Helpful comments about Lent and Holy Week

In the latest edition of The Mortification of Spin , Dr. Carl Trueman makes a very important point about the growing fad among evangelicals of observing Lent.  The first part of the broadcast features some inside humor but around the 13:10 mark it gets serious when Trueman says the following:

"We're at a season of the year when there is all this hoo-hah about Lent...I'm not a Lent person.  I am suspicious of the reasons why it has popped up in evangelical culture.  But the thing that really bugs me is we've got all of this passionate, evangelical, trendy discussion about Lent at the same time as the Lord's Day and observance of the Lord's Day is vanishing... in American church culture.
The idea of making the Lord's Day special has disappeared.  So we've got all of these people telling how you need to do Lent because it is so...cool, hip and counter-cultural.  Well, I want to tell you, the most counter-cultural thing you can do these days is start observing the Lord's Day as in a relatively traditional manner.  Be in church morning and evening.  Don't spend your day watching the television or kicking a ball around.  Spend your day with your family.  Spend your day having good conversations.  Spend the day fellowshiping with your brothers and sisters.
If you want to talk about Lent, I'll talk to you about Lent after, I'm convinced, that you have spent enough time reflecting on the importance of the Lord's Day."  

And, not to be outdone, D.G. Hart has a little reflection on "Holy Week."  Click  At Least Jesus Gets A Week  to read further.

Clergy on the Catwalk

Coming to a PCA church near you?  Let's hope not.  While we have our share of debates in the PCA about worship let's hope that we don't descend to this.

HT - Out of Ur

Worship Wars - A Lutheran Spin

The title sounds old hat, doesn't it.  These wars have been going on for the last three decades with more and more churches throwing in the towel and going contemporary.  Confessional Lutheran churches are not immune to this trend and pastors who stand in the way become vulnerable.

Lutheran Pastor Hans Fiene has a helpful article about this topic.  He writes:

When advocates of historic Lutheran worship argue against the widespread use of contemporary worship, in particular the use of Contemporary Christian Music (CCM) in the Divine Service, they often do so using a syllogism that looks something like this:

Major Premise: Music that focuses on the objective work of Christ is beneficial for use in worship, whereas music that focuses on the subjective feelings of Christians is not.

Minor Premise: Most historic Lutheran hymns focus on the objective work of Christ, whereas most CCM songs focus on the subjective feelings of Christians.

Conclusion: Therefore historic Lutheran hymns are beneficial for use in worship, whereas CCM songs are not.

He continues by noting that most critics focus on the minor premise and the conclusion.  They do so by arguing that "there are plenty of bad hymns" and that somehow justifies their preferences.  To read more of Pastor Fiene's comments go here.

It is without question that there are plenty of bad hymns out there (bad theologically and/or bad musically).  The solution isn't to chuck all hymns - it is to retain that which is good and write new ones that are equally good (Part of what our church is doing is going back to the Psalter and getting acquainted with the Psalms themselves and the tunes sung by our spiritual forefathers).    

Marva Dawn's book Reaching Out Without Dumbing Down is a good place to begin studying this topic. There are other works out there too but I've found this one particularly helpful in my ministry.

Pastor takes a Sabbatical from Church

Over at Out of Ur I read about a pastor who is taking a three month sabbatical from church.  His goal is to understand how "spiritual" people live - e.g. those who believe in God but don't gather for corporate worship.   The pastor who is the subject of the article is quoted as saying...

I'm a preacher. I'm all wrapped up in the system. From the inside, it is truly difficult to gain perspective. Conceptually, I get why an increasing number of younger generations are flocking away from -- well, the "flock," but frankly, just seeing and acknowledging the "hypocrisy" (among the other issues to which they correctly point as the problem with church) isn't enough; I need to do something about it. So, it's time to get some "perspective." 

I don't know about you but to me this guy needs to get perspective on the theology of worship.  Church isn't about programs nor should it ever be.  God's people gather to receive His good gifts as His Word is expounded and as the Sacraments are administered.  Worship is doxological (offering praise) but it is also a dialog between God and His people.  He summons us and and we gather.  He arraigns us as His law is read and we confess our sins.  In response He declares that our sins are forgiven because of Christ's work.  He speaks in the sermon and we respond.  He strengthens us through the sacraments and we respond with praise.  Finally he dismisses us with His blessing (benediction).  I would hope that this pastor would give some attention to the purpose of church and what God promises to do in worship.  

