I will be the first to admit that the Bible does not present a compelling case that the supernatural gifts in question have or ever would cease. In fact, if I did not think my personal experience (or lack thereof) and church history (covered next) were not on my side, I suspect I would be a charismatic. However, due to the fact that I have never experienced any of these gifts, as well as my belief that they are not found in the history of the church in any significant measure, I find it hard for me to be honest in believing that these gifts are continuing, normative, and should be sought out. I am a de facto cessationist. A de facto cessationist is one who believes these gifts are no longer present in the church (in any normative sense) because they, as a matter of fact, ceased. The only thing I can do at this point is look into the Bible to see if there is any indication as to why they ceased.

Throughout my argument presented here, I want to look at four things: 1) the closing of the canon in relation to the ceasing of the supernatural gifts, 2) biblical reasons for cessationism, 3) a bad argument for cessationism, 4) responding to an argument for continuationism.

The Closing of the Canon in Relation to the Ceasing of the Supernatural Gifts

Some have objected to my beliefs, citing what they suppose to be an inconsistency. While admitting that the Bible does not present any compelling evidence that the supernatural gifts have ceased, I am still not a charismatic. Why is this? Isn’t the Bible, not personal or ecclesiatical experience, my ultimate guide? The answer is yes, the Bible is my ultimate guide. It is the final authority on all matters of faith and practice. If church history or “Michael history” says one thing and the Bible says another, then I go with the Scriptures.

However, while I did say the Scriptures do not present any compelling evidence that the gifts have ceased, I don’t believe they present any compelling evidence that the gifts have continued either. Therefore, I would say that the burden of proof is not necessarily mine to bear. I believe cessationists can be perfectly justified in believing the supernatural gifts in question ceased even though the Bible does not say, in any compelling way, that they have ceased.

The best illustration to help people understand this is with regard to the books of the Bible. We call the accepted books of the Bible the “canon of Scripture.” All orthodox Christians, Catholic or Protestant, Calvinist or Arminian, Charismatic or Cessationist, are cessationists in this respect: we all believe that God is no longer adding to the canon of Scripture. We believe in the cessation of the canon. We believe the days of inspired prophets writing God’s word are over. However, the Bible does not speak to the cessation of the canon anywhere. There is no place in the Bible to which we can go that delineates which books belong in the Bible, or that the Scriptures would ever cease to be added to. Of course, some bring up passages like Revelation 22:18: “I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book.” But there are three problems with this view: 1) This does not speak to the closing of the canon, it just speaks about the book of Revelation. 2) This same warning is found throughout the Scripture and simply means that we are not to add to or take away from God’s word (Deut. 4:2; Deut. 12:32; Prov. 30:6). 3) The canon order is not inspired. Revelation is the last book in most people’s Bible, but its placement is not demanded by Scriptural mandate. Therefore, this passage is not referring to closing the canon.

Now, of course, I believe the canon closed with the death of the last Apostle. But its closing, if we are honest, is a de facto closing. In other words, the primary reason we believe that it closed in the first century is because it, as a matter of fact, closed. Due to this fact, we look for possible biblical reasons why it closed. I would argue the Scriptures closed due to an exhaustion of purpose. The last Apostle died and redemptive history was summed up.

Interestingly, charismatics would make the same argument. They too believe that the Scriptures never explicitly say that the canon is closed. In spite of the fact that Scripture writing seemed to be somewhat of a norm during the days of the prophets and Apostles (as well as being evidenced in some of their close non-apostle companions such as Mark and Luke), we all believe it has closed. Why do we all believe that the canon of Scripture is closed even though the Bible itself does not say it has closed? If we are theologically honest, our answer will be very simple: Because it, as a matter of fact, closed! It is a de facto argument. The canon of Scripture is closed because God has not sent a verified Apostle or prophet to add to it in the last 2000 years.

After we consider the de facto closing of the Scriptures (“canonical cessationism”), we then build a theology as to why the Scriptures have closed. This is a legitimate attempt to explain what is already a fact. It does not create the fact, it just explains it.

The same can be said with regard to the supernatural sign gifts such as prophecy, tongues, and healings. Because they, de facto, seem to have ceased, we then attempt to offer an explanation. Here is a brief post de facto biblical explanation as to why I believe the supernatural sign gifts might have ceased.

Biblical Reasons for Cessationism

It is important to notice here that I am not presenting biblical arguments for cessationism, but biblical reasons for cessationism. I do this because I think it is best to see these as possible/probable reasons why these gifts did as a matter of fact cease (if that is the case), not why they are compelled to have ceased. Nevertheless, among these are common arguments used by hard cessationists as well.

It seems the gifts exhausted their purpose and ceased due to this exhaustion. These gifts were used to establish the Gospel message in history. It seems reasonable for God to introduce himself uniquely every time he intends to provide further revelation of himself to mankind. In the history of redemption, the advent of Christ and the Gospel message needed signs to accompany them, or belief would be unwarranted. Once the church was established and the historic verification of Christ accomplished, there was no longer any need to continue with such “sign” gifts.

Paul seems to indicate this was the case as he implicitly argued that his ability to do extraordinary miracles was due to the Apostolic message he proclaimed. As others were claiming to be so-called “super apostles,” he argued that true Apostles would have these gifts to authentic their message.

2 Cor. 12:12
“The signs of a true apostle were performed among you with all perseverance, by signs and wonders and miracles.”

Paul called on the Corinthians to look to his authority as an Apostle by looking to the “signs and wonders and miracles.” Why? It seems that from Paul’s understanding, the ability to perform such feats was reserved for true Apostles only. At the very least, he was quite certain that those who (falsely) claimed authority would not be able to do the things he was able to do.

As well, there are certain events and happenings in redemptive history that don’t need to be repeated. Notice what Paul says to the Ephesians:

Eph. 2:19-20
“So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and are of God’s household, having been built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone.” (Ephesians 2:19-20)

The “foundation” is the key. If the foundation represents a part of the structure (e.g. the Church) that is not a repeated necessity, then so does that of which the foundation is composed. Everyone would agree that the work of Christ is not repeated over and over. It also seems that the work of the Apostles and the prophets, which established the work of Christ, is not repeated. It is forever a part of the foundation.

There also may be indication of a de facto ceasing of the gifts even in New Testament times. Notice what the writer of Hebrews says:

Heb. 2:3-4
“How shall we escape if we neglect so great a salvation? After it was at the first spoken through the Lord, it was confirmed to us by those who heard,  God also bearing witness with them, both by signs and wonders and by various miracles and by gifts of the Holy Spirit according to His own will”.

Notice that the message of salvation was first spoken by the Lord (subject #1—first generation). It was then confirmed by those who heard (subject #2—the Apostles and prophets—second generation). The “to us” is the key. The writer of Hebrews indicates that the Gospel was confirmed to them (subject #3—third generation), not by them. This seems to indicate once again that the supernatural gifts primarily served a confirmatory purpose, not simply a benevolent purpose. It also (and most importantly here) seems to suggest that these confirmatory gifts were already beginning to exhaust their purpose at the time when the book of Hebrews was written. It seems that the writer of Hebrews and his audience (the “us who heard”) did not possess these gifts themselves, but relied upon the witness and testimony of those who did possess these gifts before them.

