Responding to Error

In a prior post,^* I brought forth Vincent of Lérins’ governing theme to hold fast to “what has been believed everywhere, always, and by all” and to “follow the principles of universality, antiquity, and consent,” but what happens if a divergent instruction surfaces? What does a believer do? The proposed solution is given in Commonitories 3 via a series of questions leading to the proper conclusion.

What, therefore, will the Catholic Christian do if some members of the Church have broken away from the communion of universal faith? What else, but prefer the sanity of the body universal to the pestilence of the corrupt member?

Vincent begins with individuals in a local church or a church within a denomination/synod that goes rogue in teaching or practice. In such a situation the best course is to eschew the error, enticing though it may be, and cling to the safe harbor of certainty. This seems simple, but it leads to the next question which deals with systemic error.

What if a new contagion strives to infect not only a small part but the whole of the Church? Then, he will endeavor to adhere to the antiquity which is evidently beyond the danger of being seduced by the deceit of some novelty.

There have been aberrant teachings affecting swaths of believers including Gnosticism, Arianism, Nestorianism, and more recently, Pietism and Revivalism. What should be done if these contagions become epidemic, threatening the whole of Christ’s body? Flee novelty. For example. when Arius and Nestorius brought forth their ideas, they were compelling with both systems still being followed today in different sections of Christendom. The necessary treatment was someone like Irenaeus, Athanasius, or Cyril of Alexandria who would “Stand in the ways and see, and ask about the eternal pathways of the Lord. See what the good way is and walk in it." (Jer. 6:16 LXX) Since these teachings still inflict damage within Christendom and requires ongoing vigilance, we look to what should be done for an error that has become inbred.

What if in antiquity itself an error is detected, on the part of two or three men, or even on the part of a city or a province? Then, he will take care to prefer the decrees of a previous ecumenical council (if there was one) to the temerity and ignorance of a small group.

As mentioned by the lead-in, there have been and will be occasions when spiritual overseers are negligent or lax and allow error that becomes an embedded tenet for the next generation(s). When these are discovered, the proper approach should be to search out the correct doctrinal position set down in prior generations rather than continuing with the offshoot, then ask why the offshoot occurred. Church history is replete with examples of those who thought the church had become lax or negligent, left the established Church, and set out to form something new with examples from the second-century Montanus to the nineteenth-century John Nelson Darby, plus Thomas and Alexander Campbell. While these men recognized an indifference or disregard of piety, their solutions were to eschew what had been handed down and start afresh with new gatherings. Better would have been to re-examine the apostolic teaching as delivered from trusted, venerable sources recognized by the Church catholic, most notably the ancient ecumenical councils. But what if there is no official decision to fall back on?

Finally, what if such an error arises and nothing like a council can be found? Then, he will take pains to consult and interrogate the opinions of his predecessors, comparing them with (one another only as regards the opinions of) those who, though they lived in various periods and at different periods and at different places, nevertheless remained in the communion and faith of the One Catholic Church, and who therefore have become reliable authorities.

As he will discover, he must also believe without hesitation whatever not only one or two but all equally and with one and the same consent, openly, frequently, and persistently have held, written, and taught.

As one would expect, ecumenical councils did not address all the issues that might arise in a church body, nor were they intended to do so, leaving room for local or regional councils to further determine what was necessary. For those errors not previously covered, the writings of faithful men across diverse periods and locales would be researched to determine a solution. One would expect a certain harmony of teaching when comparing Clement of Rome to John Chrysostom, Basil the Great to Ambrose of Milan, Ephrem the Syrian to Bede. Out of this comparative work, one should find agreement or sufficient rapport to adduce a correction.

After the above reading, I can expect some to be thinking, “He sure sounds Roman Catholic.” No, it sounds like the Reformation era. While it is true that the church of Rome has relied on history and tradition to build their body of doctrine, they have no mechanism for correcting bad doctrine: what has been decreed or directed must be true because decisions from the papal see cannot err—even when they obviously do. The corrective principles outlined by Vincent are more in line with what Martin Luther, Philip Melanchthon, et al strove to provide in the “Augsburg Confession” with the follow-up “Apology of the Augsburg Confession” and then in the assembled works that make up the entire Book of Concord. Reformed and Presbyterian picked up on this, recognizing its wisdom under the slogan “The Church must always be reformed” (Ecclesia Semper Reformanda, often shortened to Semper Reformanda), not that the Church must always be remaking itself, rather there needs to be a regular examination and assess if we have strayed from catholic, apostolic teaching.

^* This second entry is long overdue.

Keeping It Straight

I have been reading Vincent of Lérins and the Development of Christian Doctrine prompting me to reread his Commonitories, which was written in the early fifth century but is relevant for today.
From the earliest years, Christianity has gone through a series of variations in doctrine. Judaizers and proto-Gnostics attempted to pivot the apostolic teaching to make it palatable for their belief systems; however, the apostle Paul had left explicit teaching on how to handle doctrine.

Hold fast the pattern of sound words which you have heard from me, in faith and love which are in Christ Jesus. That good thing which was committed to you, keep by the Holy Spirit who dwells in us.… And the things that you have heard from me among many witnesses, commit these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also. (2 Tim 1:13–14; 2:2)

Gnostics, Marcionites, etc. later attempted to sway the Gospel and doctrine or otherwise steal away followers, prompting teachers of the church to lay down what was important based on what they had received, notably Irenaeus in the second century (Against Heresies 10.1; Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching 6) and Tertullian in the third century (The Prescription Against Heretics 12). Following this desire for faithfulness, Vincent noted variations of interpretation that prompted him to write his treatise.

Holy Scripture, because of its depth, is not universally accepted in one and the same sense. The same text is interpreted differently by different people, so that one may almost gain the impression that it can yield as many different meanings as there are men. (Commonitories, 2)

He acknowledges that well-meaning teachers have unique perspectives on Scripture, then goes on to note egregious errors of specific teachers that had arisen in the post-apostolic era. To help steer clear of further error, Vincent set down what has become a well-known maxim: the Church should take care to hold fast to “what has been believed everywhere, always, and by all” (quod ubique quod semper quod ab omnibus creditum est). To quote the full paragraph:

In the Catholic Church itself, every care should be taken to hold fast to what has been believed everywhere, always, and by all. This is truly and properly “Catholic,” as indicated by the force and etymology of the name itself, which comprises everything truly universal. This general rule will be truly applied if we follow the principles of universality, antiquity, and consent. We do so in regard to universality if we confess that faith alone to be true which the entire Church confesses all over the world; in regard to antiquity if we in no way deviate from those interpretations which our ancestors and fathers have manifestly proclaimed as inviolable; in regard to consent if, in this very antiquity, we adopt the definitions and propositions of all, or almost all, the bishops and doctors. (Commonitories, 2)

Someone will say at this point that Vincent must be speaking of the Roman Catholic church with its heavy reliance on church tradition. While he is within proximity of Rome, he is writing at a time before the Roman church as we know it came into being. As well, the Church had not split into Western and Eastern but was attempting to operate in a united manner having already worked through three ecumenical councils (Nicea, Constantinople, and Ephesus).

