Just in case any of you have not heard, we received our CO (Certificate of Occupancy) yesterday afternoon, and will begin meeting weekly at our new building in Cahaba Heights, a suburb of Vestavia Hills, Alabama. This has been a while forth coming, yet it has also not been overly dragged. It did take a lot of work, but it does seem the Lord is rewarding our efforts.
The first thing we should do is give God glory and thanks for this opportunity to now own our own building. We have of course, owned our own building before, at 1401 Montgomery Highway in Vestavia. Overtime, we began to slowly descend into nothing. It was as if the Lord made us start over, almost, though certainly not entirely, from scratch.
Shortly after voting in favor of continuing the congregation instead of closing doors, several new families joined. Before we realized it, God gave us the gift/curse of outgrowing our facilities. Fortunately, the Lord gave us Berney Points Baptist Church to be a good and beneficial host to us. And not only did BPBC help us, but in certain ways, we probably helped them.
Now, after renting the facilities of BPBC for some four and a half years (give or take), we have worshipped for the last time at BPBC. We now have our own building once again. This is a gift for us. Many of the members of our congregation have never been able to worship at our church while having our own facilities.
We must ask what this means for us now. Because God has given us this blessing, we must use it to bless others. We must begin learning geography as well as Christology. In size, the building may be similar to that at 1401, but the location is vastly different. We are not off a major highway in a bustling Vestavia Hills. Nor are we a church with no sign that sits right off the interstate, but detached from a real city or community. Now, we have our sign, and we are a representative of a community. We do not represent CREC churches as much now. We are not as much of a global church known for its theology. We are a community church known for its love for that community.
It is easy, though maybe not as much now as used to be, to find Baptist churches that represented a community. It is not hard to find plenty of FBC’s around as you roam from city to city through the South. While we have a fun time naming our churches after Reformers or Reformed ideas, it is often hard to find a FPC, and even when we do, it is not the face of the community. My point is that often times churches like ours are known more for theology than community, and many Baptist churches, for example, are known more for community.
I am not trying to degrade the importance of theology, and I believe there are things we bring to the Kingdom that many other denominations do not. And since hiring Pastor Lusk, community has been a major theme of our church. And most people who visit our church can see that. Even before Pastor Lusk came, we had a form of community not many other churches had. I remember one of my first impressions upon our first visit to RHPC (former name of TPC) when I was ten was that the people were nice. Now, the Lord is giving us this building and this community, so that our love flows out from within just our congregation, to the wider community. It is time people like me use our hands and fingers for things other than posting theology on the internet. Instead of focusing on growing our minds by what we take in, it is time we focus on growing our hearts by what we give out.
It is easy for Presbyterian churches, through their form of church government, to be connected with another Presbyterian church five states away, yet hard to be really connected with the community. I even see this within our congregation. I hear so much about Jim Jordan’s church and Jeffrey Myers’ church, or about the works of Peter Leithardt and Douglas Wilson. I hear about CCB or about our sponsored church St. Marks in Tennessee. I’m sure with great reason, and I’m not by any means speaking against the Presbyterian form of church government. But are we known more just within our CREC Presbyterian group, or for being a blessing to the community we are in? I’m sure the same could be asked for many other churches like ours nationwide. Are we known for critiquing the other churches of this city because they don’t share our liturgy, or are we known for working with them to accomplish the same goals we have: to do the will of God and advance His Kingdom? Will we be known more for the blessing we are to Cahaba Heights, or for the blessing we are to CREC Presbyterian theology?
Don’t get me wrong. I am not saying we need to take over the Cahaba Heights community and make a monopoly on the churches. There are other churches in the community as well, and they may doing a great job. But we need to take the community we have with each other, and share it with the wider community. Nor am I saying I think we have a lot to change if we are to do a good job at the goals listed above. I believe God has been preparing us for this, and would not give us this building if we were not ready. But I am saying we should not take this for granted, nor only look at the benefits it gives us (not paying rent, not having a time to be out, better acoustics, not having people fuss about our little children). Those are great, but we should look at this as a new and better way to spread the Kingdom, first to Cahaba Heights, and then to Birmingham, and throughout the entire earth. “Presbyterian” should become more of an adjective for the noun (and perhaps even verb?) “Church,” instead of a noun within itself. I’ve heard it was mentioned we could take out the word “Presbyterian” from our name and just be “Trinity Church.” While I don’t think this is completely necessary or helpful, I am glad we are seeming to focus more on what it means to be a church than what it means to be Presbyterian.
In all ways, we should thank God for this new building we will worship in tomorrow. We should also thank Him for giving us BPBC for a while. It has been helpful. I am also personally thankful for the men and women in the church who helped make this possible. I did very little helping compared to some people in the church. We should also expect some stress to come in the first several weeks or so, until we get fully moved in and situated. I will probably be at BPBC in the morning for the first fifteen minutes or so of service to direct any misguided members or visitors to our new building. I look forward to coming for the second half of the service at our new building tomorrow morning.
What do you think?
God bless America
God bless the Church
May 16, 2009
Ryan Hampton
Showing posts with label worship. Show all posts
Showing posts with label worship. Show all posts
Saturday, May 16, 2009
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
Worship Services
Many seeker-friendly church services give us a sermon that ends something like this: “If there is anyone here who has not accepted Christ, you may do so now. Every head bowed and every eye closed, raise your hand if you want to accept Christ.” There is a place for this language and it is great if it leads someone to Christ. But I’m not for sure this is what the purpose of a sermon is.
Many people get scared off by the word liturgy because it seems to replace the heart of Christian worship with text and empty recitations. Certainly, the heart of worship should not be seen as meaningless, and certainly a passionate charismatic worshipper worships God more truly than a Reformed worshipper going through the motions of worship with no real meaning or connection. But I also believe that nearly every church has some form of liturgy, in the sense of order to worship. The question becomes how deep, meaningful, relevant, and ultimately, Biblically sound the liturgy is.
While faithfully attending my church Trinity Presbyterian Church (CREC), I have been privileged to see other church services from other churches, primarily Church of the Highlands, where I go with some friends Sunday evenings. It is nice to see the worship services of other local churches who aim to lift high the cross. I don’t expect every church to have the same structure as ours, and that is okay even though I like our order and structure, which makes it both formal and personable. Church of the Highlands is seeker friendly and has done a lot for the Kingdom and I enjoy the sermons by Chris Hodges. But it seems that a lot of these churches end with the “every head bowed every eye closed” style, and despite being aggressive and seeker friendly, I am not sure they do as much for the Kingdom as a deeper liturgical service would.
Both Trinity Presbyterian and Church of the Highlands have an order to the service. Church of the Highlands has about twenty-five minutes of contemporary Christian music, followed by a sermon that always ends in the same seeker friendly way. After this there is offering and the service is pretty much over. Our service goes much deeper in its order and probably exemplifies the Church’s life more fully. We are called into worship. We confess our sins. We have the reading of Scripture and a sermon. We give our tithes and offerings. We confess our faith. We participate in the Lord’s Supper. We are called forth into the world to live out the Great Commission. This becomes more relevant to the Christian life. It is more consistent with God’s covenants He has made with His People. Sermons lead us into applications and ultimately into further communion with Christ by eating at His table. Each layer leads and flows into the next.
We go to Church to be the Church and renew covenant with God. We win the lost by being the Church everywhere else. When a non-believer steps into Church, they should see the Church in covenant with God, not be pressured into “making a decision.” Scripture does not give us much detail on worship services. But it seems the pattern is something like this: someone is converted, they are given the teaching of the Word, and then they eat and fellowship with other believers. Sometimes, yes, they are converted by the preaching of the Word, but once they enter the church, they are given Word and Sacrament (Sacrament follows the preaching).
There is a time to preach and offer salvation to others and it is good to see churches like Church of the Highlands have the heart to do that. And certainly going to church is a place where salvation should be offered. But I don’t think the modern approach and liturgy is always the best way. While these seeker friendly churches probably do a better job than we do at really reaching out to others on a personal level (which should certainly be commended), they often fail more at really keeping faithful Christians who keep covenant with God. Beyond this, non-believers are often more drawn into a deeper and richer liturgical service because they are able to see the richer side of the Christian faith. It grows on them. They don’t feel pressured into anything.
With all of this said, I wish the Church could ultimately become a Church that is seeker friendly and offers salvation to the lost and is good at keeping faithful Christians who mature in the faith. Often churches have one and not the other. But the point of our worship service is not to strategize how we will win the lost, nor is it a place where we even necessarily directly attempt to win the lost. It is where we keep covenant with God. I do think that more Reformed and deeper liturgical services could do better at having more mission trips and really reaching the lost in ways similar to many contemporary seeker-friendly churches. I wish seeker-friendly churches would broaden and deeper their worship services into a real place of covenant renewal service for God’s People, to train and equip Christians to be faithful to their King.
What do you think?
God bless the Church
God bless America
March 27, 2009
Ryan Hampton
Many people get scared off by the word liturgy because it seems to replace the heart of Christian worship with text and empty recitations. Certainly, the heart of worship should not be seen as meaningless, and certainly a passionate charismatic worshipper worships God more truly than a Reformed worshipper going through the motions of worship with no real meaning or connection. But I also believe that nearly every church has some form of liturgy, in the sense of order to worship. The question becomes how deep, meaningful, relevant, and ultimately, Biblically sound the liturgy is.
While faithfully attending my church Trinity Presbyterian Church (CREC), I have been privileged to see other church services from other churches, primarily Church of the Highlands, where I go with some friends Sunday evenings. It is nice to see the worship services of other local churches who aim to lift high the cross. I don’t expect every church to have the same structure as ours, and that is okay even though I like our order and structure, which makes it both formal and personable. Church of the Highlands is seeker friendly and has done a lot for the Kingdom and I enjoy the sermons by Chris Hodges. But it seems that a lot of these churches end with the “every head bowed every eye closed” style, and despite being aggressive and seeker friendly, I am not sure they do as much for the Kingdom as a deeper liturgical service would.
Both Trinity Presbyterian and Church of the Highlands have an order to the service. Church of the Highlands has about twenty-five minutes of contemporary Christian music, followed by a sermon that always ends in the same seeker friendly way. After this there is offering and the service is pretty much over. Our service goes much deeper in its order and probably exemplifies the Church’s life more fully. We are called into worship. We confess our sins. We have the reading of Scripture and a sermon. We give our tithes and offerings. We confess our faith. We participate in the Lord’s Supper. We are called forth into the world to live out the Great Commission. This becomes more relevant to the Christian life. It is more consistent with God’s covenants He has made with His People. Sermons lead us into applications and ultimately into further communion with Christ by eating at His table. Each layer leads and flows into the next.
We go to Church to be the Church and renew covenant with God. We win the lost by being the Church everywhere else. When a non-believer steps into Church, they should see the Church in covenant with God, not be pressured into “making a decision.” Scripture does not give us much detail on worship services. But it seems the pattern is something like this: someone is converted, they are given the teaching of the Word, and then they eat and fellowship with other believers. Sometimes, yes, they are converted by the preaching of the Word, but once they enter the church, they are given Word and Sacrament (Sacrament follows the preaching).
There is a time to preach and offer salvation to others and it is good to see churches like Church of the Highlands have the heart to do that. And certainly going to church is a place where salvation should be offered. But I don’t think the modern approach and liturgy is always the best way. While these seeker friendly churches probably do a better job than we do at really reaching out to others on a personal level (which should certainly be commended), they often fail more at really keeping faithful Christians who keep covenant with God. Beyond this, non-believers are often more drawn into a deeper and richer liturgical service because they are able to see the richer side of the Christian faith. It grows on them. They don’t feel pressured into anything.
With all of this said, I wish the Church could ultimately become a Church that is seeker friendly and offers salvation to the lost and is good at keeping faithful Christians who mature in the faith. Often churches have one and not the other. But the point of our worship service is not to strategize how we will win the lost, nor is it a place where we even necessarily directly attempt to win the lost. It is where we keep covenant with God. I do think that more Reformed and deeper liturgical services could do better at having more mission trips and really reaching the lost in ways similar to many contemporary seeker-friendly churches. I wish seeker-friendly churches would broaden and deeper their worship services into a real place of covenant renewal service for God’s People, to train and equip Christians to be faithful to their King.
What do you think?
God bless the Church
God bless America
March 27, 2009
Ryan Hampton
Thursday, January 8, 2009
Our Hope and Community: The Story of the Bible
What is the story of the Bible? Is it a book of virtues? Is it a book of nice fables? Is it a book of law? It may be a book of virtues, filled with many stories, but the story of the Bible is much deeper than this.
All of history is one story. That is how we must look at all of history. The Bible is a historical book that gives us the history of what has happened, and a foreshadowing of what is to come. All of history is one giant myth made fact. It captures the essence of human desire, emotion, and longing through God’s eternal sovereign plan.
When we look at the beauty of this eternal sovereign plan, we see great similarity in many stories, myths, and fables we hold today. These stories we love so much, such as the Chronicals of Narnia, Harry Potter, Cinderella, etc., are all loved by us because they give us a story of hope, meaning, purpose, love, etc. But all of these stories find their fulfillment in God’s story, as captured to us in the Bible.
In Scripture, we see a pattern of one overall theme, and many mini-versions of that throughout. This is called typology. For instance, we see the overall theme that Adam sinned, and Jesus is the second Adam who comes to save us from our inherited sin in Adam. Along the way, we see people who point us back to Adam, or perhaps point us ahead to Christ. Noah points us to Christ in that he begins the world anew, as Christ comes to make us new. Noah is like a new Adam, and a picture of what the ultimate new Adam will be like. Moses reminds of Noah by being saved through the “ark,” the basket, over water, and then points us ahead to a deliverer by saving his people from Pharoah. There is the theme in Scripture, of being saved by water, wood, bread, etc., which point us to being saved by the waters of baptism and the tree that Christ was nailed to, and at the Lord’s table. There are many women who point us to Eve, or the new Eve, the Church. All in all, Scripture is about a man who comes to save His Bride, but in order to do so He must die for her. This man, the new Adam, is also God, and this Bride, the new Eve, is made of men and women of all generations and races. Simply an amazing story, and yet it is one-hundred percent true!
With this in mind, let’s take a brief look at Scripture. Scripture begins with creation, and God giving us a pattern. He created the world in six days, and rested on the Seventh. He then gave the chief of His creation, Adam, a task. His task would image what God had done: he would subdue the earth, and rest every seventh day. God saw it was not good for man to be alone, so He created a community for Adam, imaging God Himself, Who is a community of three persons. Now there is a community between all persons of God, and Adam, Eve, and all future generations. The community is found primarily in the Garden of Eden, and man is to complete his task through the land of Eden and in the outer lands.
But man fell and broke community with God, and was thus kicked out of the Garden, the central place of community. God kicked man out of the Garden, but did not give up on man, promising a new Adam. For the next some four thousand years, God used prophets to prepare the way for this new Adam, ultimately culminating in John the Baptist preparing the way for Christ. God kept some community with His People by making covenant with certain men. The new Garden was the Tabernacle, you could say, but only certain people could go inside, and only at certain times. The community was now just for God’s chosen People, the Israelites. God would show Himself to certain people in voice or even appearance, but the overall community that was present in the Garden was broken.
When Christ came, He restored some of that community. We now have church to go to weekly, on the Sabbath, the Day of Rest. We have the communion of the Saints. We have Jesus Christ, the Scriptures, etc. And now this community is for all people who chose Christ, and the Church is not only for Priests, or “super-holy” people. The Church is the new Israel, but not just for one nation. Our corporate church worship is a new picture of Adam’s community in the Garden of Eden with God.
There are those who have died, and have gone to Heaven. There is community there as well. And as we worship God in corporate worship, we worship with all Saints, and with all the company of Heaven. We get to take part in a meal, the Lord’s Supper, in which we eat with Christ. We have much more Christian community with God then we realize. This is why going to church is important. It is where we keep covenant with God, share in His blessings, eat the daily bread He gives us, give our tithes and offerings to Him, etc. It is where we weekly renew covenant with God. This is where God first and foremost makes Himself known to us, so that we may go out and complete our tasks the rest of the week in our day-to-day lives.
Still, this is not the final goal. Nor is Heaven even the final goal. We still have our sinful nature. Heaven and earth may come together weekly. But even yet, there is still something missing. Although we come into Heaven’s presence, we do not see God, the angels, or the souls of those who have gone into Heaven. Heaven and earth are still two separate things. We have great community, but this, nor even Heaven, is our final hope.
Our final hope is in Final Resurrection glory. Heaven and earth will be one. Jesus will be King. There will not be a disconnect between our bodies and souls. We will have one good nature, and not our sinful nature. As many people in the Old Covenant prepared the way for Christ, so now we must prepare the way for the Final Resurrection. We do this by obeying the Great Commission, taking part in the community God has given us (which is the church), and preaching the Good News to all, baptizing them in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. One day our community with God will be completely restored, and it will be even better than before the Fall. And we will have all of this forever!
But the first and foremost way to wait upon this final glory and community is to be thankful and partake in the glory and community we have now in Christ. Going to church is not something we do to win brownie points with God. It is where God makes Himself known. And if we forsake the assembly of the Saints now, then how do we expect God to let us into final glory? We must appreciate the story of the Bible more. Appreciate that we are God’s chosen People Who have been saved because our Groom, the Son of God Himself, died the death that the worst of sinners die. The Bible begins with the marriage of Adam and Eve, and ends with the marriage of Christ and His Bride. This story should fill our hearts and minds with wonder, and cause us to look ahead, and prepare the way for Christ’s second coming.
What do you think?
God bless America
God bless His Church
January 8, 2009
Ryan Hampton
All of history is one story. That is how we must look at all of history. The Bible is a historical book that gives us the history of what has happened, and a foreshadowing of what is to come. All of history is one giant myth made fact. It captures the essence of human desire, emotion, and longing through God’s eternal sovereign plan.
When we look at the beauty of this eternal sovereign plan, we see great similarity in many stories, myths, and fables we hold today. These stories we love so much, such as the Chronicals of Narnia, Harry Potter, Cinderella, etc., are all loved by us because they give us a story of hope, meaning, purpose, love, etc. But all of these stories find their fulfillment in God’s story, as captured to us in the Bible.
