Archive for the ‘“Reader’s Favorites”’ Category

Mark Driscoll passionately believes the church must impact culture, and rightly so. “To be in reformission, we must embed ourselves in a culture and develop friendships with lost people so that we can be informed and avoid making erroneous judgments…. As a missionary, you will need to watch television shows and movies, listen to music, read books, peruse magazines, attend events, join organizations, surf websites, and befriend people that you might not like to better understand people that Jesus loves” (Mark Driscoll, The Radical Reformission, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2004, pages 97, 103).

The issue is how deeply do we embed in culture to get educated to reach the lost. This philosophy will affect our styles of music. There are basically three styles of music according to Driscoll: high culture music, folk culture music, and pop culture music.

Driscoll describes high culture music as a gourmet meal that is prepared by professionals. Its equivalent in music is opera, classical music, and ballet. The church which prefers high culture music will sing old hymns accompanied by an organ and robed choir.

Folk culture is like mom’s home cooked meal made from scratch. Folk music reflects the personal touch of local communities like black spiritual songs. This church has sold the old hymnals on Amazon.com and writes its own songs and music.

Pop music is like a fast-food meal served without the sophistication of high culture or the personal touch of folk culture. Pop music is fleeting and changing and is represented by Michael Jackson who “continually reinvented his image so thoroughly that he has transformed from a black man to a white woman” (Mark Driscoll, p. 99). Instead of a “minister of music” there is a worship team casually dressed with a keyboard, acoustic guitar, and bongos.

My question for you is, “Which meal do you prefer?” Or do you like eating at Ruth’s Chris Steakhouse and Hillbilly Hide-Away and McDonalds? Is it possible for churches in our circles to have High, Folk, and Pop music if they are done in good taste? I believe it is possible.

Mark Dever offers this advice: “Healthy churches avoid worship wars. They even avoid worship skirmishes. Wise church leaders know that using a wide variety of songs and styles over time broadens a congregation’s tastes, exposing them to different kinds of music from different time periods and cultivating in them at least a modest level of appreciation for the best selection from each. Conversely, variety in worship songs and styles helps prevent people from becoming militantly entrenched in a certain style or period of music” (The Deliberate Church, page 123).

Another question of great importance for me is, “How deeply do we embed in our culture to get educated?” Driscoll discusses three responses to this issue.

The Fundamentalist is not embedded enough and is too restrictive. The Fundamentalist forbids Christians listening to certain musical styles, getting tattoos, watching movies, smoking cigarettes, consuming alcohol, and body piercing (Driscoll, 103).

The Liberal is too embedded and too permissive condoning drug use, fornication, homosexuality, and cohabitation before marriage.

The Reformissionist is not too hot or too cold but is just right (Driscoll, 103). I personally think Driscoll is embedded too deeply when he condones drinking and any musical style no matter how radically performed. Driscoll once advised, “If you’re going to be a fundamentalist or moralist… Don’t pick something stupid like, ‘Don’t listen to rock music.’ I don’t know who’s choosing all the legalisms, but they picked the worst ones” (Christianity Today magazine, April 21, 2009). At least, Rick Warren warned against the lyrics of rock music.

Here are some broad principles to help guide us in our music style choices. These principles will be interpreted differently by each of us and therefore we should allow latitude in their application in different churches in different cultures.

1. Does this music offend a weaker brother (Romans 14:13)? This is a tough one for me. If you have a blended service and use traditional hymns, Southern Gospel, and contemporary, one third of your congregation is offended all the time. Probably, “upset” is a better word than “offended.” The youth like the contemporary but not the Southern Gospel. The older generation like the traditional but not the contemporary. The group who likes Southern Gospel accuse the youth of liking rock and roll, worldly music. But Southern Gospel originated from White Jazz. So which is worldly?

Romans 14:23 says, “Whatsoever is not of faith is sin.” If a brother has not been taught liberty to listen to other styles, for him it may be sin (because of the wrong teaching). That weaker brother needs to be taught and hopefully he will become a strong brother who is generous in allowing others to worship to their preferences without judging them. Until a church reaches that kind of maturity we should not needlessly offend by forcing a new style on that church.