While Commonitories is an ancient work, we have to remember that just because a book is new, does not mean that it is helpful or worthwhile. As C. S. Lewis rightly noted:

A new book is still on its trial and the amateur is not in a position to judge it. It has to be tested against the great body of Christian thought down the ages, and all its hidden implications (often unsuspected by the author himself) have to be brought to light.

The old ways are important for Christians, and with that in mind, I plan to occasionally  offer thoughts on it in hope of helping Christians “contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 1:3).

Sanitizing False Doctrine

Back in November, Bob Hiller wrote a piece at The Jagged Word entitled “Airbrushing Beth Moore” in which he discusses the advertising ploy of creating a sanitized persona in order to sell products.  This is a common way to move product by creating a false notion that by following through with her (or any person’s) materials, the reader will soon resemble the false impression displayed on the product.  The idea of self-improvement strokes egos: I can do it because the author says I can.  Hiller rightfully questions this tactic by noting that everyone involved in the production of the material is a sinner.  The impression floated to entice the buyer—physically, psychologically, and spiritually—is nonexistent.  I agree with Hiller’s assessment, but another aspect to this needs to be mentioned.  False doctrine is being airbrushed.

On the local church level, when someone wishes to make a mark on a social issue or just target a niche market, he or she will investigate the need, formulate a message around that need, and construct a presentation.  In order to be effective, something new needs to be stated and properly packaged.  Novelty attracts.  Crowds form and embolden new, novel doctrine, and the cycle continues.  Publishers do similarly.  To promote and sell materials for authors, they allow (and even encourage) questionable doctrine in their publications.  Poor, bad, and destructive doctrine is disseminated in order to stimulate discussion of the ideas and author notoriety.  Colleges and seminaries are not immune as professors attempt to make a name for themselves.  While all this provocation sells more units to the public and puts people in the pews, it also can have a deleterious effect on Christ’s Church.  Ideas have consequences.  Whatever the initial intent for the novel teaching, the end cannot be measured in the level of appeal but in faithfulness to the Savior and what He taught us.

What are we seeing from current teachers and preachers?  Mysticism is especially popular.  Everybody is suddenly being spoken to directly by the Holy Spirit (or unholy spirit) to say and do spiritual things that are otherwise nonsensical or even unbiblical.  Parishioners are encouraged to seek God (or god) within themselves to better understand the truth.

The Bible is neglected or demeaned.  Paraphrased versions of the Bible are used more than a solid translation.  Music no longer teaches truth, but an experience.  Teachers are asking their listeners to think less in objective truths and more in subjective, relational patterns.  Doctrine is taught in broad, sweeping terms having various meanings depending on the hearer.

What is the effect?  Denominational bodies and local churches see the tide of popularity and begin to wonder if all this hoopla might be the answer to their problems.  Christian conferences assemble speakers that stir the emotions but teach nothing that lasts.  Instead of evaluating the doctrine and practice against the Word of God, these organization take a pragmatic approach hoping for something to stick.  It never does, so the cycle continues for the next thing.

There is an old, familiar saying that if something is new, it is probably wrong.  This is never more true than when applied to the holy things of God.  Let’s sanitize the right things.  Keep doctrine and practice true and pure.

Heresy Is the New Orthodoxy

First Council of Nicaea

Christianity Today recently published the findings of a disturbing survey showing the abysmal condition of American evangelicalism.  While discerning Christians realize that CT regularly allows opinions from writers on the fringes of Christendom advocating questionable doctrine (thereby earning snarky publication names like Christianity Astray and Paganism Today), they do provide an outlet for trending data.

Reprising their ground-breaking study from two years ago, LifeWay Research and Ligonier Ministries released an update today on the state of American theology in 2016.  Researchers surveyed 3,000 adults to measure their agreement with a set of 47 statements about Christian theology—everything from the divinity of Christ to the nature of salvation to the importance of regular church attendance.

The article is worth reading.  To summarize, those claiming to be evangelical are as likely to follow heresy in different areas of doctrine as to historic orthodoxy.  That is disturbing.  We have a problem.  I do understand the scholarly feedback in the article that said much of the ignorance is due to new Christians not fully understanding the faith, but that should be a minority of the population surveyed, not 75%.

Based on what I have seen, the primary issue is that Christians are not being taught Christianity.  People are challenged to believe that Jesus can deal with their situation—even recognizing their own sin—but after being brought into the church, these same people are never pushed to understand what the faith they purport to follow entails.  Leaders of churches, publishing houses, and parachurch organizations openly promote moralism and mysticism instead of doctrine.  Why?  Because people want a way to feel good about their relationship with God and others, so pastors and publishers give that to them.  The emphasis has turned from spiritual growth to behavioral modification and emotional salve, and if people want to aid the organization financially, so much the better.

There was a day (and still is in some sectors) when people were catechized between one and three years, depending on the assembly, before being allowed into full communion.  Now, we might attend a new member class for a couple hours (if at all), then give an affirmation of a mission statement in order to gain all the rights and responsibilities of membership.  Afterward, all the teaching they receive is a steady diet of euphemisms.  Shame on us for allowing that to happen.  Can this trend be reversed?  Yes, but do we want to?  As long as there are pastors and teachers drawing people to themselves instead of to Christ, the emphasis will remain centered on tactics to entice people to whichever personality best promotes the image desired.

We have the divine mandate and the tools to turn the tide, so there is no excuse.  What we lack is the will.  Pastors are to lead the flock to good pasture.  Teachers are to teach.  We are not called to make Scripture palatable.  We are to deliver a divinely delivered curriculum—all that Jesus commanded us.  Anything less will not do.

[Prepublication update] After I scheduled this to post, Matthew Block posted his own thoughts on the same survey at First Things.  He has mentioned the need to recognize how God worked the historic faith in creeds, confessions, and dedication to Scripture.  I recommend that you read his thoughts as well.

A Lesson in Missing the Point

I have never been an admirer of Oswald Chambers’ My Utmost for His Highest.  My wife and I tried using it for devotions several years ago, which lasted about one week.  We could not understand the point of many readings.  Since that time, I have noted when someone makes reference to it, and the target posts are mixed in their usefulness.

Just recently in my Facebook feed I noticed a link to one of Chamber’s meditations, so I followed it and discovered the devotion was based on this part of Scripture:

Look at the birds of the air….  Consider the lilies of the field… (Matt 6:26, 28)

Immediately, we should see a problem.  While the segments are valid sentences, the context is missing.  Even Chambers’ opening sentence, while quoting more of the text, fails to give any context whatsoever:

“Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow: they neither toil nor spin”— they simply are!