In Scripture, we see a pattern of one overall theme, and many mini-versions of that throughout. This is called typology. For instance, we see the overall theme that Adam sinned, and Jesus is the second Adam who comes to save us from our inherited sin in Adam. Along the way, we see people who point us back to Adam, or perhaps point us ahead to Christ. Noah points us to Christ in that he begins the world anew, as Christ comes to make us new. Noah is like a new Adam, and a picture of what the ultimate new Adam will be like. Moses reminds of Noah by being saved through the “ark,” the basket, over water, and then points us ahead to a deliverer by saving his people from Pharoah. There is the theme in Scripture, of being saved by water, wood, bread, etc., which point us to being saved by the waters of baptism and the tree that Christ was nailed to, and at the Lord’s table. There are many women who point us to Eve, or the new Eve, the Church. All in all, Scripture is about a man who comes to save His Bride, but in order to do so He must die for her. This man, the new Adam, is also God, and this Bride, the new Eve, is made of men and women of all generations and races. Simply an amazing story, and yet it is one-hundred percent true!
With this in mind, let’s take a brief look at Scripture. Scripture begins with creation, and God giving us a pattern. He created the world in six days, and rested on the Seventh. He then gave the chief of His creation, Adam, a task. His task would image what God had done: he would subdue the earth, and rest every seventh day. God saw it was not good for man to be alone, so He created a community for Adam, imaging God Himself, Who is a community of three persons. Now there is a community between all persons of God, and Adam, Eve, and all future generations. The community is found primarily in the Garden of Eden, and man is to complete his task through the land of Eden and in the outer lands.
But man fell and broke community with God, and was thus kicked out of the Garden, the central place of community. God kicked man out of the Garden, but did not give up on man, promising a new Adam. For the next some four thousand years, God used prophets to prepare the way for this new Adam, ultimately culminating in John the Baptist preparing the way for Christ. God kept some community with His People by making covenant with certain men. The new Garden was the Tabernacle, you could say, but only certain people could go inside, and only at certain times. The community was now just for God’s chosen People, the Israelites. God would show Himself to certain people in voice or even appearance, but the overall community that was present in the Garden was broken.
When Christ came, He restored some of that community. We now have church to go to weekly, on the Sabbath, the Day of Rest. We have the communion of the Saints. We have Jesus Christ, the Scriptures, etc. And now this community is for all people who chose Christ, and the Church is not only for Priests, or “super-holy” people. The Church is the new Israel, but not just for one nation. Our corporate church worship is a new picture of Adam’s community in the Garden of Eden with God.
There are those who have died, and have gone to Heaven. There is community there as well. And as we worship God in corporate worship, we worship with all Saints, and with all the company of Heaven. We get to take part in a meal, the Lord’s Supper, in which we eat with Christ. We have much more Christian community with God then we realize. This is why going to church is important. It is where we keep covenant with God, share in His blessings, eat the daily bread He gives us, give our tithes and offerings to Him, etc. It is where we weekly renew covenant with God. This is where God first and foremost makes Himself known to us, so that we may go out and complete our tasks the rest of the week in our day-to-day lives.
Still, this is not the final goal. Nor is Heaven even the final goal. We still have our sinful nature. Heaven and earth may come together weekly. But even yet, there is still something missing. Although we come into Heaven’s presence, we do not see God, the angels, or the souls of those who have gone into Heaven. Heaven and earth are still two separate things. We have great community, but this, nor even Heaven, is our final hope.
Our final hope is in Final Resurrection glory. Heaven and earth will be one. Jesus will be King. There will not be a disconnect between our bodies and souls. We will have one good nature, and not our sinful nature. As many people in the Old Covenant prepared the way for Christ, so now we must prepare the way for the Final Resurrection. We do this by obeying the Great Commission, taking part in the community God has given us (which is the church), and preaching the Good News to all, baptizing them in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. One day our community with God will be completely restored, and it will be even better than before the Fall. And we will have all of this forever!
But the first and foremost way to wait upon this final glory and community is to be thankful and partake in the glory and community we have now in Christ. Going to church is not something we do to win brownie points with God. It is where God makes Himself known. And if we forsake the assembly of the Saints now, then how do we expect God to let us into final glory? We must appreciate the story of the Bible more. Appreciate that we are God’s chosen People Who have been saved because our Groom, the Son of God Himself, died the death that the worst of sinners die. The Bible begins with the marriage of Adam and Eve, and ends with the marriage of Christ and His Bride. This story should fill our hearts and minds with wonder, and cause us to look ahead, and prepare the way for Christ’s second coming.
What do you think?
God bless America
God bless His Church
January 8, 2009
Ryan Hampton
Thursday, November 20, 2008
The Nature of Man
We have a messed up view of human nature in our world today. It seems like we cannot get it right. We may put man ahead of God. Or perhaps we believe in a relative morality ideology that in essence teaches us that man is not sinful, because there is no real right or wrong. Perhaps we believe that man can make it on his own, and that he does not need others to survive.
There are all sorts of different ways to look at the nature of man, and it seems we just have not been able to tie it together in a Biblical way that is self-evidently true. One great example of an ideology on the nature of man is the Enlightenment.
The Enlightenment taught a very radical view that the human mind is the end to all things. We can achieve personal happiness, satisfaction, knowledge, etc. through the human mind. This was a rejection to the Christian faith which teaches that God is the end to all things and that our chief end is to glorify Him and enjoy Him forever.
One thing this did, which became as much of a political notion as religious, was reject the idea of the modern Roman Catholic Church and its teachings. It taught that our satisfaction and knowledge can be found within our own minds, not through the teachings of the Pope, Bishop, or through acts such as confession of sin, penance, etc. The ideas of individualism, relativism, etc., became the popular ideologies. These ideas along with the idea of utter separation of Church and State (which had been a problem) greatly influenced the political thought. Enlightenment thinking did somewhat influence our American Revolution and early basic American government.
Then came the Protestant Reformation. This was sort of the spiritual Enlightenment. The Protestant Reformation in many respects was a completely opposite approach to the Enlightenment. Yet it too had very radical beliefs that whether intentionally or unintentionally influenced political thought. Our Founders themselves were greatly influenced by the Protestant Reformation. How did two opposing forces join together in the American Revolution, and what does this say about human nature anyway?
Although these were two different viewpoints, let us look at some similarities these had. They both at some level rejected the Roman Catholic Church at that time. They both sought after religious freedom and separation of Church and State. They both believed one can obtain some sort of individual satisfaction apart from any Pope or Bishop. Similarly, they both rejected the notion that works in the Church buys something eternal (i.e. forgiveness of sin, less time in a purgatory, salvation, etc.). There was much common ground even in these completely different worldviews, which help build a structure for the American cause for independence.
Today we have drifted so far. We do not write with the same passion our Founding Father’s wrote. Modern-day self-acclaimed intellectuals are hardly the philosophers of the Enlightenment, and few theologians write with the same faith and piety that people like Luther or Calvin had. As a result, our politicians do not speak with the same zeal, passion, or intellect our Founding Fathers had. How many politicians do you hear saying “Give me liberty or give me death!?”
But even yet, we can still see remains of each worldview. The Protestant Reformation was probably one of the closest movements we have had that lead to a good understanding of human nature, and the American Revolution also ranks pretty high (which had much inspiration from the Reformation). Although I believe the church broke apart from Rome for good reason, I do believe many Protestants over-state some of the great reformers points to a point of misunderstanding human nature. Although salvation is offered by Christ on an individual basis, and not through works, Popes, etc., it is immature to consider ourselves “individualist” Christians. Although our salvation has its root in a personal relationship with Jesus, it is actually prideful to believe we can exercise this relationship just as well individually as we can corporately.
Another thing we do today too often is actually degrade our human nature. While we should not think in the anti-religious way the Enlightenment thinkers did, there is actually some real truth we can find in their ideologies. It is certainly true we should not give ourselves credit for any glory, but we must remember that mankind was made in glory. Man was created in the Image of God, and had ruler of the rest of God’s creation. Man will one day reign with God, and will even be higher than the angels.
Sometimes Protestants in America focus so much on the sinfulness of man that they forget about who man was before the Fall, and who man will be in Final Resurrection glory. It is the church, which is comprised of real human beings, that is the Bride of Jesus Christ Who is God Himself. Whenever the Church tries reaching out to non-Christians, we must be balanced in our approach to teaching the sinfulness of man, and showing the glories God has in store for His People. Far too often we teach a woe is me attitude and forget that man really does have dominion over all other animals, and will one day even be above the angels in perfect communion with God.
This false idea of human nature affects our worship, evangelism, political ideology, and frankly, our whole way of life.
Although there was error in some of the ideas of the Founders of this nation, there is much we can learn from them in regards to human nature. They understood that man stands out in creation. They understood that man has the ability to overthrow false government and create new government, and that salvation is not found at the hands of a king or Pope. They put a high emphasis on the human mind. They understood that we have a Creator Who gave us certain Rights on an equal and individual basis. However they did this realizing the sinfulness of man, thus creating a government for the purpose of punishing those who take away our God-given Rights.
In worship, our churches are often either so joyful they forget to be somber and take part in confession
or they forget about the joyful practices such as the Lord’s Supper. The Lord’s Supper is a real meal with God, which foreshadows our Final Resurrection glory which is to come.
I believe that Psalm 8:3-8 explains this paradox well. It reads, “When I consider Your heavens, the work of Your fingers, the moon and the stars, which You have ordained, what is man that You are mindful of him, and the Son of Man that You visit him. For you have made him a little lower than the
angels, and you have crowned him with glory and honor. You have made him to have dominion over the works of Your hands;You have put all things under his feet, all sheep and oxen – even the beasts of the
field, and birds of the air, and the fish of the sea that pass through the paths of the seas.” The only thing I can add to this, is that if we are in this life “a little lower than the angels,” we will be all the more higher in Final Resurrection glory.
The true identity of mankind and mans true nature is only found in a Christian worldview. However it is also self-evident, to quote from the Declaration of Independence. Therefore in a broader sense, this simply makes the Christian worldview itself at large self-evident. It becomes the only worldview that explains human nature in a manner that is consistent with everything we see around us.
The underlying explanation to man’s nature is this: Man is created in the Image of God. Every person bears God’s Image in some way, whether Christian or non-Christian. However this is more than just a
statement. This is also a command. Don’t be non-human. Be human. Live for God and live for others. Live in a faithful manner, a loving manner, and a hopeful manner, all done by the Trinity Himself.
Therefore I encourage every Christian reading this who does not go to church, to find a Church if in any way possible. I say this not because your salvation is reached by a Pastor or by a ritual, but because the routines done in a Trinitarian corporate worship service and the people you meet at a Godly church helps you reach the fullness of your salvation. It is non-human to have no community. It is non-human to believe you can reach God and experience Him fully without the company of others. Even God Himself is a company of three persons. When God created Adam, he said “It is not good for man to be alone.” And after He formed Eve, He gave them children. Community was formed by God.
And if you are a non-Christian, I encourage you to look at the many questions of the world around you and ask yourselves what other worldview can answer these questions. When I look at simply the nature of man itself, the only logical and consistent answer I find is that man is created in the Image of God. From where else do we obtain the kind of community we need? Where else do we become moral, conscience, aware, loving, personal, etc. people? Being in the Image of God is both a statement and a command. So in short, I command you to live in the Image of God.
What do you think?
God bless America
Pray for our Troops
God bless His Church
November 19, 2008
Ryan Hampton
There are all sorts of different ways to look at the nature of man, and it seems we just have not been able to tie it together in a Biblical way that is self-evidently true. One great example of an ideology on the nature of man is the Enlightenment.
The Enlightenment taught a very radical view that the human mind is the end to all things. We can achieve personal happiness, satisfaction, knowledge, etc. through the human mind. This was a rejection to the Christian faith which teaches that God is the end to all things and that our chief end is to glorify Him and enjoy Him forever.
One thing this did, which became as much of a political notion as religious, was reject the idea of the modern Roman Catholic Church and its teachings. It taught that our satisfaction and knowledge can be found within our own minds, not through the teachings of the Pope, Bishop, or through acts such as confession of sin, penance, etc. The ideas of individualism, relativism, etc., became the popular ideologies. These ideas along with the idea of utter separation of Church and State (which had been a problem) greatly influenced the political thought. Enlightenment thinking did somewhat influence our American Revolution and early basic American government.
Then came the Protestant Reformation. This was sort of the spiritual Enlightenment. The Protestant Reformation in many respects was a completely opposite approach to the Enlightenment. Yet it too had very radical beliefs that whether intentionally or unintentionally influenced political thought. Our Founders themselves were greatly influenced by the Protestant Reformation. How did two opposing forces join together in the American Revolution, and what does this say about human nature anyway?
Although these were two different viewpoints, let us look at some similarities these had. They both at some level rejected the Roman Catholic Church at that time. They both sought after religious freedom and separation of Church and State. They both believed one can obtain some sort of individual satisfaction apart from any Pope or Bishop. Similarly, they both rejected the notion that works in the Church buys something eternal (i.e. forgiveness of sin, less time in a purgatory, salvation, etc.). There was much common ground even in these completely different worldviews, which help build a structure for the American cause for independence.
Today we have drifted so far. We do not write with the same passion our Founding Father’s wrote. Modern-day self-acclaimed intellectuals are hardly the philosophers of the Enlightenment, and few theologians write with the same faith and piety that people like Luther or Calvin had. As a result, our politicians do not speak with the same zeal, passion, or intellect our Founding Fathers had. How many politicians do you hear saying “Give me liberty or give me death!?”
But even yet, we can still see remains of each worldview. The Protestant Reformation was probably one of the closest movements we have had that lead to a good understanding of human nature, and the American Revolution also ranks pretty high (which had much inspiration from the Reformation). Although I believe the church broke apart from Rome for good reason, I do believe many Protestants over-state some of the great reformers points to a point of misunderstanding human nature. Although salvation is offered by Christ on an individual basis, and not through works, Popes, etc., it is immature to consider ourselves “individualist” Christians. Although our salvation has its root in a personal relationship with Jesus, it is actually prideful to believe we can exercise this relationship just as well individually as we can corporately.
Another thing we do today too often is actually degrade our human nature. While we should not think in the anti-religious way the Enlightenment thinkers did, there is actually some real truth we can find in their ideologies. It is certainly true we should not give ourselves credit for any glory, but we must remember that mankind was made in glory. Man was created in the Image of God, and had ruler of the rest of God’s creation. Man will one day reign with God, and will even be higher than the angels.
Sometimes Protestants in America focus so much on the sinfulness of man that they forget about who man was before the Fall, and who man will be in Final Resurrection glory. It is the church, which is comprised of real human beings, that is the Bride of Jesus Christ Who is God Himself. Whenever the Church tries reaching out to non-Christians, we must be balanced in our approach to teaching the sinfulness of man, and showing the glories God has in store for His People. Far too often we teach a woe is me attitude and forget that man really does have dominion over all other animals, and will one day even be above the angels in perfect communion with God.
This false idea of human nature affects our worship, evangelism, political ideology, and frankly, our whole way of life.
Although there was error in some of the ideas of the Founders of this nation, there is much we can learn from them in regards to human nature. They understood that man stands out in creation. They understood that man has the ability to overthrow false government and create new government, and that salvation is not found at the hands of a king or Pope. They put a high emphasis on the human mind. They understood that we have a Creator Who gave us certain Rights on an equal and individual basis. However they did this realizing the sinfulness of man, thus creating a government for the purpose of punishing those who take away our God-given Rights.
In worship, our churches are often either so joyful they forget to be somber and take part in confession
or they forget about the joyful practices such as the Lord’s Supper. The Lord’s Supper is a real meal with God, which foreshadows our Final Resurrection glory which is to come.
I believe that Psalm 8:3-8 explains this paradox well. It reads, “When I consider Your heavens, the work of Your fingers, the moon and the stars, which You have ordained, what is man that You are mindful of him, and the Son of Man that You visit him. For you have made him a little lower than the
angels, and you have crowned him with glory and honor. You have made him to have dominion over the works of Your hands;You have put all things under his feet, all sheep and oxen – even the beasts of the
field, and birds of the air, and the fish of the sea that pass through the paths of the seas.” The only thing I can add to this, is that if we are in this life “a little lower than the angels,” we will be all the more higher in Final Resurrection glory.
The true identity of mankind and mans true nature is only found in a Christian worldview. However it is also self-evident, to quote from the Declaration of Independence. Therefore in a broader sense, this simply makes the Christian worldview itself at large self-evident. It becomes the only worldview that explains human nature in a manner that is consistent with everything we see around us.
The underlying explanation to man’s nature is this: Man is created in the Image of God. Every person bears God’s Image in some way, whether Christian or non-Christian. However this is more than just a
statement. This is also a command. Don’t be non-human. Be human. Live for God and live for others. Live in a faithful manner, a loving manner, and a hopeful manner, all done by the Trinity Himself.
Therefore I encourage every Christian reading this who does not go to church, to find a Church if in any way possible. I say this not because your salvation is reached by a Pastor or by a ritual, but because the routines done in a Trinitarian corporate worship service and the people you meet at a Godly church helps you reach the fullness of your salvation. It is non-human to have no community. It is non-human to believe you can reach God and experience Him fully without the company of others. Even God Himself is a company of three persons. When God created Adam, he said “It is not good for man to be alone.” And after He formed Eve, He gave them children. Community was formed by God.
And if you are a non-Christian, I encourage you to look at the many questions of the world around you and ask yourselves what other worldview can answer these questions. When I look at simply the nature of man itself, the only logical and consistent answer I find is that man is created in the Image of God. From where else do we obtain the kind of community we need? Where else do we become moral, conscience, aware, loving, personal, etc. people? Being in the Image of God is both a statement and a command. So in short, I command you to live in the Image of God.
What do you think?
God bless America
Pray for our Troops
God bless His Church
November 19, 2008
Ryan Hampton
Friday, July 11, 2008
God is Closer Than You Think
One mistake we as Christians often make is assuming that God is somewhere far off. We fail to see God as right here with us, and His glory among us. We fail to open our eyes and see God. In a sense, we fail to know much about God, and much of God.
I'm not a superstitious finatic who thinks that I can hear God's voice, or think that He reveals Himself in things such as dreams or grilled cheeses or animal crackers. I don't think that God necesarily gives us things that are meant to be extroadinary signs of His existence, except perhaps in a few cases to help someone who's faith is struggling.
But God is right here among us. His presence is here when it is just you alone at night, and His presence is even greater when two or more are gathered to worship Him in spirit and in truth (Matt 18:20). And even something that is not God Himself may be something that shows His glory.
What are some things that show His glory? Perhaps a corporate Body of Believers singing hyms of praise together in corporate worship. How about the sacraments of Baptism and Communion? Perhaps when a child is brought to life on earth, or when two people are made one through marriage. Or perhaps even, as put before, when you get lost in prayer that it seems as if God is your best friend.
This does not mean that one day of worship will be a revival for the history books. It doesn't mean that God's going to show all His glory at once. It doesn't mean that the elements in the Lord's Supper become the real physical substance of what they represent. But it does mean we must have a higher view of corporate worship and the sacrament of Communion. It's more than just a nice memorial; it's the place we have supper with Christ, who is among us. Corporate worship is where we ascend into God's presence and the gates of Heaven are opened up for us, and we worship with angels and archangles and all the company of Heaven.