Mark Dever gives some helpful counsel: “Don’t try to change all the music all at once. Youth is the mother of impatience, and a young, highly motivated, strongly convicted pastor might tempted to drive 85 miles per hour in a church with a speed limit of 30″ (The Deliberate Church, page 124)

2. Does this music teach God’s Word (Colossians 3:16)? What about hymns that teach unbiblical concepts such as crossing Jordan River as entrance into Heaven?

3. Does this music edify other believers (1 Corinthians 10:23)? Do the lyrics build up believers.

4. Does this music appeal to my emotions more than my intellect or spirit (1 Corinthians 6:12)? The key words are “more than.” Do I want my preaching to appeal to the emotions of my listeners with tear jerking stories “more than” the intellect of my listeners with sound Bible teaching? It not either or but which has the priority in my preaching and singing. The message should trump the music.

Mark Dever says, “Simple is best. There’s certainly nothing wrong with electric guitars or a driving backbeat, and there are plenty of contemporary examples of churches and worship bands that are faithfully wedding popular music with theologically accurate lyrics. We are persuaded, though, that sparse, lightly amplified instrumentation and unobtrusive leaders are best for the weekly corporate worship gathering. The main reason is that quieter instrumentation allows the congregation to hear themselves singing, giving the lyrics center stage” (The Deliberate Church, page 122).

5. Does this music help me worship the Lord (Ephesians 5:19) or the performer? Some, not all, concerts are so entertaining that the unbiblical lyrics in the songs are overlooked because we are caught up in the performance. I recently experienced this at a church concert. The singers were so entertaining that the message at times was lost.

Mark Dever gives this advice: “Many of us have been in churches where the music leaders uses flamboyant hand motions, body language, or even facial expression. Vocalists who are intentionally self-effacing serve the congregation well by taking themselves out of the spotlight so that our attention is not directed toward them” (The Deliberate Church, page 122).

All styles of music can violate these principles if performed in the energy of the flesh and not the power of the Spirit. While some styles more easily disobey these Biblical principles more than other styles, no style is exempt. Someone well said, “The singer and the music should draw attention to the words of the song, and the words should draw attention to Christ.”

The powerful influence of music is seen in 1 Sam. 16:14-23 when David, the greatest harpist in Israel, calmed troubled King Saul with his music. “Aristotle said, ‘Music has the power to shape character.’ Satan is clearly using music to do that today. The rock lyrics of the 1960s and 1970s shaped the values of most Americans who are now in their thirties, forties, or fifties. Today, MTV shapes the values of most people in their teens and twenties” (Rick Warren, The Purpose Driven Driven Church, page 279).

The importance of music is seen in the 500 references to music in the Bible. One music department wrote: “The OT books of 1 and 2 Chronicles contain detailed instructions concerning temple worship, the appointment of spiritually qualified musicians, the training and skill level required of musicians, the use of instruments, etc. Clearly, music is a matter of great importance to God, as it should be for the Christian.”

Most Christian teachers agree that the Bible does not specify a certain style of music and here is where great controversy continues. “It is difficult to uncover a congregational definition of what constitutes good music, because choice of music is a matter of taste” (Robert Anderson, The Effective Pastor. Chicago: Moody Press, 1985, 325). A conservative Bible College addressed this issue: “While the Bible does not specifically address the issue of musical style, some standard can be established because of what has been revealed by God through natural revelation regarding the nature of man, the nature of music, and the way man responds to music. Scripture documents the fact that music is inherently capable of physical, mental, and spiritual impact upon man (1 Sam. 16:23).” In other words, while admitting that the Bible does not condone one style over another style, some styles can be deemed good or bad from other sources.

Rick Warren disagrees: “I reject the idea that music styles can be judged as either ‘good’ or ‘bad’ music. Who decides this? The kind of music you like is determined by your background and culture. Certain tones and scales sound pleasant to Asian ears; other tones and scales sound pleasant to Middle Eastern ears. Africans enjoy different rhythms than South Americans. To insist that all ‘good’ music was written in Europe two hundred years ago is cultural elitism. There certainly isn’t any biblical basis for that view” (PDC, page 281).