The devotion goes downhill quickly from here.  In an apparent attempt to wax spiritual (perhaps we should say mystical?), Chambers proceeds along a tangential line unrelated to what Jesus was teaching.  He posits that we have a ministry and service that would be beneficial if we would go about our lives in Christ without trying to be consistent and useful (i.e., get out of our own way by “concentrating on our Father in heaven”).  His central statement is telling:

In essence, Jesus was saying, “Do not worry about being of use to others; simply believe on Me.”

The main point to this section of Matthew 6 is not worry about usefulness, but worry about worldly goods.  Jesus first tells the crowd in verses 19-24 to not hoard money or be greedy in an effort to give yourself a more secure future.  Then He follows in verses 25-34 with instruction to not be overly concerned about having too little, because the elect are ever in the Father’s care.  Are there spiritual aspects of Jesus’ teaching?  Certainly.  Just as we try to store up treasures on earth for the future, we try to store up teachers and teaching, which can lead to pride and great error.  Conversely, we should not be concerned about a dearth of instruction, because He can and will provide for our spiritual nourishment.

Rather than expounding on the passage in a meaningful way, Chambers demonstrated what can happen we someone tries to over-spiritualize, twist, or misapply Scripture for a preconceived intent.  He is not alone in this.  Since the early days of the Church, so-called Bible teachers and pastors have ridden their hobby-horses rather than deliver sound doctrine.  The people of God must be discerning, but this requires faithful men to teach them rightly.  Pray the Lord raise up such shepherds who will faithfully feed and care for the sheep.

Freedom: From What, To What?

Last week, one of the latest rising stars in Christian celebrity, Jen Hatmaker, wrote a piece on freedom that just made me shake my head for having a complete lack of direction.  But maybe that was the point of it.

Hatmaker opened the post with an anecdote about the chickens they are raising.  When the doors of the coop were opened, they would quickly escape the confines of the building, but after building a larger fenced-in area, these same chickens would not leave that area if the fence gate was left open: the chickens no longer craved freedom.  She followed this with the Christian-sounding teaching that God wants us free as well, citing:

“It is for freedom that Christ has set us free.  Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery” (Galatians 5:1).

Concluding with

That first sentence is everything.  Why did Jesus set us free?  So we would be free.  That’s basically it.  He emancipated us from everything that imprisons because freedom is its own reward.  To hear the Bible tell it, Christians should be the freest, most unstuck, unrestricted, liberated people breathing air.  [Emphasis hers]

Do you see a problem?  She says that the first sentence is everything.  It all sounds pretty good because there is freedom in Christ, except she never does say what we are free from.  She simply sets up this esoteric, ethereal, vague conception of freedom that a person can apply howsoever he or she wishes within the current experience of life.

What are we free from?
Hatmaker goes on to explain that people enjoy remaining in bondage.  I can agree.  Old patterns are comfortable like an old pair of blue jeans: they just fit.  Even when destructive, patterns of conduct and thinking built up over years stay with us.  This is a demonstrable social phenomenon.  She continues:

Who told you imprisonment was your only option?  What narrative have you believed that keeps you trapped, forfeiting your own freedom?  And how long have you chained yourself inside?  The prisons, they are many: toxic relationships, abusive churches, soul-crushing jobs, addictions, sorrow, impossible expectations, deferred dreams, the lie of scarcity, fear, regret.

Her entire thesis is that God makes us free from societal ills to change our attitudes and actions.  Have you noticed what is missing from her comments?  There is nothing about freedom from sin.  The apostle she is quoting, Paul, seemed to think that freedom from sin was the vital element, but Hatmaker has ignored it, except to give minor credence to her argument, as she continues with

“…through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit who gives life has set you free from the law of sin and death” (Romans 8:[2]).

but then goes into a diatribe on how Christians love imprisonment and misery over freedom.  Why is there no instruction on those things we are now from to perform in Christ?  She advocates Christians to flee bondage and pursue freedom in Christ without ever telling us what we are free to do.  Isn’t that as important as knowing what we are free from?  All we get is:

There is so much life out there, so much to see, so much to experience, so much to enjoy, so much space to heal and find your legs again and run.

And this means what?  Chickens run like crazy when their heads are cut off.  Is that what she intends?  I rather doubt it, but there is nothing solid on which to grasp.  This is all emotional fluff.

What are we free to do?
Since Jen Hatmaker failed to provide any meaningful direction for believers, allow me to offer some.

We are free to walk in newness of life (Rom 6:4).

Once we were dead, but now we are alive in Christ Jesus.  As a result, the life we live is lived in and through Him: it is His life lived through us.  We abide in Him, and He in us.  Having been brought from death to life, from slaves of sin to slaves of righteousness, we present our members as instruments of righteousness for Christ’s sake.

We are free to do good works (Eph 2:10).

This is more important than we realize, because we do not understand that good works are only truly good in Christ and that they are prepared by God Himself for us to do.  We have a stewardship that must used properly, for the kingdom and not handled lightly or selfishly.

To whom are we free to do these good works?

To our neighbor.  And who is our neighbor?  When a lawyer asked that question of Jesus, he got more than expected.

Jesus replied, “A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and he fell among robbers, who stripped him and beat him and departed, leaving him half dead.  Now by chance a priest was going down that road, and when he saw him he passed by on the other side.  So likewise a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side.  But a Samaritan, as he journeyed, came to where he was, and when he saw him, he had compassion.  He went to him and bound up his wounds, pouring on oil and wine.  Then he set him on his own animal and brought him to an inn and took care of him.  And the next day he took out two denarii and gave them to the innkeeper, saying, ‘Take care of him, and whatever more you spend, I will repay you when I come back.’  Which of these three, do you think, proved to be a neighbor to the man who fell among the robbers?”  He said, “The one who showed him mercy.”  And Jesus said to him, “You go, and do likewise.”  (Luke 10:30-37)

That outcome was unexpected.  The Law and Prophets singled out widows and orphans to be given care because they were needy and defenseless, so the robbed and beaten man in the parable would have been acknowledged to be a neighbor.  This was easily grasped.  Jesus turns things, though, by pointing out that the outcast was also a neighbor.  Those who were once afar off are now brought near through the blood of Christ (Eph 2:13).

This list is not close to comprehensive, but I wanted to make the point that any attempt to give a biblical response about freedom in Christ can be answered with little attempt.  If an author is unable or unwilling to provide guidance to answer a question raised, then we must assume that person is either unqualified to teach or is attempting to subvert sound teaching.  In either case, we are free to recognize that person should be marked out and avoided.  Let us rather move on to maturity in Christ.

We Believe, Teach, and Confess

In the Lutheran confessions, The Epitome of the Formula of Concord regularly uses the phrase “we believe, teach, and confess” to explicitly state doctrinal points held by those within the Lutheran branch of the reformation.  The authors of the document are to be commended for the regular usage of these words as they give a threefold understanding of how we are to grasp the faith and make it known.  In this post I would like to examine what it means to believe, teach, and confess.