I understand that evangelicalism with its mega-churches, rock-star pastors, and massive youth programs can be a rat-race.  If that's you, then look outside your tradition.  Read the Westminster Confession of Faith, the Heidelberg Catechism and the Belgic Confession.  Consider that since the Protestant Reformation these documents have guided many to a right approach to church.  My hope and prayer is that this pastor and many others will discover what I have articulated above. 

Office Hours: Terry Johnson on Worship

Ask any evangelical about the essence of worship and you are bound to get a wide variety of answers ranging from the musical style, to the use of big screens, to preachers who lay it on thick, to encounters with the presence of God. 

Ask Terry Johnson, pastor of Independent Presbyterian Church of Savannah, Georgia and you will get an entirely different answer.  He argues that worship is to be governed by God's Word (no surprise to those familiar with the 'regulative principle of worship').  Beyond that he argues that God's Word (not the pastor, not the band or the music, not the congregation) is to be front and center.  Specifically, "God's Word should be read, preached, prayed, and sung."  Beyond that the sacraments are important because "the are the word made visible" (Augustine).  Using that measurement, how does your worship service stack up? 

For those wanting to understand what historic, reformed worship ought to look like you need to listen to this interview: Office Hours: Terry Johnson on Worship.  Listen and compare what is discussed to what happens in your house of worship.  It reminds me of what was articulated in the book and DVD, Christless Christianity.

Where to Put What We Sing

As the Lord's Day looms near I found an article that might be of help as you prepare for worship.

Darryl Hart has written a helpful piece about music and worship. No, its not a piece for or against contempary music. Rather, it is a call for careful examination about what we sing and why it shows up at a certain place in the order of worship. Here is a relevant nugget...

Hymnals are something that Presbyterians take for granted. Rare is the lay person who picks up the book to examine it like any other, looking say at the table of contents, then at some of the indexes, and then at one or two hymns to see which tune the compilers used for a certain text. Instead, most church members look at the bulletin at the specific time for singing in the service, find the number in the hymnal, stand, and sing the chosen hymn.


Perhaps just as rare is a church member who reflects on a hymn in relation to what goes before and after it in the service. Does it follow a prayer, a Bible reading, the sermon? Did the pastor choose the hymn for a specific reason? Was it to reinforce the theme of the biblical passage, to resonate with the sermon topic, or as is often the case for hymns before the sermon, just a way to let people stand and stretch?


And most important, did the pastor choose the hymn to function as a prayer in response to what just transpired in divine worship?


This is the most important question if the dialogical principle guides the way that we order a service. If God speaks and we respond, then the way God speaks is through word (read and preached) and sacraments, and we respond by prayer (and offering). This means that congregational singing needs to fit the category of prayer...

Now whether you agree with the rest of the article is immaterial to me.  What is important is the view that worship is dialogical and that our response in song is be a form of prayer. 

How many can say that their church's worship service conforms to a dialogical of pattern where God speaks and we respond?  Not too many.  How many can legitimately say that their music is a type of prayer?  Probably not too many.  There are those who will debate this point on the grounds that their worship service is filled with praise (stretched to mean prayers of praise).  But is that dialog or monologue?  Seems pretty one dimensional to me.  Prayers are more than praise: there are prayers of confession, prayers of gratitude, prayers requesting mercy, and prayers of application (Lord, may I not forget this message from your word).  Thus it follows that our music and where it shows up in the order of worship is very important in serving the dialogical nature of our communication with God.

I realize that many are not interested in this point of view.  But if you are one of the "young, restless and reformed" crowd then think again.  What is articulated by D.G. Hart is classic reformed theology from the pen of John Calvin. 

Click here to read more: Old Life Theological Society » Blog Archive » Where to Put What We Sing

A Generation of Bandwagon Jumpers – Kevin DeYoung

Kevin DeYoung, Pastor of University Reformed Church in Lansing, Michigan has a great article for the under 40 crowd, especially those who have begun to understand reformed theology. He has credibility for he is a member of that crowd. He writes...

There are two ironclad rules of Gen XYZ Americans: (1) They like to be trendy, (2) but only until everyone knows what they’re into is trendy. We want to be like everyone else but, at the same time, different. So we gravitate to whatever people are into as long as it doesn’t feel like everyone else is into it.