Warren tries to substantiate his view with debatable examples from church history. “The tune of Martin Luther’s A Mighty Fortress is Our God is borrowed from a popular song of his day. Charles Wesley used several popular tunes from the taverns and opera houses in England. John Calvin hired two secular songwriters of his day to put his theology to music. The Queen of England was so incensed by these ‘vulgar tunes’ that she derisively referred to them as Calvin’s ‘Geneva jigs’” (PDC, pages 282-3).

Dean B. McIntyre, a musician in the United Methodist Church who has an earned Ph.D. in music history from Texas Tech University refutes Warren’s claims. “The truth is that the Wesleys and Luther never made such use of saloon songs, nor would they have condoned such use. The misconception stems from confusion over a musical term—bar form. In German literature and music of the Middle Ages, ‘Bar’ was a poem consisting of three or more stanzas. It is not difficult to understand how the musical term, bar form, also sometimes referred to as bar tune can become confused in an uninformed person’s mind with barroom tune, drinking song, or some other title to indicate music to accompany the drinking of alcoholic beverages. John made use of new tunes composed or adapted from folk tunes, sacred and secular oratorio, and even operatic melodies. It should not escape us that whenever Wesley allowed the use of secular music—as from oratorio and opera—he used music of accepted high standard and almost always from classical rather than popular sources. In no instance did Wesley turn to tavern or drinking songs or other such unseemly sources to carry the sacred texts of songs and hymns.” Warren is correct in saying that different styles cannot be judged good or bad music, he is incorrect in his use of church history to substantiate his view.

While we will disagree on the styles of music used in churches, we can agree that to change the style of music in a local church is difficult. Church history is not debatable on this matter. Baptist pastor Benjamin Keach (1640-1704) was one of the first pastors to introduce congregational singing in the place of the singing of Psalms (metrical Psalms singing) in the local Baptist church in London that was later pastored by Charles Spurgeon. For more on Keach you can read a brief biography in Mark Dever’s Polity: Biblical Arguments on How to Conduct Church Life on pages 60-62. Keach, at first, could only lead his church to sing congregational songs at Communion which he did for six years. Next, he was able to sing congregational songs at days of public thanksgiving which he practiced for another 14 years. After this 20 year transition from the singing of Psalms to congregational songs, Keach was able to sing congregational songs each Sunday but only after his sermon. Even after 20 years, there were members who would leave the service in protest during the congregational singing. This group eventually left, and like good Baptists, started their own church with their preferred music. The new church did not except congregational singing until 1793 or 100 years after the battle over congregational singing began.

So what was a previous generation’s revolutionary music became the established music of the next generation. This is only one reason the choice of style in church music is difficult. We will discuss principles to help guide in the selection of music style in the next post.

Mark Driscoll in a YouTube on the Four Lanes of the Emerging Church admitted that he agreed with Wayne Grudem that all of the spiritual gifts were operative today. What does the Scripture say?

Spiritual gifts fall into two areas: Temporary sign gifts and permanent service gifts. 1 Cor. 1:22 states that the Jews require a sign. There have been three periods in the history of Israel when there have been sign gifts performed because Israel refused to believe God’s messengers and their God given message: Moses and Joshua (Exodus 4:1-9; 12:12; Numbers 27:18; Deuteronomy 34:9), Elijah and Elisah (1Kings 17:17-24; 2 Kings 4:18-37); and Christ and the Apostles (Matthew 8:1-18; 10:8; 12:22-32; 2 Corinthians 12:12). Just as sign gifts did not follow Moses and Joshua and Elijah and Elisha eras, sign gifts did not follow Christ and the Apostles because in the last era the canon of Scripture was completed.

