio rescinded his acceptance and the committee said, "Good, because we're uninviting you anyway."  Kind of like what you see in the movies when someone tells their boss they quit, but the boss responds by telling them that they can't quite because they're fired.  Either way, this brouhaha has some significant implications that come with it, and it behooves all Christians in America to take note of them.

Russel Moore points out that what we see happening is the development of a state church.  He notes that Giglio is not offering a point of view on homosexuality in the prayer, nor is he saying or even implying that that homosexuals can't or don't have freedoms in the U.S.  In fact, Giglio has never hinted at any of these things in public discourse.  What he has said, though, is that unrepentant homosexuality is not conducive with the Christian faith.  And, of course, the government will bow to the pressure of the loudest voices who cry foul, and in so doing, will endorse the religious views of those who disagree with orthodox Christianity.  It's government sponsored religion.

Albert Mohler similarly points out that we are moving into a time of "moral McCarthyism."  The government used to have a litmus test to detect communism in its ranks.  Now that litmus test exists to detect religious intolerance, and to expel those who would dare to buck the government-endorsed religious ideals.

The message is this: get your religious beliefs in line with government policy or shut up.  Basically, people with religious convictions that don't line up with the government's agenda are silenced and blacklisted.  Moore is right: this leads to a government run church.  In our time, the government is deciding which religious thoughts, ideas, and speech are acceptable.  Where are the usual protesters crying First Amendment foul?  Where are the liberals demanding a separation of church and state?  You won't find them, because they're at their place of worship, offering sacrifices to the government approved religion of tolerance.

How does a Christian respond to a state church?  Much the same way that Jesus and his disciples responded, I imagine.  In those days, however, you had government officials killing people whose religion they didn't like, and then profaning their bodies and places of worship.  Thank God that we haven't come to that in our country.  Our response should be that of the first century Christians: gather together, devote ourselves to the word, pray, and submit.  I don't like that this stuff is happening in my country, and that our religious liberties are being taken away in shockingly large leaps and bounds, but it is what it is.  God is still on the throne; God is still working in the world.  We should be trusting him, no matter what happens.

America, the freedom of religion you once had is gone, and the little bit you have left is quickly eroding away.  Get ready.  Cling to the truth, because dark days are ahead.  But take heart: they are not so dark that the Light cannot shine through.