Another Response from Richard Mouw

Date May 8, 2005 Posted by Roger Overton

“One more try:

 

You
say: “Dr. Mouw is baptizing Robert Millet's LDS understanding of Jesus
as salvific.” But that is not my intention. My point is a simple one. I
believe that Bob Millet has a saving relationship with Jesus Christ.
But, as I make clear, I believe that the only theology that can explain
and support that saving relationship is historical orthodoxy. I do not
believe that the Mormon view that God and humans are of “the same
species” supports the idea that we are saved through the sovereign
electing grace of God through the shed blood of Calvary. But people can
really trust Jesus without having the right explanation of what it
means to trust Jesus.

 

This is what Charles Spurgeon was getting at when he said, in his marvelous “Defense of Calvinism”:

”
I believe there are multitudes of men who cannot see these
[Calvinistic] truths, or, at least, cannot see them in the way in which
we put them, who nevertheless have received Christ as their Savior, and
are as dear to the heart of the God of grace as the soundest Calvinist
in or out of Heaven.”

 

Spurgeon
had Wesley in mind here. He was not “baptizing” Wesley's Arminian
“understanding of Jesus as salvific” (to use your phrase), but he was
allowing that there might be Arminians who have the theology wrong and
the relationship right.

 

This
is true for many of us. I remember as a child that I somehow had the
Santa Claus story and the Bethlehem story all merged together, as if
Santa was working on Christmas Eve for the Baby born in Bethlehem. At
the same time, I really did trust, in my childlike manner, in Jesus as
the Savior who loves me and died for me.

 

To
be sure, a distorted theology can distort the relationship. This is why
it is so important to keep the conversations going with folks with whom
we disagree on key theological matters. And this is why I find it so
disturbing that you simply have decided that Bob Millet's book is
nothing but deceptive propaganda, without even reading it.

 

In
his fascinating book, Mormon Neo-Orthodoxy, the Mormon scholar O.
Kendall White complains that too many Mormon scholars these days are
sounding like Calvinists. He says Mormonism must make a choice. Either
God is finite, human beings are self-perfectible, and we are saved by
our works, or God is Sovereign, human beings are sinners who cannot
bring about their own redemption, and salvation is by grace alone.
White insists on the former triad. We believe with all our hearts that
the latter triad is God's truth. My goal is to encourage Mormons to
look to Calvary alone for their salvation. You are convinced that my
approach is futile. I respect your concerns. All I ask is that you
try to be charitable in interpreting my intentions. Frankly, I do not
see that charity at work in many of your blog entries. Blessings!”

 

My response:
First, let me say that I really do appreciate Dr. Mouw’s willingness to
continue this conversation. I think we can agree that this is an issue
of significant importance and even if we disagree on the outcome we are
likely bettered for having discussed it. I’m not sure where I haven’t
been charitable; in fact, I’ve made a significant effort to be
charitable in all of my posts. It may be the case that some comments
left here aren’t, but comments are the responsibility of their
respective authors.

 

I
think it may be helpful to return to the original statement by Dr. Mouw
that started this discussion. “I think that an open-minded Christian
reader of this book will sense that Bob Millet is in fact trusting in
the Jesus of the Bible for his salvation. That is certainly my sense”
(p. 183). In light of Dr. Mouw’s most recent email, he appears to be
saying that Robert Millet’s trusting in the Jesus of the Bible without
believing in the Jesus of the Bible.

 

Dr.
Mouw rightfully acknowledges that the LDS Jesus does not line up with
historical orthodoxy. I will give him the benefit of the doubt that
this also means the LDS Jesus does not line up with the Jesus of the
Bible. He also points out that I’ve judged without reading the book.
I’ve read some of Millet’s previous material and seen him speak, but
maybe this book represents a shift towards biblical Christianity I’m
unaware of. Regardless of my reading it, though, Millet either holds to
the LDS view, the biblical view, or is somewhere in between. If Millet
believes in anything other than the LDS view, then the book is being
misrepresented as an explanation and defense of the LDS Jesus. If he
holds the LDS view, then I don’t think I can be faulted for not having
read the book. I’ve read enough and spoken with enough Mormons to know
what their view of Jesus is.

