Preliminary reflections on the Psalms.

Everytime I sit down at my blog I feel a twinge to write something about my view of the psalms... frustratingly however I still feel hugely unprepared to do so. The emotional spectrum paletted throughout the grace+spirit-meeting-humanity+dependency sights, sounds, tastes, smells, and touches of the psalter is universally unique. So unique in fact that it not only gives us an inspired song book, but also a reflection on how we are to live and breathe our very lives in full open-handed worship. The psalter is where we learn the majesty of lament, the legitimacy of the metaphor, the power of Spirit-warfare, the soul-longing for justice, the presence of God in His songs, and the place and power of full,powerful,artistic expression in Worship. The psalms are a river of doctrine flowing as doctrine should out of and through and towards a heart of praise. Sing the psalms, chant them, breathe them out, memorise them, read them again and again, love them, pray them, need them, search through them, ... reflect them.
These are obvious random expressions of my thoughts...but the papers met the pen now, I've committed myself, so watch this space.

t.

Some thoughts arround eschatology and ministy

Return
Jesus Christ is coming back! This is a promise of God foreordained, he will come on the clouds of heaven and every eye will see him, he will make all things new. He will be the instigator of the New Heavens and the New Earth. This is a fantastic promise, and because of the assurance of the hope to which we are called we should be faithfully anticipating this day with great joy and certainty. This event should cast a shadow of optimism over every aspect of Christian Ministry. If there was no second coming perhaps Hegelatarian ideology of the world realising itself dialectically may make an appearance. This, however, would not only make a dramatic difference to our Biblical doctrine of God, and distort Ministry. Ministers would not be able to provide adequate reason for persevering under suffering for instance.

Christ’s return is the origin and propagator of the hope and optimism that Ministers live by and teach to their flock. His return brings the New Creation, where we will be like Christ, perfected, clothed completely in righteousness, and sinless. His return ‘will be the decisive inauguration of the next stage in God’s history.’[*1]

Resurrection
Everyone will be resurrected, as all were born in Adam, all will be raised with Christ, believers to eternal life and non-believers to eternal punishment. This resurrection will be the transforming of our existing bodies, completing them in Christ through his victory over death. ‘In the very arena where death has done its worst, in the body, God proposes to achieve his victory for us and in us.’[*2]

In light of this, a Ministerial understanding of eschatology, which doesn’t allow for bodily resurrection, is denying Christ’s victory over death and the continuity of the old creation. Ministry with an incorrect understanding of resurrection may have a more mythological view of heaven, which would be out of step with the Biblical picture of paradise where we experience to some degree like we do now. These paths may also lead Ministry to Gnostic routes of ‘anti-flesh’ doctrines.

Judgement
Everyone will be judged. No sin goes unpunished, it will be justly paid for either by the cross or eternal judgment in Hell. Christ himself is the judge of the living and the dead, and the benchmark by which humanity is judged. Jesus will separate the sheep from the goats easily and permanently. Note the fundamentally Christological focus of this, which should be reflected in ministry.

This makes Ministry crucial, to encourage believers to work out their salvation with fear and trembling, and to warn those who do not believe. Without final judgement there will be no need for Ministers to teach fleeing from sin and the wrath to come and no need to warn/witness to unbelievers.
There is a Heaven and a Hell; again, if there was not, then Ministry need not focus on witnessing or warning non-believers or encourage believers to be assured of their salvation and flee sin. Further, if there is no Judgement then a mockery is made of the cross, for God’s righteous and just wrath had to be satisfied, if there will be no judgement then there need not have been a cross, if there will be no judge, there need not have been a resurrection.

The future that the God promises in his Word lends much to our understanding of Ministry: Ministers should be teaching believers faithfully from the Word that Jesus is returning and with him the New Creation, that God will wipe every tear from our eyes, there will be no more effects of the fall, we will be perfectly united to Christ, and it will be paradise. Ministers need to know this joy in their own hearts so to lead by example and teach. Ministers, who will be judged more strictly, need to be guarding their hearts from sin so to be above reproach in order to faithfully teach, administer the sacraments, and discipline in light of the resurrection and judgement to come.

[*1] P. Jensen, At The Heart of the Universe (IVP, Leicester, 1991), p. 30
[*2] Jensen, At The Heart of the Universe, p.31

Communal Singing in Tongues: A biblical practice?

Recently I went with my youth group to a conference for worship musicians at a thriving and famous church in central London. Much of the conference I found enormously refreshing, very beautiful, passionate, Spirit-open, and reflective of God's heart. However there was one area in which I had difficulty...enough to take my youth group to one side and have a chat with them over, the difficulty was the practice of communal singing in tongues.

