[Paul] censures [the false teachers] ambition; he reproves them for transforming the gospel into human philosophy; he shows that they are destitute of the efficacy of the Spirit, inasmuch as they are taken up with mere ornaments of speech, and seek after a mere dead letter; but not a word is there as to a single false doctrine. Hence I conclude that they were persons who did not openly take away any thing from the substance of the gospel, but, as they burned with a misdirected eagerness for distinction, I am of opinion that, with the view of making themselves admired, they contrived a new method of teaching, at variance with the simplicity of Christ. This must necessarily be the case with all that have not as yet thrown off self, that they may engage unreservedly in the Lord’s work. The first step towards serving Christ is to lose sight of ourselves, and think only of the Lord’s glory and the salvation of men. Farther, no one will ever be qualified for teaching that has not first himself tasted the influence of the gospel, so as to speak not so much with the mouth, as with the dispositions of the heart. Hence, those that are not regenerated by the Spirit of God — not having felt inwardly the influence of the gospel, and know not what is meant when it is said that we must become new creatures, (John 3:7) have a dead preaching, whereas it ought to be lively and efficacious; and, with the view of playing off their part, they disfigure the gospel by painting it over, so as to make it a sort of worldly philosophy.

- Introductory Argument to Commentary on 1st Corinthians

When my teenage years came to a close, my companions began drinking things called “espresso’s” and “Americano’s” and “cappuccino’s”. To my knowledge, this was like drinking coffee concentrate, which seemed as bad as drinking orange juice concentrate. Surprisingly, my friends began other related activities – smoking pipe tobacco and cigars, drinking uncommon beers of all sorts of brewing fashions, and venturing into whiskeys and occasionally wine. This all seemed to me to be part of this “grown-up, black-coffee, mustache-growing” world. I knew that if I were to end the mockery that ensued for my “White Mocha with Whipped Cream” orders, I must bury my head and begin drinking the roasted draught.

So began my journey. I hated it. I would go with my friends and we would all order our black-coffee drinks. I would order mine so I could be part of the group and avoid the jeering for my favored drink. This continued for many months. I would even order the Americano when I was by myself, for fear that I may see my friends at some point and they may discern my poor choice in beverage. One day, I said to myself, “enough of this friend-pleasing… I’m ordering the girl-drink”. So I did, and the first sip I had the strangest reaction. I could not finish the drink. I felt as though I were drinking a   cup of coffee flavored syrup. I knew at that time I had entered into “grown-up things.”

This coffee-drinking journey bears a similarity to my journey from a pietistic understanding to a confessional understanding. There are many facets to this journey, many of which I will try to draw out in the forthcoming posts, and more to which I am not yet even aware. One thing I will say at the beginning: going from the Pietist world to the Confessional world, bears much resemblance to the harshness that is perceived in coffee to a new drinker. Coffee is a subtle substance that, to the untrained, appears (as I like to say) strong and bitter. But to a imbiber of coffee, there are variegated flavors, hints, and subtleties that make it something one can scarce go a day without. An outsider may look upon the Confessional as a strong and bitter one, but when one truly becomes acquainted, the richness that is found within is unparalleled – it would be very difficult to go back to drinking the old beverage.

But Christ humbles them both by offering his righteousness to both. For the poor man by no means can buy it, yet he is enriched with the fullness of Christ’s righteousness, and the rich man is humbled because the very thing he needs his money cannot buy. If the poor receive in the same measure as the rich, the fool in the same measure as the wise, then none may boast. For the poor and foolish acquired what they could not obtain otherwise. And rich and the wise were supplied with what their money could not buy.

Before the Lord we are humbled, for he rescues both the poor and the rich. If wisdom and riches could deliver us, then man should have been able to save themselves long ago.

What am I to boast of if even a poor man receives what I receive?

Number of Churches:

2006 - 1,345

2007 - 1,372

2008 - 1,408

2009 - 1,442

2010 - 1,455

Professions of Faith By Adults:

2006 - 5,683

2007 - 5,465

2008 - 5,446

2009 - 5,441

2010 - 5,183

So, the PCA added 105 churches to their denomination from 2006-2010, yet they showed a decline of 500 new professions of faith over the same 5 year period. This is not in disregard of the ~5,000 new believers added, but also is not consistent with the rise of population in America, nor the additional churches added.