 

In
this latest email, Dr. Mouw speaks of a principle by which we accept
that people with different theologies have a salvific relationship with
the Jesus of the Bible. This is actually what denominationalism rests
upon. I, as a Calvinist, don’t think Arminians are correct in their
understanding of salvation, but I believe they (generally) have enough
right that righteousness has been reckoned to them. The question before
us is how broadly do we apply this principle? What qualifies for being
close enough and what doesn’t?

 

Jesus
said in John 8 that if we are to be saved we must believe He is who He
said He is. The LDS believe that Jesus was created by Father God (who
was also created), is a separate god, and a brother to Lucifer. This is
a completely different Jesus than who Jesus said He was, and therefore
by the standard offered by Jesus anyone who sincerely believes (or
trusts) in the LDS Jesus is still dead in their sins.

 

So,
either Millet holds the LDS view of Jesus and therefore is not saved,
or, he does not hold the LDS view and may be saved, but the book is
being misrepresented as explaining the LDS view. The difference isn’t
whether we baptize infants or use wine in communion; the issue of the
most central importance in all of theology- who we believe in. The
Jesus of the Bible and the Jesus of Joseph Smith can in no way be
reconciled.

 

I
don’t think encouraging Mormons to look to Calvary for their salvation
is futile. That seems to be what we ought to do. My concern isn’t
futility, God will use whatever means He desires to work in people’s
lives. Rather, my concern in this matter is the protection of Christ’s
flock and the urgency of the Gospel. If people holding the LDS view of
Jesus are saved, then the Gospel is mitigated. Dr. Mouw rightly notes
that distorted theology distorts our relationship with Christ. It seems
to me that the average Mormon will likely come away from this text
satisfied that there is nothing wrong with their current theology. For
the average Christian, after reading a defense of the LDS Jesus, and a
note by a Christian that the Mormon who wrote it is saved, why would
they not start believing in the LDS Jesus?

Category Posted in Apologetics, Main Page, Mormonism, Roger's Posts, Theology Comments 37 Comments »

A Response from Richard Mouw

Date May 6, 2005 Posted by Roger Overton

I received the
following this morning from Richard Mouw. I'm assuming since he's
asking me to provide context he has no problem with me posting this:

“If you are going
to quote my line about Bob Millet's faith in Jesus, at least provide
the context. I certainly do not “baptise” Mormon theology as Christian:

“At the heart of
our continuing disagreements, I am convinced, are very basic worldview
issues. Judaism and Christianity have been united in their insistence
that the Creator and the creation—including God’s human creatures—are
divided by an unbridgeable “being” gap. God is the “Wholly
Other”—eternal and self-sufficient—who is in a realm of existence that
is radically distinct from the creation that was brought into being out
of nothing by God’s sovereign decree. On this view of things, to
confuse the Creator’s being with anything in his creation is to commit
the sin of idolatry. Mormons, on the other hand, talk about God and
humans as belonging to the same “species.” Inevitably, then, the
differences are described, not in terms of an unbridgeable gap of
being, but in the language of “more” and “less.”

This kind of
disagreement has profound implications for our understanding of who
Jesus Christ is. In traditional Christianity, the question of Christ’s
saving power cannot be divorced from how we understand his “being.” If
we believe that we are, in our fallenness, totally incapable of earning
our own salvation, then the crucial questions are: What would it take
to save us? What would a Savior have to be in order to pay the debt for
our sin? And, faced with answers given to these questions by teachers
who saw Jesus as less than fully God,  the church leaders gathered
at the Council of Nicea set forth, in 325 A.D., this profound 
confession of who Jesus is. “We believe,” they wrote, in one Lord
Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, begotten from the Father before all
ages, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God,
begotten, not made; of the same essence as the Father. Through him all things were made.

