As I was looking through my copy of "Our Own Hymn Book" I came across these fantastic hymns of Christ's suffering and death. These are just a few that stuck out to me. Enjoy them, and worship Christ as you read them.
THE CUP OF WRATH - Albert Midlane, 1864
Once it was mine, the cup of wrath
But Jesus drank it dry
When on the cursed tree transfixed
He breathed the expiring sigh
No tongue can tell the wrath he bore
The wrath so due to me
Sin's just desert; he bore it all
To set the sinner free
Now not a single drop remains,
"T'is finished!" was his cry
By one effectual draught he drank
The cup of wrath quite dry
DESPISED AND REJECTED - William Robertson, 1751
Rejected and despised of men,
behold a man of woe!
And grief his close companion still,
through all his life below
Yet all the griefs he felt were ours
Ours were the woes he bore
Pangs, not his own, his spotless soul
With bitter anguish bore
We held him as condemned of heaven,
An outcast from his God
While for our sins, he groaned, he bled
Beneath his Father's rod
His sacred blood hath washed our souls
From sin's polluting stain
His stripes have healed us and his death
Revived our souls again
THEY CRUCIFIED HIM - William Faber, 1849
Oh come and mourn with me a while
Oh come ye to the Savior's side
Oh come, together let us mourn,
Jesus our Lord is crucified
Have we no tears to shed for him
While soldiers scoff and Jews deride?
Ah! Look how patiently he hangs
Jesus our Lord is crucified
How fast his hands and feet are nailed
His throat with parching thirst is dried
His failing eyes are dimmed with blood
Jesus our Lord is crucified
Come, let us stand beneath the cross
So may the blood from out his side
Fall gently on us, drop by drop
Jesus our Lord is crucified
A broken heart, a fount of tears
Ask and they will not be denied
Lord Jesus may we love and weep
Since thou for us art crucified
Friday, April 10, 2009
Thursday, April 9, 2009
Is It Ever OK To Swear?
For the past couple of years I've been reading books by Mark Driscoll and watching some of his messages on the internet. For the most part, everything he's said/taught/preached has been right on (I particularly enjoyed his take on "The Shack," and I thought he did a fantastic job in the "Does Satan Exist" debate), and I especially appreciate his reformed view of theology and ministry. I've read a couple of his books and have found them to be helpful and fun.
A couple weeks ago, though, I watched this message by Driscoll on a verse from 1 Peter (I can't remember which verse it was) about what it means to be a biblical man. Again, I thought he was right on, docrtinally, and he was funny and engaging. I thought he had a lot to say about what it means to be a man biblically, except there was one point at the end of his message that pretty much skewed everything else he had said (at least in my mind it did). In a moment of just anger and intensity, Driscoll swore.
I've known that Driscoll has had issues with his language, but I had never heard him swear in any of his messages, books, or speaking engagements until now. I also know that Driscoll has had to apologize and "repent" of his foul mouth on many, many occasions. I assume his reasoning for swearing (at least in the message I saw) was that this issue was important enough, and he was so righteously indignant about men shirking their biblical responsibility to be a godly man, that he thought the situation warranted a curse word, if for no other reason than to express his seriousness about the topic.
Swearing and vulgarity have become increasingly permissible in many Christian circles for a variety of reasons. But mostly, I think a lot of people think that swearing is permissible if they get "angry enough," or for dramatic effect. Is that really OK though? To tell you the truth, I personally thought that Driscoll's use of swearing severely damaged his credibility when it came to the content of the rest of his message (one of his main points was that mistreating and using women was a severe cop-out when it comes to biblical manhood, a shirking of one's responsibility). When Driscoll swore in his message, I found myself asking if a "real, biblical man" would really need to swear in making his point. I think it shows at least some kind of immaturity to not be able to express truth (especially biblical truth) without using vulgarity.
Cut to today. Phil Johnson posted this on his facebook page: it's an article on swearing by Eric Pement. He offers seven common "reasons" (it's probably more accurate to call them justifications) for swearing, and why they don't work when compared to scripture. He finds the seven most common reasons for swearing are:
1. To "relate" to the rest of the world.
2. To avoid hypocrisy (for instance, if a person thinks a swear word, they might as well say it - thus, to think about swearing but not actually swearing is supposedly hypocritical).