What we believe is based on the accumulation of facts and propositions.  As data are assimilated, adjustments can and will be made in order to properly categorize the input into relevant models for further mental processing.  When the data agree with already held views, the sorting process occurs rather easily, even subliminally.  Where conflicting, however, the individual must either abandon the new data as fallacious or make shifts in order to recategorize and reestablish systems of thought.  Even when no new fact becomes available, we review our understanding according to our environment and make adjustments accordingly.  Also, because belief is individual, there can be as many variations of comprehension and opinion as there are combinations of stimuli.  In order to establish a consistent system, a focused, disciplined pattern of instruction orients the person through a combination of truth claims and conclusions—one building on another.  As the individual grasps the concepts, the mind is ordered accordingly, so that new data and stimuli are more properly evaluated.

Belief systems manifest themselves in the way we order our lives and interact with one another.  The interactions teach, both implicitly and explicitly, what the beliefs are.  The setting is of no consequence.  Whether a teacher-student setting or a conversation, beliefs are communicated.  The instructor (i.e., the one communicating beliefs) will offer what has been learned through a combination of formal instruction and experience.  It is the former that should be prominent when laying down precepts, while the latter is useful for example or application.  This is an important distinction.  The reverse leads to unreasoned (and unreasonable) thinking, therefore instruction is be rooted in a framework serving as the reference point from which the data and concepts flow.  In a codified form, this framework digests and systematizes the body of knowledge from an objective base.  Multiple professional fields utilize such documents to standardize their bodies of knowledge for future instruction and reference.  These bodies of knowledge are created collaboratively by experts in their respective fields as standard works.

Christianity has a body of knowledge that is similarly assembled in that it has multiple writers that added their works over time, however a key difference is in the direct hand of God as Author and Editor overseeing the entire project.  The Lord revealed Himself at the beginning, and as time wore on, further revealed His nature, immediate plans, and future hope.  This historical backdrop,though appropriate for revealing the story of man’s redemption in Christ, requires those who understanding this unfolding aspect to accurately teach what the Almighty had given and to Whom and what He was pointing.  The final product is a largely narrative recounting of a Divine hand moving man toward a final end of full and complete reconciliation, restoration, and renewal of all things in Christ.

Because of Scripture’s narrative nature, men have attempted to assemble concise statements as useful tools for both learning and communicating the faith.  In the time of the early church, three were written that continue regular use today: Apostles’ Creed, Nicene Creed, and Athanasian Creed.  These creedal formulae range in length depending on the degree of specificity needed to ensure understanding and clarity of the subject matter and would later be incorporated into larger confessional documents.  Over time, larger confessional documents (e.g., Augsburg Confession, Westminster Confession of Faith [WCF], London Baptist Confession of Faith [LBCF]) were constructed, reflecting the framers’ understanding of Holy Writ within the context of cultural and theological struggles within the Church.  Even those denominational bodies with no stated confessional document (“no creed but the Bible” or “no creed but Christ”) operate in accord with the twentieth-century multi-volume work The Fundamentals, edited by A. C. Dixon and later by R. A. Torrey.

This does not absolve responsibility to know the Scriptures themselves.  Only by being constant and regular in their study do we maintain a steady course.  The Scriptures are the norm by which all confessions are normed (norma normans, Latin for “the norming norm”).  Confessional statements must be formed and checked against God’s word to ensure trustworthy transmission and correct understanding.  However, before the invention of the printing press, personal copies of the Bible were not available, therefore the creeds, along with liturgies and hymns, were invaluable to communicate Law and Gospel.  Even with the modern proliferation of Bible editions available today those ignorant or immature in spiritual matters need systematized collections to group the major truths of doctrine.  Similarly, those mature in the faith find the confessions and creeds useful for teaching the doctrines of God, aiding the ability to hold fast to and pass along the truth.

When Worlds Collide
While we order our belief systems to make sense of all we have received, there are times when logical contradictions arise.  Somewhere within the stream of Bible – Confession – Teaching – Belief there arises a disconnect, internally to the body of doctrine or externally through interrelation with the world, so that two or more held facts or conceptions come into conflict.  What should be a self-checking system of discipleship moves gradually off course, resulting in beliefs that do not adhere with what is taught, or teaching what is not confessed, or confessing what is not inscripturated.  Individuals and groups stray from the truth delivered to them, choosing to improve what has been given with input from paganism, naturalism, etc.  What remains is a fractured body of believers, each doing what is right in his own eyes.  While affirmations are given both to the Bible and confessional statements, individuals practice a personal religion.

In order to accommodate the individuality, denominational bodies shift their teaching to allow for the diversity of opinion.  Where a conflict arises with a confession, the document is relegated to an historical status much as a museum piece—interesting to look at, but irrelevant for the present—and where the conflict is with the Bible itself, interpretations are manufactured to soften the clear word of God in favor of the contemporary focus.  There is now no end of confusion and discord: Presbyterians jettison the WCF; Baptists ignore the LBCF; Lutherans cast off the Book of Concord; and Roman Catholics discard the canons.  This manifests itself with individuals and groups within a denominational framework advocating for positions opposed to the confessions they supposedly hold onto.

Peace for Our Time—Only in Christ
Read your confessional documents.  I am constantly surprised by those who refer to themselves as being of groups with well-defined confessions and catechisms but have never read any beyond what was required to be confirmed. Then abide by your confessional documents.  If you no longer agree, affirm the difference, leave that confessional stance, and find a group more aligned to your beliefs.  If you no longer believe in Reformed principles, go to the group most closely aligned with your principles.  Do not call yourself Reformed (or Lutheran or Baptist or whatever you are leaving).  Instead, people want to stay within their respective bodies, hoping to influence it away from its moorings.  This tactic has a storied history in Christendom.  Montanus, Arius, and Pelagius were early purveyors of new ideas within the Church who needed to be resisted.  And lest there be a bit of Pharisaical pride in the non-confessional camp for not being like “those groups” feuding over confessional statements—the “non-con” wing of Christianity seems more likely to be cock-eyed pragmatists, working toward Christian unity for the sake of unity regardless of harmful the instruction by wolves fomenting discord.

Regardless of our opinion towards confessions, read your Bible.  Listen to it being taught.  Study it in context.  Memorize it.  Bind God’s word as a sign on your hand, and let it be as frontlets between your eyes, and write it on the doorposts of your house and on your gates (Deut 6:8-9).  The commands of the Lord should be ubiquitous—a lamp to your feet and a light to your path (Psa 119:105).  Shepherds, be faithful in leading the flock to green pastures and still waters.  Make disciples: baptize and teach all that the Lord  has commanded.  We have been given a sure standard.  Believe.  Teach.  Confess.