And only when we
acknowledge all of this about him, the Council stipulated, can we move
confident to this bold and amazing proclamation: For us and for our
salvation he came down from heaven.

As an evangelical Christian
I want more than anything else that people—whatever disagreements I
might have with them on other matters—know this Jesus personally, as
the heaven-sent Savior who left heaven’s throne to come to the manger,
and to Gethsemane, and to Calvary, to do for us what we could never do
for ourselves. I also know that having a genuine personal relationship
with Jesus Christ does not require that we have all our theology
straight. All true Christians are on a journey, and until we see the
Savior face-to-face we will all see through a glass darkly.

But I also believe
with all my heart that theology is important. There is a real danger
for all of us that we will define Jesus in such a way that we cannot
adequately claim the full salvation that he alone can provide.  I
think that an open-minded Christian reader of this book will sense that
Bob Millet is in fact trusting in the Jesus of the Bible for his
salvation. That is certainly my sense. And this is why I find it
especially exciting to be in dialogue with him and other LDS friends
about what it means to have a theologically adequate understanding of
the person and work of the One who alone is mighty to save. I hope that
reading this book will inspire many people—traditional Christians as
well as Latter-day Saints—with a new motivation for engaging in that
eternally significant conversation.”

My response: First, about being in context. As I said in my original post,
I haven't received the book yet. I pulled the quote from James White's
blog, who has read it and has written a review of it (to be published
in the next Christian Research Journal). Second, I did not say that Dr.
Mouw “baptizes” Mormon theology as Christian. I said that he has
baptized false teaching, in this case relating to Christ, as acceptable
for salvation. More specifically, Dr. Mouw is baptizing Robert Millet’s
LDS understanding of Jesus as salvific.

Third, in light of
the context provided here by Dr. Mouw, I stand by my original
statements. In fact, I find the context to be just as troubling as the
original quote. From what I can tell, the foundational statement
is “I also know that having a genuine personal relationship with Jesus
Christ does not require that we have all our theology straight.” We
agree on something. The question is to what degree does our
theology need to be straight? Can I believe in a multitude of
gods, three or four of which rule over this planet; that we're Father
God's actual children and will one day be exactly like him, and yet be
saved? Is just saying the name of Jesus all it takes now? Where does
Dr. Mouw draw the line? Does salvation require or entail having any theology straight?

I should make it
clear that I'm not dictating who is saved and who isn't. That's up to
God. Rather, I'm taking Jesus' words, “I told you that you would die in
your sins, for unless you believe that I am he you will die in your
sins (John 8:24, in the context of 12-59)” to mean we have to believe
what Jesus taught in order to be saved. Just from reading what Dr.
Mouw's provided here, it appears that he believes the doctrine of the
trinity, and the understanding of its necessity for salvation,
originated at the Council of Nicea. Maybe he didn't mean that, but
wouldn't it be better to point to the Scripture that teaches the
doctrine of the trinity, rather than a council? Our faith doesn't rest
in councils; it rests in the Word of God in which He has declared the
truths of who He is and what He has done, and the devastating
consequences for believing otherwise.

An added note to
the Eerdmans issue; if this were only an academic publication, I
wouldn’t as concerned. However, this is published for the layman. And
apparently, the laymen are already eating it up.

Category Posted in Main Page, Mormonism, Roger's Posts, Theology Comments 21 Comments »

Where Have the Good Books Gone?

Date May 5, 2005 Posted by Roger Overton

An interview with Mark Tauber, Deputy Publisher for HarperSanFrancisco, was published in the latest Spring Arbor (a book distributor) catalog. The last question of the interview is especially intriguing. Keep in mind that HarperCollins is a secular publishing company (HSF is their religious imprint).

 

Q: In your opinion, what is one of the biggest challenges facing the Christian book industry today and how might it be overcome?