Is the PCA really growing? Yes, in one sense it is still growing. Until the Profession of Faith by Adults reaches zero (not to mention children who are also listed) and church swapping (membership) is in the positive, the PCA itself is growing. Yet in another sense, the PCA is actually atrophying in comparison with population explosion that is occurring. The PCA, in America, is becoming smaller and smaller. Not that it must necessarily be “large” or grow in consistency with population (though I would find it strange that the Elect are being born at a slower rate).

Of more importance here to note is the current church-planting strategy advocated by many for the purpose of introducing new people to Christ. Now, it may be true that each new church plant represents a majority of the Adult converts. And it may be true that once a church becomes established, Adult conversion atrophies. But it is odd that the number of churches planted continued to increase, while the number of new converts decreased.

So it appears, at least for the PCA (I have not looked at any other church data), that planting churches is not an effective form of evangelism. Not that evangelism must be “effective” – only the Holy Spirit makes evangelism “effective”. But for those who assert that church planting is an effective form of evangelism, they should go back and reconsider what they are actually trying to accomplish by planting a church. Especially those who advocate a “Missional” form of strategy for reaching the lost.

Driscoll traps himself in what is known as a “False Dichotomy” or, in this case, more definitely “Morton’s Fork”. In this type of logical (illogical) reasoning, you paint two extremes of the positions held (in this situation, crazy fanatical charismatics, or crazy fanatical fundies) and show yourself to be the reasonable, rational middle ground that has balanced the two extremes. This is a common fallacy that many preachers I have listened to commit.

It’s not that Driscoll is necessarily wrong, it’s just that he has not exegetically proved his point. He has not represented the substance of the argument posited by cessationist in a fair manner, nor has he showed their purported fallacious reasoning. Most poignantly, Driscoll does not engage the substance and so does not present the facts of his position, but merely his position in relation to the “false” positions.

What this does, in the ears of the audience, is sets you up as the reasonable one who has considered “all” sides and have found the rational way out through the missile-launching mess. This is great for the arguer (Driscoll), but it still fails to engage the substance of the argument – in this case, the biblical text.

So when you listen to someone start of an argument this way, immediately ask them to show the oppositions arguments (not emotionalism attached to the arguments), the errors in their arguments, followed by what their logic is, then the reasons why their logic is the correct view. If you don’t do this, you may end up thinking 1) you lost the argument, 2) your opponent is correct, and unfortunately 3) you subsume an erroneous belief based on false logical argumentation.

After two years of reflection, my convictions have not changed regarding the confusion this phrase produces. I do look back on my initial post and laugh at a few of the ways I wrote my thoughts down:

“Anyone Christian who works in a secular vocation will agree with these words.”

I am sure that those who read this and disagreed with what I was saying were surely fired up even more. Nothing like beginning to read something with “Anyone… will agree with these words.”

Now, to the issue at hand.

Recently in my readings I came across this statement:

Paganism is optimistic with regard to unaided human nature’ whereas Christianity is the religion of the broken heart…

In saying that Christianity is the religion of the broken heart, we do not mean that Christianity ends with the broken heart; we do not mean that the characteristic Christian attitude is a continual beating on the breast or a continual crying of “Woe is me.” Nothing could be further from the fact. Christianity means that sin is faced once for all, and then is cast, by the grace of God, forever into the depths of the sea…

But although Christianity does not end with the broken heart, it does begin with the broken heart; [Christianity] begins with the consciousness of sin. Without the consciousness of sin, the whole of the gospel will seem to be an idle tale. But how can the consciousness of sin be revived? Something no doubt can be accomplished by the proclamation of the law of God, for the law reveals transgressions. The whole of the law, moreover, should be proclaimed…

… if the consciousness of sin is to be produced, the law of God must be proclaimed in the lives of Christian people as well as in word. It is quite useless for the preacher to breathe out fire and brimstone from the pulpit, if at the same time the occupants of the pews go on taking sin very lightly and being content with the more’ standards of the world. The rank and file of the Church must do their part in so proclaiming the law of God by their lives that the secrets of men’s hearts shall be revealed.