Mourning a Love Lost

The word of the Lᴏʀᴅ came to me, saying,
“Go and proclaim in the hearing of Jerusalem: Thus says the Lᴏʀᴅ,
    I remember the devotion of your youth,
        your love as a bride,
    how you followed me in the wilderness,
        in a land not sown.
    Israel was holy to the Lᴏʀᴅ,
        the firstfruits of his harvest.
    All who ate of it incurred guilt;
        disaster came upon them,
               declares the Lᴏʀᴅ.”  (Jer 2:1-3)

The Holy One of Israel takes the relationship between himself and his people seriously.  In the above, YHWH is looking back to an early time in Israel’s history when the people were redeemed and delivered from bondage (De 7:8; 9:26; 13:5; 15:15; 21:8; 24:18).  He describes that time as full of love and devotion as a bride for her husband in the way they followed the Lord.*  He opposed whomever attempted to use or turn the people for his own desires.  At this time, however, the nation had turned its back on God, so that he asks, “What wrong did your fathers find in me that they went far from me, and went after worthlessness, and became worthless?” (Jer 2:5)  He then goes on to identify symptoms showing their forgetfulness and neglect.

God’s deeds and word

They did not say, “Where is the Lᴏʀᴅ
    who brought us up from the land of Egypt,
who led us in the wilderness,
    in a land of deserts and pits,
in a land of drought and deep darkness,
        in a land that none passes through,
        where no man dwells?”  (Jer 2:6)

The priests did not say, “Where is the Lᴏʀᴅ?”
    Those who handle the law did not know me;
the shepherds transgressed against me;
    the prophets prophesied by Baal
    and went after things that do not profit.  (Jer 2:8)

The people had forgotten the place from which they had been redeemed, the plagues that gained them release, and the steadfast love of the Lord as he watch over and cared for them through the 40 years of wandering.  Somewhere along the way, the mighty deeds became passé.   Not content to dwell on the goodness of God and his continuing, bounteous care for them, the people chased after what the surrounding nations were offering.  As a result, they defiled what God had freely supplied and became an abomination through their pursuits.

One might think that though the general populace might lose sight of their Lord, those who care for the holy teachings of God would surely pay close attention, but this was not the case.  Priests disdained the holy things.  Proclaimers of the Law spoke with the authority of false gods, not the only true God.  Service for the Lord was replaced with service for self.

In effect the nation had thrown off their God for another.  What had been their glory was retained in name only but trampled underfoot as worthless.  Instead of continuing to be refreshed at the fount of blessing, the people went after the new and different to satisfy a longing only able to be satiated by faith in their God and Savior.

Their rightful position

Is Israel a slave?  Is he a homeborn servant?
    Why then has he become a prey?  (Jer 2:14)

Israel was an elect nation with an exalted position.  They had received the Law, the promises, the blessings in order to be a light to the nations as they reflected the glory of God; yet now the nation was a shadow of its former self as they have been ravaged.  The people had brought this condition upon themselves as they sought earthly solutions for a spiritual problem.  They forsook the Lord and no longer feared him as they once had, even pretending to not have gone after false gods when the evidence was all around.  They lusted for new gods and now wanted to wriggle free being discovered in their idolatry.

God’s discipline

Why do you contend with me?
    You have all transgressed against me, declares the Lᴏʀᴅ.
In vain have I struck your children;
    they took no correction;
your own sword devoured your prophets
    like a ravening lion.  (Jer 2:29-30)

The Lord attempted to correct his children.  He loved them and did not want to see their ruin.  Instead of seeing the paths of uprightness as the ways of life, they are viewed as shackles from which to gain release.  The robe of righteousness is exchanged for a harlot’s garment to chase lustily after the things of the world and then claim innocence of any wrongdoing.

Their indifference

If a man divorces his wife and she goes from him
    and becomes another man’s wife, will he return to her?
Would not that land be greatly polluted?
You have played the whore with many lovers;
    and would you return to me? declares the Lᴏʀᴅ.  (Jer 3:1)

Israel had played the harlot and been discovered.  Now they were expecting the Lord to just accept them back, shrugging off severity of their sins and damage done.  The Northern Kingdom, Israel, had performed idolatrous acts before the Lord and were carried off for their iniquities.  Judah had seen this and in their indifference had done the same, knowing the consequences, making their acts of rebellion more repugnant than their conquered brethren.

God still cares about these things
While reading this passage, I was thinking on the state of God’s people, the American church, today.  The similarities are striking: little or no remembrance of the wondrous deeds of our Lord, the disregard for faithful teaching of Scripture, a burning desire to apply the world’s methods in Christian worship, and flippantly thinking that our corruptions do not matter so much.  Much incorrect and invalid teaching is found in pulpits today.  Worship practices border on or overstep the line into the grotesque and barbaric.  There are several websites that can point you to specific examples.

Parachurch ministries are equally guilty.  TBN has a network full of bad teachers.  Beth Moore has been around awhile and still mishandles the Bible.  A newer questionable women’s ministry has arisen—IF:Gathering, whose next annual videocast is being actively promoted through evangelical churches.  Their stated purpose is

We exist to gather, equip and unleash the next generation of women to live out their purpose.

This sounds all well and good, but at least two ladies involved with the ministry—Ann Voskamp and Christine Cain—are known false teachers.  Where is the discernment?

Are all American churches corrupt?  No, but one wonders how small the remnant of the faithful might be.  In my county of 215,000 residents, I continually see churches attempt to mimic popular, trending tactics promoted elsewhere in the country.  The faithful churches go largely unnoticed, but they can succumb to deception by actively or passively endorsing ministries like those I note above, which eventually undermine and erode sound doctrine.

God’s continual call to fealty
In Jeremiah 3:12 and following, God has the prophet proclaim a call to return.  He desires for his chosen people to repent of their sins and be restored to their rightful place as sons that he might be a faithful shepherd to them.  The New Testament church has received the same call.  In Revelation 2-3, John is told to write messages to churches in various states of decay.  Something is amiss in most of them: Smyrna and Philadelphia do not receive a corrective.  The church in America (and Western Civilization?) is in a similar place: we have left our first love; we allow aberrant teaching; we have tolerated the woman Jezebel; we are apathetic.  Jesus still calls for his people to repent—empowered by God to do the first works; to hold fast; to put away false teaching and complacency.  He remains faithful to receive us.

Getting Back in Time

Through Glenn Chatfield, I learned of this post from The Cripplegate aimed at those who wish to repristinate the Church—or at least their own assembly—into a New Testament likeness.  Those desiring the “bliss” of the infant church are actually cherry-picking to create a sentimental caricature.  I especially liked some points made at the end:

I rarely hear people saying, “Hey, let’s not forget that in Acts 14:1, Paul and Barnabas spoke so effectively that a great number of Jews and Greeks believed.  Let’s make sure our pastors are trained in expository preaching!”

I rarely hear “Hey guys, we need to get back to proclaiming an exclusive gospel like Peter did in Jerusalem in Acts 4:12!”

I never hear “You know, Acts 17:11 teaches us that the church in Berea checked everything by the standard of the scriptures; we need to really cultivate a systematic theological and biblical training program in our church to better equip us to do that!”

Whether or not your assembly is not leaning towards a “return to Acts,” you can glean some things to consider.

Proclaimers of Truth or Modifiers of Behavior?