 

A: I think the biggest challenge for the Christian book industry is to get important transformational books back into the stores. Unfortunately, very few stores these days carry titles and authors other than the top 10 CBA marketplace bestsellers and gift renditions of those top 10. While this is important, it is also critical that stores go a few layers deeper and stock titles and authors who provide the meat that the bestsellers feed on. If the stores cannot go deeper in what they carry and how they merchandise, then I fear—and I am not alone—that it will soon simply need to be called the Christian gift industry.

 

This point speaks volumes of the Christian culture we live in today. Our popular Christian bookstores (Lighthouse, Family Christian, Berean- to name a few) are really more like gift stores. When I go to Lighthouse (my closest one) I’m amazed when I see a book I’m actually interested in; last time I picked up J. Gresham Machen’s The Gospel in the Modern World. But what was I there for? I was looking for a gift for my sister. When I want a book I go House of Bibles in Fullerton or Archives in Pasadena (which is bigger but farther away).

 

Mark Tauber has his finger on a symptom of a growing problem in contemporary Christianity. We have sacrificed critical thinking about our beliefs for catchy slogans and trendy programs (like Purpose Driven Life, Celebrate Recovery).

Category Posted in Main Page, Miscellaneous, Roger's Posts Comments No Comments »

Happy Mother's Day, from B.A.

Date May 4, 2005 Posted by Roger Overton

Since B.A.'s too modest for self-promotion, I thought I'd make sure everyone got a chance to benefit from his various talents.

This one goes out to all the moms out there.

Category Posted in Main Page, Miscellaneous Comments 2 Comments »

When Paranoid Delusions Attack!

Date May 3, 2005 Posted by Amy Hall

Oh, how I wish I could go to this!

 

(HT:  Smart Christian)

Category Posted in Amy's Posts, Culture, Main Page, Politics Comments 5 Comments »

Book Review: A Generous Orthodoxy by Brian McLaren

Date April 29, 2005 Posted by Roger Overton

A Generous Orthodoxy is Brian McLaren’s handbook for practical theology. He believes that American Christianity has missed the point of following Jesus. In this book Mr. McLaren points out where he thinks the religion has gone wrong and offers some ideas for how to follow Christ in a postmodern global culture.

 

The subtitle of the book sets the stage for where Mr. McLaren wants to go: “Why I am a missional + evangelical + post/protestant + liberal/conservative + mystical/poetic + biblical + charismatic/contemplative + fundamentalist/calvinist + anabaptist/anglican + methodist + catholic + green + incarnational + depressed-yet-hopeful + emergent + unfinished Christian” Each of these categories constitutes a chapter in which he looks at the strengths and weaknesses of different traditions.

 

Mr. McLaren sees a new church, a new kind of Christianity, a new way of following Jesus emerging from the rubble of a Christianity ravaged by divisions over doctrine, a neglect of social responsibilities, and the tyranny of capitalism/colonialism/conservativism. “Each of these new challenges and opportunities requires Christian leaders to create new forms, new methods, new structures—and it requires them to find new content, new ideas, new truths, new meaning to bring to bear on the new challenges. The new messages are not incompatible with the gospel of the kingdom Jesus taught. No, they are inherent in it, but previously undiscovered, unexpressed, perhaps unimagined.” (192-193)

 

This is one of the clearest theological statements Mr. McLaren makes; in fact, he’s intentionally not clear. “I have gone out of my way to be provocative, mischievous, and unclear, reflecting my belief that clarity is sometimes overrated.” (23) Not only is he purposefully vague, but also he purposefully uses words in ways no one else does. Suppose I said, “This is the most helpful, insightful book a Christian can possibly read. Of course, by helpful I mean self-serving, by insightful I mean incoherent, and by Christian I mean someone who doesn’t like the Jesus of the Bible.” Would my first sentence be of any worth if by it I meant something completely different than how any reader would understand it? Not at all. But this is precisely what Mr. McLaren does throughout the entire book.