There are the more general reasons which simply demonstrate, from the position of Biblical Theology, that God does not necessarily have a modus operandi with regard to his communication. In other words, just because God sent prophets and performed miracles in the past does not mean he has obligated himself to do so for everyone (and I am not saying that you are saying that, Sam). Within the Bible, we get indications that there were long periods of silence where God was not supernaturally active. The most explicit is the four hundred years of silence between the Old Testament and the New Testament. Although it is hard to know for certain, this silence seems to be more than just a lack of Scripture, but the lack of any direct communication with God (see 1 Macc 9:27). On a smaller scale, we see this evidenced in 1 Samuel 3:1.

However, if these gifts were primarily for a temporal purpose – for God to make a footprint in history -then we would expect God’s supernatural intervention to be present only when he is making these redemptive moves in history. If these gifts were primarily benevolent gifts and not for a temporal purpose, then I ask why is God’s benevolence so restrained with regard to the healing gifts? Martin Luther asked the same thing of the Pope when he was supposed to be getting people out of Purgatory for a sum of money. If he is able to do so, why not do it out of the goodness of his heart and get everyone out? Of course, with God and healing, I don’t believe that the purpose is primarily benevolent (otherwise, none of us would grow old and die!). There has to be more to it. I think the cessationist argument makes sense of the sporadic occurrence of these supernatural interventions.

A Bad Argument for Cessationism

Often, this passage in 1 Corinthians is used to argue for cessationism:

1 Cor. 13:8-12
Love never ends. As for prophecies, they will pass away; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will pass away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when the perfect comes, the partial will pass away.  When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I gave up childish ways. For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known.

Many cessationists (including myself at one time) have used this to defend a belief in the cessation of the gifts. But, in reality, it speaks better for the continuationist’s position.

Yes, it does say that tongues “will cease” and that prophecy “will pass away,” but notice when Paul believes the cessation of such will commence: “when the perfect comes.” The question becomes, what is “the perfect”? Some cessationists have argued that the “perfect” is the completion of the Scriptures—the “perfect” revelation. The idea is that once the Scriptures have been completed, there is no longer a need for gifts such as prophecy, tongues, or any other prophetic gift. Hence, there is no longer a need for confirmatory gifts such as healings and miracles, since their purpose was to authenticate the message of the speaker.

But contextually, it is highly unlikely that “the perfect” is the completion of the Scripture. The context suggests that “the perfect” is the second coming of Christ—the day of the Lord. If this is the case, this passage may advocate at least some form of continuationism. Notice the parallelism:

Love never ends. As for prophecies, they will pass away; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will pass away.

For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when the perfect comes, the partial will pass away.

When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I gave up childish ways.

For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face.

Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known.

I have highlighted here using formatted text to illustrate how the text seems to function.  Everything in bold parallels everything else in bold. Notice that the passing away of tongues and prophecy parallels the coming of the perfect, becoming a man, seeing “face to face,” and being “fully known.” So whatever we do with being “fully known” must be done with the rest. It is hard to see how the coming of the completed Scripture could have any relation to being fully known (or seeing “face to face”). It would seem that the best understanding of these parallels is the second coming of Christ, for when else will we see “face to face” in Paul’s theology? Paul is looking to the eschaton, believing that all gifts are temporary. He may be arguing that they will not cease until Christ comes, though we don’t necessarily have to read that much into it.

Responding to an Argument for Continuationism

The arguments for continuationism often center around the normative experiences of the early church, especially in the book of Acts. Since the book of Acts is about the rise and spread of the church, many would see the occurrences therein as being normative and desirable. If this is the case then our churches today should be continually flipping through the pages of Acts to find out exactly how to function.

However, most interpreters of the Bible will caution us, especially when reading historical portions of Scripture, to distinguish between what is called “descriptive” and “prescriptive” material. Descriptive material is that which simply describes what is happening, with no mandate to follow suit. Prescriptive material, on the other hand, mandates us to follow. A good, non-controversial illustration is found in John where we are told that John outran Peter to view Christ’s empty tomb (John 20:4). Everyone would agree that this passage is not telling us that we need to run faster than others to Christ. It is describing something that happened, not prescribing what we are to do. We could go on and on with examples of this. Even in the epistles we have this. Paul tells Timothy to bring him his cloak (2 Tim. 4:13). As valuable as it is and as much as generosity is explicitly taught in other passages of Scripture, this passage is not teaching that we should bring people cloaks.

Regarding the book of Acts, I believe we are to move forward with the same caution. Just because the book says something happened does not mean that this is what we are to expect or even hope for. For example, I don’t know of any charismatic – even the most die-hard – who chooses his pastoral staff by casting lots. Yet this is precisely what happens in Acts 1 when Judas is replaced by Matthias (Acts 1:26). As well, I don’t think anyone normalizes (much less wants to) the occurrence in Acts 5 where Ananias and Sapphira were struck dead for lying about how much money they gave to the church! It is simply an odd occurrence that we don’t know how to implement. In Acts 8:17, we see that the Samaritans received the Holy Spirit not after they believed, but only after the Peter came and laid his hands upon them. We have a similar instance in Acts 19, where some Ephesian believers did not receive the Spirit until Paul laid his hands on them (Acts 19:6). Again, we don’t normalize these things. Charismatic and non-charismatic alike will see these as “transitional” happenings, not to be expected or normalized in our church today.

The reason I bring this up is to show how no one really follows the book of Acts with the idea that there should be a one-to-one correspondence with the way church functioned then and the way it functions now. We all see certain practices in the early church as unique due to the church’s infancy and need for establishment. Therefore, it is not that hard to see how the supernatural gifts that are in question could be viewed as “sign” gifts that served their purpose and ceased to continue, just like the writing of Scripture.Similar Posts:

• Why I am Not Charismatic (Part 7): Building a Theology of the Sign Gifts
• Why I am Not Charismatic (Part 5): An Argument from History
• Why I Am/Not Charismatic: What Does it Mean to Be Charismatic? Response – C Michael Patton
• Why I am Not Charismatic (Part 2)
• Why I Am/Not Charismatic: Biblical Arguments for Cessationism Response – Sam Storms

This post is really not about singleness.  Although, by way of getting to something that has me increasingly troubled, I will use singleness as the spring to launch into what I believe is the root of a problem, particularly in American evangelical Christianity.  In contending with my own issues related to singleness, I note this as an objective observation, which actually prompted my thoughts on this matter along with other things related to ecclesiology that have come across my radar.