All these things, however, are in themselves quite insufficient to produce the consciousness of sin. The more one observes the condition of the Church, the more one feels obliged to confess that the conviction of sin is a great mystery’ which can be produced only by the Spirit of God. Proclamation of the law, in word and in deed, can prepare for the experience, but the experience itself comes from God. When a man has that experience, when a man comes under the conviction of sin, his whole attitude toward life is transformed; he wonders at his former blindness, and the message of the gospel, which formerly seemed to be an idle tale, becomes now instinct with light. But it is God alone who can produce the change. Only, let us not try to do without the Spirit of God…

(Christianity & Liberalism, J. Gresham Machen; emphasis added)

What is fascinating to note here is that Machen identifies our deeds with Law, whereas proponents of the quote that I have antipathy to identify deeds with Gospel. I had not ever heard of this understanding of our deeds, that they are a proclamation of God’s Law. This would seem to make sense that I had never heard such a distinction since much of evangelicalism seems to misunderstand the distinction between Law and Gospel.

What else is fascinating is when Machen states “proclamation of the law, in word and deed…“. This may be held in contrast to modern proponents of the phrase “Preach the Gospel, if necessary use words.” They might state on these lines – “Proclamation of the gospel, in words and deeds.” I would declare that there is but one man who can “declare” the Gospel by his deeds, and that man alone was Jesus Christ. Only his deeds were “Gospel”. His deeds were actually fulfilling the righteous requirement of the law that God demanded. His suffering for sin upon the cross was the Gospel in deeds.

Yet even this must be understood properly. Christ’s life, death and resurrection was the accomplishment of what the Gospel declares. The Gospel must be understood as a message, not deeds, nor deeds and message. No man was saved by observing Christ suffer upon the cross. They were not able to say, “Alas! This man here is suffering for my sins!” No, everyone at the cross believed Christ either to be suffering justly for proclaiming to be God or suffering unjustly because he was refused a fair trial and found guiltless.

Christ’s death needed explanation. No deed could suffice for this explanation. Jesus, upon his resurrection, met his disciples on the Emmaus road and explained to them the meaning of his death. It was only after they heard the explanation of his death that their eyes were opened.

“Christ died” is a deed.

“Christ died for your sins” is an explanation of the deed.

No man by mere observation could intuit that Christ death was actually vicarious (that is, in their behalf). They could see it as an example, but no more. The meaning of Christ’s death had to be revealed. That is to say, the act (read: deed) of Christ’s death had to be declared, otherwise no man would understand the significance of his death. They would see it merely as a humble example, not as the event in which their sin was put to death and God’s wrath against them was expended.

This is the crucial distinction that must be upheld when people use the erroneous phrase “Preach the gospel at all times, if necessary use words.”

The whole issue at hand is a Law/Gospel distinction. Modern people, in all their zeal, have done an injustice to the Scriptures and run roughshod over what the Scriptures try to keep separate. How did Machen arrive at understanding that our deeds are Law and not Gospel? By seeing that Gospel is an explanation not an observation.

If merely observing people’s deeds were enough to save people, then I would never open my mouth, because people don’t mock me when I try and feed the homeless. The world looks quite becomingly upon that kind of behavior. Where I get into all kinds of trouble is when I tell people, “Christ died to pay the penalty for sins.” People cannot intuit that the way of Salvation is through Christ alone simply by observing my deeds. I must tell them (i.e., the necessity of using words in connection with the Gospel).

My actions are not the Gospel to people. They might be ‘good news’ in one sense, that is, the alleviation of temporal difficulties. But in a whole other sense they can be quite bad news, that is, that my righteous actions reveal how unrighteous they are. But my righteous deeds will never avail to them the Gospel. My deeds might reveal the transformation that occurs in the life of one who has believed the Gospel, but never an actual declaration of the Gospel itself.