 

Chapter 12, “Why I am a Fundamentalist/Calvinist,” is the best example of this. Mr. McLaren doesn’t like the movement/ideology that everyone refers to as Fundamentalism, so he substitutes all that Fundamentalism has meant with, “the ‘fundamentals of the faith’ boil down to those given by Jesus: to love God and to love our neighbors. These two fundamentals will not satisfy many fundamentalists, I fear.” (184) No kidding, nor will they satisfy anyone who’s read more than a few verses of the Bible. Fundamentalism is not the only casuality; Mr. McLaren appears to have some great disdain for Calvinism. I can see why, if he believes what he says about Calvinists. Mr. McLaren paints all Calvinists has determinists (hyper-Calvinists) so that he can easily dismiss them. He also somehow manages to pin responsibility on Calvinists for stealing from the Native Americans, slavery, and the apartheid in South Africa. (194) He then proceeds to offer a new version of TULIP, a version that has nothing to do with what Calvinists mean by it. In the end, Mr. McLaren is in no possible way a Calvinist in any known use of the word, except for the use he makes up for it. This is the same for Protestant, Evangelical, and a few others.

 

To be fair, Mr. McLaren makes some good points against contemporary Christianity. For example, He seeks to correct the individualistic gospel of evangelicalism (107), the shallowness of a religion that focuses on Jesus’ death but not his life (86), and the failure of missions to preach a gospel that applies to all of life (63). However, the few good points he makes are greatly overshadowed by the confused meandering of incoherent practical theology they are buried in.

 

No, A Generous Orthodoxy is not helpful, insightful, nor is it a must read except for those with Biblical discernment who are seeking to understand what Paul meant by those who will not endure sound doctrine, but “wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires.” (2 Tim 4:3) Is it Generous? It is to Roman Catholics but not to Calvinists. Is it orthodox? Only by Mr. McLaren’s twisted definition of the word. I was hoping to find more I could agree with in this book, but I suppose it just wasn’t generous orthodox enough. Whatever message he intended to offer is lost in his distortions, straw men, and promiscuous piety (HT: Frank Beckwith for that phrase).

Category Posted in Book Reviews, Main Page, Roger's Posts Comments 11 Comments »

Link-o-vision

Date April 28, 2005 Posted by Roger Overton

I just discovered myspace.com. Dennis Prager has said it's a waste of time and destructive to society. A friend said it's only a half step above online dating. I can't afford eHarmony anyway. But why this matters to you is that I've found some old friends who are making great music. One you must go listen to is Molly Jenson. Listen to all her songs, but listen to “thinking of you” a few times. Simply amazing stuff. Then go check out Saltwater Merchants, a good folksy band led by the creative Travis Oberg.

Leighton Tebay over at theHeresy.com has written some good posts on the Charismatic movement. I haven't experienced it myself, so it's interesting to read someone else's encounter with it.

Issues Etc. interviewed Mike Horton and Shane Rosenthal on Sunday (4/24) regarding the Emergent Church Movement.

Face and I will be leading a workshop at the upcoming Godblog Convention in October at Biola. “I Love it When a Plan Comes Together!”- The Benefits of Group Blogging.

A new Batman Begins trailer has been released. Looks great. I'm stoked that Morgan Freeman's in it.

Last week I spoke at First Baptist Lakewood's college service, Emerge. The talk is available to download: Becoming Mature Christians. Feedback appreciated.

This Saturday Greg Koukl's exchange with New Age guru Deepak Chopra will be aired on PAX TV. The show, Faith Under Fire, usually consists of a few different topics per hour episode. Greg and Deepak will be on for the full hour this Saturday discussing issues of truth, tolerance, the reliability of the Bible, and more. This is a must see, as Greg does a great job representing Christ with knowledge and character, and especially wisdom- making tactical use of his knowledge. We aired a 13 minute clip at a recent fundraiser and the crowd loved it (cheered at a few points). The entire episode is worth taping. Don't miss it.