The single person who longs to be married, is generally told to be content in their present circumstance.  That single person should not express too much their desires for a partnership otherwise it gets labelled as idolatrous.  So the burden on their heart to be loved, accepted, to belong to a union with another is supressed lest the desire turn into an idol.  Now, I am not saying that we should not learn contentment for there is biblical support to do so, such as Paul says in Philippians 4:13 that he has learned to be filled (content) in whatever circumstance he is in.  Although I would contend that the contentment in this case based on his argument is more related to material comfort.  There is also the idea that we must endure hardship.  That doesn’t mean we are not impacted by it, but in consideration of our life not being our own, we consider the prize more worthy than our loss or pain.

Nonetheless, I have noticed the extent to which we celebrate love when it does happen.  From the time that special person is realized, each successive step in the relationship is met with announcement and fanfare.  The no longer single person can rave about their significant other.  They can publicize how wonderful it is and begin including their significant other in with every conversation.  The engagement is announced and every one celebrates.  This is just the beginning as the lives of these two people are intertwined, so is the display of the union.

So what is interesting to me is that the single person who desires this kind of celebration is told that it can be idolatrous.  But when it actually happens, it is not.  What is missing and longed for when it is not there must be supressed, but not so when it actually happens.  It is celebrated and encouraged.  Why is the partnered person not told that they are being idolatrous?  I don’t know about you, but this seems awfully hypocritical to me.

Ok, so like I said this post is not about that (and I wanted to get that off my chest).  But it occurs to me that there is a reason that longing exists in the heart and the reason it is celebrated with joy when found.   There is a reason that the single person feels its absence.  And this does not just happen with singleness, but a lack of relationship in general.  Although there may be exceptions, for most of us, the difference between having relationship vs not having relationship on any or many levels impacts us.   There is a difference when we belong, are accepted and have community vs. when we are alone, isolated and missing important relationships.  That is because we are created to be in relationship with others.  I believe that when God said it is not good that man should be alone and created woman, this set the precedent for our human experience – to be in relationship with others.

But more importantly, how much more should relationship exist among members of the body of Christ.  It is one thing to experience love with one individual, but for members of the body to love one another is how Jesus said the world would know we are his disciples (John 13:35).  That does involve relationship and support in meaningful and tangible ways so that we accomplish what is commended in Ephesians 5:19-21.  No Christian should experience isolation.

But I have been increasingly dismayed to the extent this is downplayed and particularly in American Christianity.   Our rugged individualism is fostered through exhortations concerning our Christian experience.  Our language is peppered with isolationism and individualized supremacy.  We make a “personal decision” for Christ.   We encourage alone time with God.  We tell the weak to be strong in the Lord and realize they can do all things through Christ who strengthen them.  We promote the idea that it is just me and God, as exemplified in this song called Me and God.

Now before you protest, I am not saying that we don’t include the importance of a corporate component in the quest to have some kind of body life.  But even when we do that, it is so our own life can be strengthened so that we by ourselves can make it.  The occasion of the Lord’s Supper is typically marked by isolation as I reflect on what Christ did for me. (Although I do note that some traditions encourage a more participatory focus).  In our corporate worship time, we sing in isolation.  We close our eyes to have our own personal experience with the Lord and sing about how we don’t need anyone else but Jesus, like this song.

I contend that this is still individualism in a corporate guise and I fear that we are losing sight of what it means to be the body of Christ,  to experience community with each other and have the mindset that it is not just me and God, but God and His people.  This is the existence that members united together in Christ are supposed to have.  The Christian life must mean more than just God meeting my needs, being strengthened for myself so that I can go out and be a witness for him.  The biblical evidence suggests that it is the corporate makeup that witnesses to the world (Ephesians 3:10-11).  It is the body loving, serving and tending to each other that causes growth and the ability to witness (Ephesians 2:21-22; 4:15-16).   Again, that means interacting with one another in meaningful and tangible ways that entail more than just a handshake or hug on Sunday mornings.

Going back to the Philippians citation, the context of his letter heavily weighs on body life, where members are encouraged to concern themselves with something more than just their walk with the Lord but how they may support one another.  When Paul says he has learned to be content that is not for the purpose of be strengthened apart from body life.   I also contend that in Paul’s apostolic ministry, he was called to bear a more isolated existence such as those who serve in that apostolic function, i.e. missionaries may have to endure the same thing.  But I don’t believe that is meant to be the brunt of our Christian experience.

Now, I am not saying that we are escape responsibility of our Christian growth by relying on others.  It is our responsibility to work out our salvation with fear and trembling (Philippians 2:12)  and bear our load (Galatians 6:5).  That does mean spending time alone in prayer, in study, and in reflection.  Under divine discipline, there might be times where God wants us alone to experience the fellowship of Christ’s sufferings and purge sinful orientations. But that is for the purpose of providing support to body.  How can we grow up in Him, supporting one another if our Christian experience is so focused on how our own personal experience?   It is fine that we have individual mission fields but there has to be a concerted effort in how we engage with one another and foster relationship.

But as long as we promote this rampant individualism, we will likely to be impatient and possibly neglectful to the concerns of weary, troubled, lonely or isolated saints.  Is it any wonder that the single person is expected to be happily content on their own?  Should we not be surprised that an overburdened saint is offered prayers to be strengthened instead of calls for assistance?  Or that the  isolated saint is encouraged to pray harder, read more and get closer to God, as if there problem is they need more of Jesus.  Maybe they don’t need more of Jesus, but  more of His body.

 Similar Posts:

• Single Compensation
• “It is not good for man to be alone”: A Theological look at Singleness
• The Benefit of Many “Teachers” and Why Diversity is Important
• The Gospel is Not Just for Beginners
• God Never Promised Us a Mate

One of the essays in my application to DTS, was responding to how I knew I was called into ministry.  While I understood that question to be more related to affirming events that led me to apply to seminary, I find that the idea of being called into ministry has not only been a popular catch phrase but also bears some examination.   I say this because I believe the call to ministry has been designated as a special call to select individuals based on God’s selection for specific ministry roles.  I do believe that has some merit but I think it requires some reconciliation to the biblical witness of Christian ministry.

First, I think the ‘call to ministry’ as designated for select individuals is misleading.  All Christians are called into ministry because all Christians have spiritual gifts that are to be employed for service to the body of Christ (1 Peter 4:10).  That doesn’t require some specified direction but a working out of those gifts as we grow in our Christian walk and seek to serve the body.  1 Corinthians 12:12-24 identifies that everyone has a part to play in the growth of the body (also supported Ephesians 4:16).  I don’t dismiss the fact that God may have specific roles or even specialized ministries that He directs us to, but it is more indicative of our progress in the faith.

Second, the New Testament witness to the concept of calling is predominantly related to the salvific call of election.  God calls individuals into the body of Christ but not into individual ministry roles.   It is through service to the body that one works out there inclination. There is much to be said for passion and desire.  I heard a popular preacher say once that if you want to know what you should be doing pay attention to what drives you and what bothers you when its off.  I don’t believe that should be equated with a critical, fault finding mission, but an inclination of things that God has placed within us.  This is a process.  It doesn’t happen overnight. But in time, we will find ourselves inclined and passionate in certain areas of ministry that we will gravitate towards.