3. To break religious/Christian stereotypes.
4. Pressure, suffering, or persecution.
5. Because the words aren't bad - the intention behind them is what could be considered sin.
6. Because the Bible doesn't prohibit swearing - just slander, gossip, blasphemy, etc.
7. Because some "swear" words are in the Bible.
Pement goes on to explain why none of these are valid justifications for using filthy talk. I highly recommend the article to you.
A couple weeks ago, though, I watched this message by Driscoll on a verse from 1 Peter (I can't remember which verse it was) about what it means to be a biblical man. Again, I thought he was right on, docrtinally, and he was funny and engaging. I thought he had a lot to say about what it means to be a man biblically, except there was one point at the end of his message that pretty much skewed everything else he had said (at least in my mind it did). In a moment of just anger and intensity, Driscoll swore.
I've known that Driscoll has had issues with his language, but I had never heard him swear in any of his messages, books, or speaking engagements until now. I also know that Driscoll has had to apologize and "repent" of his foul mouth on many, many occasions. I assume his reasoning for swearing (at least in the message I saw) was that this issue was important enough, and he was so righteously indignant about men shirking their biblical responsibility to be a godly man, that he thought the situation warranted a curse word, if for no other reason than to express his seriousness about the topic.
Swearing and vulgarity have become increasingly permissible in many Christian circles for a variety of reasons. But mostly, I think a lot of people think that swearing is permissible if they get "angry enough," or for dramatic effect. Is that really OK though? To tell you the truth, I personally thought that Driscoll's use of swearing severely damaged his credibility when it came to the content of the rest of his message (one of his main points was that mistreating and using women was a severe cop-out when it comes to biblical manhood, a shirking of one's responsibility). When Driscoll swore in his message, I found myself asking if a "real, biblical man" would really need to swear in making his point. I think it shows at least some kind of immaturity to not be able to express truth (especially biblical truth) without using vulgarity.
Cut to today. Phil Johnson posted this on his facebook page: it's an article on swearing by Eric Pement. He offers seven common "reasons" (it's probably more accurate to call them justifications) for swearing, and why they don't work when compared to scripture. He finds the seven most common reasons for swearing are:
1. To "relate" to the rest of the world.
2. To avoid hypocrisy (for instance, if a person thinks a swear word, they might as well say it - thus, to think about swearing but not actually swearing is supposedly hypocritical).
3. To break religious/Christian stereotypes.
4. Pressure, suffering, or persecution.
5. Because the words aren't bad - the intention behind them is what could be considered sin.
6. Because the Bible doesn't prohibit swearing - just slander, gossip, blasphemy, etc.
7. Because some "swear" words are in the Bible.
Pement goes on to explain why none of these are valid justifications for using filthy talk. I highly recommend the article to you.
Monday, April 6, 2009
The Fear Of The Lord
This little article came out with the Way of the Master weekly newsletter this week. I thought it was worth some thought:
The Fear Of The Lord
There have been about a dozen mass-shootings in the United States in recent months, and secular experts are still trying to piece together the profiles and common denominators of these murderers. However, every one of them had one thing in common. They all lacked a fear of God. If someone fears God they won't lie to you, steal from you, or commit adultery with your spouse. They won't even lust after them. They won't hate you, harbor anger or be bitter towards you, and they certainly won't kill you. "By mercy and truth iniquity is purged: and by the fear of the Lord men depart from evil." (Proverbs 16:6)
One of the major reasons this nation lacks the fear of God is that it's rarely preached from the modern pulpit. Think of what Nathan did with David. He put the fear of God in him by saying "You are the man! Why have you despised the Commandment of the Lord?" (see 2 Samuel 12:7-9). Without such a reproof David would have simply remained an unrepentant man who made an unfortunate choice in life. But the reproof revealed that he was a criminal who had despised the moral Law, and that God's wrath hovered over him for his terrible transgression.