The phrase “that which is perfect is come” in 1 Cor. 13:10 is a reference to the completion of the canon of Scripture. The context proves that “perfect” means the completion of the canon and not the return of Christ. In verse nine Paul said that the sign gifts through which God reveal knowledge were still in effect because revelation was incomplete: “for we know in part and we prophesy in part.” But in verse 10, Paul referred to the completed canon when revelation would no longer be incomplete: “but when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.” Also the word “perfect” (Greek teleiov) is a neuter noun. If “perfect” were referring to Christ the noun would have been masculine. Teleiov has a wide semantic range in meaning. One of the common meanings of teleiov which fits this context well is “complete” as in Hebrew 5:9. Christ was made complete in His incarnation in order to be our High Priest after the order of Melchisedec. When the canon was complete, the sign gifts were no longer necessary as a means of revelation.

Now for the explanation of specific sign gifts not operative today. The gift of apostleship was a foundational gift for the early church (Eph. 2:20; 2 Cor. 12:12) not needed today. Through the preaching and writing of the apostles we have the Scriptures. To be an offical apostle one had to have seen the resurrected Christ (Acts 1:22; 1 Cor. 9:1) which is no longer possible after the ascension of Christ.

The gift of prophecy was a gift of the first century when God was giving revelation which included the mystery of the Church (Eph. 3:5). In 1 Cor. 13:10 this gift ceased with the canonization of Scripture as explained before.

The gift of miracles was performed by the official apostles who witnessed Christ in His resurrection body and that office is no longer in existence as argued earlier. In Mark 16:17-20, after the ascension, the apostles “went forth and preached every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with miraculous signs following.” But in Heb. 2:3-4 the author stated the confirmation of the apostles with the gift of miracles was past.

The gift of miracles probably was the ability to cast out demons. Christ could cast out demons because it was a sign of His messiahship which Matthew recorded in Matthew 8-11 as credentials of the Messiah. Christ proved His messiahship by exercising power over physical maladies (Mt. 8:1-18), over nature (Mt. 8:23) and casting out demons (Mt.8:28-34).

The apostles could also cast out demons as a sign of their apostleship to the nation of Israel because the Jews require a sign (Mt. 10:6-8). Peter and Paul could also cast out demons because they were apostles (Acts 5:16 and 19:11-12) and the sign gifts had not yet ceased (1 Cor. 13:10). But this sign gift like all sign gifts ceased with the close of the canon.

No one has the gift of exorcism today because nowhere in the Epistles are believers commanded to exorcise demons. Casting out of demons was part of the apostolic commission in Mark 16:17-20 which also included speaking in tongues, taking up serpents, drinking deadly poisons, and healing the sick. All of these must be practiced not just one or two of them if a person is an apostle with this apostolic gift. Also as discussed before the writer of Hebrews 2:2-3 considered these confirming signs as past.

When Paul explained how believers could stand against the wiles of the devil in Ephesians 6:10-18, he did not mention exorcism as part of the whole armor of God so we can stand. Demons are cast out by the gospel not a gift. Paul informed the Colossian believers that because they had experienced the gospel (1:6) they had been delivered from the power of darkness and translated into the kingdom of the Son of His love (1:12-14).

The gift of healing is no longer operative today because this gift also was an apostolic sign gift which has ceased like the other apostolic sign gifts. The apostolic gift of healing included the ability to raise the dead (Acts 9:36-43; 20:6-12). The dead are not being raised today by faith healers who claim to possess the gift of healing.

Paul declared that “whether there be tongues, they shall cease.” As argued the Jews require a sign. God is no longer dealing with the Jews as a nation and therefore the gift is not necessary. In 1 Cor. 14, Paul was only regulating the legitimate gift of tongues until that gift ceased with the passing of the official apostles and the canonization of Scripture which church history confirms as had occurred.

THERE is a debate today among evangelicals concerning the age of earth. One view is more sympathetic to scientific evidence than the other. I think the reason for different conclusions about the age of the earth, is the inclusion of the so-called evidence from science into the hermeneutics of Genesis one and two. Both “Old Earth” and “Young Earth” advocates’ use of science is unconvincing. Science should not determine our interpretation of Scripture. The historical-grammatical method of hermeneutics alone should equip us to rightly divide God’s Word.