I don’t dismiss the fact that individuals may have some kind of revelatory event that designates their direction in ministry, but I think this sets a questionable precedent when expected as the guide.  I believe this  relies on the over-used and abuse of Proverbs 29:18 as I wrote about here.  Yes, desires can lead to vision and specific things we should be doing in Christian ministry.  But I am not convinced that is the predominant way one is called into ministry but may give us a guide to what God will have us do.

By this point, I can hear the protests.  ‘What about Abraham or Moses or even Paul?  Were they not called into their specific roles?’  Paul does identify that he was called to be an apostle.  But here too, I think it bears examination of why these individuals were called and how that related to God’s revelation of Himself.  I believe the application for us to consider that God sets in motion what He wishes to accomplish.  In the case of these individuals, God chose them to bear witness to his progressive revelation that was culminated in Christ.  Paul apostolic witness was to transmit the mystery in Christ that was previously unrevealed but had to now be made known (Ephesians 3:1-7; Colossians 1:25-27).

Some may insist that the role of pastor/overseer/shepherd requires a special call.  But I don’t believe that is the case.  It is a question gifts, maturity and the capacity to fulfill the pastoral obligations as outlined in 1 Timothy 3:2-7 and Titus 1:6-9.  Paul tells Timothy, if anyone desires to have these offices, here is the criteria (1 Timothy 3:1) NOT ‘if anyone feels they’ve been called’.  Here too, I believe is an instance where the process of Christian maturity should identify those who have the desire and capacity.  That doesn’t dismiss that God may have intended for them to fulfill that specific role, but it is not so much driven by some special call as it is a walking out of their Christian faith.   Not everyone will have this capacity or desire.

Moreover, those individuals who lead should be affirmed by others regarding their capacity to fulfill the criteria identified in scripture.  Here is where the idea of calling as a revelatory event can lead to danger, though not in all cases.  How many congregations are led by pastors who felt ‘called’ to be a pastor and may be able to preach/exhort but do not possess the qualifications outlined in scripture?  Rather, they are affirmed because of a self-proclaimed call and have the capacity to rally people to their cause rather than a carrying out of pastoral obligations according to scripture.  In the case of poor teaching and theology, the congregation may not have any idea that person should not be leading them but relies on their persona and charismatic ability instead.  I shudder to think how many congregations are led and hurt by such individuals.

While this notion of call might be not jive with the popular understanding of what is means to be called to ministry, I am convicted by scripture that the call to ministry is not so much a call but a walk.  We step into ministry that is affirmed by our spiritual gifts, abilities, desires and identification by others.  This I believe, bears much more fruit than relying on a ‘call’.

 Similar Posts:

• If God Has Stopped Speaking Then Why Do I Still Hear Him?
• Five Signs You Might Be in a Cult-Like Ministry
• The Problem with Vision
• God Never Promised Us a Mate
• If We are Not Meant to Be Alone Then Why Do We Promote It?

1. Women in ministry

2. Creation/Evolution issues

3. Calvinism/Arminianism stuff

I would put them in that order too. Talk about these topics, and be prepared for a divided crowed. Blog one of these issues and get ready for the comments section to explode. Take a stand on one of these and prepare yourself to be assigned with some nasty label. Stay away from these issue and live long and prosper . . . or something like that.

As controversial as these topics are, I have also found that there is one greater than all of these. It is not necessarily in the area of systematic theology. It would fit better in practical theology. While those referenced above may get one’s blood boiling in the heat of the battle, there is one that has a greater more sustained and nuanced effect upon our disposition. I would call it “ecclesiology” (the doctrine of the church), but I think that such an academic designation would detract from its broader appeal. Simply put, it is How we do church.

I make it a habit to take breaks from my local assembly and visit other churches that are not of my ilk. Sometimes it is just a one time visit. Other times it is for an extended stay. (Some people are shifting in their seat right now, others have quit reading.) Sometimes it is a church with a “high” liturgy. Others it is at a church that would say “litur-what?” I do this for self-preservation. I do this for spiritual edification. I do this for ecclesiastical exercise. Most of all, I do this so that I can have grace.

I believe that one of the greatest grace killers that we can have in our lives is an overly critical spirit about other churches.

I was having lunch with a pastor not too long ago who only wanted to talk about another church in the area. His opinions about the way they do church were not favorable. Though he had never been to this church, he had heard enough. His church was a “Bible-centered Church for believers.” Their church was a “Seeker driven church for unbelievers.” In his opinion, they were too fast and loose with their accommodations to the world. They were trying to build bridges to the lost, but now they had taken on the identity of the bridges, not the Kingdom to where the bridge was supposed to lead. Though the Gospel was preached, it was only milk that they offered. In his opinion, they should have a “Meat unavailable” sign out front.

I was reading another local pastor who was going off about another pastor in the area. This time it was just the opposite. This guy led a “seeker” church (which essentially means that more than fifty-percent of the intentionality of the main church service is based on getting the lost saved). He came down hard on the other pastor because he was referencing Greek and Hebrew during his message. “The church is not a seminary,” he said. He emphasized that this will do nothing but produce high and mighty arrogant Christians, and will run the rest off.

The main point that both of these pastors expressed was that their church was the one right way to do church (or at least much more right than the other). Veer just a bit from their sanctified methodology and hands are no longer held in the missio dei.

I used to be this way. Let me rephrase: I am this way, but I am in recovery.

“Hi, my name is Michael and I am a Church critic.”

“Hi Michael.” 

My approach to evaluating churches is becoming quite simple. I am starting to be able to appreciate just about any church where the Bible is being taught and the Gospel proclaimed. There can be all kinds of things I would do different. There can be all kinds of weaknesses in other areas. But when I find a church where the word of God is consistently proclaimed, more often than not, I find the power of God. When I visit a church where the Bible is respected as the final authority, I find those who are on the same mission as I. When I find a church where people are led to the Gospel, I find myself among brothers and sisters. Most importantly, when I find a church where the Bible is believed, I am surprised. It is a rare treat these days. 

Sometimes we go to churches and think:

“Maybe the Bible is being taught, but it is not expositional. God is only slightly here.”

“Maybe it is expositional, but the music is compromisingly loud. God cannot exist in such chaos.”

“Maybe the Gospel is strongly proclaimed, but people don’t know what to do next. God is waiting for them to get to step two.”

“Maybe there is good discipleship, but the Gospel is not clearly proclaimed each week with an alter call. God does not appreciate the snub.”

“Maybe people open their Bible’s here, but they use the Message. God does not like the Message.”

“Maybe these people know doctrine, but I never see them at the downtown mission. God does not like inlets with no outlets.”

On and on we could go. Yes, we could do this about your church too. I promise.