On any given Sunday morning, a man stands before a group of people in order to share what he has studied recently.  Hours of preparation are now culminating in a delivery to attentive ears—hearts desiring the pure milk of the word, hopeful of what God will be saying through his servant.  For 30-45 minutes, the message continues in a crafted rhetoric with interspersed humor, anecdotes, and word pictures toward an over-arching point summarized in the conclusion.  At the end one may feel invigorated by being taken the the heights of glory or joys of victory.  Perhaps there is peace, knowing the comfort of certain promises.  Maybe there was condemnation for not doing enough with the resulting sense of challenge and determination for more and better.

And maybe, just maybe, you heard of Christ and him crucified.

This is not to depreciate what was undoubtedly great effort to create and deliver, nor can it be said that I have no appreciation for responsibilities within and without the local church and his family in particular that must be juggled in order to bring the message.  My concern is this: are you and I hearing the word of God being rightly expounded, or are we being manipulated in order to fulfill a need or adhere to the vision of the pastor or overseers.  In other words, did the man make Christ known, or did he try to manipulate his listeners with a view to a particular outcome?

Why raise the issue?
Many have taken mega-churches to task for their lack of biblical teaching during their main meetings.  Names like Elevation, Hillsong, Saddleback, Lakewood, and Willow Creek are regular fodder as messages from their pulpits are weighed and found wanting, they soften or eliminate what scripture specifically says concerning any number of topics.  Yet these high profile groups are but the tip of the iceberg.  Smaller assemblies regularly engage in similar tactics hoping to gain the same levels of success.  Instead of preaching the whole counsel of God, they work on key topical areas to move the flock in a particular direction.

Topical studies are useful and should be used to draw together scripture as a cohesive unit.  The messages with which I contend are those that apply psychological pressure, rather than sound exegesis, in order to manipulate the intended audience.  The pulpit turns from being a place from which flowed the promises of God to a platform for casting the leaders' joint vision for the future.  A series (or more) of meetings is used to adjust group thinking until all are on the same program.  You will be assimilated into the collective: resistance is futile.  Or those that resist are invited to leave.

Why would assembly leaders do this?
Multiple forces exert pressure on local gatherings.  Externally, there are laws of the land and shifting cultural norms that attempt to tear down the fabric of the gospel.  Internally, congregants see success of other groups or read of innovative ideas that might be implemented.  This is not to say only those enduring difficulties fall into the mentality of manipulation.  Assemblies that have remained faithful and grown through sound instruction and care may find themselves at a place where they feel a need to shift from "small thinking" to "large thinking"—church for 50 being different than church for 500 or 5,000.

What does scripture say?
Scripture does not have alternate organizational goals and models based on size.  Instead, there is a unity of purpose and duties regardless of attendance, location, or other factors.

• •  The duty of the elder/overseer in the local assembly is to "shepherd the flock of God that is among you" (1 Pet 5:2) and manifests itself in varying ways: instructing (Tit 1:9), rebuking (Tit 1:9, 13), overseeing (1 Tim 5:17), etc.  
• •  Faithful men are trained to carry on God's word (2 Tim 2:2).
• •  Spiritual gifts are employed for mutual encouragement and edification (Rom 12:6-8; 1 Cor 12:4-11, 28-30).
• •  The goal of the church is always to make disciples (Matt 28:19-20).

When the assembly finds the size, location, etc. cumbersome, the answer is not to motivate people for a new program or project, but remain faithful to sound teaching and do what is required to maintain it.

Does Your Approach to Doctrine Question or Emphasize Truth?

Today we tend to speak of doctrine with a question mark rather than an exclamation point.  We approach the Scriptures as if this Word were not clear in its teaching but dark and hidden and, more importantly, uncertain.  We approach doctrine or dogma as if it were a four letter word to be avoided in polite conversation.  It is both because we have grown ashamed and embarrassed about what the Church has believed, confessed, and taught or because we no longer have confidence that this is the truth that is to be our way and the light than enlightens our darkness.  We approach belief both as if it were personal and individual to define and determine and as if nothing were clear enough to be taught with authority and confidence (a truth for all time).

Posted by Larry Peters

What Does This Confess?

In the Fall 2012 edition of Issues, Etc. Journal, Todd Wilken has written an essay, "Behind the Music: The REAL Worship War," on the true reason behind the battles concerning worship music and practice.  He writes from a Lutheran perspective comparing the historic liturgy to contemporary innovations being foisted on LCMS congregations, so a direct application may not be possible, but the points raised are useful to the church catholic.

When staring up the barrel of worship war artillery, those countless and relentless changes and innovations to Sunday morning worship, just ask a simple question: What does this confess?

The worship war is about doctrine.  Doctrine is teaching.  So, what does the pastor’s latest new idea for worship teach?  What does it confess?  What is the new idea’s, the new practice’s Doctrine?  What will we be teaching and confessing if we do this?

Before the lead singer steps into the spotlight, before the guitar sounds its first power-chord, the question must be asked.  What does this confess?  Before the house lights dim or the video splash screen rolls, ask: What does this teach?  Before we lift our eyes to the big screens or our voices in another Hillsong or Casting Crowns chorus, ask: What are we teaching and confessing with this? (10)

I and others have raised the same basic questions concerning the use of "Praise & Worship" music during morning worship: what doctrines do they teach?  This tends to be the unasked question when these songs are selected for use.  Ancillary to that is a less-considered question: what does the presentation or implementation of this music teach?  New style of music is not really the issue, but the standard accompaniment of CCM music is the downplay of law, gospel, doctrine, etc. and has over time caused Christians to think "the worship war is about music because, after 50 years of the worship war, music is all that is left."

Without understanding that the real issue is doctrine, we reduce the argument to the experience perceived.

Did it feel right?  Did it make me feel better?  Did I like it?  Did it move me?  When your criteria for deciding whether the worship was good is the same used to decide whether your U2 concert tickets were worth the $250 you paid for them, something is wrong. (14-15)

Every person engaged in music ministry, every elder in the local assembly needs to evaluate the message of what is sung as a regular part of the worship time or specially performed for specific occasions and ask the question Todd Wilken asks: "What does this confess?"

The Test of Relevantism

Mark Kalthoff has written an article defending the importance of liberal arts in a well-rounded education.  He makes the following observation concerning American academic culture.

We live in a culture of "relevantism."  Nearly every student, it seems, arrives on campus primed to ask, "How is this course, this assignment, this lecture relevant?  What can I do with it?  Tell me its immediate practical use."  Such questions arise because too many Americans know nothing of the old distinction between true education and mere training. *

The mentality of "relevantism" is not unique to academia but flourishes in the Church.  Pastors have recognized this shift and are increasingly shifting content from pulpit and classroom to deliver practical application useful for life in the church body or conducting oneself in the world.  In order to facilitate this change, doctrine is not given a priority except as it might bolster an application being presented.  Exegetical content give way to the thematic.  Categories of doctrine and theology become at best useful descriptions of what a local assembly or denomination holds as corporately true, though relegated to a status of sentimentality for individuals to pull out when opining about better past times but not able to immediately address pressing issues of the day.  The fruit of this culture is a group mentality that theology is boring and doctrine divides.  The overseers in a local body have a vested interest in resisting this wave of pragmatism and instead teaching the scriptures as they present themselves.  Doctrine and theology are not the bane of Christian life but vital instruments the Holy Spirit uses in us to effect godliness and repel false teaching.