This leads me to a few thoughts on the young, restless, reformed movement. I believe God is at work in the under-40 generation, doing something doctrinally, ecclesiologically, and doxologically healthy among many youngish Christians. Further, I believe this work of God is being mediated through a remarkable network of like-minded pastors, preachers, and scholars. I don’t know when there have been so many folks, often friends, saying and writing more or less the same things about the gospel, the atonement, the Scriptures, the glory of God, the doctrines of grace, the centrality of the church, the importance of preaching, the roles of men and women, and on and on it goes. We are blessed with an inordinate and growing number of good teachers, good books, good blogs, and good conferences.

But our desire for biblical truth, as understood (for the most part correctly, I believe) by Calvin, Edwards, Piper, Carson, etc. must be a passion for God, not a passion for trendy.


We must embrace historic protestant orthodoxy in general and, for many of us, particular Reformed expressions of it, not because it makes us feel superior to them (whoever them is), but because it is the best way to know Him. The goal is not to be a T4G-TGC-CHBC-ACE-PCA-SGM-DGM groupie. The goal is to know God, love God, and serve God–all of which can be helped, and is being helped, by the love for gospel truth in these groups (and many others).

Now, what interests me in all of this is the opening sentence of this last paragraph.  What does it mean to 'embrace historic protestant orthodoxy' and 'a particular Reformed expression of it'?  Does it mean to simply affirm that one follows a particular teacher or pastor (take your pick)?  Does it mean that one consciously says that "I am a reformed baptist, a reformed charismatic, etc."?  Or does it mean that one do more than give intellectual assent to a tradition or even give permission for others to label them as a certain type of Christian, but that one actually puts shoe leather to his/her profession and actually joins a church in that tradition?  I would hope that DeYoung has this in mind but I'm not sure. 

I, for one, am a bit tired of all of the talk about how much the younger crowd loves reformed theology.  Visit where they choose to worship (note I didn't say the church where they are a member) and you often find little that relates to historic reformed piety or practice.  Ask a few questions and it becomes clear that they are there for the music, the programs, the entertaining preaching, the big screens, the success, and the big budgets. 

There are real reformed churches out there -- places where pastors spend more time over their books than chewing the fat over a Starbucks.  You just need to look for them.  Are they perfect?  Hardly.  Do they have all the trendy things of the larger churches?  No, but they have what is essential: the true preaching of the Word, the right administration of the sacraments, and church discipline. 

Here's an analogy.  What's a more authentic dining experience?  Going to the mall and eating at a national chain restaurant or finding some hole in the wall place run by immigrants that serves food based on family recipes from the old country, with huge portions, and a propreitor that genuinely cares about your well-being?  That's the difference between the franchise model mega-church and the authentic reformed church. 

Hey Generation XYZ.  Do something counter-cultural.  Join an authentic reformed church that subscribes to reformed creeds and confessions.  You won't be disappointed. 

A Generation of Bandwagon Jumpers – Kevin DeYoung

Why ‘going forward’ is Biblical after all « Letters from Mississippi

At the church I pastor we celebrate Communion twice a month (1st and 3rd Sundays) and our people come forward for Communion. This has been our practice since our church began in the spring of 2004. Some may argue that the practice is too Catholic or Lutheran. But as I have argued from the beginning, if we believe that Christ is spiritually present in Communion, but administer the sacrament just like those who believe it is nothing more than a memorial (staying seated as the elements are passed), then our folks will probably always see the sacrament as a memorial.

Since that time I have become aware of some reformed churches that have changed their Communion liturgy to have people come forward. Some have the congregation come down front to receive the elements and return to their seats to partake together. Others, like my church, have people come down front to partake of the bread and wine and receive words of assurance that indeed "There is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus"(Romans 8:1). This is not trendiness, like so much of what is found in cutting edge church plants or missional/emergent churches. This is historic liturgy and practice.

How refreshing to read this post Why ‘going forward’ is Biblical after all « Letters from Mississippi of a PCA church and pastor articulating much of what we have practiced.