Let me just take a moment to outline briefly my view of the gift of tongues. Yes I do believe in it, I believe in its continuance, its use, its power, its passion, and its theocentricity. I do feel Christians should actively and longingly pursue this gift in Godliness and expectancy. I even dare here to say it’s a gift which I, myself use to pray to and praise God with. However this gift is not available to everybody and does have some guidelines given in the Bible which I feel rule out the practice of communal singing in tongues.

I believe the conferences reasoning is logical. In Corinthians, praying in the Spirit often refers to praying in 'tongues,' so when they read the verse 'sing in the spirit' they carry the logic through and say, Hey, this must mean tongues too, great. However a closer reading of 1 Corinthians 14 would readily and easily contradict this interpretation.

I do not attempt a full exegesis here (for many reasons, but mainly as its 1:20am), rather I point the reader to the odd verse with the odd thought which should be enough I feel to provide strong evidence for my hypothesis.

v.2 - he who speaks in a tongue speaks to God, not to men. It is a personal and private relational gift used one on one between its speaker and God. Note, Paul contrasts tongues in vv.1-4 with prophecy which is to be used openly in the congregation, suggesting with the contrast, tongues is not in the same way.

vv.5-6 - tongues can be openly used in church but when it is interpreted

vv.7-9 - tongues is worthless in the congregation without interpretation - if everyone is singing in tongues where is the interpretation of each tongue? Is this not the indistinguishable sound Paul speaks of?

v.12 - be eager for spiritual manifestations which -build up the church- Paul has just said that tongues only builds up if it is intelligible, i.e. interpreted. So unless every tongue is going to be interpreted, don't do it.

vv.15-17 - what if an outsider walks in? How can he hear the gospel and say 'Amen' to something he doesn't understand? Surely asking him to just jump on the bandwagon is dangerous and irresponsible.

vv.18-19 - IN CHURCH, Paul would rather speak 5 intelligible words than a thousand in a tongue!

vv.23-25 - Open uninterrupted tongues in Church doesn’t only not edify the church, but it also doesn't bring outsiders to Christ; in fact, quite the opposite!

v.26 Let all be done for building up...so see Paul’s instruction for tongues in building up in vv.1-12

* vv.27-28 - for me this is almost the definitive word against communal singing in tongues...'let there be only two or at most three, and each in turn, and let someone interpret.' There is no way communal singing in tongues obeys this command.

So let’s enjoy the gifts God gives us. I know it’s often a conservative thing to react against charismatism in not actively pursuing these gifts, and it’s often a charismatic thing to react against conservatism by over-interpreting these gifts. But if we seek the active manifestation of the Spirit in our churches and our lives and with that submit to scriptures teaching of these gifts, and then we can truly honor and glorify his name through them. Communal singing in tongues is disobedience to the instructions given the church by Paul in 1 Cor. 14...however perhaps not pursuing the gifts at all is just as disobedient. Let’s seek these gifts in the body of Christ, and seek His instruction in how to glorify His name through them

Acts 10-11 and the Baptist debate (with particular emphasis on how 'all' is applied)

I recently posted some brief thoughts on household texts in the New Testament as they are used in the Baptism debate. I think it fair of me to bring out a little further my exegetical thoughts around the texts and will endeavour to do so in following posts beginning here with Acts 10 and 11.
*
Luke, (as a paedobaptist might point out) seems to continually stress the entirety or all-ness of the households; All the household, the whole household, the entire household, etc., possibly indicating the increased likelihood of infants.

Acts 10 is no exception: all the household were baptised. However a careful look of Acts 10-11 will show us other important all's. First we have a prophetic word given in 11:14, ‘He will bring you a message through which you and all your household will be saved.’ [emphasis mine] And Second back in 10:44, 46, ‘While Peter was still saying these things, the Holy Spirit fell on all who heard the word...they were hearing them speaking in tongues and extolling God.’ [emphasis mine]

To point out that Luke keeps insisting on the entirety or all-ness of the household to include non-professing children, the following logic must be applied:

- All heard the message by which they would be saved
- All received the Holy Spirit + spoke in tongues
- All were baptised
 ...therefore
- Infants heard the message by which they would be saved
- Infants received the Holy Spirit + spoke in tongues
- Infants were baptised

To keep the logic that all means infants must also mean three things:
1. Infants heard so presumably understood (by the spirit) the message of Salvation
2. Infants received the Holy Spirit
3. This manifested itself in the infant by speaking in tongues

It appears from this that a paedobaptist position that uses the texts this way can remain consistent if one accepts the regenerative faith of the infant pre-Baptism.
Perhaps Luke has a different purpose for these household texts than is often appealed to by the paedobaptist brother or sister - namely the coming of Gentiles (God-fears in this instance) into the covenant.