Kalthoff warns against the attitude of immediate usefulness by reminding the reader that this is not the best gauge:

In view of this distinction between mere training and true education, I propose that submitting everything to a crass "relevantism test," the test that first asks, "What can I do with it?" is to ask the wrong question.  It is like asking about the uses for a newborn baby.  When immediate usefulness becomes the measure of value, we risk discarding things whose worth may be inestimable.  Further, it happens to be the case that things pursued for their own sake without regard to their practical utility quite often have the happy consequence of being useful in ways not originally perceived. †

Practical application has its place in Christian education, but we err when practicality is the totality of  education without establishing a foundation and building the superstructure within which the application is founded.  The usefulness or appropriateness of the basic instruction is often not immediately discernible.  Many years may go by before usefulness is realized. ‡  Both the instructor and student (or in Christian terms: disciple-maker and disciple) need to have the long view in mind.  As the information is assimilated, logical conclusions can be formed and used in appropriate times and seasons.

How does this instruction work itself out in the regular meetings of believers?  Ready-Fire-Aim tactics will not work.  Instruction needs to be consistent and committed, teaching the whole counsel of God and the plan of redemption.  Bible books should be covered as well as major theological sections (i.e., Christology, Hamartiology, Soteriology, et al) using a multi-year plan.  Will people balk at this approach and call out for something more "tangible" for today?  Yes, they will, but like any educator knows, the uneducated do not know what is essential, so understanding of the need must be integrated into the curriculum.

Someone once asked me if I want a church to be a mini-seminary.  No, I want believers in my assembly without correct doctrinal knowledge to properly handle the word of truth (2 Tim 2:15) and be firmly grounded, even if we have to teach "boring" things to get there.


* Mark A. Kalthoff, "The Usefulness of Useless Knowledge: Defending Classical Liberal Education from Melanchthon to Newman," Logia, Vol 21, No. 2, p. 51.
† Ibid.
‡ For instance, I now wish that more American citizens had paid attention to their instruction in American Government—or were even taught it.

Laying It Out Plainly

C.F.W. Walther began a lecture in September, 1885 with this paragraph:

Currently, anyone who insists that pure doctrine is a very important matter is immediately suspected of not having the right Christian spirit.  The very term "pure doctrine" is considered taboo and is outlawed.  Even contemporary theologians who regard themselves to be among the confessional Lutherans usually speak of pure doctrine only in scornful terms, treating it as the embodiment of "dead letter" theology.  If anyone holds fast to pure teaching and attempts to fight against any false doctrine, he is put down as a heartless and unloving fanatic. *

How much more so today.  Pure (i.e., unadulterated) doctrine is scorned by postmodernists because it posits a transcendent and knowable truth, thus inhibiting conversation with those who disagree over faith traditions.  My experience is that more is learned and exchanged among debating parties by making objective truth claims.  They can and will disagree.  So much the better.  Conversations work when a common bond already exists, but when worldviews collide, each must articulately and accurately state his or her position in order to gain ground.

Just recently, David Mason wrote an op-ed in the New York Times entitled "I'm a Mormon, Not a Christian." What a breath of fresh air! Instead of making the case that Mormons and Christians are somehow following the same path, he freely admits the truth.  No hiding behind the doublespeak that they are just another denomination.  I respect that, even though he is completely wrong and will suffer the consequences at the judgement seat of Christ.

Christians are called to do no less.  This is not a day to sit idly by and "make nice" just to get along.  If the Bible is true and God is God, we must stand on that truth.  If they are anything less, we should give up and never darken a church door again.

* Law and Gospel: How to Read and Apply the Bible, (trans. Christian C. Tiews; St Louis: Concordia, 2010), 393.

Three Stages of Error

When error is admitted into the Church, it will be found that the stages of its progress are always three.  It begins by asking toleration.  Its friends say to the majority: You need not be afraid of us; we are few, and weak; only let us alone; we shall not disturb the faith of the others.  The Church has her standards of doctrine; of course we shall never interfere with them; we only ask for ourselves to be spared interference with our private opinions.  Indulged in this for a time, error goes on to assert equal rights.  Truth and error are two balancing forces.  The Church shall do nothing which looks like deciding between  them; that would be partiality.  It is bigotry to assert any superior right for the truth.  We are to agree to differ, and any favoring of the truth, because it is truth, is partisanship.  What the friends of truth and error hold in common is fundamental.  Anything on which they differ is ipso facto non-essential.  Anybody who makes account of such a thing is a disturber of the peace of the church.  Truth and error are two coördinate powers, and the great secret of church-statesmanship is to preserve the balance between them.  From this point error soon goes on to its natural end, which is to assert supremacy.  Truth started with tolerating; it comes to be merely tolerated, and then only for a time.  Error claims a preference for its judgments on all disputed points.  It puts men into positions, not as at first in spite of their departure from the Church’s faith, but in consequence of it.  Their recommendation is that they repudiate the faith, and position is given them to teach others to repudiate it, and to make them skillful in combating it.

Charles P. Krauth, The Conservative Reformation, 1923

Three Cheers for Dogmatism

Bill Muehlenberg has written a good piece entitled "Three Cheers for Dogmatism," extolling the virtue of dogma and sound doctrine in Christianity.  After sharing scripture on the need to pronounce absolute truth, he summarizes them this.

These and other passages make it quite clear: dogmatism is a good thing.  We all should be dogmatic.  That is, all believers should firmly and resolutely hold to sound dogma, and not allow ourselves to be tossed about by every wind of doctrine.

He then goes on to give quotes from John Stott and G. K. Chesterton to make his point.

As one who is not afraid to correct someone or something leading away from the biblical faith, I applaud those who follow through with Paul's instruction and admonition as given in the post or take up what Jude wrote in his epistle to "contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints." (Jude 1:3)  In the face of so many promoting meaningless relevance, vacuous conversations, and nebulous unity, let us instead take comfort and strength in Paul's admonition:

Therefore, my beloved brothers, be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, knowing that in the Lord your labor is not in vain.  (1 Cor 15:58)

Banishing Sinners but Welcoming Heretics

Let me say up front that the management of any medium presenting itself as Christian is welcome to decide who should or should not be interviewed by any of the staff.  Public service spots are welcome to help understand local government agencies and officials or various ministries.

In the same way Bible teachers should be interviewed to draw out solid Biblical teaching and application.  (Those who are in Christian media take note.  The format works.)  There is also a benefit of interviewing those who consider themselves orthodox but are not.  I have heard excellent interviews of authors and teachers being asked to explain why that person is pursuing a certain course.  This is usually followed with commentary by someone who understands the issues needing to be addressed offering correction for the errant teaching.  This format is good and productive for the consumer.