I have to train myself continually to appreciate the methodology that others are using. I have to train myself to recognize God’s presence in any number of situations. I have to remember that the Bible does not give too many “hows” of doing church.

Today I sat at a certain worship service of a church I do not normally attend and saw so many things that I could criticize, come down upon, and get worked up over. Here and there I had to stop myself. At my best moments I knew, as the Bible was being taught, that I was at the house of brothers and sisters. I knew that God works in spite of all our methodologies. I know that we are all traditionalists at heart. There is no one perfect way to do church. But there is a way to kill grace. And if grace has died, what have we got?

How do we become children with regard to our criticism of other churches? How do we unmake our beds of methodological triumph? Who’s victory are we proclaiming when we look down on other Bible believing churches? Why are we so territorially inclined?

“Hi, my name is Michael and I am a critic of Church methodology.”

“Hi Michael.” 

Don’t get me wrong. I have a particular way in which I would conduct a church. A bit more traditional than some. A bit more progressive than others. Neither high-church nor low-church. But my way is not the right way. It is not necessarily even more right than another. It is just my way, with its relative strengths and weaknesses. I am glad God gave us this freedom. I think it is why the church can shape itself in every culture and in every period of history.

In my opinion, to say that there is a “biblical liturgy” or a biblical way of doing church is about as unbiblical as we can be. It is a grace killer. And in the end, it is not the Spirit of God you are quenching in that church, it is the Spirit of God in you.Similar Posts:

• In Defense of Seeker Churches
• Should the Church Seek for Miracles Signs?
• It is Foolish to Continue to Have Evangelistic Crusades in our Postmodern World
• Why Do I (A Calvinist) Go to An Arminian Church?
• A Call for a Diversified Pastorate

It is he who gave some as apostles, some as prophets, some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers to equip the saints for the work of ministry, that is to build up the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God – a mature person, attaining to the measure of Christ’s full stature.  So that we are no longer to be children, tossed back and forth by waves and carried about by every wind of teaching by the trickery of people who craftily carry out their deceitful schemes.  But practicing truth in love, we will grow up into Christ, who is the head.  From him the whole body grows, fitted and held together through every supporting ligament.  As each one does its part, the body grows in love.  (Ephesians 4:11-16 NET)

Now first I will acknowledge that using the word ‘church’ requires a little more specificity.  I see in Ephesians 3:10-11 that the church has a function as the body of believers to accomplish the purpose of revealing Christ to the world.  So the local assemblies as visible representations of the invisible church, carries out its mission through the inward working of the body of Christ growing into an organism that upholds the mandate of what the church is supposed to be.  The first order of business, that I think this passage speaks to is the selection of gifts that are given for the purpose of equipping the saints.  That is followed by the actual equipping.  Next, that results in the individual members contributing to the process through who and what they should be to other members in the body of Christ.

Specifically with respect to how the body of Christ, the corporate entity that comprises individual members, seeks to engage in the mission of representing Christ in a fallen world and engaging those outside of the body in order to present his testimony to garner faith in Christ.  That is a mission that is explicitly stated in Matthew 28:19 to make disciples and inferred throughout the New Testament letters, that engaging those who don’t believe in Christ is an important task and the purpose for which Christ came.

I think this creates a natural tension between an inward vs. an outward focus.  The task of the church is represent Christ but also has a responsibility to grow up to maturity.  This does not happen in a vacuum but in community with other believers, as all are being equipped for works of service.  And yet there is the mandate to ‘go’ and be a witness to Christ.

So what does that have to do with education?   I encounter from time to time, resistance to formalized education to learn catechesis (instruction in Christian doctrine).   I hear often that bible studies are fine and needed but we have to be about the work we are to accomplish.  I specifically hear this in reference to the great commission, that has a subtle hint of assigning greater importance to winning the lost than on equipping the saints for the work of service.  We can become too knowledgeable without applying that knowledge to fruitful application.  I do agree that this is a danger with education.

However, when I look at the complete witness of New Testament scripture, I see that the commission of the church outwardly is based on its foundation and stability inwardly.  In other words, it is incumbent upon the body of Christ to represent Christ through its inward growth that will result in outward application.  But what I fear is that we place greater emphasis on the outward application without proper attention to the inward structure.

Moreover, I don’t think it honors the witness of Christ when education concerning Him is not taken seriously.  Experience is great but I believe insufficient.  Drawing a rather crude analogy, if I were a salesperson, shouldn’t I know as much about the product as possible.  I could speak to the benefits that I have obtained personally, but that would be inadequate in the face of questions related to how the product functions.  Can you imagine my only retort being ‘it works for me personally’?  Yet, that is what is espoused when we insist on our personal relationship with Christ not requiring extensive knowledge about him or about what he has built.

So how much education is enough?  I would say that education concerning God and his plan for salvation could never be exhausted.  Yet, I recognize that not everyone would be inclined for institutional or seminary level training.  But I believe that Michael’s last post on essentials vs. non-essentials highlights the fact that all Christians should be engaged in some form of education to understand who and what they are better in order to grow in grace and the true knowledge of Jesus Christ as well as be equipped to represent their faith adequately.   That does mean understanding the basis for key points of Christian doctrine and even the historical development. The Holy Spirit was just as much engaged with the church throughout history as he is now and we can learn from those who have gone before.  I think that also means a systemized study of key doctrine to determine what the whole counsel of scripture would say on them.   In this way, I don’t think just reading the Bible by itself is sufficient but extracting key points of doctrine from it to determine what is most honest to the biblical text.   But I also believe that teaching Christians what the bible is and how to read it is equally as important.

I don’t believe that Sunday sermons alone are sufficient.  Whether it be through lay institutes, weekly bible studies (in the true sense of working through books of the bible), or small group sessions there has to be continued instruction in pertinent points of doctrine within the context of community that engages believers in a continual growth process resulting in faithful representation of who they are as the body of Christ.  The newest DVD set published by Reclaiming the Mind ministries on Essentials of the Christian Faith is a good place to start.  Otherwise, ‘going’ and ‘doing’ will be undermined by not ‘being’, which is the whole point of serving as a witness to Christ to a fallen world.

“Instead set Christ apart as Lord in your hearts and always be ready to give an answer to anyone who asks about the hope you possess” (1 Peter 3:15 NET)Similar Posts:

• The Gospel is Not Just for Beginners
• A Theology of Indifference
• Ministry Madness and Shaky Structures: A Warning in 1 Corinthians 3:10-17
• Why I Do Not Teach Christian Living Principles
• The Greatest Theological Lesson in Seminary

I remember when a church I was attending switched from one service to two. It was not pretty. Most certainly the church needed it. It was packed. The general rule is when the service is consistently up to eighty percent full, plans need to be made for some sort of change. If no change is sought, filling out that extra twenty-percent usually won’t even happen. The idea is that people don’t like to be that crowded and will just seek other places of worship. It was time for this church to think bigger.