Scripture often speaks of the gates of Heaven being opened up to someone. In the Old Testament and at the beginning of the New Covenant, God would give more direct signs to His People because they did not have the written Word, or many of the other advantages we have. Their access to God was limited, so God had to come down more in real voice and substance. So today we are not able to literally see Heaven, whereas, though only in certain rare situations, God may reveal Heaven to some of His People in the Old Covenant.
But it always seems as if Heaven was right among them. They simply had to be shown. We can not literally see Heaven now, but that does not mean it is not right among us. Heaven never moved. (It is not as if earth and Heaven are the same thing, but perhaps Heaven is some sort of parallel relation to the earth; a fourth dimension we can't see, or something like that.) The book of Revelation often pictures Heaven as right among us, as if there is simply a door in between (Rev. 3:8, 20; 4:1). It seems as if Heaven is right there. And although we can not literally see Heaven, we do have the ability to come into God's real presence through the name of Jesus Christ, something that people of the Old Testament may not have had. We do not have to go through a Priest, or our parents or ancestors, or an animal sacrifice to have any relation with God. All we need is Jesus Christ.
This simple yet profound theological idea, that God is right with us, gives us both a vision for God's Kingdom, and an idea of how we should live now. We have the vision that one day Heaven and earth will be joined. That our body and souls will be one. Many think that we are physical creatures with spiritual experiences, while others say that we are spiritual beings with a physical experience. The truth is we are meant to be both body and spirit, both together. In the Garden, Adam and Eve were with God. God was right among them talking to them. The Garden was in a real sense God's Kingdom. There may have been a Heaven, but it was one with the earth. But the Fall seperated it all. Our bodies and spirits are now apart, and our direct relationship with God is cut off. But in the end when all things are made new, it will all be one again, and we have everything and more of what we had in the Garden.
This idea is also relative to us here and now. We are told to make our bodies a living sacrifice (Rom. 12:1). Our many bodies are to be one Body in the Lord, and our many sacrafices are to be one sacrafice in the Lord. We should not be Christians merely as individuals, but as one People. And when we live as one People, we see God the most. When we reject community and friendship and become mere individuals, we can not function fully as a Christian. We need each other. It is one Body that is the Bride of Christ, not many bodies.
So in summary, God is closer than you think. He is right here with us. Unfortunately we live in a fallen world where Heaven, whether is be a fourth dimension or a parellel universe or whatever, is not fully revealed. But God does reveal some of it through worship, through heart-felt prayer, through the love Christians share together as friends, through Christians together singing hyms of praise, through the sacraments, etc. He does not show Himself in animal crackers or grilled cheeses as some may make millions off of believing. But He is right here among us.
So while friends should not be the only reason you go to church, perhaps it should be one reason. Friends can helps us come closer to God and see Him revealed to us.
What do you think?
God bless America
God bless His Church
July 11, 2008
Ryan Hampton
I'm not a superstitious finatic who thinks that I can hear God's voice, or think that He reveals Himself in things such as dreams or grilled cheeses or animal crackers. I don't think that God necesarily gives us things that are meant to be extroadinary signs of His existence, except perhaps in a few cases to help someone who's faith is struggling.
But God is right here among us. His presence is here when it is just you alone at night, and His presence is even greater when two or more are gathered to worship Him in spirit and in truth (Matt 18:20). And even something that is not God Himself may be something that shows His glory.
What are some things that show His glory? Perhaps a corporate Body of Believers singing hyms of praise together in corporate worship. How about the sacraments of Baptism and Communion? Perhaps when a child is brought to life on earth, or when two people are made one through marriage. Or perhaps even, as put before, when you get lost in prayer that it seems as if God is your best friend.
This does not mean that one day of worship will be a revival for the history books. It doesn't mean that God's going to show all His glory at once. It doesn't mean that the elements in the Lord's Supper become the real physical substance of what they represent. But it does mean we must have a higher view of corporate worship and the sacrament of Communion. It's more than just a nice memorial; it's the place we have supper with Christ, who is among us. Corporate worship is where we ascend into God's presence and the gates of Heaven are opened up for us, and we worship with angels and archangles and all the company of Heaven.
Scripture often speaks of the gates of Heaven being opened up to someone. In the Old Testament and at the beginning of the New Covenant, God would give more direct signs to His People because they did not have the written Word, or many of the other advantages we have. Their access to God was limited, so God had to come down more in real voice and substance. So today we are not able to literally see Heaven, whereas, though only in certain rare situations, God may reveal Heaven to some of His People in the Old Covenant.
But it always seems as if Heaven was right among them. They simply had to be shown. We can not literally see Heaven now, but that does not mean it is not right among us. Heaven never moved. (It is not as if earth and Heaven are the same thing, but perhaps Heaven is some sort of parallel relation to the earth; a fourth dimension we can't see, or something like that.) The book of Revelation often pictures Heaven as right among us, as if there is simply a door in between (Rev. 3:8, 20; 4:1). It seems as if Heaven is right there. And although we can not literally see Heaven, we do have the ability to come into God's real presence through the name of Jesus Christ, something that people of the Old Testament may not have had. We do not have to go through a Priest, or our parents or ancestors, or an animal sacrifice to have any relation with God. All we need is Jesus Christ.
This simple yet profound theological idea, that God is right with us, gives us both a vision for God's Kingdom, and an idea of how we should live now. We have the vision that one day Heaven and earth will be joined. That our body and souls will be one. Many think that we are physical creatures with spiritual experiences, while others say that we are spiritual beings with a physical experience. The truth is we are meant to be both body and spirit, both together. In the Garden, Adam and Eve were with God. God was right among them talking to them. The Garden was in a real sense God's Kingdom. There may have been a Heaven, but it was one with the earth. But the Fall seperated it all. Our bodies and spirits are now apart, and our direct relationship with God is cut off. But in the end when all things are made new, it will all be one again, and we have everything and more of what we had in the Garden.
This idea is also relative to us here and now. We are told to make our bodies a living sacrifice (Rom. 12:1). Our many bodies are to be one Body in the Lord, and our many sacrafices are to be one sacrafice in the Lord. We should not be Christians merely as individuals, but as one People. And when we live as one People, we see God the most. When we reject community and friendship and become mere individuals, we can not function fully as a Christian. We need each other. It is one Body that is the Bride of Christ, not many bodies.
So in summary, God is closer than you think. He is right here with us. Unfortunately we live in a fallen world where Heaven, whether is be a fourth dimension or a parellel universe or whatever, is not fully revealed. But God does reveal some of it through worship, through heart-felt prayer, through the love Christians share together as friends, through Christians together singing hyms of praise, through the sacraments, etc. He does not show Himself in animal crackers or grilled cheeses as some may make millions off of believing. But He is right here among us.
So while friends should not be the only reason you go to church, perhaps it should be one reason. Friends can helps us come closer to God and see Him revealed to us.
What do you think?
God bless America
God bless His Church
July 11, 2008
Ryan Hampton
Tuesday, April 1, 2008
Roman Catholicism, Protestantism, and the Role of the Church
In some ways I hate doing a blog like this - separating Christianity out by its specific denominations. I do desire the unity within the Church universal. But I do believe that there are some cases in which we can use this "legal" approach to ultimately try to bring unity.
I write this in dealing with the role of the church in part of salvation, relationship with God, and the worship of God. I will say that I believe, as a general rule, that Roman Catholics often over-emphasize the role of the church and under-emphasize the role of the personal relationship with God, while many Protestants undershoot the role of the church, focusing primarily on the personal aspect of salvation.
But both are very important, and asking which is more important or which comes first is like asking what comes first out of the chicken or the egg (except I believe that the chicken did!). The church is the Bride of Chris our heir, thus like the individual Christian's mother. We know that Mother's come before their offspring. However where would the church be without the individual Christian?
I do not believe that membership in a church assures salvation. I do not believe that a Baptism assures salvation. I do not believe that one must go to Mass to keep salvation, nor do I believe one must do what the church says to escape purgatory. I do not believe the Roman Catholic doctrines of the Pope or of Mary, although I do not judge them on such doctrines either. I do understand that there are plenty of Roman Catholics who look to a personal faith in Jesus as their only way of salvation, not Popes or the Virgin Mary.
I believe that often Protestants do not look highly enough of the church. While I do not believe we should have a Pope, I do believe there should be some form of church government. While I do not believe that the Virgin Mary should be worshipped or prayed to, I believe many Protestants shy away from anything to do with Mary, when she is a very important figure of Christianity. I also believe that Communion is often looked down upon in many Protestant churches. I believe that having real bread and real wine each week in worship service is very important. It is where we have a meal with God, where we are reminded of His grace, and where He is reminded (for lack of a better word) of His covenant with us.
Many Protestant's look at private prayer, personal piety, etc., as the chief end of their salvation. Church attendance, baptism, etc., only help show off or at best amplify the personal relationship. But once again, both the personal relationship with God, and the corporate relationship with God must go together. They should be ever flowing. A prayer closes should lead to corporate worship, which should lead back to a prayer closet.
Jesus is the only interceder in our salvation. We need no Priest, Pope, parent, Pastor, Mass, etc. to obtain salvation. Only Jesus' personal grace. But at the same time, we take part in the blessings of salvation through the church; we fully worship God through the church; we amplify our relationship with God through the church; we spread the Gospel through the church; and we renew our covenant with God through the church. I alone am not the Bride of Christ, but the church Catholic (in the sense of 'universal') is the Bride of Christ. The Church Catholic (again, universal, not strictly Roman) should be important to us. So I encourage Roman Catholic's and Protestant's to look at themselves, examine their view of the church and of a personal relationship with God, and see the two as ever-flowing. Perhaps then we can strive for union in the One Body of Christ.
What do you think?
God bless His Church
April 1, 2008
Ryan Hampton
I write this in dealing with the role of the church in part of salvation, relationship with God, and the worship of God. I will say that I believe, as a general rule, that Roman Catholics often over-emphasize the role of the church and under-emphasize the role of the personal relationship with God, while many Protestants undershoot the role of the church, focusing primarily on the personal aspect of salvation.
But both are very important, and asking which is more important or which comes first is like asking what comes first out of the chicken or the egg (except I believe that the chicken did!). The church is the Bride of Chris our heir, thus like the individual Christian's mother. We know that Mother's come before their offspring. However where would the church be without the individual Christian?
I do not believe that membership in a church assures salvation. I do not believe that a Baptism assures salvation. I do not believe that one must go to Mass to keep salvation, nor do I believe one must do what the church says to escape purgatory. I do not believe the Roman Catholic doctrines of the Pope or of Mary, although I do not judge them on such doctrines either. I do understand that there are plenty of Roman Catholics who look to a personal faith in Jesus as their only way of salvation, not Popes or the Virgin Mary.
I believe that often Protestants do not look highly enough of the church. While I do not believe we should have a Pope, I do believe there should be some form of church government. While I do not believe that the Virgin Mary should be worshipped or prayed to, I believe many Protestants shy away from anything to do with Mary, when she is a very important figure of Christianity. I also believe that Communion is often looked down upon in many Protestant churches. I believe that having real bread and real wine each week in worship service is very important. It is where we have a meal with God, where we are reminded of His grace, and where He is reminded (for lack of a better word) of His covenant with us.
Many Protestant's look at private prayer, personal piety, etc., as the chief end of their salvation. Church attendance, baptism, etc., only help show off or at best amplify the personal relationship. But once again, both the personal relationship with God, and the corporate relationship with God must go together. They should be ever flowing. A prayer closes should lead to corporate worship, which should lead back to a prayer closet.
Jesus is the only interceder in our salvation. We need no Priest, Pope, parent, Pastor, Mass, etc. to obtain salvation. Only Jesus' personal grace. But at the same time, we take part in the blessings of salvation through the church; we fully worship God through the church; we amplify our relationship with God through the church; we spread the Gospel through the church; and we renew our covenant with God through the church. I alone am not the Bride of Christ, but the church Catholic (in the sense of 'universal') is the Bride of Christ. The Church Catholic (again, universal, not strictly Roman) should be important to us. So I encourage Roman Catholic's and Protestant's to look at themselves, examine their view of the church and of a personal relationship with God, and see the two as ever-flowing. Perhaps then we can strive for union in the One Body of Christ.
What do you think?
God bless His Church
April 1, 2008
Ryan Hampton
Saturday, March 1, 2008
The Politics of the Church
One of the problems the church has always had has been knowing how to approach
politics. The church has been in political troubles all throughout her history. We should not treat this generation or time period as an exception, but neither should we treat it as the only time this has been a problem either.
Many tell us that the church has become too political. A few would argue that the church has not been political enough. But the problem is not that the church has been too political or not political enough, but the problem is that the church has not been the church.
There was a time when there was argument whether the King or the Pope had complete authority. Was the church being the church at this time? No, they were too obsessed with civil power that they forgot about the Great Commission. The church has forgotten about the Great Commission today, and has instead has become legalistic about books and movies such as "Harry Potter" and "The Golden Compass." These things may be issues that the church can deal with, but only after it has first focused on its main roles: to love others as ourselves, to spread the Word to all nations, to reunite the many denominations that have divided Christians for so long, to worship God corporately each Sunday, and to all around return to the basic principles of Jesus.
The point is we should first focus on ourselves before we really worry about politics. But at the very same time, we should not resist politics. The politics of the church will come when we focus on the teachings of Jesus, and they will come in a profound way. Dr. George Grant said that "We must think of politics some of the time, so that we do not think of politics all the of the time." This quote seems to hold up; many of those today who complain that the church is too political are the most legalistic of Christians out there.
So what should the politics of the church look like? Well, as I said before, let us first focus on our basic task. The politics will then begin to take care of themselves. We should long for a day when the entire world bows on their knees and confesses with their tongues that Jesus is Lord; we should long for the day when earthly rulers bow to the ultimate rule of God; we should long for the day our governments are orchestrated by a Christian worldview that all men are created equal with certain unalienable Rights, and that governments are set up by God to protect our Rights; we should long for a day when the life of an innocent baby, born or unborn, would not be threatened; we should long for a day when our government punishes those who threaten our life, liberty, and property. This is extremely political, but it comes from the mission of the church.
And what has happened today? Today, we start with politics, and then we try to separate Christianity and make it something to the side. If we see religion and politics crossing paths, we make a political issue about it. Mitt Romney is a Mormon, should we not vote for him? Mike Huckabee was a Baptist Minister, does this make him more or less prepared for the job. Don't get me wrong - I want a firm Christian who can confess Jesus as Lord while speaking to the entire nation to be our President as much as most anyone, but the way we make political issues out of it all today is quite distasteful to me. One reason I would be skeptical of voting for Mitt Romney is because of his Mormonism. But I don't want to go around making a political issue about it. Perhaps today what we need is someone with a quiet driving faith, if a political fuss will be made of anything else.
The difference between the ideal way the church should handle politics and the way it has, is that the ideal way of handling politics is to first be a Christian. Because our Christianity covers (or should cover) all of our life, politics will be taken care of in the boldest of ways. Today, Christians seem to first be political, and then try to separate Christianity out of it. When the two intermingle, as they inevitably do, we have a giant mess on our hands.
What do you think?
God bless America
God bless His church
Pray for our Troops
March 1, 2008
Ryan Hampton
politics. The church has been in political troubles all throughout her history. We should not treat this generation or time period as an exception, but neither should we treat it as the only time this has been a problem either.
Many tell us that the church has become too political. A few would argue that the church has not been political enough. But the problem is not that the church has been too political or not political enough, but the problem is that the church has not been the church.
There was a time when there was argument whether the King or the Pope had complete authority. Was the church being the church at this time? No, they were too obsessed with civil power that they forgot about the Great Commission. The church has forgotten about the Great Commission today, and has instead has become legalistic about books and movies such as "Harry Potter" and "The Golden Compass." These things may be issues that the church can deal with, but only after it has first focused on its main roles: to love others as ourselves, to spread the Word to all nations, to reunite the many denominations that have divided Christians for so long, to worship God corporately each Sunday, and to all around return to the basic principles of Jesus.
The point is we should first focus on ourselves before we really worry about politics. But at the very same time, we should not resist politics. The politics of the church will come when we focus on the teachings of Jesus, and they will come in a profound way. Dr. George Grant said that "We must think of politics some of the time, so that we do not think of politics all the of the time." This quote seems to hold up; many of those today who complain that the church is too political are the most legalistic of Christians out there.
So what should the politics of the church look like? Well, as I said before, let us first focus on our basic task. The politics will then begin to take care of themselves. We should long for a day when the entire world bows on their knees and confesses with their tongues that Jesus is Lord; we should long for the day when earthly rulers bow to the ultimate rule of God; we should long for the day our governments are orchestrated by a Christian worldview that all men are created equal with certain unalienable Rights, and that governments are set up by God to protect our Rights; we should long for a day when the life of an innocent baby, born or unborn, would not be threatened; we should long for a day when our government punishes those who threaten our life, liberty, and property. This is extremely political, but it comes from the mission of the church.
And what has happened today? Today, we start with politics, and then we try to separate Christianity and make it something to the side. If we see religion and politics crossing paths, we make a political issue about it. Mitt Romney is a Mormon, should we not vote for him? Mike Huckabee was a Baptist Minister, does this make him more or less prepared for the job. Don't get me wrong - I want a firm Christian who can confess Jesus as Lord while speaking to the entire nation to be our President as much as most anyone, but the way we make political issues out of it all today is quite distasteful to me. One reason I would be skeptical of voting for Mitt Romney is because of his Mormonism. But I don't want to go around making a political issue about it. Perhaps today what we need is someone with a quiet driving faith, if a political fuss will be made of anything else.
The difference between the ideal way the church should handle politics and the way it has, is that the ideal way of handling politics is to first be a Christian. Because our Christianity covers (or should cover) all of our life, politics will be taken care of in the boldest of ways. Today, Christians seem to first be political, and then try to separate Christianity out of it. When the two intermingle, as they inevitably do, we have a giant mess on our hands.
What do you think?
God bless America
God bless His church
Pray for our Troops
March 1, 2008
Ryan Hampton
Wednesday, January 2, 2008
The Greatest War of All
Whether you are pro-war, anti-war, liberal, conservative, etc., there is always one war that will be going on. It will go on in your personally, through you corporately, and will always be the ultimate World War.
What is it? This war is the war between the City of God and the City of Man. Every single person is a member of either of the two cities. If we were to divide every single person in the world into one of two groups, it would be those of the City of God and those of the City of Man.