Why this is so significant is that in our churches people are accepting that their deeds can be equated with the Gospel. This is a treacherous thing to assert. The Gospel is in complete antithesis to your deeds. The Gospel is the declaration of God’s Deeds, not yours. The Gospel reveals that God must save you because your deeds are evil, even when you do good. The Gospel is about what Christ has done, (past tense) and not about what you are doing (present tense). The display of the Gospel comes by declaring the past even of Christ’s deeds coupled with its intending meaning. There is no other way to communicate the Gospel but through words. This is why the Apostle Paul said,

“To that end keep alert with all perseverance, making supplication for all the saints, and also for me, that words may be given to me in opening my mouth boldly to proclaim the mystery of the gospel, for which I am an ambassador in chains, that I may declare it boldly, as I ought to speak.” – Ephesians 6:18-20

The second thing is that people parade ministries around as if they are sharing the Gospel with people when in fact they are not sharing the Gospel with them. I recognize the good intentions that lie behind these actions and the loving desire to help and assist others, but this is not “Gospel Ministry”. It may encourage the hearts of its recipients but cannot declare the forgiveness of sins that comes through Christ. The danger is that the church (as it tends to throughout all of history) is to the omission of the words of the Gospel. When the church begins to blur the distinction between our deeds and the Gospel, they begin to walk down this slippery slope which has so often ended in dismay for the proclamation of the Gospel.

So the encouragement is not that you cannot help people or serve them, but that you must understand what the Gospel is and how the Gospel is communicated. We must learn to pray with Paul, “that words may be given to us in opening our mouths boldly to proclaim the mystery of the gospel.”

One of the most marked signs of cultural decline is the absence of children. The segregation of children from adult life is what has created an entire subset culture (adolescence, and teenage). It’s no wonder that there is even a newer category – the adult-o-lescense – those who are post teen-age who have not found themselves into full adulthood, lasting into the 30′s and even the 40′s.

Added to this is the view of abortion in the united states. Over 1 million abortions occur every year in the United States. What speaks volumes is that the culture at large views this as an indifferent issue. This is one more alarming evidence of our culture’s disdain of children.

How is the Church to react to such a situation?

I believe the Church has done very little to combat and undermine our culture’s expectation of the absence of children. We cart them off to their own programs and we do “our own thing” while “they do theirs”. In essence – they have their church, we have ours, they have their pastors, we have ours, they have their programs, we have ours. Most churches are attended by young families primarily based on the children programs provided. Yet the cultural understanding is that children must be entertained by someone else and sent to a different compartment.

Certainly children are an excellent motivation to reconsider one’s direction in life. Taking on the responsibility of a child and being the primary influence in their life has a way of making a person reconsider all their priorities. Yet the modes in which our culture approaches this issue and how the church handles children does not cut to the core. Children are shuffled off to another place to be handled by someone else, teaching God-knows-what. The main thing to note here is that children are absent from one more (the most important?) area in which children and adults come together.

How do we as the church confront our cultural expectations? Thus far, I would posit that we have done a poor job, and in fact, have accommodated to our culture’s expectations of the absence of children. Who knows, maybe these people go home and spend more time playing with their 3 dogs than their 2 children. If the church is to be “salt and light”, bearing witness to the culture that it is defunct in their understanding is a formidable mode of demonstration.

Bring your kids to church with you and let them learn what it means to be an adult.

I find it so strange that Christians are so adamant about bringing about human flourishing. We have forgotten that this life is not the one we are ultimately intended to flourish in. We have become so afraid of disaster, afraid of economical instability, afraid of failing to eradicate the ails and evils of this country and of this land. It is as if we have lost sight of the fact that it is this world that we need saving from.

We have forgotten that suffering is God’s appointed means of stripping man of his pride and love for this world and all that it supplies and forces him to yearn for his heavenly home. As painful as suffering was for the Apostle Paul, yet even in these he was content:

For the sake of Christ, then, I am content with weaknesses, insults, hardships, persecutions, and calamities. For when I am weak, then I am strong.

2 Corinthians 12:10

Or in another place,

We put no obstacle in anyone’s way, so that no fault may be found with our ministry, but as servants of God we commend ourselves in every way: by great endurance, in afflictions, hardships, calamities, beatings, imprisonments, riots, labors, sleepless nights, hunger; by purity, knowledge, patience, kindness, the Holy Spirit, genuine love; by truthful speech, and the power of God; with the weapons of righteousness for the right hand and for the left; through honor and dishonor, through slander and praise. We are treated as impostors, and yet are true; as unknown, and yet well known; as dying, and behold, we live; as punished, and yet not killed;
as sorrowful, yet always rejoicing; as poor, yet making many rich; as having nothing, yet possessing everything.