Half the people thought it was a good idea. The other half did not. The half that did not argued that it would take away from the intimacy that was currently present. They liked the way it was and did not want it to change. The half that did wanted to experience the excitement of growth and new faces. They liked the way it could be and were willing to risk the change. It is amazing how many people left because of this growth ”problem.”

Change did occur. A second service was inaugurated. Invariable, certain (predictable) things happened. There was an “early” and a “late” service. Those who did not want the change (and stuck around) went to the first service. I don’t know why, I suppose it felt like it was the “original” service. Those who did want the change went to the second service.

Head with me for a slight turn here.

When I preach at a church that has two services, more often than not, I get a lot better reception from the second service than from the first. They laugh more at my jokes. They cry more at . . . well, those parts they are suppose to cry. Their facial expressions are more dynamically indicative of the movements of the sermon. And there is even a bigger line of people who want to talk to me afterward. All and all, it is simply a more positive experience during the second service.

“Yeah, that is because the second service is LATER, Michael. People are more awake!”

I don’t think so. You see, first service Christians never fall asleep. Their eyes do not even glaze over. Fatigue is not the issue. They are listening to be sure. But the type of listening is different. Generally, they are more likely to have their arms crossed. Their countenance seems to default to scowl. If it is not, then they look like they are having to make quite an effort at keeping it from gravitating to such. In short, they are more critical. It is as if they are looking for creative ways to criticize me rather than listen to the word of God and let it change them. Are they waiting for me to slip up? Do they already know everything? Are they (perish the thought) the fundamentalists of the church? I don’t know. But one thing I do know is that excitement and energy are far from them.

When this church switched to two services, there were two personality types that were separated. Those who did not want growth and change and those who did. First service Christians are protective. They are protective of their way of life. They are protective of their truth. They have made it as far as they can go and only exist to keep the status quo. On this journey called Christianity, they have set up camp, become comfortable in this camp, built walls to protect themselves, keeping their flock in and others out, and stationed canons pointed toward the outside. They are scary to be around. It’s that simple.

Second service Christians are excited about possibilities. They are never ready to make camp and build walls. Their arsenal is small. They have “Yes faces.”  They are looking for the good first, rather than the bad. They gravitate toward acceptance rather than criticism. Their arms are never crossed. They just seem to have hope. That is why I like to preach during the second service.

Now, hopefully you have realized that much of what I have said is somewhat metaphorical. It is not really about first and second services. 

I know of a local church pastor who is head of one of the largest churches in America. One time he said that he would not hire pastors who were outside of their 20s. When asked why, he said because in your 20s, you still believe you can change the world. After your 20s, you don’t.

I have struggled with this idea. Most of the struggle is because I realize there is some sense of truth to what he is saying. Many times when we get older, we slowly lose the excitement about life and possibilities. We start to become first service Christians. Our self-evaluated “wisdom” and experience reekss of bitterness, hopelessness, and a downcast spirit. We begin to fold our arms to life itself. Any thoughts of change, hope and development become living heresies. “Been there, done that” is our motto. Joy is replaced by self-preservation. We become immobile and, worse, we justify this and seek to reproduce after our kind. We just want things to remain as they are. Change is a treat.

Not all first service Christians are “first service Christians”…don’t go there. And I know that there are churches who have more than two services, so don’t ask about “third service Christians.” By now you should know that the first and second service stuff is not really my point. Also, not all of us outside our 20s are “first service Christians” (I hope!). But we have to fight, as individuals and churches, to keep from becoming such. The moment this disease (and it is a disease) infects us, spiritual rigamortis is next on the calendar. The gravitational pull of lives filled with hurt and disappointment causes us to roll up into a ball on the floor for the remainder of our existence.

But we are not called to be in this ball. We cannot duck our head in our shell. Yes, change, development and starting a second service are all risky. Standing up straight is risky. It is easier to have no hope than to expose ourselves by fickle hope again. It is easier to be critical than hopefully accepting. But did you know “Been there, done that” is not in the Proverbs?

Let us find joy again. Let us become second service Christians and return to the joys of hope and possibilities.Similar Posts:

• A Theology of More III: Worship
• Should We Be able to Interupt a Sermon?
• Why Even Bother Going to Church?
• Exercise and Theology
• My Experience Today at LifeChurch.tv

As many of you know, I often like to take a break from my church and explore what is going on in other places. Today was one of those days. Due to my confusion, I don’t have a pulpit with me right now. Therefore, I am comfortable revealing names and places. I went to Life Church today. This is not so unusual as I have been there before. The main campus is just a couple of miles down the street.

Life Church is one of those things that makes someone of my tradition scratch their heads. I have scratched a big portion of my hair out today. Life Church is somewhat of a phenomenon. It has become quite legendary due to the way church is done. They are more technologically savvy than Paramount pictures. Let me just briefly describe the service today to help you out.

This summer the theme has been “Life Church at The Movies” (or something like that). When you walk in there are huge posters that are done in the theme of Toy Story. These are the kind of posters that we would have to create a separate line item at the Credo House to cover. They were visually stunning. But that is not even half of it. In the lobby, everything is decorated according to a movie theater/Toy Story theme. “Decorated” is a bad word as it was much more than just decoration. It was a movie theater entrance. And a nice one at that. On the other side of the lobby, there were artifacts from the Toy Story set. You would not believe it. They had a twelve foot etch-a-sketch. I think it actually worked! Andy’s room was set up perfectly in a separate roped off area. They even had an eight foot tall game machine like the one that the aliens were taken from in Toy Story 1 (you know . . . those guys who say “you have saved our lives, we are eternally grateful”). I could go into more detail, but you get the idea.

Wait…I have some pictures.

Etch-A-Sketch to Left

Alien Game to Right

The idea during this movie series is to show twenty or thirty minutes of an inspirational movie and then draw lessons from it. Today the movie was “The Blind Side.” Last week it was “Walk the Line.” The messages were great. The typical motivational seminar type stuff with some Christian justification behind it. Not too much scripture. Certainly not any expositional preaching.

Now I need to back up a bit…

I am from a tradition that is in a love/hate relationship with this kind of stuff, with hate tipping the scales more often than not. Its called by many names: “seeker-sensitive,” “seeker-friendly,” or the more pejorative “seeker driven.” I went to seminary when all this seeker stuff was hotly debated. Rick Warren’s Purpose Driven Church was the book to read and your spirituality was based on how much you hated it. The biggest and, for many, most definitive criticism of the “seeker” mentality is that while there is evangelism that happens, discipleship can hardly be found. Like a friend of mine often says, “Tastes great, less filling.” Michael Spencer used to call this movement the “Evangelical circus.”

Now, I have to come clean and admit something here. There is a sense in which those like me actually want these type of churches to fail. That is hard for me to admit. In fact, I am thinking about taking that line out. But it is true. “See . . . I told you so” are words that are often on the tip of my tongue ready to be interjected at the slightest hint that the “seeker” churches have compromised or failed. What a terribly sinful entanglement that I have. I admit it. There is no justification for that.