What are the differences? We should not believe that the difference between the two cities is that the City of God is of good people and that the City of Man has bad people. The difference is that the people of the City of God understand that they are sinners, and seek the forgiveness of God. Those in the City of Man look to the mind of man to free them of any problems in the world, but would never blame it on the sin of man - or at least not their own.
What are the effects? The effects of this war affect you personally and corporately; spritual, emotionally, mentally, and even physically; it affects you in almost every way. We should not believe that if you are a member of the City of God then you will never think like a member of the City of Man. But in the end, all of God's people will call upon His name. Consider the following personal and worldly aspects of this war (can especially be very personal):
Lust vs. Love
Popular before man vs. Humble before God
Individualistic Inward piety vs. Corporate worship
Theft and Murder vs. A respect for the property of others
Natural Selection vs. Natural rights, and, above all,
The love of money vs. The Love of God.
What is best for man in the long run? Lust does not forgive the imperfections of that being lusted after. Love, true, love, would forgive imperfections. Popularity comes with many prices and can easily be lost. God accepts us for walking humbly (Man's fluctuating acceptance compared to God's eternal acceptance). Individualism (some forms of it) often will not forgive one's mistakes, and is apart from the forgiveness and love God shows through others. Corporate worship strengthens even the worst of sinners, and through it God can enable us true acceptance even among men. Theft and Murder against someone can result in someone else robbing or murdering you. Natural selection accepts and deny's people by standards one can not help. Natural rights affirms everyone certain God-given and unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The love of money is never satisfied, and always wants more money. The Love of God enables us to rest in confidence for the greatest treasure of all.
But even yet, the glories of the City of Man seem so great at first. Money, popularity, and the like seem so attractive. But how many people in Hollywood, with so much money, so much fame, and seemingly perfect bodies really seem happy in the end? Not many.
Ultimately, money, acceptance among men, and happiness, will come by faith in God, and participation in the City of God. Matt. 7:13 says, "Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it."
And in the end, it will be the City of God who wins. We are told that the gates of Hell can not even prevail against the Rock on which God builds His Church. Matt. 16:18 says, "...on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it." Hells gates, the guard of the City of Man, will not be able to offend the City of God, nor be able to defend against the offense of the City of God. Ultimately, it's a blow-out. Hell has no chance, and the winner of the war is predestined.
So as a New Year's Resolution, I encourage you to examine your life, and see how you are living. Are you living as someone who understands that you are a sinner, and one who seeks the forgiveness of God? Or, are you living as someone who does not care about the way you live your life, or the only care you do have is popularity, fortune, fornication, and many other things or sins that seem to have so much glory, but who's path only leads to destruction? Do you even realize that there is this war, that affects you personally, corporately, and in every way of your life? Or do you ignore this war? If you do understand this war, if you do seek the forgiveness of God and seek to live better, then you can rest assure that the City of God will win, the City of Man only leads to destruction, and you will be apart of eternal glory.
God bless His Church
For all the Saints
God bless you
Lift High the cross
Janurary 2, 2008
Ryan Hampton
What is it? This war is the war between the City of God and the City of Man. Every single person is a member of either of the two cities. If we were to divide every single person in the world into one of two groups, it would be those of the City of God and those of the City of Man.
What are the differences? We should not believe that the difference between the two cities is that the City of God is of good people and that the City of Man has bad people. The difference is that the people of the City of God understand that they are sinners, and seek the forgiveness of God. Those in the City of Man look to the mind of man to free them of any problems in the world, but would never blame it on the sin of man - or at least not their own.
What are the effects? The effects of this war affect you personally and corporately; spritual, emotionally, mentally, and even physically; it affects you in almost every way. We should not believe that if you are a member of the City of God then you will never think like a member of the City of Man. But in the end, all of God's people will call upon His name. Consider the following personal and worldly aspects of this war (can especially be very personal):
Lust vs. Love
Popular before man vs. Humble before God
Individualistic Inward piety vs. Corporate worship
Theft and Murder vs. A respect for the property of others
Natural Selection vs. Natural rights, and, above all,
The love of money vs. The Love of God.
What is best for man in the long run? Lust does not forgive the imperfections of that being lusted after. Love, true, love, would forgive imperfections. Popularity comes with many prices and can easily be lost. God accepts us for walking humbly (Man's fluctuating acceptance compared to God's eternal acceptance). Individualism (some forms of it) often will not forgive one's mistakes, and is apart from the forgiveness and love God shows through others. Corporate worship strengthens even the worst of sinners, and through it God can enable us true acceptance even among men. Theft and Murder against someone can result in someone else robbing or murdering you. Natural selection accepts and deny's people by standards one can not help. Natural rights affirms everyone certain God-given and unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The love of money is never satisfied, and always wants more money. The Love of God enables us to rest in confidence for the greatest treasure of all.
But even yet, the glories of the City of Man seem so great at first. Money, popularity, and the like seem so attractive. But how many people in Hollywood, with so much money, so much fame, and seemingly perfect bodies really seem happy in the end? Not many.
Ultimately, money, acceptance among men, and happiness, will come by faith in God, and participation in the City of God. Matt. 7:13 says, "Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it."
And in the end, it will be the City of God who wins. We are told that the gates of Hell can not even prevail against the Rock on which God builds His Church. Matt. 16:18 says, "...on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it." Hells gates, the guard of the City of Man, will not be able to offend the City of God, nor be able to defend against the offense of the City of God. Ultimately, it's a blow-out. Hell has no chance, and the winner of the war is predestined.
So as a New Year's Resolution, I encourage you to examine your life, and see how you are living. Are you living as someone who understands that you are a sinner, and one who seeks the forgiveness of God? Or, are you living as someone who does not care about the way you live your life, or the only care you do have is popularity, fortune, fornication, and many other things or sins that seem to have so much glory, but who's path only leads to destruction? Do you even realize that there is this war, that affects you personally, corporately, and in every way of your life? Or do you ignore this war? If you do understand this war, if you do seek the forgiveness of God and seek to live better, then you can rest assure that the City of God will win, the City of Man only leads to destruction, and you will be apart of eternal glory.
God bless His Church
For all the Saints
God bless you
Lift High the cross
Janurary 2, 2008
Ryan Hampton
Sunday, October 14, 2007
Christian Music
Christian Music
October 12, 2007
A major way God moves His people is through music. Music is a common theme throughout the Bible. We are told to praise God with music (Psalm 33:3, 40:3, 137:4, Isaiah 23:16). Music itself was created by God and has existed since creation, and will always exist. Music is distinct from other general sounds. Music is sound, but not all sound is music. The popular styles of music change, but music itself never changes.
Music is a reflection on religion, culture, and lifestyle. Music itself is amoral- that is, without moral absolutes behind it. There is no way we can say as an absolute fact that any style of music is wrong, or that any kind is necessarily and always better than another. However relative to given points in time, music can have an impact on someone depending on the culture it relates to. In the Southeast today, we see many people using popular sounds of music with spiritual lyrics to give praise to God. There seems to be a revival-like attitude sweeping through our churches in Christianity today, as shown largely through the music.
Music is amoral, but yet can be related to given cultures, whether sinful or Godly. How can Christians today apply this to their lives? How does music influence our corporate worship, private walk with God, and every decision we make? How can we relate Christian music in particular to these questions as well?
First off, we should look to Scripture. Scripture speaks of everything either directly or indirectly. What becomes hard is knowing what to believe when it is not mentioned in the Bible directly. There are many cases of Christian doctrine, or of any issue today, that are believed even when the Bible does not directly support the belief in mind. However we should remember that sometimes the Bible may speak of something indirectly. As a somewhat extreme example, what if someone said "college football needs playoffs." There is no direct Scriptural evidence to defend that claim, but it may be a true statement. The Bible speaks, you could say, of fairness, equality, etc., and then it is up to us to decide what constitutes as Biblical fairness and equality. There is not that much said about music genre, music lyrics, etc. in the Bible directly, but that does not mean we can not reach a Biblically based conclusion with truth and objective to it. However the Bible speaking of everything whether directly or indirectly does not mean there is an absolute right and wrong to any given subject at hand. Music itself was already stated as amoral. This is a premise, however, and if shown to be false by Scripture, can be rejected. However I do not believe that Scripture would object to this, although there may be some relative sense of morality in music because it relates to the culture, people, or the person who listens to it. We should now use Scripture in finding the balance to these premises. The below will sum up what was said:
1): Scripture should be used, whether directly or indirectly, to defend anything we believe, because Scripture is absolute and speaks of everything whether directly or indirectly (presupposition).
2): Music is amoral, that is, lacking absolute moral sensitivity (premise).
3): Morality can be indirectly and relatively related to music (premise). [This does not mean that morality is absolutely relative, but that it is relatively absolute. The ‘relative’ in this case is only based off of God’s absolute standard of morality].
I have written of some of this before, getting mixed opinions. First off, for those who have read some of what I have said of Christian music, I in no way judge anyone based merely off of the music they listen to, or whether the Christian music they listen to is contemporary, tradition, or classical. I do not think that it is Biblical to just reject any style of music absolutely, whether it be Christian or secular. I have heard of people who would essentially bash contemporary Christian music, and I find no direct or indirect Scriptural evidence to do such a thing. However we should keep a few things in mind.
For one thing, the church is distinct from the world. The church should not just mimic the world, even in the name of gaining followers. Another thing we should keep in mind is what point number three (seen above), gets at. Music and culture are related, and culture and religion are related as well. Essentially, all culture is, is religion externalized. Music is music, but we can tell a lot about a culture based on its song. Therefore, there is some sort of moral sensitivity that should be placed in music. This leads me to my third point. As Christians, anything we do, especially if done directly in the name of Christ, should be done with complete reverence and fear. If music images a culture, then church music, at some level, should be unique, because the church is unique.
Once again, we should not declare anything as completely absolute. We should be bringing the nations to Christ, and so in theory, if the world had a largely unified culture, unified in Christ (a utopian view), then there would be no reason to be distinct. In the same sense, it is true that the church is to be ‘in’ the world. Furthermore, the world in the sense of the universal planet earth, is filled of both Christians and non-Christians. Even a culture within the world is filled of both Christians and non-Christians. There are some traditions that are held by both Christians and non-Christians. The difference is found in the motive. What often separates music as being glorifying to God or not is the motive of the musician, and all those who listen to or sing or play the music.
Here, we see a two-fold relationship. On one hand, logic seems to tell us that Christian music should be separate and unique from other music. On the other hand we seem to see that Christian music can give full glory to God no matter what genre it is of. Music is music, and the styles may change. The sound of classical Christian music today may have been considered ‘pop’ music five hundred years ago (in theory). Will people see bands such as Third Day, Mercy Me, etc., five-hundred years from now in the same way we see people such as Martin Luther and John Newton today?
So once again, there is this nagging two-fold relationship. We dug deeper, but the two sides are still there. They haven’t yet reached a point. We can all reach different conclusions, and perhaps, you have already disagreed with my logic. But now I desire to write what my conclusions would be.
All of our music should be done with full reverence to God. Any music written for God should be done in fear. This does not mean that songs can not be ‘simple’ and still good. But the song should be something that comes from the heart, and the heart should be focused on God. Therefore, any Christian song written should be bold, firm, and attesting to the grace of God.
Beyond this, I believe that there is a difference between corporate church music and private Christian music. The Christian is a Christian in personal sense, but also in the corporate sense. When a portion of the body of Christ comes into God’s presence and assembles for corporate worship, they are called out of the world. They are called boldly, and they should come in a manner that shows their corporate relationship with Christ. We are the body, not a bunch of bodies. We are one. We are the body and the bride of Christ. The music should reflect God’s work with His people, and His people’s work together with God. I believe that today’s popular Christian music reflects more of the personal relationship with Jesus, while traditional or classical hymns reflect the overall picture. Both are important and have their place, but corporate worship is designed for the overall picture.
When I am driving down the road by myself, I don’t necessarily enjoy listening to classical music or corporate hymns. It would be more likely of me to turn to a popular Christian radio station than to put in a CD of old people singing older hymns. But when in the presence of covenant renewal service, there is something much more powerful about these hymns. They have beauty and truth. They have bold statements that are not seen in today’s Christian music such as "Jesus, What a Friend of Sinners," "Amazing Grace, how sweet the sound," "We are God’s People, the chosen of the Lord; Born on His Spirit, established by His word," and "Lift High the Cross," all just to name a few. There are some popular Christian songs today with powerful lyrics, but many of them lack what the hymns so richly have. In enjoy some contemporary Christian such as Casting Crowns and Three Driven Nails, but I don’t much care for a lot of what I hear on popular Christian radio. We must be lyrically and musically sensitive to what we label as Christian music. What if we label some sappy or watered-down ‘inspirational’ message as Christianity? A non-Christian might say, "If that is today’s Christian music, then I don’t want to be a part of today’s Christianity." Once again, music reflects the person and the culture.
But this does not reject bringing contemporary music to God. Someone has to write the music. Sometimes there are some traditional or Reformed churches today that seem scared of presenting any new Christian music. I don’t think this is good. We are to "sing to the Lord a new song" (Psalm 33:3). Of course, reading further in the verse, it says to "play skillfully with a loud noise." There is nothing wrong if the Christian music is loud as long as it is reverent and bold. The same chapter tells us to "Praise Him with the Psaltery and with an instrument of ten strings." Music should reflect the Bible. We are told to "Praise Him with the Psaltery."
I also believe we should be careful in relations to the style of Christian music that is brought out. Rightly or wrongly, some styles of music relate to a sinful culture. It becomes dangerous if Christian music is played in the style that portrays a sinful culture. Such styles may include rap music, hard rock music, etc. It becomes worse when the Christian band or artist dresses like the norm of this style, perhaps with tattoos, excessive body piercings, etc. We should desire to bring all the nations to Christ, but I’m not sure playing their style of music is the best way. We should alter an alternative to their sinful lifestyle found in the hope of Jesus. We should offer community to a self-centered lifestyle, rooting ourselves in the doctrine of the Trinity. Playing to their level is not necessarily the correct way to go.
Also, if someone is a Christian artist, they should make sure the way they live their lives attests to the grace of God. I also do not particularly care for a Christian to assume that any music produced by any Christian must be directly Christian. As a Christian and a musician myself, I do write Christian songs, but I also write secular songs. I try to keep it all to the glory of God and all consistent within the Christian worldview.
So when we hear Christian music, we should ask six basic questions:
1): Does the style of music seem to be influenced by and does it seem to promote a sinful lifestyle?
2): Is the music bold enough lyrically and musically to be declared as Christian music? (Keep in mind if it is declared as Christian music, then it becomes a much stronger representative of Christianity.)
3): Does the music seem to simply mimic the world music for popular gain and attention?
4): Is this music written and played to the full glory of God?
5): Is this music better in the context of corporate worship, or private listening?
6): Does the author or artist of this music live their lives attesting to God's grace?
In my opinion, if the music passes this little "test," then it is good Christian music. I also believe that even if the music does not necessarily pass this test completely, then it should not necessarily be criticized. God may be pleased even with our imperfect attempts to praise Him, if our hearts are in the right place.
Continue to guard what you hear with the Word of God, but also keep in mind how you should interpret God’s Word correctly. One of the next blogs will address this question. Remember the importance of music. It is a major way God moves His people. Therefore, we should be sensitive to our music, but also praising with it. We should lift high our voices, so that we may "Lift High the Cross."
What do you think?
God bless America
Pray for our Troops
God bless His church
October 14, 2007
Ryan Hampton
October 12, 2007
A major way God moves His people is through music. Music is a common theme throughout the Bible. We are told to praise God with music (Psalm 33:3, 40:3, 137:4, Isaiah 23:16). Music itself was created by God and has existed since creation, and will always exist. Music is distinct from other general sounds. Music is sound, but not all sound is music. The popular styles of music change, but music itself never changes.
Music is a reflection on religion, culture, and lifestyle. Music itself is amoral- that is, without moral absolutes behind it. There is no way we can say as an absolute fact that any style of music is wrong, or that any kind is necessarily and always better than another. However relative to given points in time, music can have an impact on someone depending on the culture it relates to. In the Southeast today, we see many people using popular sounds of music with spiritual lyrics to give praise to God. There seems to be a revival-like attitude sweeping through our churches in Christianity today, as shown largely through the music.
Music is amoral, but yet can be related to given cultures, whether sinful or Godly. How can Christians today apply this to their lives? How does music influence our corporate worship, private walk with God, and every decision we make? How can we relate Christian music in particular to these questions as well?
First off, we should look to Scripture. Scripture speaks of everything either directly or indirectly. What becomes hard is knowing what to believe when it is not mentioned in the Bible directly. There are many cases of Christian doctrine, or of any issue today, that are believed even when the Bible does not directly support the belief in mind. However we should remember that sometimes the Bible may speak of something indirectly. As a somewhat extreme example, what if someone said "college football needs playoffs." There is no direct Scriptural evidence to defend that claim, but it may be a true statement. The Bible speaks, you could say, of fairness, equality, etc., and then it is up to us to decide what constitutes as Biblical fairness and equality. There is not that much said about music genre, music lyrics, etc. in the Bible directly, but that does not mean we can not reach a Biblically based conclusion with truth and objective to it. However the Bible speaking of everything whether directly or indirectly does not mean there is an absolute right and wrong to any given subject at hand. Music itself was already stated as amoral. This is a premise, however, and if shown to be false by Scripture, can be rejected. However I do not believe that Scripture would object to this, although there may be some relative sense of morality in music because it relates to the culture, people, or the person who listens to it. We should now use Scripture in finding the balance to these premises. The below will sum up what was said:
1): Scripture should be used, whether directly or indirectly, to defend anything we believe, because Scripture is absolute and speaks of everything whether directly or indirectly (presupposition).
2): Music is amoral, that is, lacking absolute moral sensitivity (premise).
3): Morality can be indirectly and relatively related to music (premise). [This does not mean that morality is absolutely relative, but that it is relatively absolute. The ‘relative’ in this case is only based off of God’s absolute standard of morality].
I have written of some of this before, getting mixed opinions. First off, for those who have read some of what I have said of Christian music, I in no way judge anyone based merely off of the music they listen to, or whether the Christian music they listen to is contemporary, tradition, or classical. I do not think that it is Biblical to just reject any style of music absolutely, whether it be Christian or secular. I have heard of people who would essentially bash contemporary Christian music, and I find no direct or indirect Scriptural evidence to do such a thing. However we should keep a few things in mind.
For one thing, the church is distinct from the world. The church should not just mimic the world, even in the name of gaining followers. Another thing we should keep in mind is what point number three (seen above), gets at. Music and culture are related, and culture and religion are related as well. Essentially, all culture is, is religion externalized. Music is music, but we can tell a lot about a culture based on its song. Therefore, there is some sort of moral sensitivity that should be placed in music. This leads me to my third point. As Christians, anything we do, especially if done directly in the name of Christ, should be done with complete reverence and fear. If music images a culture, then church music, at some level, should be unique, because the church is unique.