Household Baptisms in the New Testament

In support of an 'infant Baptist' position, texts such as Acts 10; 16:15, 33; and 1 Cor. 1:16 are appealed to. The argument basically runs like this:

- A head of a household professes faith,
- The whole household is therefore Baptised,
- Households normally contain infants,
- It is likely that these particular baptised households contain infants,
- Therefore non-professing infants in these households were baptised,
- Therefore, we likewise should baptise non-professing infants of households where the head has professed faith.

I have numerous difficulties with this logic, I shall explain just two here.

First, this argument rests on the premise that some who were baptised were non-professing. I believe the biblical texts tell a different story.
Acts 10-11 - Cornelius and his household are commanded to be Baptised (10:48), however the whole household was told to be saved before the baptism (cf. 11:14)
Acts 16:33 - The Philippian Jailer and all his family were baptised (v.33). However, the word of the Lord was spoken to all who were in his household (v.32) implying all were able to understand it, and further, all rejoiced that the jailer believed in God, implying again a faith in what was spoken to them (v.34) They must hear the word, then respond to it. - as Piper says, this is just as plausible as assuming infants.
1. Cor. 1:16 - The household of Stephanas was Baptised (v.16). However, this household was a household of believers (1. Cor. 16:15).
Acts 16:15 - Here is the only example of a household baptism with a profession of household faith. However, isn't it an exegetical fallacy to apply silence logic from this one verse onto the other three which would seem to contradict this? Is it not more consistent to interpret this in light of every other household Baptisms which wouldn't contradict 16:15?

Second, this argument rests on the premise that there were infants within the households. There is simply no evidence for such an assumption. Further, if we submit to the scriptures above which seem to support household faith, then in order to be consistent, it would seem that an infant Baptist has to insist on the faith of the infant.

Other than these assumptive passages, there is no mention of infant baptism in the Bible, period. Its just not there. What there is in evidence is a very elaborate systematic argument with no 'obvious' working out of such in the apostolic church.

I believe therefore that the household argument as outlined at the top of this post is not a strong argument for the case of infant baptism. It is an argument from silence, an argument open to exegetical issue, and an argument which ignores household faith

Emotive Singing+Music in Worship

Is it not a beautiful thing when our emotions are stirred and affections awakened by the wonderful things in God's character, His divine plan, and His free and unconditional Gospel?
Why then, as evangelicals do we often feel anxious when either these affections awaken them in us or show themselves in others during music in worship? Surely the act of telling God in such a creative way is primarily about stirring and warming our hearts in joy and love as appropriate responses to His character, plan, and Gospel? -Or at least Jonathan Edwards believed so when he said:

'And the duty of singing praises to God seems to be appointed wholly to excite and express religious affections. No other reason can be assigned why we should express ourselves to God in verse rather than in prose, and do it with music, but only that such is our nature and frame that these things have a tendency to move our affections.' [Religious Affections - emphasis mine.]


Note, as John Piper writes, 'it is the affections that make worship authentic.' When we place our boundaries in our times of music so tightly so that they engulth emotional reaction to the music, which stirs our hearts to be in a place where we can turn the truths of God we are singing about into praise - we are enguthing the authenticity of our worship to God. Of course we must be careful not to get over-emotional in ways which stir emotions as an end in themselves, this is dangerous and at worse idolatry. Yet we must allow our emotions to be stirred within music, and poetry, so that we can be in a better context emotionally to receive and respond to the beautiful truths in God's word. -The same principle was applied by the puritans in preaching, they would use the most emotive language and imagery to open or create a 'wound' if you will, then they would fill that wound with Biblical substance.

Lets not be a people that honours God with our lips but our hearts be far from Him (Mtt. 15:8), let us long after and desire to be 'true worshippers [who]...worship the Father in spirit and in truth, for the Father is seeking such people to worship him' (Jn. 4:23).

Think and meditate upon those biblical giants and their hearts emotional response to their God. Think on David who comes to God with a 'broken and contrite spirit,' (Ps. 51), or Paul as he 'rejoices with great joy' (Phil. 4:10), or upon Christ himself as he is 'filled with anger and grief' (Mark 3:5) or His earnest desire to gather his people as a mother hen, her chicks (Lk. 13:34). - I'm sure you can think of many times throughout scripture the correct response to God is one that is immersed in and emerges from an emotional and affectionate stirring of ones heart. Perhaps you can recall in your own experience, the times where you have felt the greatest faith in God as the times where your emotions have been situationally stirred to call out to him in utter dependence, or great joy and thankfulness.

Lets allow our stony dispositions and occasional harness be rocked and melted by music and singing in worship, so we can appropriately respond to our Father in an affectionate, and praising way. To Him be all the glory! Amen