Paul did not invite suffering upon himself or others yet he did not flee from it. He prayed to be released from his sufferings and prayed for others to be healed, yet he understood the God-appointed means of suffering.

What is even more strange is the recalcitrance at suggesting the church is overstepping her bounds when she seeks to institutionalize human flourishing. The church is a haven for the broken, a hospital for the sick, and a treasury for the poor. No weight of gold could ever match the renewal that the church brings with her Good News. If the church were able to and was intended to uproot the powers of evil in this world, it would have centuries ago. With God on our side, the Kingdom of this world is no match, yet every attempt to revolutionize the world continually falls short.

The church forgoes her greater responsibility when she points people to find their satisfaction and hope in this transient life. We are called to proclaim to people that this life will end, often painfully, and nothing here can we take with us. Our hope and message is life hereafter with our great God and Savior Jesus Christ. One day we shall behold him and all the events of this life that brought tears to our eyes, including the toppling over of our great nation, he will forever wipe away.

And it is to this Christ we must look and steer our eyes. This world hates our Savior and will do everything in its power to distract you from his voice, even with good things. So long as this world draws your focus off of Christ then it has won the battle. Satan does not disguise himself with darkness but light, and the place we must fear most is not the prison with criminals but the land of good and plenty:

And when the LORD your God brings you into the land that he swore to your fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, to give you—with great and good cities that you did not build, and houses full of all good things that you did not fill, and cisterns that you did not dig, and vineyards and olive trees that you did not plant—and when you eat and are full, then take care lest you forget the LORD, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. It is the LORD your God you shall fear. Him you shall serve and by his name you shall swear. You shall not go after other gods, the gods of the peoples who are around you— for the LORD your God in your midst is a jealous God— lest the anger of the LORD your God be kindled against you, and he destroy you from off the face of the earth.

Deuteronomy 6:8-15

The mainline evangelical movement borrows all their music from the popular Christian music labels and does so on an emotive basis (i.e., aesthetics rule). Some of the questions they ask are:

1. Does the tune emotionally stir me?
2. Does it talk about my pain and hurt?
3. Is the “deity” mentioned (or at least alluded to)?
4. Is there some generalized reference to nature?

That’s the sum total of the litmus test for a worship song passing through for a mainline worship service. Granted, they will pass through older, (which are often) more theologically grounded songs – but this wouldn’t be done primarily on the basis of it being theologically grounded but more on the basis that it is “old” and is consistent with the “new-vintage” asthetic appeal that is roaring through the fashion industry. This would be consistent with their ‘toleration’ ethic (which does not tolerate those who do not tolerate them… ironic).

Then we have the mild-traditionalists who have a measure of doctrinal fidelity and want to include the old songs on the basis that they contain scriptural truths. But this again can ultimately boil down to an aesthetic appeal because singing these songs makes them feel good – not based primarily on the content of the truths being declared but because it so neatly aligns with their theological convictions. Everyone likes to agree with themselves.

But what is strange is a new breed of song-singers who are even a bit more “traditionalistic” that the mild-traditionalists. They have achieved a new level of insight into the matter – they are even less discriminatory than their neighboring counterparts. They include modern popular Christian songs that they have found to contain within them consistent theological basis along with their traditional songs as well. They achieve a true equalibrium of peace between all parties because now that have satisfied everyone – the mainline gets their pop-songs, the mild-traditionalist gets their theology, and the more-traditionalistic pleases everybody. Yet this still maintains the appeal of the aesthetic. Though the songs sung contain a theological center, which is commendable, what hinders their song selection is their commitment to making sure everyone gets “Represented”. But when you fall into this trap you’re gonna make someone angry, no matter how hard you try – when you start trying to please the whole crowd, you will please no one. They base their song choices on an aesthetic appeal that will appease their audience, not their Creator (primarily).
Instead of picking and choosing songs that

1. Musically and emotionally fit our tastes
2. Agree with us and make us feel better since they agree theologically with our system (which ironically can be when we sing about Christ’s crucifixion. Singing about Christ being crucified should never make us cozy because of its theological consistency with our own beliefs – it should terrify us and humble us)
3. Make our audience happy because we’ve achieved  whole-crowd-pleasing

We should choose songs based upon their orientation to what is being said and taught that day and to pick the best possible songs that represent that truth (or truths) being communicated to the believer. What’s crazy about doing this is that you may end up picking a song that you might never think of – one that may very well be modern but not sung because its modern, or one that may very well be old but not sung because its old. You sing it because its true.