We need to be Nathans to this nation and faithfully preach the Word, in season and out of season. We must "reprove, rebuke, exhort, with all patience and doctrine," and the well-spring of our words must be love for sinners. We cannot let fear stop us from showing them that they have despised the Law, and that they have personally sinned against God, as Paul did in Romans 2:20-24.
The Fear Of The Lord
There have been about a dozen mass-shootings in the United States in recent months, and secular experts are still trying to piece together the profiles and common denominators of these murderers. However, every one of them had one thing in common. They all lacked a fear of God. If someone fears God they won't lie to you, steal from you, or commit adultery with your spouse. They won't even lust after them. They won't hate you, harbor anger or be bitter towards you, and they certainly won't kill you. "By mercy and truth iniquity is purged: and by the fear of the Lord men depart from evil." (Proverbs 16:6)
One of the major reasons this nation lacks the fear of God is that it's rarely preached from the modern pulpit. Think of what Nathan did with David. He put the fear of God in him by saying "You are the man! Why have you despised the Commandment of the Lord?" (see 2 Samuel 12:7-9). Without such a reproof David would have simply remained an unrepentant man who made an unfortunate choice in life. But the reproof revealed that he was a criminal who had despised the moral Law, and that God's wrath hovered over him for his terrible transgression.
We need to be Nathans to this nation and faithfully preach the Word, in season and out of season. We must "reprove, rebuke, exhort, with all patience and doctrine," and the well-spring of our words must be love for sinners. We cannot let fear stop us from showing them that they have despised the Law, and that they have personally sinned against God, as Paul did in Romans 2:20-24.
Thursday, April 2, 2009
Don't Get An Obama-Burger
I have a friend who lives in Greenville, South Carolina. He just sent me an email that said that he has found a local restaurant that serves what they call an "Obama-Burger." Apparently it's pretty much a regular burger, except that when they bring the burger out to the customer, the server cuts it in half and gives half of it to a complete stranger at random! The best part is, they still charge you for the whole burger!
As far as I know this is for real, although I don't know how a restaurant could get away with something like that and maintain a customer base. I looked for the restaurant on the internet, but couldn't find it. Maybe my leg's being pulled. But even if it is, it's pretty funny.
As far as I know this is for real, although I don't know how a restaurant could get away with something like that and maintain a customer base. I looked for the restaurant on the internet, but couldn't find it. Maybe my leg's being pulled. But even if it is, it's pretty funny.
Content Vs. Style
As I've gotten older, I find myself appreciating the rich, theological depth of the more "traditional" sacred music. You usually find these types of songs in hymnals, and most of them were written before the 20th century. When you compare new religious (worship) music to the old hymns, the new stuff just can't compare when it comes to content. In most cases, I detest the shallow, touchy-feely, "Jesus is my girlfriend" lyrics that tend to plague modern worship music. There's just no substantive content to most of it. Thus, my affinity for the older songs. I'm in a strange boat, however. While I love and appreciate the old school lyrics, I prefer a more modern musical style, and let me tell you, finding songs that are "old school" in content and "new school" in style are hard to come by.
I learned recently that my personal opinion on this issue is the minority. There are many within the church (including my church) who feel that older sacred songs should be sung with only the accompaniment of a piano or organ, or perhaps both. Their musical tastes are a little different from mine: they prefer the old content and the old musical style. Also I learned that many who feel this way also think that any deviance from the old musical style in some way negates or diminishes the content of the old song. In other words, they feel that when a modern musical style is combined with the lyrical content of an old hymn, the hymn becomes somehow "less" than what it is when accompanied by a piano or organ.