Having said this, I must highly object to a recent interview by a host of a local Christian radio station of one member of the singing group Phillips, Craig, and Dean as if they were fellow brethren in Christ.  These men are heretics—pastors who do not believe in the Triune God as defined by the Nicene Creed.  These men are not worshiping the same God as true Christians, but a completely different god.  Their god is one in both being and person, manifesting himself as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as the need dictates.  Christians hold that God is one being having three persons.  The difference is major and worth fighting over.  In the fourth century Athanasius fought for the truth of trinitarian doctrine for years though exiled repeatedly.

How could the station authorize this interview the way it was presented?  The obvious answer is two-fold.  First, this is primarily a music station.  As a result, they are expected to interact with any nationally known figure whom might be in the area singing Christian music.  Second, there is little or no discernment within the organization or its parent.  The station promotes itself as being uplifting and family-friendly.  Whatever therapeutic notion or sentimentalism which draws or keeps listeners will be used.

Are station personnel obligated to interview these people?  No.  As a matter of fact, this same station has banned singers from the playlist for falling into sexual sins.  The message is that the act of a person who sinned badly cannot be tolerated, yet doctrine that can lead straight to hell is not an issue.  This is alarming and wrong.  Where are our priorities?

Perhaps I should not be so critical.  After all, the station is just reflecting the state of the American church and reacting to the market forces of the local membership rolls.  Isn't that a sad thought.  But rather than dwell on spiritual apathy, the proper response is to continue teaching sound doctrine.  The more who are able to rightly divide the word of God, the better the condition the local church.

Fight the good fight.

Sound Theology Brings Peace Of Mind

A friend shared this Peanuts cartoon on Facebook.  (Thanks, Karen!)  The simple truth is striking.  When we are not grounded in God's word, whether through ignorance or disobedience, no assurance can be found.

Consider the analogies used in scripture beginning with Jesus:

Everyone then who hears these words of mine and does them will be like a wise man who built his house on the rock.  And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house, but it did not fall, because it had been founded on the rock.  And everyone who hears these words of mine and does not do them will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand.  And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell, and great was the fall of it.  (Matt 7:24-27)

Here, the Savior shared that those who take heed to his instruction would be firmly based and nothing that assailed would shake his stand.

Later, the apostle Paul would write of godly men that Christ has given to the church

to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ, so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes.  (Eph 4:12-14)

Those who do not know God's word are easily swayed and concerned about the wrong things.  And even those who have been taught rightly, yet doubts, James refers to in similar fashion:

If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask God, who gives generously to all without reproach, and it will be given him.  But let him ask in faith, with no doubting, for the one who doubts is like a wave of the sea that is driven and tossed by the wind.  For that person must not suppose that he will receive anything from the Lord; he is a double-minded man, unstable in all his ways.  (Jas 1:5-8)

One can easily envision a helpless vessel on a choppy sea being blown hither and yon because there is neither anchor nor ballast.

This being so, it then behooves the Church to be diligent in making disciples, not converts.  Let's be "baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you."

Critiquing Beth Moore's Teaching

Beth Moore is quite popular but has come under fire for her allegorization and scripture-misuse.  In the August 18^th broadcast of Issues, Etc., Todd Wilken interviewed Ellie Corrow of Concordia Theological Seminary-Ft. Wayne, IN concerning this popular Bible teacher.  The segment runs approximately 30 minutes.

Songs, Hymns, Spiritual Songs, and Doctrinal Truth

This week I stumbled across a blog maintained by Dan Engle entitled Necessary Roughness.  Those familiar with American football will understand the title's play on words.  OK, I like it whether you do or not.

As I was reading through some posts, one from June 20^th caught my eye: Good Hymns Confess Specific Truth.  Intrigued by the title, I read through this short entry.  I especially appreciated this:

We have a treasure in Christian hymnody that maintains correct doctrine and faith in the Truth. Our hymns must do more than not confess false doctrine; they must confess true doctrine. It is not sufficient that we believe in a god, but the God that revealed himself to us in His holy word.

As pastors and musicians choose hymns for worship, they should be care not only to choose tunes that people sing but choose lyrics that embed Biblical truth into our minds and hearts.

Have I sung hymns with questionable or unbiblical content?  Yes, back when I did not know any better.  Nowadays I keep quiet rather than sing the disagreeable parts.

After reading what Dan wrote, I followed a related link to here.  The point of this post is that we need to agree that lyrics must be biblical before we discuss how they are delivered via the tune and instrumentation.  He rightly states

The aim of a lot of Christian popular music is to praise God without laying out a lot of doctrine that would be offensive to some denominations.

It is no secret that Contemporary Christian Music lyrics are written blandly as not to offend, thus improving acceptability with an end to improved sales.  The church should not be in that same business.  We have doctrine to teach and with an obligation to teach it well.  Musical lyrics are a great tool to this end.

I am not addressing arrangement, tempo, or stylization at this time.  I definitely have my preferences, like using the original melodies for hymns, but do not wish to jump into rock vs. Bach as Dan Engle mentioned.  For the record, I am listening to Mozart's "Mass in C minor", K427 ("Great Mass") while writing this.

Conclusion
We need to learn proper doctrine properly.  Sometime take your Bible and read Deuteronomy 10:12-11:32.  What jumps out as a recurring theme? that God is to be obeyed, and to obey one must know what he requires.  This should be common sense in the local church.  Considering that most preachers spend about 20 hours preparing a message that correctly explains what Scripture says, should not the same level of care be put forth to ensure the music's message?  I do not expect the music leader to spend a proportionate amount of time as the preacher because the roles and tools are different.  However, the desire to properly express truth should be as great.

Finally, as an aside, how about we recommend to music leaders that the next time they wish to introduce a new song to the congregation, try something from a little-used author like King David or Venerable Bede or Ambrose or possibly this 9^th-century work by Theodulph of Orleans:

1. All glory, laud, and honor To Thee, Redeemer, King, To whom the lips of children Made sweet hosannas ring. Thou art the King of Israel, Thou David's royal Son, Who in the Lord's name comest, The King and Blessed One.	4. All glory, laud, and honor To Thee, Redeemer, King, To whom the lips of children Made sweet hosannas ring. To Thee, before Thy Passion, They sang their hymns of praise; To Thee, now high exalted, Our melody we raise.
2. All glory, laud, and honor To Thee, Redeemer, King, To whom the lips of children Made sweet hosannas ring. The company of angels Are praising Thee on high, And mortal men and all things Created make reply.	5. All glory, laud, and honor To Thee, Redeemer, King, To whom the lips of children Made sweet hosannas ring. Thou didst accept their praises; Accept the prayers we bring, Who in all good delightest, Thou good and gracious King.
3. All glory, laud, and honor To Thee, Redeemer, King, To whom the lips of children Made sweet hosannas ring. The people of the Hebrews With psalms before Thee went; Our praise and prayer and anthems Before Thee we present.

 
Any takers?