Once again, we should not declare anything as completely absolute. We should be bringing the nations to Christ, and so in theory, if the world had a largely unified culture, unified in Christ (a utopian view), then there would be no reason to be distinct. In the same sense, it is true that the church is to be ‘in’ the world. Furthermore, the world in the sense of the universal planet earth, is filled of both Christians and non-Christians. Even a culture within the world is filled of both Christians and non-Christians. There are some traditions that are held by both Christians and non-Christians. The difference is found in the motive. What often separates music as being glorifying to God or not is the motive of the musician, and all those who listen to or sing or play the music.
Here, we see a two-fold relationship. On one hand, logic seems to tell us that Christian music should be separate and unique from other music. On the other hand we seem to see that Christian music can give full glory to God no matter what genre it is of. Music is music, and the styles may change. The sound of classical Christian music today may have been considered ‘pop’ music five hundred years ago (in theory). Will people see bands such as Third Day, Mercy Me, etc., five-hundred years from now in the same way we see people such as Martin Luther and John Newton today?
So once again, there is this nagging two-fold relationship. We dug deeper, but the two sides are still there. They haven’t yet reached a point. We can all reach different conclusions, and perhaps, you have already disagreed with my logic. But now I desire to write what my conclusions would be.
All of our music should be done with full reverence to God. Any music written for God should be done in fear. This does not mean that songs can not be ‘simple’ and still good. But the song should be something that comes from the heart, and the heart should be focused on God. Therefore, any Christian song written should be bold, firm, and attesting to the grace of God.
Beyond this, I believe that there is a difference between corporate church music and private Christian music. The Christian is a Christian in personal sense, but also in the corporate sense. When a portion of the body of Christ comes into God’s presence and assembles for corporate worship, they are called out of the world. They are called boldly, and they should come in a manner that shows their corporate relationship with Christ. We are the body, not a bunch of bodies. We are one. We are the body and the bride of Christ. The music should reflect God’s work with His people, and His people’s work together with God. I believe that today’s popular Christian music reflects more of the personal relationship with Jesus, while traditional or classical hymns reflect the overall picture. Both are important and have their place, but corporate worship is designed for the overall picture.
When I am driving down the road by myself, I don’t necessarily enjoy listening to classical music or corporate hymns. It would be more likely of me to turn to a popular Christian radio station than to put in a CD of old people singing older hymns. But when in the presence of covenant renewal service, there is something much more powerful about these hymns. They have beauty and truth. They have bold statements that are not seen in today’s Christian music such as "Jesus, What a Friend of Sinners," "Amazing Grace, how sweet the sound," "We are God’s People, the chosen of the Lord; Born on His Spirit, established by His word," and "Lift High the Cross," all just to name a few. There are some popular Christian songs today with powerful lyrics, but many of them lack what the hymns so richly have. In enjoy some contemporary Christian such as Casting Crowns and Three Driven Nails, but I don’t much care for a lot of what I hear on popular Christian radio. We must be lyrically and musically sensitive to what we label as Christian music. What if we label some sappy or watered-down ‘inspirational’ message as Christianity? A non-Christian might say, "If that is today’s Christian music, then I don’t want to be a part of today’s Christianity." Once again, music reflects the person and the culture.
But this does not reject bringing contemporary music to God. Someone has to write the music. Sometimes there are some traditional or Reformed churches today that seem scared of presenting any new Christian music. I don’t think this is good. We are to "sing to the Lord a new song" (Psalm 33:3). Of course, reading further in the verse, it says to "play skillfully with a loud noise." There is nothing wrong if the Christian music is loud as long as it is reverent and bold. The same chapter tells us to "Praise Him with the Psaltery and with an instrument of ten strings." Music should reflect the Bible. We are told to "Praise Him with the Psaltery."
I also believe we should be careful in relations to the style of Christian music that is brought out. Rightly or wrongly, some styles of music relate to a sinful culture. It becomes dangerous if Christian music is played in the style that portrays a sinful culture. Such styles may include rap music, hard rock music, etc. It becomes worse when the Christian band or artist dresses like the norm of this style, perhaps with tattoos, excessive body piercings, etc. We should desire to bring all the nations to Christ, but I’m not sure playing their style of music is the best way. We should alter an alternative to their sinful lifestyle found in the hope of Jesus. We should offer community to a self-centered lifestyle, rooting ourselves in the doctrine of the Trinity. Playing to their level is not necessarily the correct way to go.
Also, if someone is a Christian artist, they should make sure the way they live their lives attests to the grace of God. I also do not particularly care for a Christian to assume that any music produced by any Christian must be directly Christian. As a Christian and a musician myself, I do write Christian songs, but I also write secular songs. I try to keep it all to the glory of God and all consistent within the Christian worldview.
So when we hear Christian music, we should ask six basic questions:
1): Does the style of music seem to be influenced by and does it seem to promote a sinful lifestyle?
2): Is the music bold enough lyrically and musically to be declared as Christian music? (Keep in mind if it is declared as Christian music, then it becomes a much stronger representative of Christianity.)
3): Does the music seem to simply mimic the world music for popular gain and attention?
4): Is this music written and played to the full glory of God?
5): Is this music better in the context of corporate worship, or private listening?
6): Does the author or artist of this music live their lives attesting to God's grace?
In my opinion, if the music passes this little "test," then it is good Christian music. I also believe that even if the music does not necessarily pass this test completely, then it should not necessarily be criticized. God may be pleased even with our imperfect attempts to praise Him, if our hearts are in the right place.
Continue to guard what you hear with the Word of God, but also keep in mind how you should interpret God’s Word correctly. One of the next blogs will address this question. Remember the importance of music. It is a major way God moves His people. Therefore, we should be sensitive to our music, but also praising with it. We should lift high our voices, so that we may "Lift High the Cross."
What do you think?
God bless America
Pray for our Troops
God bless His church
October 14, 2007
Ryan Hampton
Friday, September 7, 2007
The Basement Second Edition
You may recall that a while back I wrote a blog on The Basement, a local church-like function that attracts hundreds of people across the Birmingham area each week. At that time I had never been, but wrote on the standpoint of my opinion based off what I have gathered. Many people call it a cult while many others claim the real presence of God there. Well guess what! I finally decided to go for myself, to see what it was like.
Before going into great detail as to my opinions once visiting, I will sum up my opinions I expressed in the last blog about The Basement. The following is a brief outline of my opinions on such a place in general:
Guard what you hear with the Word of God, and use discernment in what you hear. It is essential that whatever anyone tells you, you should only believe it if it is Biblically consistent. When a Minister of the Word of God preaches about the Word of God, they should be able to back up their beliefs with Scripture. However, even as true as this is, this general "method," if you will, can be oversimplified. You may quote Scripture, but the second step is to interpret Scripture. Just because someone quotes Scripture does not make them right- they must interpret it right. If someone quotes Scripture and interprets it differently than you do, your church does, or your denomination does, consider the text in the context it is written, and make a reasonable opinionated conclusion as to if you need to be corrected, if the speaker needs to be corrected, or if it is somewhat of both. Remember, that there are some people who are called to preach The Gospel. Therefore, it is possible to learn from an ordained Minister of whom you may disagree with. Sometimes because they have training and the gift from God, you may indeed learn from them. However they must meet the qualifications and calling in order to claim any duty of a Minister, Elder, or preacher of the Word of God. Because they are preachers of the Word, they are held to a higher standard. They can still always be wrong. [See II Timothy 3:16-17, Acts 14:23, and Titus 1:5, James 1:19, James 3:1].
The style of worship does matter. In today’s world of Christianity, we live in an individualist standpoint that says that it does not matter at all how you worship God- as long as you "feel" it. But I ask one thing: what is more important, your personal emotions, or the Word of God? It would take a separate blog- or maybe even book- to write an in-depth opinion of corporate worship. But even yet, the way you worship does matter. Granted, one aspect of this should be praising God with all of your heart, soul, mind, and strength. Therefore, to disregard the "personal emotions" would be inconsistent within the Bible itself. We should just remember that worship is not based off of these emotions in and of themselves. [See Psalm 147:1, Luke 24:53, Psalm 145:3].
The music, preaching, and atmosphere should resemble the church universal. What people need more than anything is not deep theology (although this is important and should come), nor a place that harshly condemns their sins. What people need is acceptance, community, and love. The church should offer this universally. Therefore, in every aspect, a Christian gathering place should live as a living sacrifice attesting to the grace of God. Therefore, the church universally, and locally both, should be apart and distinct from the world. They should try to help the sinner, and be "in" the world, but not "of" the world. It is hard on a personal standpoint to know how to use the "hate the sin, love the sinner" approach, and the "in but not of the world" approach, while still using the "all things to all people" approach that Paul talks about. But any place of corporate Christian gathering should be sensitive to how they meet this basic criteria. Therefore, they should accept people; they should teach people; they should forgive people; and they should be different- from the music to the way of life. [John 3:16, Romans 12:2, II Timothy 3:10].
This can not and should not be attempted to replace weekly Sunday morning worship. Sunday morning worship is very essential to Christian living. We are told not to forsake the assembly. Some may say that The Basement is assembly. It is, but I believe that there is something special about the weekly worship with God, where God renews His covenant with His people (not to mention the special kind of community one gathers from consistently attending a church). The Basement, if done right, may offer a community to the struggling Christian or to the non-Christian. However it is essential for the personal growth of the Christian to attend a weekly Christian church service. There are those who believe that the only assembly should be of the weekly worship, or that any other assembly should be done with all members of a particular church body. I would disagree. I think that a place such as The Basement can be a really good place for teenagers of different churches to gather amongst themselves. It just should not take the place of the weekly corporate worship. [Hebrews 10:24-25, Joel 1:14].
The above basically sums up my views with how we should approach something as The Basement. The following is how I feel The Basement falls into those basic guidelines. I write this in terms of unity within the church, so that I praise where praise should be given, and humbly offer my opinion where it may be faulted. If you see me in error, please correct me.
As I went into The Basement, I must say, it felt more like a pep rally or something to that effect. From one aspect that can be good because Christians want to "rally" other Christians. However as I went in, I did not feel as if I was going to church. I heard the "Christian" rap, and did not feel "at home." I must say that most of the people there were generous to me. They would introduce themselves, and so forth, trying to make me feel comfortable. I appreciated that. But by hearing the rap, I did not feel like this was God’s house. We should not say to the non-Christian, "Come here and be a Christian- we play rap, you like that, right?" We should offer an alternative to a worldly lifestyle. There is nothing wrong with offering a friendly atmosphere for people to come worship God, but it should be done in a way that is distinct and faithful. Changing "Party like a rock star" to "Jesus is my rock star" does not reflect what Christianity is all about. If anything, this seems to show people that Christians have to borrow from the worlds handbook in order to be who they are. In all reality, it is the world that borrows from the Christian’s handbook, essentially the Bible, to be consistent with their beliefs. We should show them that. We should show them God’s grace and love and forgiveness. It may not attract many people at first, but I would much rather hear "Jesus, What a Friend of Sinners" or "We are God’s people" or "Amazing Grace" or "Holy, Holy, Holy." The music should show the non-Christian that Jesus is a friend of sinners, and remind the Christian to "Lift High the Cross."
After the rap, we all took a seat, and listened to the message from evangelist and speaker, Matt Pitt. His basic message was that God has a plan, and we should submit to His plan. This is very true. He often reminded us that it is God who is in control. Many mainstream Protestant Christians today seem to hold the view that Satan is in control, and God pulls out a miracle finish in the end. The point of Matt Pitt is what I believe: that it is God, not Satan, who is in control.
But there are some concerns as to how much Matt Pitt bases his messages off of the Bible. There is further concern that Matt Pitt uses nice rhetoric to defend and convince you of something that may not be true. I did see some reason for some of this concern in his message. Although I agreed with the general message, the way he expounded on his views was not always in line with my views. Perhaps the biggest thing that caught my ear was his seemingly ignorance of the Old Testament. He pretty much said that in the Old Testament "God’s plan was not working. It was getting about halftime, and God knew He needed to try something different. Moses didn’t work- nor David, Jonah, or Abraham. God sent in a new quarterback, Jesus, to save the way. Now it is a sure win." In some regards this sounds good. However we should remember that Moses, David, Jonah, and Abraham were not merely attempts by God to save a fallen people. These prepared the way for Christ. They were Biblical and providentially planned typologies pointing to Jesus Christ. It was not as if "God’s plan was not working." Nothing catches God off guard, nor does He have to ponder on a new "plan." Furthermore, I think it is fair to say that Jesus is much greater than a quarterback. He is our Savior, perhaps you could say, "coach." [A good book to read on the typologies of the prophets and Old Testament stories would be "A House For My Name" written by Dr. Peter Leithart].
As far as Matt Pitt quoting from Scripture, he did a little bit, but not much. He seemed to do something along the lines of "Hebrews 8 tells us that…" When he would read directly from Scripture, he seemed to use a translation I was not aware of. It may have been a good translation, but I am somewhat skeptical of some newer translations.
There were a few things in the message that I did not feel really "belonged." He seemed somewhat mildly silly at times. I don’t have anything wrong with somewhat being funny in a sermon occasionally, but he seemed to try being funny a pretty good bit (maybe it’s me, but not much of it was funny to me anyway). He would say some edgy things, and then use the phrase, "I’m sorry God forgive me" almost in the same way that comedian Larry the Cable Guy would use it. He also seemed to bring people to the idea that if someone criticizes The Basement for anything, whether the rap, or whatever, that we should "rejoice because we are being persecuted for righteousness sake." We should rejoice for righteousness sake when our common faith in Jesus Christ is being attacked, but any church or corporate gathering of Saints should be open to reform. It is by reform that has given the church many victories of the past (Nicene Creed, Protestant Reformation to name a couple).
Still, the bulk of his message was good: we should be on God’s team, because He is the mastermind with the master plan. I was also glad to hear that Matt Pitt, as well as others, encouraged people to attend a church elsewhere. This, I believe, is essential to Christian living. However to know where we are at today (he repeatedly mentioned that he wanted to give a message relative to our time, which is good), and how we should live, we need both a vision and a retrospect. Those who don’t know history are doomed to repeat it, and those without a vision do not know what to live for.
After the message, people would come down and give more praise to God, but this time not through rap, but more contemporary Christian soft rock. Personally, I still think that hymns are better for corporate worship, but I do believe that there is a place for this. I think that the lifting of hands here was more genuine than the dancing on the rap that says "We’re getting crunk at The Basement" and "Jesus is my rock star." Of course, only God can be the absolute judge of this.
In closing, there were some good things about The Basement, but I still have my general concerns. I do not know Matt Pitt personally, so I cannot claim to be a good witness to his personal life. However continue to guard whatever he says with the Word of God. In doing this, though, do not assume that if he quotes Scripture, he is definitely right. Consider the verse in the context in which it is written, and whether or not his interpretation seems consistent and truthful. I also encourage you to not let The Basement be your only source of Christian knowledge and wisdom and worship. Attend a church elsewhere, if at all possible. Read your Bible personally. Do not forsake the assembly of Christian saints. I do not think it would be right for me to tell you not to attend The Basement just because I don’t like the rap that is there. There are many people who give true praise to God, and if they do that, then I’m sure that God is pleased for that. Even if The Basement has faults in it, I believe that God can use anything to give glory to His name, and to complete His plan- His plan that is working, and as we all know through faith, will work.
What do you think?
Ryan
Before going into great detail as to my opinions once visiting, I will sum up my opinions I expressed in the last blog about The Basement. The following is a brief outline of my opinions on such a place in general:
Guard what you hear with the Word of God, and use discernment in what you hear. It is essential that whatever anyone tells you, you should only believe it if it is Biblically consistent. When a Minister of the Word of God preaches about the Word of God, they should be able to back up their beliefs with Scripture. However, even as true as this is, this general "method," if you will, can be oversimplified. You may quote Scripture, but the second step is to interpret Scripture. Just because someone quotes Scripture does not make them right- they must interpret it right. If someone quotes Scripture and interprets it differently than you do, your church does, or your denomination does, consider the text in the context it is written, and make a reasonable opinionated conclusion as to if you need to be corrected, if the speaker needs to be corrected, or if it is somewhat of both. Remember, that there are some people who are called to preach The Gospel. Therefore, it is possible to learn from an ordained Minister of whom you may disagree with. Sometimes because they have training and the gift from God, you may indeed learn from them. However they must meet the qualifications and calling in order to claim any duty of a Minister, Elder, or preacher of the Word of God. Because they are preachers of the Word, they are held to a higher standard. They can still always be wrong. [See II Timothy 3:16-17, Acts 14:23, and Titus 1:5, James 1:19, James 3:1].
The style of worship does matter. In today’s world of Christianity, we live in an individualist standpoint that says that it does not matter at all how you worship God- as long as you "feel" it. But I ask one thing: what is more important, your personal emotions, or the Word of God? It would take a separate blog- or maybe even book- to write an in-depth opinion of corporate worship. But even yet, the way you worship does matter. Granted, one aspect of this should be praising God with all of your heart, soul, mind, and strength. Therefore, to disregard the "personal emotions" would be inconsistent within the Bible itself. We should just remember that worship is not based off of these emotions in and of themselves. [See Psalm 147:1, Luke 24:53, Psalm 145:3].
The music, preaching, and atmosphere should resemble the church universal. What people need more than anything is not deep theology (although this is important and should come), nor a place that harshly condemns their sins. What people need is acceptance, community, and love. The church should offer this universally. Therefore, in every aspect, a Christian gathering place should live as a living sacrifice attesting to the grace of God. Therefore, the church universally, and locally both, should be apart and distinct from the world. They should try to help the sinner, and be "in" the world, but not "of" the world. It is hard on a personal standpoint to know how to use the "hate the sin, love the sinner" approach, and the "in but not of the world" approach, while still using the "all things to all people" approach that Paul talks about. But any place of corporate Christian gathering should be sensitive to how they meet this basic criteria. Therefore, they should accept people; they should teach people; they should forgive people; and they should be different- from the music to the way of life. [John 3:16, Romans 12:2, II Timothy 3:10].
This can not and should not be attempted to replace weekly Sunday morning worship. Sunday morning worship is very essential to Christian living. We are told not to forsake the assembly. Some may say that The Basement is assembly. It is, but I believe that there is something special about the weekly worship with God, where God renews His covenant with His people (not to mention the special kind of community one gathers from consistently attending a church). The Basement, if done right, may offer a community to the struggling Christian or to the non-Christian. However it is essential for the personal growth of the Christian to attend a weekly Christian church service. There are those who believe that the only assembly should be of the weekly worship, or that any other assembly should be done with all members of a particular church body. I would disagree. I think that a place such as The Basement can be a really good place for teenagers of different churches to gather amongst themselves. It just should not take the place of the weekly corporate worship. [Hebrews 10:24-25, Joel 1:14].