Okay, back to the story…

I sat down by some big biker dude. He was awesome. Long hair, bandanna, and long ungroomed beard. For a moment, I thought he might be a prop for the set. Then I looked across the church and saw that he was not so uncommon. None of these people looked like “churchy” people at all. The majority were under forty and dressed in the same thing they were going to wear for the rest of the day (or the same thing they wore last night). Did I mention flip-flops? Lots of flip-flops (including mine). Concerning my biker neighbor, I did not know anything about him. I did not know what sins he struggled with, how his marriage was, or what he did the night before. However, I could tell that he was glad to be there and he seemed to really love Jesus. I was glad he was there too. In this place, for better or worse, the curtain between the church and the culture was wrent in twain. The atmosphere was one of grace and excitement.

Was the lesson impactful? For me, it was a 3 on a scale of 10. Sure, I felt a bit of conviction “to go,” as the message said, “and find someone in need and be an influence upon them.” But it is one of those things. In order for it to really have any chance of lasting beyond a fly in the ointment of my conscience for the day, the conviction level must be above a 6. Otherwise it is just one-day-guilt. I normally respond better to those messages that are grounded in Scripture and illustrated by a movie rather than grounded in a movie and illustrated by Scripture. (There, got my one cheap shot flowing with snarkiness out. I feel a tincy bit better.)

However, there was something different going on there. Something that was intoxicating. Something that my spirit had been deprived of but I failed to realize it until now. A spiritual anti-depressant if you will. It was the power of the Gospel. But not this alone. It was the power of the Gospel as it was proclaimed to so many people who had never heard it. From what I understand, there were hundreds, even thousands, of unchurched people there. Seems right. It is a “seeker” church. That is what all the production is for: to get unbelievers to come hear the message of Christ by whatever means (within reason) necessary.  We were informed that over four-hundred people accepted Christ last week during the “Walk the Line” message. Now, I take those numbers with a grain of salt. However, I would not be surprised if there are not a lot of people who are being ushered into the kingdom at this church. Whatever people might think of Craig Groeschel (the lead pastor) and his philosophy of ministry, he gives one of the clearest presentations of the true and uncompromised Gospel that I have ever heard. It is this that is so exhilarating. To witness the evangel (the Gospel) being proclaimed to so many in need is a vitalization, for me, of what we are about. You must understand, being from this part of town and growing up living on the other side of the Christian train tracks, these people represented hundreds of my friends and acquaintances that I grew up with who I could never get to come to my church or show up for a Bible study, but were sitting there willingly listening to what Christ has done for them and how to be forgiven.

It has been a long time since I have wanted to stand up and cheer, but today I jumped off the wagon of evangelical stagnation and was reminded about why we are here. It is this vitalized celebration of my heart that has confused me. I want with all of my stubborn being to say how wrong Life Church, the new Mecca of seeker churches, has got it. But I can’t.

What I have been coming to realize over the years is that there is simply no one way to do church. I think that this is a strength of Evangelicalism. We can stretch in many directions. Evangelicalism has its arms open wide to a varied set of liturgies, from high church formality to Toy Story lobbies. Neither do I don’t think that there is one transcendently right way to do church. I am not arguing for seeker churches, but I am not arguing against them either. They have their place, and I think it is about time to recognize how God is using them in spite of all our “yeah, buts.” There are some churches that are good at the discipleship, but lack in outreach. There are some churches that are good at community, but lack in strong teaching. There are some churches that are good at connecting with the past, but have no connection to the present. And there are some that are good at converting the lost, but don’t know what to do with them after.

I have yet to find the perfect church. I am coming to think that our territorialism is the biggest problem. We want to throw rocks at the church across the street for not having the strengths of our church, while not recognizing our weaknesses. We have a distorted self-defense that clinches its fist when people are not doing things the way we think they ought to. While I think churches should be as balanced as they can, maybe the individual churches should unclinch their fists and begin to hold hands with those who don’t share their strengths but do cater to their weaknesses. I am not so sure that we should see ourselves as ”belonging” to any one church.

When Paul would write to the churches, he never addressed any particular group or gathering within the larger whole. He did not write one letter to the “First Baptist Church at Corinth” and one to the ”Evangelical Community Church at Corinth.” While I am sure there were many individual house gatherings by that time, all having strengths and weaknesses, he wrote to “the church at Corinth.” No territorialism. No rocks. No preference. Everyone saw themselves as parts of the whole. It is the whole that needed the message. This is how he wrote to all the churches. I figure that were he to write to my church, it would be addressed to “the church of Oklahoma City.” The problem is that we are so busy throwing rocks, criticizing each others’ weaknesses, and territorially worried about our own church’s budget, that we would probably not recognize the other churches and share the letter.

Do churches have gaping holes of weakness? Certainly. Is discipleship a hole in Life Church. I think it is. Does Life Church need to change their style. No. What they are doing is incredible. Where else would my biker friend feel welcome? They, like all local churches, need to recognize that they are only one part of something bigger. Having gapping holes of weakness does not mean that we have to have gapping holes of neglect. If Christ-centered churches saw themselves as a part of a larger community of churches, then we could all work together to provide the balance that is needed. Then people like me could do more celebrating than criticizing.

Today, God helped me to celebrate the “Evangelical circus.”Similar Posts:

• In Defense of Seeker Churches
• Top Ten Reasons the Evangelical Did Not Cross the Road
• Grace Killer #1: “Biblical” Ways of Doing Church?
• Michael Spencer on the Problems of Evangelicalism
• The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind Sixteen Years Later

What a cute question. It gave me the opportunity to sit down and talk to her and my six year old son Will about baptism.

Flashback six months.

My other daughter Katelynn (who is eleven), was desirous to be baptized. In actuality, she has been for quit some time. Every time I have said “no.” I just have not been comfortable with her sincerity. It is not her trust in Christ that I question, but her reasons for wanting to be baptized. It always seems to have a motivation of “fun” and the my-friend-got-baptized-so-I-want-to-also argument. I don’t like that. She is kind of a show off. She likes to be the center of attention. Like when we are at the Credo House getting ready to do a class or Bible study, she wants to be on camera and speak into the mic for no reason other than to show her pretty face. Our church is pretty typical in the way we do baptism. It is believer’s baptism and it takes place in a baptismal which is right behind the stage. Many people are present as you confess your faith and illustrate your new life in Christ by going under water (being buried with Christ) and coming out of the water (raised to a new life).

Simply put, while I think Katelynn understands what baptism is about, I don’t like the competing motives that are arm wrestling in her mind right now.

Every time she asks to be baptized, I test her by saying “OK, let’s do it right now. We can do it in the bath tub.” Each time she refuses. This, to me, confirms my thoughts about her motives. She is just not ready.

I am not saying I am right, but it is where I am.

Flash forward to today.