Category Posted in Main Page, Miscellaneous, Roger's Posts Comments 1 Comment »

Was Paul a Good Christian?

Date April 26, 2005 Posted by Roger Overton

Over the past week I’ve been in quasi-dialogue with leaders from the church I just left. Have we gotten anywhere? Not really. The problem is that we haven’t even been talking about whether or not the church is in step with scripture; instead, we’ve been talking about how mean I am for claiming that what the church is doing doesn’t line up with scripture.

 

The questions I’ve asked, without answers, are 1) am I not allowed to compare the church with scripture? or 2) am I just not supposed to say anything if they don’t jive?

 

Christians today seem terrified of any sense of disunity or disagreement; hence the movement towards non-denominationalism. It seems that many would rather pretend that disagreements don’t exist than discuss them and truly tolerate one another. Or perhaps it’s just that doctrine really doesn’t matter, so our disagreements aren’t worth mentioning.

 

Our goal as Christians is to faithfully live out what God has revealed for us. In order to do this, we must study what He’s revealed (the Bible) and continually reform our thoughts, feelings, and actions to what God has put there for us. However, God didn’t just give us His Word and expect us to live it on our own; he gave us a community within which we can better understand and live out what He’s said. The Body of Christ, the church, has a responsibility within itself to be accountable to the Word of God, and a responsibility to stand against the philosophies of the world, taking every thought captive for Christ.

 

The first step for the Body of Christ to remain faithful to the Word is humility. We must accept that we could be wrong in our understanding of what it says, and therefore be open and willing to listen to those within the Body who find our understanding to be incorrect. A sure sign of a lack of humility is an unwillingness to listen to those who disagree. The next step should be obvious, read the Bible! We cannot faithfully follow Christ if we will not humble ourselves before the Word of God

 

Some Christians simply won’t do this; instead they accuse people who are critical of being judgmental (in a bad sense), arrogant, mean-spirited, selfish, etc. Apparently since I’ve said the church isn’t being faithful to scripture I don’t live “in the Spirit of Christ.” My response- did Paul?

 

I could point to places where Paul calls for discernment, or where he even names false teachers, but there’s one passage that really hits it home. In Galatians (2:11-14), Paul accuses Peter and Barnabas of hypocrisy. Did Paul question their salvation? their sincerity? their spiritual gifts? No, he simply said their actions didn’t line up with the truth of the gospel. Paul wrote that under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, so it’s hard to imagine him not living in the “Spirit of Christ.” If I have to choose a side here, I’m going to go with Paul.

 

By God’s Word and His Word alone may we hold each other accountable.

Category Posted in Main Page, Roger's Posts, Theology Comments 11 Comments »

Living A Life of Continual Service

Date April 25, 2005 Posted by Roger Overton

It’s obvious that we are to live a life of service in obedience to God’s call.  But what does that look like? How do we implement that into the routine and busy-ness of our lives?

In my weekly Worship service, we reflected on John 13:1-20.  Jesus washes the feet of His disciples.  In doing so, Jesus gave us an example of how we should serve one another.   As brothers and sisters, whether of high rank or low, we are called to serve each other.

 

The
sermon closed with three actions steps that we were to do before the
end of the day: Serve someone at church before we left the grounds;
serve someone at home, and someone in the world.

 

Granted, these things are good things.  And, as Christians, we should be in the habit of developing ourselves into obedient servants.  But, I think it (the sermon) missed the mark.

 

Fitting,
in this age of church wanting to market our Christianity into nice,
neat packages and programs that we can compartmentalize into our task
oriented life, that we could achieve ‘these tasks’ in three easy steps.   After that, then we’re done, and can go on with our lives uninterrupted, or possibly undistracted.