The above basically sums up my views with how we should approach something as The Basement. The following is how I feel The Basement falls into those basic guidelines. I write this in terms of unity within the church, so that I praise where praise should be given, and humbly offer my opinion where it may be faulted. If you see me in error, please correct me.
As I went into The Basement, I must say, it felt more like a pep rally or something to that effect. From one aspect that can be good because Christians want to "rally" other Christians. However as I went in, I did not feel as if I was going to church. I heard the "Christian" rap, and did not feel "at home." I must say that most of the people there were generous to me. They would introduce themselves, and so forth, trying to make me feel comfortable. I appreciated that. But by hearing the rap, I did not feel like this was God’s house. We should not say to the non-Christian, "Come here and be a Christian- we play rap, you like that, right?" We should offer an alternative to a worldly lifestyle. There is nothing wrong with offering a friendly atmosphere for people to come worship God, but it should be done in a way that is distinct and faithful. Changing "Party like a rock star" to "Jesus is my rock star" does not reflect what Christianity is all about. If anything, this seems to show people that Christians have to borrow from the worlds handbook in order to be who they are. In all reality, it is the world that borrows from the Christian’s handbook, essentially the Bible, to be consistent with their beliefs. We should show them that. We should show them God’s grace and love and forgiveness. It may not attract many people at first, but I would much rather hear "Jesus, What a Friend of Sinners" or "We are God’s people" or "Amazing Grace" or "Holy, Holy, Holy." The music should show the non-Christian that Jesus is a friend of sinners, and remind the Christian to "Lift High the Cross."
After the rap, we all took a seat, and listened to the message from evangelist and speaker, Matt Pitt. His basic message was that God has a plan, and we should submit to His plan. This is very true. He often reminded us that it is God who is in control. Many mainstream Protestant Christians today seem to hold the view that Satan is in control, and God pulls out a miracle finish in the end. The point of Matt Pitt is what I believe: that it is God, not Satan, who is in control.
But there are some concerns as to how much Matt Pitt bases his messages off of the Bible. There is further concern that Matt Pitt uses nice rhetoric to defend and convince you of something that may not be true. I did see some reason for some of this concern in his message. Although I agreed with the general message, the way he expounded on his views was not always in line with my views. Perhaps the biggest thing that caught my ear was his seemingly ignorance of the Old Testament. He pretty much said that in the Old Testament "God’s plan was not working. It was getting about halftime, and God knew He needed to try something different. Moses didn’t work- nor David, Jonah, or Abraham. God sent in a new quarterback, Jesus, to save the way. Now it is a sure win." In some regards this sounds good. However we should remember that Moses, David, Jonah, and Abraham were not merely attempts by God to save a fallen people. These prepared the way for Christ. They were Biblical and providentially planned typologies pointing to Jesus Christ. It was not as if "God’s plan was not working." Nothing catches God off guard, nor does He have to ponder on a new "plan." Furthermore, I think it is fair to say that Jesus is much greater than a quarterback. He is our Savior, perhaps you could say, "coach." [A good book to read on the typologies of the prophets and Old Testament stories would be "A House For My Name" written by Dr. Peter Leithart].
As far as Matt Pitt quoting from Scripture, he did a little bit, but not much. He seemed to do something along the lines of "Hebrews 8 tells us that…" When he would read directly from Scripture, he seemed to use a translation I was not aware of. It may have been a good translation, but I am somewhat skeptical of some newer translations.
There were a few things in the message that I did not feel really "belonged." He seemed somewhat mildly silly at times. I don’t have anything wrong with somewhat being funny in a sermon occasionally, but he seemed to try being funny a pretty good bit (maybe it’s me, but not much of it was funny to me anyway). He would say some edgy things, and then use the phrase, "I’m sorry God forgive me" almost in the same way that comedian Larry the Cable Guy would use it. He also seemed to bring people to the idea that if someone criticizes The Basement for anything, whether the rap, or whatever, that we should "rejoice because we are being persecuted for righteousness sake." We should rejoice for righteousness sake when our common faith in Jesus Christ is being attacked, but any church or corporate gathering of Saints should be open to reform. It is by reform that has given the church many victories of the past (Nicene Creed, Protestant Reformation to name a couple).
Still, the bulk of his message was good: we should be on God’s team, because He is the mastermind with the master plan. I was also glad to hear that Matt Pitt, as well as others, encouraged people to attend a church elsewhere. This, I believe, is essential to Christian living. However to know where we are at today (he repeatedly mentioned that he wanted to give a message relative to our time, which is good), and how we should live, we need both a vision and a retrospect. Those who don’t know history are doomed to repeat it, and those without a vision do not know what to live for.
After the message, people would come down and give more praise to God, but this time not through rap, but more contemporary Christian soft rock. Personally, I still think that hymns are better for corporate worship, but I do believe that there is a place for this. I think that the lifting of hands here was more genuine than the dancing on the rap that says "We’re getting crunk at The Basement" and "Jesus is my rock star." Of course, only God can be the absolute judge of this.
In closing, there were some good things about The Basement, but I still have my general concerns. I do not know Matt Pitt personally, so I cannot claim to be a good witness to his personal life. However continue to guard whatever he says with the Word of God. In doing this, though, do not assume that if he quotes Scripture, he is definitely right. Consider the verse in the context in which it is written, and whether or not his interpretation seems consistent and truthful. I also encourage you to not let The Basement be your only source of Christian knowledge and wisdom and worship. Attend a church elsewhere, if at all possible. Read your Bible personally. Do not forsake the assembly of Christian saints. I do not think it would be right for me to tell you not to attend The Basement just because I don’t like the rap that is there. There are many people who give true praise to God, and if they do that, then I’m sure that God is pleased for that. Even if The Basement has faults in it, I believe that God can use anything to give glory to His name, and to complete His plan- His plan that is working, and as we all know through faith, will work.
What do you think?
Ryan
Sunday, August 19, 2007
The Evolution of a New Species: The Body of Christ
The Evolution of a New Species: The Body of Christ
In 1859, Charles Darwin published his book, The Origin of Species by Natural Selection in order to change the way we view modern science. Little did he know that his same logic could be used to take a deeper look at the way we view the world in light of God’s plan. Sound extreme? Probably so, but let’s take a look and see.
Darwin’s theory, for the general gist of it, is held by many evolutionary scientists today (although I would disagree with it generally myself). This is not to say that Darwin would fit perfectly with any scientist today, but his general theories are held by many scientist who believe in the origin of species by evolutionary means. But what are his theories, and how do they in any way affect Christian theology?
Basically, Darwin defended his views on mutations and natural selection. His theories assumed the existence of one already living cell capable of reproduction. Generally, this reproducing cell would reproduce in its likeness, but not a completely perfect copy. The genes may be slightly different, but overall, the general makeup of what made this cell what it was would fall into the same order as its parent cell. But the theory would say that once in a while, a mutation occurs, which would slightly alter who this creature was. Still, one single mutation would not completely change who this creature was. Mutations happen today. Being blind, being mute, and being deaf, can all be from mutations. Most mutations are bad, resulting in less reproduction from these creatures (survival of the fittest). However very occasionally, says Darwin, someone will inherit a good mutation, capable of survival and reproduction.
Still, one mutation is a long way from being considered a different creature. Darwin would claim that after a "good" mutation, this creature would reproduce with another creature of its general kind- whether they hold the mutation or not (probably not), and pass it on to some of its future generations. Darwin says that after a whole lot of small mutations that are capable of survival and reproduction, a new creature would form. Natural selection would decide what mutations are capable of reproduction, and what would simply die out.
I believe that there are many flaws in this logic when applied to explain the world today, but that is for another blog. For now, we have said enough about biological evolution, and it is time to look to spiritual evolution.
This "Spiritual evolution" could happen in your own personal life. You could come across a lot of bad things that are all brought to naught by God, and inherit only the good things, and then become closer to God. But that is not really what I want to get at. What if we applied this logic to God’s Kingdom at large?
What if through the life of the Body of Christ, we went through many bad "mutations" that all died away. What if we would sometimes inherit a good mutation that would last forever? No matter how many bad mutations the Body may encounter over the years, this logic would suggest that the good would eventually prevail. What if this went on for a long time, and eventually brought the Church closer to God? Could this happen?
Our Christian culture today rejects this today for two reasons. For one, we are obsessed with the end times idea, and for two, we are obsessed with the idea that the world must get worse, because of the troubles it has today. Essentially, impatience is at the key to rejecting the idea of "Spiritual evolution" I presented above.
There is a difference in this kind of obsession with the end times, and the looking forward to Jesus’ return that Scripture tells us to do. We should look to the end of the world, when one day all of God’s saints will be gathered together to give praise to God on high, and all evil will perish away in death and hell. One day we will have new bodies, and be made as the Body of Christ should be made. Today, though, we seem to assume that that day must be soon. We seem to lose faith in the fact that God can and will bring all evil to naught as He tells us in the Scripture (particularly the Psalms). To some Christians today, it is as if the world is getting worse and God will just give up on it.
The way biological evolutionists look to the future with wonder should be the way Christians look to the future in wonder- only in light of the Gospel. Darwinists wonder at what the world will be like millions of years from now and how evolution would direct the way. Christians should be in awe at the progress of the world, and what it could be like millions of years from now with God leading the way. It seems odd to think that the world will still be here in five-hundred thousand years from now- but for all we know, it could be. We really don’t know.
What if this blog plants one very small mutation in just one of its readers? What if this person then go and plant the same mutation in someone else. What if they plant another mutation in me, or anyone else- that I or whoever received that mutation could then go plant the same mutation in someone else? I speak in terms of spiritual mutations, not biological mutations.
It does seem as if the world is in a very low and confused state right now. It has been only in the last one-hundred years that we have entered into world wars, and it seems as if nearly all the countries are at some war now- including the very nation I live in. How could this be God’s plan? How could God bring good from this? We should realize that pretty much ever since the beginning of civilization nations have risen and fallen, and entered war with other nations. There was war- sometimes Holy war- that is recorded for us in the Old Testament. All of these wars end, but God’s Word never does. It is possible that America could one day fall, and that many more nations could assume their places in the world. Perhaps, just perhaps, we are only in the baby stages of history. To me, that is just as exiting as being in the last days of history. Ultimately, though, we really don’t know- which probably makes it even more exiting!
If what was said has validity to it, then perhaps it is the little things that bring forth the most revival. Even such revival movements and reforms, both Christian and otherwise, have not originated from attempted revival and reform, but through years of people doing the little, but most important things. The Protestant Reformation and The Great Awakening both originated because people began to take a deeper and more personal look at the Word of God, and because people began to have a stronger fear and reverence of the Lord, and place Him above all other things. There is nothing wrong with intended revival, but perhaps the best revival comes from unintended revival- when God’s people put a stronger emphasis on God and His Word.
Jeremy Sexton, Pastor-in-training at Trinity Presbyterian Church in Birmingham, Alabama, puts this well. In a recent sermon, he said (paraphrased), "Husbands and Fathers, you can crush Satan’s head by staying loyal to your wife- even in your private thoughts, and by training your children in the way they should go; wives and Mothers, you can crush Satan’s head by staying loyal to your husbands- even in your own private and secret thoughts and desires, and by assisting your husband in training your children in the way they should go; children, you can crush Satan’s head by obeying and honoring your Father and your Mother as Scripture commands; furthermore, everyone can crush Satan’s head by entering into weekly covenant renewal service with the Lord their God." As Sexton points out, it are these basic- but very important- things that ultimately will reach the Gospel to the ends of the earth. As the Reverend Rich Lusk has pointed out, "Your actions are the ultimate apologetic [defense] for the faith."
So in closing, I encourage you to study God’s Word for yourself, focus on the little, but most important things. Making an attempt at a revival is fine- but you should first lead by example and have personal revival with God. Part of this personal revival means fellowship with other Christians. Going to church is an essential aspect to crushing Satan’s head. Satan hates it when all of God’s people are singing to God on high. He’s jealous. He’s angry. However it is when we lose faith- believing that it must take all of God’s strength all at once to crush Satan’s head- when Satan and all his company are happy. God is winning the war even now. Even if it takes thousands of years more of spiritual evolution in the church, the Body of Christ will be made the way God wants it. This is not Satan’s world but it is God’s world. Let’s live that way!
What do you think?
Ryan
In 1859, Charles Darwin published his book, The Origin of Species by Natural Selection in order to change the way we view modern science. Little did he know that his same logic could be used to take a deeper look at the way we view the world in light of God’s plan. Sound extreme? Probably so, but let’s take a look and see.
Darwin’s theory, for the general gist of it, is held by many evolutionary scientists today (although I would disagree with it generally myself). This is not to say that Darwin would fit perfectly with any scientist today, but his general theories are held by many scientist who believe in the origin of species by evolutionary means. But what are his theories, and how do they in any way affect Christian theology?
Basically, Darwin defended his views on mutations and natural selection. His theories assumed the existence of one already living cell capable of reproduction. Generally, this reproducing cell would reproduce in its likeness, but not a completely perfect copy. The genes may be slightly different, but overall, the general makeup of what made this cell what it was would fall into the same order as its parent cell. But the theory would say that once in a while, a mutation occurs, which would slightly alter who this creature was. Still, one single mutation would not completely change who this creature was. Mutations happen today. Being blind, being mute, and being deaf, can all be from mutations. Most mutations are bad, resulting in less reproduction from these creatures (survival of the fittest). However very occasionally, says Darwin, someone will inherit a good mutation, capable of survival and reproduction.
Still, one mutation is a long way from being considered a different creature. Darwin would claim that after a "good" mutation, this creature would reproduce with another creature of its general kind- whether they hold the mutation or not (probably not), and pass it on to some of its future generations. Darwin says that after a whole lot of small mutations that are capable of survival and reproduction, a new creature would form. Natural selection would decide what mutations are capable of reproduction, and what would simply die out.
I believe that there are many flaws in this logic when applied to explain the world today, but that is for another blog. For now, we have said enough about biological evolution, and it is time to look to spiritual evolution.
This "Spiritual evolution" could happen in your own personal life. You could come across a lot of bad things that are all brought to naught by God, and inherit only the good things, and then become closer to God. But that is not really what I want to get at. What if we applied this logic to God’s Kingdom at large?
What if through the life of the Body of Christ, we went through many bad "mutations" that all died away. What if we would sometimes inherit a good mutation that would last forever? No matter how many bad mutations the Body may encounter over the years, this logic would suggest that the good would eventually prevail. What if this went on for a long time, and eventually brought the Church closer to God? Could this happen?
Our Christian culture today rejects this today for two reasons. For one, we are obsessed with the end times idea, and for two, we are obsessed with the idea that the world must get worse, because of the troubles it has today. Essentially, impatience is at the key to rejecting the idea of "Spiritual evolution" I presented above.
There is a difference in this kind of obsession with the end times, and the looking forward to Jesus’ return that Scripture tells us to do. We should look to the end of the world, when one day all of God’s saints will be gathered together to give praise to God on high, and all evil will perish away in death and hell. One day we will have new bodies, and be made as the Body of Christ should be made. Today, though, we seem to assume that that day must be soon. We seem to lose faith in the fact that God can and will bring all evil to naught as He tells us in the Scripture (particularly the Psalms). To some Christians today, it is as if the world is getting worse and God will just give up on it.
The way biological evolutionists look to the future with wonder should be the way Christians look to the future in wonder- only in light of the Gospel. Darwinists wonder at what the world will be like millions of years from now and how evolution would direct the way. Christians should be in awe at the progress of the world, and what it could be like millions of years from now with God leading the way. It seems odd to think that the world will still be here in five-hundred thousand years from now- but for all we know, it could be. We really don’t know.
What if this blog plants one very small mutation in just one of its readers? What if this person then go and plant the same mutation in someone else. What if they plant another mutation in me, or anyone else- that I or whoever received that mutation could then go plant the same mutation in someone else? I speak in terms of spiritual mutations, not biological mutations.
It does seem as if the world is in a very low and confused state right now. It has been only in the last one-hundred years that we have entered into world wars, and it seems as if nearly all the countries are at some war now- including the very nation I live in. How could this be God’s plan? How could God bring good from this? We should realize that pretty much ever since the beginning of civilization nations have risen and fallen, and entered war with other nations. There was war- sometimes Holy war- that is recorded for us in the Old Testament. All of these wars end, but God’s Word never does. It is possible that America could one day fall, and that many more nations could assume their places in the world. Perhaps, just perhaps, we are only in the baby stages of history. To me, that is just as exiting as being in the last days of history. Ultimately, though, we really don’t know- which probably makes it even more exiting!
If what was said has validity to it, then perhaps it is the little things that bring forth the most revival. Even such revival movements and reforms, both Christian and otherwise, have not originated from attempted revival and reform, but through years of people doing the little, but most important things. The Protestant Reformation and The Great Awakening both originated because people began to take a deeper and more personal look at the Word of God, and because people began to have a stronger fear and reverence of the Lord, and place Him above all other things. There is nothing wrong with intended revival, but perhaps the best revival comes from unintended revival- when God’s people put a stronger emphasis on God and His Word.
Jeremy Sexton, Pastor-in-training at Trinity Presbyterian Church in Birmingham, Alabama, puts this well. In a recent sermon, he said (paraphrased), "Husbands and Fathers, you can crush Satan’s head by staying loyal to your wife- even in your private thoughts, and by training your children in the way they should go; wives and Mothers, you can crush Satan’s head by staying loyal to your husbands- even in your own private and secret thoughts and desires, and by assisting your husband in training your children in the way they should go; children, you can crush Satan’s head by obeying and honoring your Father and your Mother as Scripture commands; furthermore, everyone can crush Satan’s head by entering into weekly covenant renewal service with the Lord their God." As Sexton points out, it are these basic- but very important- things that ultimately will reach the Gospel to the ends of the earth. As the Reverend Rich Lusk has pointed out, "Your actions are the ultimate apologetic [defense] for the faith."
So in closing, I encourage you to study God’s Word for yourself, focus on the little, but most important things. Making an attempt at a revival is fine- but you should first lead by example and have personal revival with God. Part of this personal revival means fellowship with other Christians. Going to church is an essential aspect to crushing Satan’s head. Satan hates it when all of God’s people are singing to God on high. He’s jealous. He’s angry. However it is when we lose faith- believing that it must take all of God’s strength all at once to crush Satan’s head- when Satan and all his company are happy. God is winning the war even now. Even if it takes thousands of years more of spiritual evolution in the church, the Body of Christ will be made the way God wants it. This is not Satan’s world but it is God’s world. Let’s live that way!