HT: Heidelblog

The Beauty of Hymns

Last evening I spent a few minutes going through some old magazines on the coffee table. I came across an article on beauty by Gene Edward Veith, entitled "Acquired Taste," that I had marked to save (see World Magazine, February 9/16, 2008). In it he argues that beauty is not a subjective measurement (ie. if I like it then it must be beautiful). Here is a quote:

"A work is beautiful to the extent that it displays at the same time both complexity and unity...Pop music typically consists of no more than three chords in a simple melody with simple lyrics. Not much is going on. Contrast that with a hymn (whether traditional or contemporary): It consists of many different musical notes for different voices, all coming together in the unity of harmony. Its lyrics, in turn, are packed with theology, figures of speech, biblical references, and emotions. The hymn is objectively better by aesthetic standards than the pop ditty."

I was reminded of this truth when we worshiped at another church while on vacation over the holidays. The music was of the "Jesus is my girlfriend" genre. The most common words in the choruses were "I, My, You, Your." Absent was doctrine as well as harmony and complexity. Worse, the words were projected onto a screen that changed from one landscape scene to another so as to match the mood of the songs.

Contrast that to a hymn we sang yesterday in response to God's Declaration of Pardon to those who repent of their sins:

I Lay My Sins on Jesus
Horatius Bonar, 1843

I lay my sins on Jesus, the spotless Lamb of God;
He bears them all, and frees us from the accursed load;
I bring my guilt to Jesus, to wash my crimson stains
White in his blood most precious, till not a spot remains.

I lay my wants on Jesus; all fulness dwells in him;
He heals all my diseases, he doth my soul redeem;
I lay my griefs on Jesus, my burdens and my cares;
He from them all releases, he all my sorrows shares.

I rest my soul on Jesus, this weary soul of mine;
His right hand me embraces, I on his breast recline.
I love the name of Jesus, Immanuel, Christ, the Lord;
Like fragrance on the breezes, his name abroad is poured.

I long to be like Jesus, meek, loving, lowly, mild;
I long to be like Jesus, the Father's holy child:
I long to be with Jesus amid the heav'nly throng
To sing with saints his praises, to learn the angels' song.

Friends, it doesn't get any better than this.

The Slow Death of Congregational Singing

Here is a very interesting article about worship as it is conducted in most evangelical churches.

"I was at a convention recently, seated near the rear of the auditorium. The music team at the front were ‘leading’ (and I use that word advisedly) and we were singing. Well, we were meant to be singing. And so I did what I've done quite often lately: I closed my eyes and listened to the singing. The song leaders with their microphones were clear and distinct. I could identify each of the several instruments accompanying the singers. But if you blocked out the ‘worship team’, all that was left around the building was a barely audible murmur. I opened my eyes and looked around. Most folk were either standing silently, not even making a pretence of singing, or were little engaged in the activity.
I turned to a friend next to me and commented, “No-one's singing”. He looked at me as if I'd just observed that no-one was flying. Of course they're not singing; we haven't really sung here for years."

After exploring some biblical themes concerning worship the author draws some points of application:

"(w)hether you travel across the urban areas of Asia, Africa, North America or Australia, everywhere you go, increasingly, the singing in the church—both the songs that are sung and the style of music—is the same. It's the McDonaldization of our world. And in every church you visit across the world, the music is just the same. I'd describe it as the ‘Hillsongization’ of music except that it's such a clumsy word. Oh, the words of the songs might differ, but it's the same music team singing the same way. There's the obligatory leader with the obligatory two or three singers accompanying her, the obligatory drummer, the obligatory keyboard player and the obligatory two guitarists. You're allowed some freedom in your choice of a sax or a flute, depending on the resources available, but it's all exactly the same for every song in every place.
Surely it's time to sit down and ask ourselves what is the best medium for actually promoting congregational singing? From my observation, our present approach has been weighed in the balances and found wanting."

And near the end he adds these words.

As I travel around visiting churches, I've noticed again and again that, for all their good intentions (and the vast majority are, I believe, well-intentioned), the music teams are killing congregational singing. I know that sounds harsh, but I see it in case after case. I enjoy the sound of an electric piano, the beat of the drums, the rhythm of the guitars, and the backing of the saxes and flutes, but my favourite instrument is the human voice. Nothing lifts my soul like being a part of 50— 100—300 saints in full voice, singing the praises of God and the glories of the gospel. Unfortunately that's a disappointingly rare experience.

While the music program in my church is modest by most contemporary standards my congregation sings well. It is quite a blessing to stand up front and hear voices raised to God.

Click here for the rest of the article: The Briefing Library: The slow death of congregational singing

Me worship for the "me" church

We should've seen this one coming. Simultaneously funny and sad.