 

I
see this concept in the behaviors of many Christians. The idea that one
can fulfill their obligation to live a life of service in three easy
steps,  on Thursdays between 7-9pm, or Sunday nights between ? -? pm. (You fill in the blank).  Or
maybe, by washing the dishes for my wife, my obligation as a Christian
man is complete, and I can go back to watching TV unengaged in the
lives of my family.

 

Better
yet, why not “serve” before the church service from 8am-9am so that
everyone can see that I’m a good Christian, obedient and hardworking.  And then that way, I don’t have to be nice and helpful after the service, and I can just rush off to “do my thing”?

 

It’s just disheartening, because I see this all the time from Pastors and Good Congregants.

 

It
just seems like when scheduling our service such as this, we forget
that we are to be loving and kind in all our interactions and running
into’s.  Not to mention that this reeks of the whole ‘saved by grace and works’ that we apparently claim to reject as good Protestants.  Isn’t our service supposed to be a ‘response’?

 

I propose, that we are to live, in response to our gratefulness for the abundant Grace we receive, a continual life of service.  That in EVERYTHING we do, CONTINUALLY we live a servant life.  Whether
it’s in line at Starbucks, on the freeway in rush hour traffic, in our
interactions with fellow Christians, in our interactions at work, and
continually in our most intimate relationships.

Category Posted in Main Page, Religion (General) Comments 8 Comments »

God-Centered Worship Part I

Date April 24, 2005 Posted by Roger Overton

What should worship look like anyway? Worship can be spoken of in three forms- the life of the Christian, personal time of devotion, and congregational devotion. I’m mostly concerned here with congregational worship, but some of this will apply to all forms. In any form, Jesus tells us to worship in spirit and in truth. The author of Hebrews says “Therefore, since we are receiving a kingdom that cannot be shaken, let us be thankful, and so worship God acceptably with reverence and awe, for our God is a consuming fire.” (12:28-29)

 

As this verse implies, there is some worship that is unacceptable to God. After leaving Egypt the Israelites created a golden calf and worshipping it declared it to be the day of the Lord. (Ex. 32:4-6) God was ready to wipe them out for their corruption. The question for us then is what worship is acceptable to God? How do we know? The answer should obviously be God’s Word, but in churches where the Bible is not the foundation for all practices, it may not be so obvious.

 

In the context of the congregation, Paul says that God desires that “all things be done decently and in order.” (1 Cor 14:40, cf 33) We’re not to do things randomly or chaotically. We are to think through why we worship the way we do, and in what order we do them.

 

An essential element of worship is the reading and preaching of God’s Word. (The ESV does a great job with this passage) “All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work. I charge you in the presence of God and Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by his appearing and his kingdom: preach the word; be ready in season and our of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching.” (2 Tim 3:16-4:2)

 

On this matter, Robert Godfrey says “The bible makes no rule on how much Scripture must be read in one worship service, but do we really love the Word of God if we are content consistently to hear only a verse or two? We cannot claim to love the Word and be content with its absence from worship. We will want to hear it in reading and preaching, see it in the sacraments, and sing it in our songs. If we are not interested in the Word of God, can we really be interested in God?” (Pleasing God in Our Worship 28, 31-32)

 

Another essential element of congregational worship is the administration of the Lord’s Supper. Paul goes off on the Corinthians for eating their own meals instead of practicing communion as Christ taught it. I wonder if today Paul would go off on many of our churches for only taking communion whenever we please. Christ simply says “do this in remembrance of me.” (Luke 22:19) Neither does Paul tell us exactly how often it should be taken. However, he does seem to assume we are doing it regularly. “When you come together, it is not the Lord’s Supper that you eat… For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes… So then, my brothers, when you come together to eat, wait for one another.” (1 Cor 11:20,26,33) This also entails that the Lord’s Supper is to be done as the Body of Christ, not individually.

Category Posted in Main Page, Roger's Posts, Theology Comments No Comments »

« Previous Entries
Next Entries »