I disagree with that line of thinking, however. As I see it, the only "value" of a sacred song is in the content of the lyrics, and I don't think the content of a song is diminished by the musical style in which it is played. After all, what is the content or value of a song if not the theological truths it proclaims? The content certainly can't be in the music itself or the melody. The music is just an arrangements of specific notes and tones, arranged to form a coherent melody. Certainly the value or content of the music is in the words that are formed and arranged in order to bring glory to God. Here's a good example (click on the song "Nail My Glory" on the music player). If you didn't follow the link, you're missing out. It's a great song. Allow me to describe it to you: it's loud, fast, rock n' roll. The lyrics are as follows:
No more, my God, I boast no more
Of everything my hands have done
I quit the hopes I held before
To trust the merits of Your Son
Now for His love I bear His name
My former pride I call my shame
What was my gain I count my loss
And I nail my glory to His cross
And by Your grace I will esteem
All things but loss for Jesus’ sake
Oh may my soul be found in Him
And of His righteousness partake
All of the works of my own hands
I dare not bring before Your throne
My faith responds to Your demands
By pleading what my Lord has done
You may be surprised to know that this song was written by Isaac Watts in 1709, author of such hymns as "O God Our Help In Ages Past," "When I Survey The Wondrous Cross," and "Alas! And Did My Savior Bleed." Now, does the fact that Watts' words are set to a more modern musical style make them less true? I should think not. They have not changed. The rich, theological truths they proclaim remain unmolested.
Here's a another example, except this time, here are the lyrics to a "modern" worship song:
Looks like tonight the sky is heavy
Feels like the winds are gonna change
Beneath my feet the earth is ready
I know it's time for heaven's rain
It's gonna rain...yeah
Cause living water we desire
To flood our hearts with holy fire
Rain down, all around the world we're singing
Rain down, can you hear the earth is singing?
Rain down, my heart is dry but still I'm singing
Rain down, rain it down
Back to the start, my heart is heavy
Feels like it's time to dream again
I see the clouds and yes, I'm ready
To dance upon this barren land
Hope in my hands...yeah
Do not shut, do not shut
Do not shut the heavens
Open up, open up
Open up our hearts
Give me strength to cross this water
Keep my heart upon your altar
Rain down, yeah
Give me strength to cross this water
Keep my feet, don't let me falter
Rain down, yeah
I have no idea what this song is about. It's merely a conglomeration of churchy sounding phrases (holy fire, heaven, heart, etc.). Some of the phrases don't even make sense ("Can you hear the earth is singing/feels like it's time to dream again" HUH?) I don't know what the song is trying to say. I don't know what it says, if anything, about God. I don't know what it says about my relationship to God. I don't see how it praises God, or leads one into worshiping him. This song has little or no theological value at all. Plus it just doesn't make sense. The theme of the song seems to be a request for rain, as if rain is needed and is good, but towards the end of the song the lyricist states, "Give me strength to cross this water." Wait a minute! I thought you wanted water!
If you followed the link and listened to the song as it was played, you'll note that it is likewise modern and of the rock n' roll variety. But here's an interesting question: would setting the lyrics of this song to a piano and organ tune make it any less goofy? Would its content somehow become more valuable and rich? Certainly not! The lyrics would still not make sense, and it would still fail at telling the worshiper anything about God, or why he deserves praise, honor, and glory.
So then, I conclude, that the only thing that matters in worship music is the content of the lyrics. The musical melody, style, or tune does not factor into the value of a worship song (it should be noted that there are plenty of old hymns that are just as big of stinkers as many modern worship songs - they would likewise be useless in any musical style).
I explained this line of thinking to a friend of mine, and he challenged me by asking if I would be OK with a rap worship set in the morning church service. My response was "Yes, as long as the content of the song glorifies God." Now, that is not to say that we should convert all of our worship to rap - our culture has not dictated to us that rap is the acceptable medium of the masses. In other words, our culture dictates the driving musical style to us. Who knows, maybe in 20 years rap will be the main musical style of our culture. At that point in time, an all-rap service will make sense. And if and when it does, churches should not hesitate to have rap worship - as long as the content is sound.
I learned recently that my personal opinion on this issue is the minority. There are many within the church (including my church) who feel that older sacred songs should be sung with only the accompaniment of a piano or organ, or perhaps both. Their musical tastes are a little different from mine: they prefer the old content and the old musical style. Also I learned that many who feel this way also think that any deviance from the old musical style in some way negates or diminishes the content of the old song. In other words, they feel that when a modern musical style is combined with the lyrical content of an old hymn, the hymn becomes somehow "less" than what it is when accompanied by a piano or organ.