For example, the “Young Earth” advocates say God created with the appearance of age. This is obviously true with Adam and Eve. On their first day on earth, they had the appearance of being twenty or thirty. What about planet earth? Did it also have the apparent age of twenty or thirty? Wayne Grudem asks “Why would God create so many different indications of an earth that is 4.5 billion years old if this were not true” (Systematic Theology, page 307)? This is how old the earth is according to some evangelical “Old Earth” advocates like Davis A. Young. Of course, “Young Earth” advocate Henry Morris would argue against this dating. But again, Grudem asks “Would not the hundreds of Christians who are professional geologists be prepared to acknowledge the evidence (of Morris) if it were there?” Grudem acknowledges this is not the case. I personally believe in the “Young Earth” view, but not because of alleged scientific evidence.

The “Old Earth” view also has problems scientifically. Just as Grudem honestly evaluated the scientific weaknesses of the “Young Earth” position, he also points out the flaws of “Old Earth” conclusions. For example: “The interpretations of Genesis 1 presented by old earth advocates, while possible, do not seem natural to the sense of the text. Davis Young’s own solution of ‘seven successive figurative days of indeterminate duration’ really does not solve the problem, for he is willing to spread God’s creative activities around on the various days as needed in order to make the sequence scientifically possible. For example, he thinks that some birds were created before Day 5” (page 307). Grudem, who holds strongly to no view on the age of the earth, points out the fallacy of science in the hermeneutic process.

What are evidences from the text of Genesis one and two on the age of the earth?

“Old Earth” supporters say the word “day” is used of long periods of time in Scripture and so “day” must have that meaning in Genesis one and thus there must be an “Old Earth.” The word “day” (yom) in Genesis one and other Scriptures with a numerical designation (“the first day”) means a 24 hour day. Yom in Genesis 2:4 or 2:27 and other usages such as “the day of the Lord” does not have the qualifying nomenclature and is not limited to a 24 hour day. The numerical designation with “day” and the context of Genesis one demand a “Young Earth.”

You cannot say that the narrative genre of Genesis one and two is Hebrew Poetry, as “Old Earth” advocates contend, just because there is the literary convention of “repetition” and therefore cannot be interpreted literally. All genres in Scripture use repetition to stress important words, phrases, clauses, or sentences. See the repetition or inclusio in 1 Sam 2:10 and 2 Sam 22:51 of the important words “king” and “anointed” that bookend these books on the rise of the monarchy in Israel. Neither is the use of symbolic language limited to Hebrew Poetry. The dominant literary technique of Hebrew Poetry is tight parallelism in each verse. This unique literary devise is not in Genesis one. Genesis one and two are narratives giving the factual account of creation in six 24 hour days. Psalm 104 is the poetic version of the six days of creation. Genesis one and Psalm 104 are completely different literarily. Psalm 104 has the characteristic parallelism of Hebrew Poetry that is absent in the narrative of Genesis one.

God’s interpretation of the days of creation is clear in Exodus 20:9-11 in regard to the fourth commandment: “Six days (24 hour days) you may labor and do all your work. But the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God; on it you shall not do any work….For in six days (24 hour days) the Lord made the heavens…and he rested on the seventh.” Our interpretation of Scripture should not be based on what science has observed but on certain hermeneutic principles which applied to Genesis one produces the interpretation of a “Young Earth.”

Apparently, David read Genesis one and two and saw in this historical account of creation the greatness of God. In worship of his awesome Creator, David poetically gave vent to the praise in his heart in Psalm 104 for God’s six days of creation. For example, verse one is the poetic equivalent of Genesis 1:1: “Bless the Lord, O my soul. O Lord my God, you are very great; you are clothed with honor and majesty.” Since we can not see God who is spirit, we can observe what He has robed Himself in, His creation, and worship His almighty power that spoke the universe into existence. That same power made us a “new creation” (2 Corinthians 5:17) in Christ when we trusted Christ as our Savior. “Bless the Lord, O my soul.”