What do you think?
Ryan
Saturday, August 11, 2007
Music, Culture, The Church, and The World
MUSIC, CULTURE, THE CHURCH, AND THE WORLD
It is obvious that there is a relation between different styles of music and cultures. Each style of music portrays its very own culture through the music, and sometimes through lyrics presented. Although the music and culture relation can change over time, and is often relative to a particular point in time, it is wrong to assume that one’s music does not have influence on one’s lifestyle, or that one’s lifestyle does not have influence on one’s music. The two are at some very real length related.
For example, country music traditionally portrays the folk lifestyle of rural Southern and Western United States. Rap music generally portrays the lifestyle of the inner cities and streets. There is not necessarily anything wrong with either lifestyle, whether it be rural or inner city. But in today’s world, rightly or wrongly, we see more of a negative image portrayed to the inner city lifestyle. Thus, rap music has generally been held in low regards by fundamentals, whereas country music (to some exceptions) has not been held as "wrong" or "immoral." We even see related styles of country music, such as Southern Gospel or bluegrass in Christian contexts.
These are just mere examples. We could compare soft rock to heavy metal; classical music to jazz music, and so on. Each general style of music portrays a different setting, both in the sounds, and often even reaching to the lyrics. As a songwriter myself, while studying music and writing music, I notice changes in the style, as I portray different settings in the music I write.
In my blog, "The Basement" in which I posted just a few weeks ago, I pointed out the different styles of music, and which I felt are better suited for Christianity, whether for private listening or for corporate worship. I in no way wanted to judge the heart of people whose music tastes are different than mind. I’m sure my tastes in music are very different from a lot of people, and I am fine with that. To reiterate what I wanted to say, I will briefly define my views as this: music can be played for the glory of God, even if it is not "Christian" music; music that is in the name of God and intended to be Christian, should be done in a manner that shows an appropriate context, and does not portray an image that is not suitable to Christianity; corporate worship, for the body of believers, should generally be a style that is distinct from what the world offers. I did also make the point that one should not be judged personally by not following this basic pattern. One may desire to give glory to God in a way that does not follow this pattern, or rule, and God may hear their worship. I simply believe that this is the best manner to give that glory to God. No one should be judge because they are not perfect, because no one is perfect. However, we should all strive to perfection, and as growing Christians, should come closer to that standard.
In this blog, I will seek to defend those basic points in further detail. In doing this, I will even point out certain bands and musicians popular today, from all different genres of music, both Christian and secular. I will give a review of these bands and artists in the context of my points in this blog.
Panic! At the Disco. After hearing a fair amount about them, and knowing none of their music, I decided I would see what they were about. I had already read that their lyrics were somewhat non-Christian, but I wanted to see for myself. I went to lyrics.com, and searched them. I was disgusted after reading some of the lyrics and listening to the music. I thought to myself, "If our culture appreciates this kind of music, then our culture is not where it should be." The music was essentially sac religious. It also got annoying hearing frequent uses of the "F word" and of "G-D." Some of what was said seemed to essentially deny God. One of their song titles is "Build God, Then We’ll Talk." You can search them to learn more about them for yourself. The style of music seemed to nearly reject musical theory. What happened to the definition of music being "a group of notes arranged to make a melody" or something along those lines. Listening to the one or two of their songs, the definition seemed to be "wild noise with a satanic voice in the background." This style of music (not only seen through this band, but others), has earned its recognition of claiming a culture of a sinful lifestyle, centered in drugs, sex, moral relativism, and violence.
The Fray. I still don’t know much about The Fray, but I do know at least two of their songs pretty well, and another song is at least recognizable to my ears. Unlike Panic! At the Disco, The Fray at least offered a more mellow sound, with better lyrics. The Fray has not come out as a Christian band, but the lyrics produced are consistent within a Christian worldview. The song, "How To Save a Life" even seems to have somewhat of a decent theme. The lyrics are not watered-down either. They are deep, and both intellectual and heart-originated. I think that the band may be a fad, but at least they are a fad worth listening to for a short period of time. I’m not so sure why they were as popular as they were, or why they are as popular as they are, but their music, from what I have heard, does not promote a sinful lifestyle. Their style of music in general, is also not one that seems to promote a sinful lifestyle. The style of music would probably not be best suited as "Christian," especially not "corporate Christian" but the music does not relate to a lifestyle of drugs, sex, moral relativism, and violence as was noted of Panic! At the Disco. Other bands and artists, such as Plus One, Death Cab for Cutie, Ben Smolin, Switchfoot, etc., whether Christian or secular, have produced similar sounding music whose lyrics are also consistent within a Christian worldview. (The music may not be mere identical to The Fray, but close enough to compare). The Fray may not be the best band ever, and it may be nothing more than a fad. But at least the music and lyrics are acceptable to a Christian worldview, and fine for Christians to listen to.
Hawk Nelson. Forgive me for not being up into all the modern Christian music, but I had not heard of Hawk Nelson until this past Winter Jam. I do not know too much about this band to judge in great detail, but from the little I have seen and heard of it, it seems to be a watered-down replica of its watered-down secular culture musical counterpart. The church is distinct from the world. As this music even in secular uses seems watered-down for its own use, I think that this music as proclaimed Christian waters down the Gospel. Forgive me for what seems to be such harsh comments to a group who is probably trying to give praise to God. Once again, if that is indeed their intentions, then I believe that God hears their worship. I know that the music of Hawk Nelson is labeled as Christian and the music of The Fray is not labeled as Christian. But that is essentially my point. The Fray avoids watering down the Gospel by simply portraying what is consistent within the Gospel through means not identifying themselves as Christian. A non-Christian listening to Hawk Nelson may tell himself "If this is what Christianity is, then it seems no different than the world." This goes for both the music and the lyrics. The lyrics of one song seemed to be about how we should help a poor fatherless boy. That’s a good thought, and the church should help those who need help, whether it be physical help, spiritual help, emotional help, etc. However The Fray presents as good of a theme in their music, without claiming "This is what Christianity is." Neither does it say, "This is what Christianity is not." It serves to help both the Christian and the non-Christian by promoting a Christian-consistent theme. Hawk Nelson does the same, except they claim it as Christianity itself.
Steven Curtis Chapman. Another artist I heard at Winter Jam was an older artist, Steven Curtis Chapman. Many would assume that because I considered the music of Hawk Nelson to water-down the Gospel, then I would assume the same of Steven Curtis Chapman. However I do not. It is true that his music was soft rock and the lyrics were not deep, theological, or the kind to make you cry. But they don’t have to be. Steven Curtis Chapman came across as presenting a theme that is Christian, and proclaiming Christianity through himself and his music. But he does not come across as watering down the Gospel. He does not wear rocker T-shirts, have goofy spiked rocker hair, and tattoos. He simply sings music, giving glory to God, and does not seem to search for a big name in himself. I do not think that his music is best suitable for corporate Christian worship, but I do think it is good to listen to. After hearing his performance, I wanted to "dive in" and I wanted to go "wake the neighbors, and get the word out" and to "live out loud." After hearing Hawk Nelson, I was not sure if I wanted to help the poor kid or not. Maybe that is just me, but then again, maybe not. There are plenty of similar bands and artists as Steven Curtis Chapman, who praise Jesus, without watering down Jesus’ message. Such bands/artists include Third Day, Michael W. Smith, Mercy Me, etc. These bands and artists seem to put more emphasis on the personal relations they have with Jesus. I personally feel that in our culture today, we see the corporate relationship to Jesus sadly taken away. However there is a place for the personal emotions, and I am glad to see these bands and artist portray this message without watering down the Gospel to merely nothing.
There are all other sorts of bands and artists similar to these, and all of those in between. There are so many that seem too "edgy" for Christianity, but does not seem to directly attack Christianity. We could ask so many questions of or similar to "Should I not listen to this song, because of its one curse word?" You could ask, "Should I reject any form of hard, heavy, punk rock, whether or not it is Christian, sac religious, or anywhere in between, because much of its style portrays a wrong image?" Some of these questions I can not answer adequately. I myself do not listen to the ‘hard, heavy, punk rock’ partly because of its image, but also because of the fact I don’t like that style of music in general. In country music, there are probably plenty of songs that seem to be against Christianity by its references to drinking or cheating. Could we label country music in the same category as punk or rap in these regards? Even Carrie Underwood’s song, "Before He Cheats" portrays the image of a cheating man, and a woman’s revenge. Both cheating and revenge seem to be "against the Bible." Should Christians reject this song, Carrie Underwood altogether, Country music all together, or even music altogether? Certainly there is a line somewhere in this, whether before the song itself or anywhere in between, because God tells us through His word to worship Him in song. Some genres of music and some songs may have an overlap (such as this song) in the culture it presents. You may could take one song, and use it to destroy the faith, while taking the same song, and use to it defend the faith, all depending on the mental and emotional aspect you put into the song and its meaning. (This may sound a little stretched, but the general point is made). The difference with country music, compared to rap music and punk music (if they even qualify as music), is that the overlap of good meanings and bad meanings found in country music is more apparent, and there are plenty of country songs with good meanings. Rap and punk, rightly or wrongly, seem to portray more of a bad image altogether, with little overlap in what the meaning of the songs could be about.
Regardless of all of these questions, I believe that both the church and the world have essentially lost its music because the of the culture (or the culture has lost what is should be because of the music). There is a relation. Rich Lusk made this point so clear in his sermons, "Through the church the song goes on (parts I & II)" ( trinity-pres.net/audio/sermonindex.php 2/11/07,2/18/07 ). If our song is wrong, then our culture is liable to be wrong. Secular music is not bad in and of itself, and even its music can reform or tear down a society. In today’s music, we see a watered down approach to music. When music was once supposed to be about life, and the emotions that flow out of it, it has now seemed to turn into being about money and fame (not to mention the drugs, sex, moral relativism, and violence shown in some songs and styles). Even country music, which traditionally is supposed to "tell a story about life," has been watered down.
In the same way, Christian music has been watered down. I wish that we as a church could return to singing "We are God’s People," instead of what Christian music so often offers today. Maybe its time as a Christian community we sing "We are God’s People, the chosen of the Lord; Born of His Spirit, established by His Word" or "Amazing Grace, how sweet the sound, it saved a wretch like me" or "The King of Glory comes the nation rejoices; Open the gates before Him, lift up your voices." If we want to revolutionize the world, one place it must start is in the song we sing.
"Praise ye the Lord. Praise God in His sanctuary: praise Him in the firmament of His power. Praise Him for His mighty acts: praise Him according to His excellent greatness. Praise Him with the sound of the trumpet: praise Him with the psaltery and harp. Praise Him with the timbreal and dance: praise Him with stringed instruments and organs. Praise Him upon the loud cymbals: praise him upon the high-sounding cymbals. Let everything that hath breath praise the Lord. Praise ye the Lord" Psalm 150.
Through the song and the church, both continue on.
What do you think?
Ryan
It is obvious that there is a relation between different styles of music and cultures. Each style of music portrays its very own culture through the music, and sometimes through lyrics presented. Although the music and culture relation can change over time, and is often relative to a particular point in time, it is wrong to assume that one’s music does not have influence on one’s lifestyle, or that one’s lifestyle does not have influence on one’s music. The two are at some very real length related.
For example, country music traditionally portrays the folk lifestyle of rural Southern and Western United States. Rap music generally portrays the lifestyle of the inner cities and streets. There is not necessarily anything wrong with either lifestyle, whether it be rural or inner city. But in today’s world, rightly or wrongly, we see more of a negative image portrayed to the inner city lifestyle. Thus, rap music has generally been held in low regards by fundamentals, whereas country music (to some exceptions) has not been held as "wrong" or "immoral." We even see related styles of country music, such as Southern Gospel or bluegrass in Christian contexts.
These are just mere examples. We could compare soft rock to heavy metal; classical music to jazz music, and so on. Each general style of music portrays a different setting, both in the sounds, and often even reaching to the lyrics. As a songwriter myself, while studying music and writing music, I notice changes in the style, as I portray different settings in the music I write.
In my blog, "The Basement" in which I posted just a few weeks ago, I pointed out the different styles of music, and which I felt are better suited for Christianity, whether for private listening or for corporate worship. I in no way wanted to judge the heart of people whose music tastes are different than mind. I’m sure my tastes in music are very different from a lot of people, and I am fine with that. To reiterate what I wanted to say, I will briefly define my views as this: music can be played for the glory of God, even if it is not "Christian" music; music that is in the name of God and intended to be Christian, should be done in a manner that shows an appropriate context, and does not portray an image that is not suitable to Christianity; corporate worship, for the body of believers, should generally be a style that is distinct from what the world offers. I did also make the point that one should not be judged personally by not following this basic pattern. One may desire to give glory to God in a way that does not follow this pattern, or rule, and God may hear their worship. I simply believe that this is the best manner to give that glory to God. No one should be judge because they are not perfect, because no one is perfect. However, we should all strive to perfection, and as growing Christians, should come closer to that standard.
In this blog, I will seek to defend those basic points in further detail. In doing this, I will even point out certain bands and musicians popular today, from all different genres of music, both Christian and secular. I will give a review of these bands and artists in the context of my points in this blog.
Panic! At the Disco. After hearing a fair amount about them, and knowing none of their music, I decided I would see what they were about. I had already read that their lyrics were somewhat non-Christian, but I wanted to see for myself. I went to lyrics.com, and searched them. I was disgusted after reading some of the lyrics and listening to the music. I thought to myself, "If our culture appreciates this kind of music, then our culture is not where it should be." The music was essentially sac religious. It also got annoying hearing frequent uses of the "F word" and of "G-D." Some of what was said seemed to essentially deny God. One of their song titles is "Build God, Then We’ll Talk." You can search them to learn more about them for yourself. The style of music seemed to nearly reject musical theory. What happened to the definition of music being "a group of notes arranged to make a melody" or something along those lines. Listening to the one or two of their songs, the definition seemed to be "wild noise with a satanic voice in the background." This style of music (not only seen through this band, but others), has earned its recognition of claiming a culture of a sinful lifestyle, centered in drugs, sex, moral relativism, and violence.
The Fray. I still don’t know much about The Fray, but I do know at least two of their songs pretty well, and another song is at least recognizable to my ears. Unlike Panic! At the Disco, The Fray at least offered a more mellow sound, with better lyrics. The Fray has not come out as a Christian band, but the lyrics produced are consistent within a Christian worldview. The song, "How To Save a Life" even seems to have somewhat of a decent theme. The lyrics are not watered-down either. They are deep, and both intellectual and heart-originated. I think that the band may be a fad, but at least they are a fad worth listening to for a short period of time. I’m not so sure why they were as popular as they were, or why they are as popular as they are, but their music, from what I have heard, does not promote a sinful lifestyle. Their style of music in general, is also not one that seems to promote a sinful lifestyle. The style of music would probably not be best suited as "Christian," especially not "corporate Christian" but the music does not relate to a lifestyle of drugs, sex, moral relativism, and violence as was noted of Panic! At the Disco. Other bands and artists, such as Plus One, Death Cab for Cutie, Ben Smolin, Switchfoot, etc., whether Christian or secular, have produced similar sounding music whose lyrics are also consistent within a Christian worldview. (The music may not be mere identical to The Fray, but close enough to compare). The Fray may not be the best band ever, and it may be nothing more than a fad. But at least the music and lyrics are acceptable to a Christian worldview, and fine for Christians to listen to.
Hawk Nelson. Forgive me for not being up into all the modern Christian music, but I had not heard of Hawk Nelson until this past Winter Jam. I do not know too much about this band to judge in great detail, but from the little I have seen and heard of it, it seems to be a watered-down replica of its watered-down secular culture musical counterpart. The church is distinct from the world. As this music even in secular uses seems watered-down for its own use, I think that this music as proclaimed Christian waters down the Gospel. Forgive me for what seems to be such harsh comments to a group who is probably trying to give praise to God. Once again, if that is indeed their intentions, then I believe that God hears their worship. I know that the music of Hawk Nelson is labeled as Christian and the music of The Fray is not labeled as Christian. But that is essentially my point. The Fray avoids watering down the Gospel by simply portraying what is consistent within the Gospel through means not identifying themselves as Christian. A non-Christian listening to Hawk Nelson may tell himself "If this is what Christianity is, then it seems no different than the world." This goes for both the music and the lyrics. The lyrics of one song seemed to be about how we should help a poor fatherless boy. That’s a good thought, and the church should help those who need help, whether it be physical help, spiritual help, emotional help, etc. However The Fray presents as good of a theme in their music, without claiming "This is what Christianity is." Neither does it say, "This is what Christianity is not." It serves to help both the Christian and the non-Christian by promoting a Christian-consistent theme. Hawk Nelson does the same, except they claim it as Christianity itself.
Steven Curtis Chapman. Another artist I heard at Winter Jam was an older artist, Steven Curtis Chapman. Many would assume that because I considered the music of Hawk Nelson to water-down the Gospel, then I would assume the same of Steven Curtis Chapman. However I do not. It is true that his music was soft rock and the lyrics were not deep, theological, or the kind to make you cry. But they don’t have to be. Steven Curtis Chapman came across as presenting a theme that is Christian, and proclaiming Christianity through himself and his music. But he does not come across as watering down the Gospel. He does not wear rocker T-shirts, have goofy spiked rocker hair, and tattoos. He simply sings music, giving glory to God, and does not seem to search for a big name in himself. I do not think that his music is best suitable for corporate Christian worship, but I do think it is good to listen to. After hearing his performance, I wanted to "dive in" and I wanted to go "wake the neighbors, and get the word out" and to "live out loud." After hearing Hawk Nelson, I was not sure if I wanted to help the poor kid or not. Maybe that is just me, but then again, maybe not. There are plenty of similar bands and artists as Steven Curtis Chapman, who praise Jesus, without watering down Jesus’ message. Such bands/artists include Third Day, Michael W. Smith, Mercy Me, etc. These bands and artists seem to put more emphasis on the personal relations they have with Jesus. I personally feel that in our culture today, we see the corporate relationship to Jesus sadly taken away. However there is a place for the personal emotions, and I am glad to see these bands and artist portray this message without watering down the Gospel to merely nothing.