I disagree with that line of thinking, however. As I see it, the only "value" of a sacred song is in the content of the lyrics, and I don't think the content of a song is diminished by the musical style in which it is played. After all, what is the content or value of a song if not the theological truths it proclaims? The content certainly can't be in the music itself or the melody. The music is just an arrangements of specific notes and tones, arranged to form a coherent melody. Certainly the value or content of the music is in the words that are formed and arranged in order to bring glory to God. Here's a good example (click on the song "Nail My Glory" on the music player). If you didn't follow the link, you're missing out. It's a great song. Allow me to describe it to you: it's loud, fast, rock n' roll. The lyrics are as follows:
No more, my God, I boast no more
Of everything my hands have done
I quit the hopes I held before
To trust the merits of Your Son
Now for His love I bear His name
My former pride I call my shame
What was my gain I count my loss
And I nail my glory to His cross
And by Your grace I will esteem
All things but loss for Jesus’ sake
Oh may my soul be found in Him
And of His righteousness partake
All of the works of my own hands
I dare not bring before Your throne
My faith responds to Your demands
By pleading what my Lord has done
You may be surprised to know that this song was written by Isaac Watts in 1709, author of such hymns as "O God Our Help In Ages Past," "When I Survey The Wondrous Cross," and "Alas! And Did My Savior Bleed." Now, does the fact that Watts' words are set to a more modern musical style make them less true? I should think not. They have not changed. The rich, theological truths they proclaim remain unmolested.
Here's a another example, except this time, here are the lyrics to a "modern" worship song:
Looks like tonight the sky is heavy
Feels like the winds are gonna change
Beneath my feet the earth is ready
I know it's time for heaven's rain
It's gonna rain...yeah
Cause living water we desire
To flood our hearts with holy fire
Rain down, all around the world we're singing
Rain down, can you hear the earth is singing?
Rain down, my heart is dry but still I'm singing
Rain down, rain it down
Back to the start, my heart is heavy
Feels like it's time to dream again
I see the clouds and yes, I'm ready
To dance upon this barren land
Hope in my hands...yeah
Do not shut, do not shut
Do not shut the heavens
Open up, open up
Open up our hearts
Give me strength to cross this water
Keep my heart upon your altar
Rain down, yeah
Give me strength to cross this water
Keep my feet, don't let me falter
Rain down, yeah
I have no idea what this song is about. It's merely a conglomeration of churchy sounding phrases (holy fire, heaven, heart, etc.). Some of the phrases don't even make sense ("Can you hear the earth is singing/feels like it's time to dream again" HUH?) I don't know what the song is trying to say. I don't know what it says, if anything, about God. I don't know what it says about my relationship to God. I don't see how it praises God, or leads one into worshiping him. This song has little or no theological value at all. Plus it just doesn't make sense. The theme of the song seems to be a request for rain, as if rain is needed and is good, but towards the end of the song the lyricist states, "Give me strength to cross this water." Wait a minute! I thought you wanted water!
If you followed the link and listened to the song as it was played, you'll note that it is likewise modern and of the rock n' roll variety. But here's an interesting question: would setting the lyrics of this song to a piano and organ tune make it any less goofy? Would its content somehow become more valuable and rich? Certainly not! The lyrics would still not make sense, and it would still fail at telling the worshiper anything about God, or why he deserves praise, honor, and glory.
So then, I conclude, that the only thing that matters in worship music is the content of the lyrics. The musical melody, style, or tune does not factor into the value of a worship song (it should be noted that there are plenty of old hymns that are just as big of stinkers as many modern worship songs - they would likewise be useless in any musical style).
I explained this line of thinking to a friend of mine, and he challenged me by asking if I would be OK with a rap worship set in the morning church service. My response was "Yes, as long as the content of the song glorifies God." Now, that is not to say that we should convert all of our worship to rap - our culture has not dictated to us that rap is the acceptable medium of the masses. In other words, our culture dictates the driving musical style to us. Who knows, maybe in 20 years rap will be the main musical style of our culture. At that point in time, an all-rap service will make sense. And if and when it does, churches should not hesitate to have rap worship - as long as the content is sound.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)