Some may dissent here that music is intended to engage and excite the emotions. Being a musician myself I wouldn’t disagree entirely with this yet it must be understood properly. Us modern people (or are we post-modern? I forget…) are so attached to our music and its ability to excite the emotions that we forget what is actually exciting our emotions. I have a fantastic example of this:

One of my favorite songs that really gets me emotionally fired up (stirred, etc.) is a song that is a vulgar depiction of the folly of trying to find warmth in casual sex. I have had stop playing this song for the very reason of what I am trying to demonstrate right now. The emotional excitation that I would find in musical aspect of this song was very strong. It’s melody and the guitars and crescendos and diminuendos are fantastic – until I realized what I was listening to. My emotions were being raised completely independent of the lyrical content of the music. I felt very strongly (what I felt I do not know, which is a strange thing) yet at the same time my mind was at odds with the emotions I felt in response to such a vulgar song. There, in that moment, my emotions were totally engaged, and yet, I had no connection to rational thought whatsoever.

The point of this is to show that simply because you emotionally connect with a musical score shows very little of the value of the song being sung. There is value in the music – I am a fan of Beethoven – but such things are to be enjoyed in their own right, as a man would praise his creator for the mountains, but not build a mountain in the middle of the sanctuary in order to elicit a specific emotion.

This is even more poignant in a Christian worship service where we are singing songs directly to the Creator of the Universe and to our Savior Jesus who spent his life for our sake. To focus and elicit the emotions hijacks the nature of what a worship song is supposed to be. The emotional response must come first from the truth (i.e. the substance) not the emotional catalyst (the aesthetic). Aesthetics have their place, but an aesthetic not grounded in substance is vain (hence why most modern art is pure rubbish). Emotional response is no guarantee of what is true.

A far better way is to find good solid truth that grounds and cements your soul to what is enduring and substantial. The Lord’s Supper is not an aesthetic appeal to the eyes to delight in their savior but a harsh representation of the cost of our sin and our utter dependence upon our savior’s life and death to nourish our souls. That’s what the Roman Catholic church did with the Lord’s Supper and so were able to strip it of any value whatsoever. Don’t do the same thing with the songs you sing in your worship serve, but let them be a reflection of the truth of who God is and what God has done for you. When you do that, then you may very well never want to return to the emotional services of your days past. As C.S. Lewis says, the mind expanded never returns to its original form.

“he had no form or majesty that we should look at him,
and no beauty that we should desire him.”

Isaiah 53:2

When the Son of God came in an ordinary body that looked like ordinary men, and lived an ordinary life among ordinary people working an ordinary job, he made a tremendous statement about beauty.

That what appears as beautiful to the eye is significant is not the issue. To deny visible beauty is to deny our creatureliness and to become like the Gnostics who eschewed the physical.

What Christ demonstrated is our inability to handle physical beauty. The manner of his incarnation was to show us that our hearts will constantly seek to replace the true substance of beauty (what is eternal and enduring) with an ephemeral and transient beauty.

If the Father sent his Son in an ordinary body to then be slaughtered, it behooves us to focus our attention. A crucified Savior must transform or conceptions of beauty, or we shall be like our first Parents who “saw that the food was a delight to the eyes” and took what we in our frailty are incapable of possessing.

It is crucial that we pay attention to the fact that Isaiah marked out this interesting facet of our Savior – that he had no beauty that we should desire him. We serve an invisible God and yet he is more beautiful than all the worlds contained in the universe. Our hearts are to be drawn to him, and to our Savior whom “though you have not seen him, you love him. Though you do not now see him, you believe in him and rejoice with joy that is inexpressible and filled with glory” (1 Peter 1:8)

It is not that we must reject the perishable world that God has created, but we must learn to find beautiful again what God reveals as most beautiful. Only then will the ordinary take on its truest beauty. Only then can we look at a man born in a manger, serving as a carpenter, with “no beauty that we should desire him” as beautiful.