Katelynn is out of town at camp. Its just me, Will, Kylee, and Zach (my three year old). After discussing with Kylee and Will about baptism, both were excited. Kylee is different than Katelynn. She is not such an attention monger. She, like Katelynn, asked if she could be baptized. So did Will. So I put it to the test. I said,  ”Sure. Let’s go outside to the pool and I will baptize you both right now.” They both agreed with surprising excitement.

Now, I am an ordained minister of the Gospel, but, to me, this adds no qualifying credentials to my ability to baptize. I don’t see anywhere in Scripture which even suggests that only someone in ministerial authority can baptize someone else. If the great commission is given to all people and we place sharing the Gospel message on the backs of all, then why not the other part of the Great Commission, “baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit”? Church tradition, as you probably are aware, is certainly not unified on this. Therefore, I go with a simple reading of Scripture and say that everyone, young or old, male or female, including you, can and should baptize others. Have you ever baptized anyone?

As well, while my particular tradition suggests that baptism should be done at church on Sunday evenings at 6:30pm once a month, there is simply no reason for us to be bound by such constraints. If a person understands what baptism is about and has made a commitment to Christ, find water. It is pretty simple. While nice, I don’t see any reason why a crowd is necessary at all. I mean, how big would the crowd have to be?

I am always reminded of the simple story of Philip and the Ethiopian Eunuch in Acts 8:26-40. Remember, the Eunuch listened to the Gospel and then desired to be baptized. Philip did not call a big crowd together of other Christians (although there was probably quite a few people in the Ethiopian’s convoy) and schedule a baptismal service. Philip did not present him with his official ordination certificate. Simply put, Philip was not bound by the traditional production we are so fond of today (not that it is necessarily evil or anything). He simply found water.

“As they traveled along the road, they came to some water and the eunuch said, ‘Look, here is water. Why shouldn’t I be baptized?’ And he gave orders to stop the chariot. Then both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water and Philip baptized him.” (Acts 8:37-38)

Sometimes I think we make baptism far too complicated and in the production lose some of the meaning.

This being said, I took both Kylee and Will into the pool and baptized them. This is what I was commanded to do. I will do the same with Katelynn if she so desires. While I have nothing against some of the traditions we have with regards to baptism, I think we need to be careful.  Baptism is free, but it is too important for us to lose in our traditionalism. Sometimes we just need to go find water.

What say you? Would you baptize your kids in the pool? Why or why not?Similar Posts:

• A Call for a Diversified Pastorate
• Little Churches within the Church
• The Intellectual Crisis of Today's Church
• My Experience Today at LifeChurch.tv
• How Theologically Diverse Should Your Church Be?

There is hardly a place you can go anymore and hear the classic hymns of the faith sung in a classic way. Nine out of ten times, churches have quietly changed their tune. Don’t get me wrong, I have nothing against contemporary worship music. In fact, I really like it. But more and more the great hymns of the faith are being ushered out. Now, even when they are played, their sound is contemporary. It is not really the same. The best way I can express it is that hymns are epic and epic songs need an epic sound. 

I like the word “epic.” It fits when it comes to the great hymns of the faith. Hymns are epic as God is epic. Hymns played in a traditional way, with the traditional sound, are even more epic.

I don’t wish to beat this thing to death. I am 37 years-old. I just caught the tail-end of the transition to contemporary music. Think of this as an opinion piece rather than an informed theological argument. I am not saying that God is more pleased when we play hymns. I am not saying that this is the “right” way to worship. I am just saying that there is a defense that can be made for hymns.

Hymns enter the church into a saga. While I think church can and does take these kind of things to far, there is something to be said for tradition. When I attended an Eastern Orthodox church not too long ago I remember thinking about all the things that they did wrong to the detriment of the Gospel. However, there is something that I believe they get right: they allow people to experience the church. No, not the building they are in or even their congregation, but the historic church. Because of their liturgy, which goes back thousands of years, they join hands with all the saints of the past.  Other traditions do this as well in their own respective ways. This is one aspect of the value that the great hymns of the faith sung and played in a classical way have. Of course most of them don’t go back to the earliest church. In fact, most only go back a few hundred years. But when we sing, “A Mighty Fortress is our God” (pipe organ, trumpet, choir and all), their is a sense in which we take the hand of Martin Luther and the reformers expressing our solidarity with them.

I know I have said in the past that I don’t like the organ. Really, I don’t like to sing with it. It drains me. However, I do love to hear it. It is not simply that it has a classic feel, but that it has an historic feel. Big difference here. The same thing with the choir. Not a quartet. A choir. People everywhere are going retro with everything. Retro cars. Retro shoes. Retro movies. Retro restaurants. Why? Because in our fast-paced, technology-doubling-every-four-years, society we are losing ourselves. We no longer feel our heritage as it has disappeared out the rear-view mirror a long time ago. Now we are groping for something to hold on to. Something that reminds informs us of who we are. Why do you think so many church goers are exiting the back door of pop-Evangelicalism in search of something with ties—real ties—to the past?

This type of stuff is simply hard to replicate.

The classic hymns also have wonderful theology. You know I was going here. Please don’t hear me saying that contemporary praise does not have good theology. So much of it does. But classic hymns are classic for a reason. They have stood the test of time and the test of a thousand theologians. Though “It is Well With My Soul” only goes back one-hundred and fifty years, its theological depth combined with the historic circumstance into which it was written make it epic.

For me, there is a time for songs with great theological depth and there is a time for songs that are outbursts of praise and petition. There is a time for everything (didn’t someone already say that?). But let us not forget the value, educational and doxological, of the more didactic hymns.

I am not saying that we should jettison everything contemporary with a self-righteous smug on our face. Don’t sing only hymns. In fact, if you were to only sing hymns, it would detract from what I am saying. We need to respect the overwhelming power of hymns. Too many of them would be exhausting. Just as I don’t want to hear multiple sermons every Sunday (I would end up forgetting them all), I don’t want to hear too many hymns. I would be happy with just one hymn that came across as an epic performance that gave us pause, caused us to joined hands with the historic church, and was rich enough for us to reflect on for days. “And Can it Be” would be fine this week. For the rest of the time, let’s sing the catching worship stuff.

Am I the only one who likes the classic hymns sung in a classic way?Similar Posts:

• Open Discussion: No Music Allowed
• Why I Don’t Like Christian Music
• In Defense of Seeker Churches
• Is Today’s Evangelicalism Retro-Fundementalism
• Michael Spencer on the Problems of Evangelicalism

Other ways to get TUP:

Similar Posts:

• Theology Unplugged (with Sam Storms): How Long Should Your Doctrinal Statement Be?” – Part 1
• Theology Unplugged (with Sam Storms): How Long Should Your Doctrinal Statement Be?” – Part 2
• Theology Unplugged: Certainty
• Theology Unplugged – God Sightings 3
• Theology Unplugged – The History and Future of Evangelicalism (Part 3)