There are all other sorts of bands and artists similar to these, and all of those in between. There are so many that seem too "edgy" for Christianity, but does not seem to directly attack Christianity. We could ask so many questions of or similar to "Should I not listen to this song, because of its one curse word?" You could ask, "Should I reject any form of hard, heavy, punk rock, whether or not it is Christian, sac religious, or anywhere in between, because much of its style portrays a wrong image?" Some of these questions I can not answer adequately. I myself do not listen to the ‘hard, heavy, punk rock’ partly because of its image, but also because of the fact I don’t like that style of music in general. In country music, there are probably plenty of songs that seem to be against Christianity by its references to drinking or cheating. Could we label country music in the same category as punk or rap in these regards? Even Carrie Underwood’s song, "Before He Cheats" portrays the image of a cheating man, and a woman’s revenge. Both cheating and revenge seem to be "against the Bible." Should Christians reject this song, Carrie Underwood altogether, Country music all together, or even music altogether? Certainly there is a line somewhere in this, whether before the song itself or anywhere in between, because God tells us through His word to worship Him in song. Some genres of music and some songs may have an overlap (such as this song) in the culture it presents. You may could take one song, and use it to destroy the faith, while taking the same song, and use to it defend the faith, all depending on the mental and emotional aspect you put into the song and its meaning. (This may sound a little stretched, but the general point is made). The difference with country music, compared to rap music and punk music (if they even qualify as music), is that the overlap of good meanings and bad meanings found in country music is more apparent, and there are plenty of country songs with good meanings. Rap and punk, rightly or wrongly, seem to portray more of a bad image altogether, with little overlap in what the meaning of the songs could be about.
Regardless of all of these questions, I believe that both the church and the world have essentially lost its music because the of the culture (or the culture has lost what is should be because of the music). There is a relation. Rich Lusk made this point so clear in his sermons, "Through the church the song goes on (parts I & II)" ( trinity-pres.net/audio/sermonindex.php 2/11/07,2/18/07 ). If our song is wrong, then our culture is liable to be wrong. Secular music is not bad in and of itself, and even its music can reform or tear down a society. In today’s music, we see a watered down approach to music. When music was once supposed to be about life, and the emotions that flow out of it, it has now seemed to turn into being about money and fame (not to mention the drugs, sex, moral relativism, and violence shown in some songs and styles). Even country music, which traditionally is supposed to "tell a story about life," has been watered down.
In the same way, Christian music has been watered down. I wish that we as a church could return to singing "We are God’s People," instead of what Christian music so often offers today. Maybe its time as a Christian community we sing "We are God’s People, the chosen of the Lord; Born of His Spirit, established by His Word" or "Amazing Grace, how sweet the sound, it saved a wretch like me" or "The King of Glory comes the nation rejoices; Open the gates before Him, lift up your voices." If we want to revolutionize the world, one place it must start is in the song we sing.
"Praise ye the Lord. Praise God in His sanctuary: praise Him in the firmament of His power. Praise Him for His mighty acts: praise Him according to His excellent greatness. Praise Him with the sound of the trumpet: praise Him with the psaltery and harp. Praise Him with the timbreal and dance: praise Him with stringed instruments and organs. Praise Him upon the loud cymbals: praise him upon the high-sounding cymbals. Let everything that hath breath praise the Lord. Praise ye the Lord" Psalm 150.
Through the song and the church, both continue on.
What do you think?
Ryan
Thursday, July 26, 2007
The Basement
If you are around this area, then you may familiar with the local church-like phenomena, the basement. The basement holds claims to many claims of one finding Jesus, or coming closer to Him. However the basement also has minor controversy behind it.
However the controversy comes more from within the Christian Church, than outside the Christian Church. Many Christians urge other Christians to "come to the basement one Tuesday night" while others dismiss it as a "cult."
I am the kind of person who tries finding good in things done for the glory of God. I personally have never been to The Basement, and do not have first-hand experience as to what it is like. Generally speaking, I try to accept these sorts of events as good forms of Christian worship. However I also do not assume that any way of worshiping is necessarily one that can bring glory to God. Although I have never been to The Basement, I know plenty of people who have. I have never talked at length to anyone who has, but have heard second and third hand reports of what it is like. Going by the best I can see, I will give you my opinions on The Basement.
First off, I would encourage everyone who attends The Basement to question everything speaker Matt Pitt says with the Word of God. Of course, you should question anything anyone tells you with the Word of God, whether it be your Pastor, teacher, friends, or even parents- not just Matt Pitt. However, God does give some people the responsibility to teach the Word of God to others, and there are people God places in your life to help you in your life. In saying this, do not elevate anyone above the Word of God, nor put them level to the Word of God. However, remember that God has put some people in your life for the purpose of preaching His Word. In growing as a Christian, you should learn discernment on these accounts.
In saying this, I believe that any person who is lifted as a public speaker of the Word of God, should have accountability within the church. Anyone could talk at length about the Word of God, even quoting Scripture. However, having accountability is also important. I do not know of Matt Pitt’s experience. From what I have heard, he has some sort of training. However I am not sure what level of accountability he really has earned. Given the recognition he is receiving locally now, and what could grow out of this area, he and others around him should be careful. You should be careful too. Once again, validate (or deny) anything he, and others, say with the Word of God.
There have been reports that speaker Matt Pitt would often alter the Bible’s wording slightly, or perhaps fail to back his opinion with the Word of God, while still claiming he knows where the Bible would defend his point. There have also been reports that he is improving on these such areas. I hope he is. However this is not all of my concern, questions, or opportunities of praise for this ministry.
I have heard that Matt Pitt has said that the basement is not a church, and that those attending should be in church. I agree, and am glad to hear reports that he says this. I do not feel that what happens at The Basement on Tuesday nights could replace what should happen on Sunday morning. Because of this, I do not hold the basement to the same standards as what I would Sunday morning worship service. It is great to have a mid-week church-like function for teenagers apart from their typical weekly service.
However if the basement puts itself up as a place of corporate worship before God, there are some guidelines that they should follow, ultimately rooted in Scripture. What if the speaker (hypothetically) said, "Let’s praise God by eating dog food!" God would not be pleased with this attitude. The Bible is clear that there should be order in any form of corporate worship. The Bible is also clear, that if there is a place of corporate Christian worship, that it should reflect the how the church universally should be. The church should be distinguished from the world, and should be very serious minded toward the Gospel. In the same way, a corporate worship service to God should not be blended in with the world. I have heard second and third hand of The Basement taking songs by the rapper, Usher, only to change the words into Christian meanings. I do not feel as if this presents the best worship attitude before God Almighty.
I could not point to a place in Scripture and tell you from one specific verse what would be wrong with that scenario. However I could not point to one verse to validate or deny many things done by Christians or hated by Christians. Rap music, generally speaking, rightly or wrongly, has an image that should not want to be held by Christians. Therefore, I feel that it essentially waters down the Gospel to play Christian rap, or to say "I hate all rap except Christian rap."
The same could and often does, in my opinion, go for rock music as well. However soft rock, as opposed to punk-sounding rock, does not have this sort of image. For this, I have nothing against light Christian rock. I believe that one can listen to it, and essentially be brought closer to God. God gave us music to glorify His name. I believe that there are places even in corporate Christian gatherings where such music could be played. It is obvious that many are brought closer to God through the playing of these sorts of songs. However, I also feel that in The Basement, as well as places similar to The Basement, a watered down version of the Gospel is portrayed, often beginning in the music. The Christian theme song of today seems so light compared to what it should be. If the "Christian theme song" (for lack of better terminology) was a classic hymn such as "We are God’s People" or "Holy, Holy, Holy," then we would be much better off as a church worldwide.
One reason many feel that contemporary music is better is because it is more attractive young people and non-Christians. However, it is not good to become like the world in order to attract more people. If people "join" Christianity simply because the music sounds good, and not because of what it means, then they are probably not in it for the right reasons. There is nothing wrong with trying to make a Christian arena attractive to young kids or to non-Christians. However, I have concern when the church tends to blend in with the world.
At the same time, the church should not simply be on the sidelines to the world. Often, the Christian has a tendency to either blend in with the world, or be too far away from the world. We should not be spectators holding signs that say, "Join the club or you’ll die in hell!" We should offer an alternative to the world and sinful lifestyles, found only through Jesus Christ. To do this, we must be distinct, and then act. I feel that The Basement acts, and I commend The Basement for that. However, I also have concerns as to if the way they act is the best way to bring glory to God.
Furthermore, if the basement is a place for teenagers to come in worship, I feel that eventually these kids should grow as a Christian. Our youth today is caught in the middle of American individualism, and American emotionalism. I believe that the children are not attracted by deep theological ideas, but rather, community, acceptance, and their emotions. First and foremost, the church, especially a place such as The Basement, should be there on these accounts. The basement has done just that. They give the children a place where they can come and feel loved despite what their past is, and a place that will fire the emotions in a person. However, after this, the church should respond to teaching theology, so that the Christian may grow. I am not sure if The Basement is doing this. Emotionalism should not be the only thing that a church answers to or teaches.
It is hard to both adhere to the emotions of people, and consistently teach their minds. However they can go together. What often happens in a sinful world, is either you attract a lot of people, who seem to grow, but long-term do not grow much, or, rather, a place that will attract very few people, but whose members grow long-term in their relationship with Christ. Basically, the question is quantity or quality? For the strengthening of the church as a whole, both are needed, and both can go together. It is just often hard to find that ground. Once again, as a growing Christian, you should grow in your discernment on these accounts.
So in closing, I give my blessings to The Basement for all good that they have done, and hope to see this grow, if indeed this is a service to God. However I do not feel that any place that has the supposed intent on worshipping God necessarily does it in the correct way. Furthermore, if giving glory to God was measured purely on attendance or earthly success, then any church on television would be a wonderful glory to God. However many Pastors on television wind up laughing their way to the bank. Also, though, God in His infinite wisdom can use people who are even flawed in themselves. Even if The Basement does do things that is not right in God’s sight, or if Matt Pitt himself is hypocritical, God is still infinite, and works even in ways that may not seem good at first. God could take an apparent curse and turn it into a blessing.
If The Basement has led one person to Christ, then it has served some good purpose to God’s kingdom. Of course, this could either be because the people of The Basement have set out to give glory to God, and through God’s grace, God’s kingdom grew, or because God worked through flawed people with different intentions. If you attend The Basement, then I encourage you to still attend weekly service elsewhere. Going to The Basement may not be a bad thing, but it can not replace what should happen on Sunday mornings. Continue to base all your thoughts on the Word of God, and on your faith. Continue to lift high the cross, so that the world may know Jesus Christ is God.
You may want to look at the following blog on The Basement written by Cliff Prosser:
http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=130099894&blogID=283895140
You may also want to read the other blog I posted just before this on true, weekly, Christian corporate worship (dealing with the traditional Sunday service).
Some of what I touched on in this blog is found in those two blogs. Some of the comments in Cliff Prosser’s blog bring up good points.
UPCOMING BLOGS:
I have plenty to write about. I will try to post a blog on the election. I will also try to post a blog on what government really is, and why God gives us government. I would also like to post a blog on the popular book and movie series, Harry Potter. I saw one of the movies recently, whereas before that, I had not watched any of the movies, nor read any of the books. I know that this is controversial amongst Christians, so I will give you my ten cents worth on the popular book/movie series. I will probably post a couple of personal blogs, as well as some sort of devotional, moral-social idea, etc. Thank you!
Ryan
However the controversy comes more from within the Christian Church, than outside the Christian Church. Many Christians urge other Christians to "come to the basement one Tuesday night" while others dismiss it as a "cult."
I am the kind of person who tries finding good in things done for the glory of God. I personally have never been to The Basement, and do not have first-hand experience as to what it is like. Generally speaking, I try to accept these sorts of events as good forms of Christian worship. However I also do not assume that any way of worshiping is necessarily one that can bring glory to God. Although I have never been to The Basement, I know plenty of people who have. I have never talked at length to anyone who has, but have heard second and third hand reports of what it is like. Going by the best I can see, I will give you my opinions on The Basement.
First off, I would encourage everyone who attends The Basement to question everything speaker Matt Pitt says with the Word of God. Of course, you should question anything anyone tells you with the Word of God, whether it be your Pastor, teacher, friends, or even parents- not just Matt Pitt. However, God does give some people the responsibility to teach the Word of God to others, and there are people God places in your life to help you in your life. In saying this, do not elevate anyone above the Word of God, nor put them level to the Word of God. However, remember that God has put some people in your life for the purpose of preaching His Word. In growing as a Christian, you should learn discernment on these accounts.
In saying this, I believe that any person who is lifted as a public speaker of the Word of God, should have accountability within the church. Anyone could talk at length about the Word of God, even quoting Scripture. However, having accountability is also important. I do not know of Matt Pitt’s experience. From what I have heard, he has some sort of training. However I am not sure what level of accountability he really has earned. Given the recognition he is receiving locally now, and what could grow out of this area, he and others around him should be careful. You should be careful too. Once again, validate (or deny) anything he, and others, say with the Word of God.
There have been reports that speaker Matt Pitt would often alter the Bible’s wording slightly, or perhaps fail to back his opinion with the Word of God, while still claiming he knows where the Bible would defend his point. There have also been reports that he is improving on these such areas. I hope he is. However this is not all of my concern, questions, or opportunities of praise for this ministry.
I have heard that Matt Pitt has said that the basement is not a church, and that those attending should be in church. I agree, and am glad to hear reports that he says this. I do not feel that what happens at The Basement on Tuesday nights could replace what should happen on Sunday morning. Because of this, I do not hold the basement to the same standards as what I would Sunday morning worship service. It is great to have a mid-week church-like function for teenagers apart from their typical weekly service.
However if the basement puts itself up as a place of corporate worship before God, there are some guidelines that they should follow, ultimately rooted in Scripture. What if the speaker (hypothetically) said, "Let’s praise God by eating dog food!" God would not be pleased with this attitude. The Bible is clear that there should be order in any form of corporate worship. The Bible is also clear, that if there is a place of corporate Christian worship, that it should reflect the how the church universally should be. The church should be distinguished from the world, and should be very serious minded toward the Gospel. In the same way, a corporate worship service to God should not be blended in with the world. I have heard second and third hand of The Basement taking songs by the rapper, Usher, only to change the words into Christian meanings. I do not feel as if this presents the best worship attitude before God Almighty.
I could not point to a place in Scripture and tell you from one specific verse what would be wrong with that scenario. However I could not point to one verse to validate or deny many things done by Christians or hated by Christians. Rap music, generally speaking, rightly or wrongly, has an image that should not want to be held by Christians. Therefore, I feel that it essentially waters down the Gospel to play Christian rap, or to say "I hate all rap except Christian rap."
The same could and often does, in my opinion, go for rock music as well. However soft rock, as opposed to punk-sounding rock, does not have this sort of image. For this, I have nothing against light Christian rock. I believe that one can listen to it, and essentially be brought closer to God. God gave us music to glorify His name. I believe that there are places even in corporate Christian gatherings where such music could be played. It is obvious that many are brought closer to God through the playing of these sorts of songs. However, I also feel that in The Basement, as well as places similar to The Basement, a watered down version of the Gospel is portrayed, often beginning in the music. The Christian theme song of today seems so light compared to what it should be. If the "Christian theme song" (for lack of better terminology) was a classic hymn such as "We are God’s People" or "Holy, Holy, Holy," then we would be much better off as a church worldwide.
One reason many feel that contemporary music is better is because it is more attractive young people and non-Christians. However, it is not good to become like the world in order to attract more people. If people "join" Christianity simply because the music sounds good, and not because of what it means, then they are probably not in it for the right reasons. There is nothing wrong with trying to make a Christian arena attractive to young kids or to non-Christians. However, I have concern when the church tends to blend in with the world.
At the same time, the church should not simply be on the sidelines to the world. Often, the Christian has a tendency to either blend in with the world, or be too far away from the world. We should not be spectators holding signs that say, "Join the club or you’ll die in hell!" We should offer an alternative to the world and sinful lifestyles, found only through Jesus Christ. To do this, we must be distinct, and then act. I feel that The Basement acts, and I commend The Basement for that. However, I also have concerns as to if the way they act is the best way to bring glory to God.
Furthermore, if the basement is a place for teenagers to come in worship, I feel that eventually these kids should grow as a Christian. Our youth today is caught in the middle of American individualism, and American emotionalism. I believe that the children are not attracted by deep theological ideas, but rather, community, acceptance, and their emotions. First and foremost, the church, especially a place such as The Basement, should be there on these accounts. The basement has done just that. They give the children a place where they can come and feel loved despite what their past is, and a place that will fire the emotions in a person. However, after this, the church should respond to teaching theology, so that the Christian may grow. I am not sure if The Basement is doing this. Emotionalism should not be the only thing that a church answers to or teaches.
It is hard to both adhere to the emotions of people, and consistently teach their minds. However they can go together. What often happens in a sinful world, is either you attract a lot of people, who seem to grow, but long-term do not grow much, or, rather, a place that will attract very few people, but whose members grow long-term in their relationship with Christ. Basically, the question is quantity or quality? For the strengthening of the church as a whole, both are needed, and both can go together. It is just often hard to find that ground. Once again, as a growing Christian, you should grow in your discernment on these accounts.
So in closing, I give my blessings to The Basement for all good that they have done, and hope to see this grow, if indeed this is a service to God. However I do not feel that any place that has the supposed intent on worshipping God necessarily does it in the correct way. Furthermore, if giving glory to God was measured purely on attendance or earthly success, then any church on television would be a wonderful glory to God. However many Pastors on television wind up laughing their way to the bank. Also, though, God in His infinite wisdom can use people who are even flawed in themselves. Even if The Basement does do things that is not right in God’s sight, or if Matt Pitt himself is hypocritical, God is still infinite, and works even in ways that may not seem good at first. God could take an apparent curse and turn it into a blessing.
If The Basement has led one person to Christ, then it has served some good purpose to God’s kingdom. Of course, this could either be because the people of The Basement have set out to give glory to God, and through God’s grace, God’s kingdom grew, or because God worked through flawed people with different intentions. If you attend The Basement, then I encourage you to still attend weekly service elsewhere. Going to The Basement may not be a bad thing, but it can not replace what should happen on Sunday mornings. Continue to base all your thoughts on the Word of God, and on your faith. Continue to lift high the cross, so that the world may know Jesus Christ is God.
You may want to look at the following blog on The Basement written by Cliff Prosser:
http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=130099894&blogID=283895140
You may also want to read the other blog I posted just before this on true, weekly, Christian corporate worship (dealing with the traditional Sunday service).
Some of what I touched on in this blog is found in those two blogs. Some of the comments in Cliff Prosser’s blog bring up good points.
UPCOMING BLOGS:
I have plenty to write about. I will try to post a blog on the election. I will also try to post a blog on what government really is, and why God gives us government. I would also like to post a blog on the popular book and movie series, Harry Potter. I saw one of the movies recently, whereas before that, I had not watched any of the movies, nor read any of the books. I know that this is controversial amongst Christians, so I will give you my ten cents worth on the popular book/movie series. I will probably post a couple of personal blogs, as well as some sort of devotional, moral-social idea, etc. Thank you!
Ryan
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
