Return to the ... wild?

Tonight I joined my wife on a trip to the art museum. We took part in a joint book/art discussion. The book was "Born Free", which might be remembered for the movie adaptation (I hadn't read or seen either, but I think everyone can hum the title line from the soundtrack). What interested me was the discussion among those who came and the staff at the museum. A central theme was the question of domestication. The book, "Born Free", is an autobiography written by a European woman who traveled to Africa around the mid 1900's and there raised a lioness cub. Though treated in many ways as a pet, eventually she and her husband allowed the lioness to "return to the wild". I was struck with the quote. Is that a "return"?

During a portion where we were shown an exhibit from the natural history museum and addressed by one of the educators there, I learned about something new. From the 1950's to the 1970's, the Soviets ran a program attempting to tame foxes through selective breeding. The result, following about 40 generations of selection, is a fox that is domesticated. In some ways, it doesn't fit with my mind to think of a fox that is also tame. It's almost an oxymoron, right? A sharp sphere, or  a black light, or Microsoft Works. But, it exists! A fox which acts like a dog, is kind to humans, obeys commands. But this got me thinking, how do we think about a certain, well-known passage?

Isaiah 11:6-7
The wolf shall dwell with the lamb,
  and the leopard shall lie down with the young goat,
  and the calf and the lion and the fattened calf together;
  and a little child shall lead them.
The cow and the bear shall graze;
  their young shall lie down together;
  and the lion shall eat straw like the ox.

The picture of what the shoot of Jesse, Jesus Christ, brings is peace amongst mortal enemies. But, also, there seems to be a return. None of them eats meat, but returns to eating only vegetables. This is a return to the Garden. There, God gave only plants for food for all creatures; for man (Gen. 1:29) and for animal (Gen. 1:30). This is the way things started, without animals eating other animals. But, there's something more.

In the Garden of Eden, God gave Man (Adam and Eve) dominion over all the other creatures. In Gen. 1:26, 28, God made man to rule over all. Wouldn't it seem that God made all the animals domesticated? They were made for Adam to rule from the beginning. The reason why the idea of a tame fox -- or a tame lion who could lie down with a lamb -- is so foreign to us is that Adam sinned. We do not live in paradise, but in a fallen world. What is normal for us is actually not normal. God cursed the ground for Adam's sin, that it would bring forth thorns and thistles (Gen. 3:18). In so cursing His creation, God allowed the creation which had been placed under Adam to rebel. This is the curse. Isaiah speaks of such reversal occurring as a curse, in which the creatures take dominion in cities previously inhabited by humans.

Isaiah 13:21-22
But wild animals will lie down there,
  and their houses will be full of howling creatures;
  there ostriches will dwell,
  and there wild goats will dance.
Hyenas will cry in its towers,
  and jackals in the pleasant palaces;
  its time is close at hand
  and its days will not be prolonged.

But, again, the promise is that Man is restored to dominion in Jesus Christ. Man -- rightfully, justly, and without exploitation -- ruling over the creatures for eternity. In the New Heavens and the New Earth, will there be lions? I think so, but they will be the lions perhaps in a way we haven't seen. They will be lions who are a delight to mankind and who do not kill their fellow creatures. They will be made new even as we and the rest of creation are made new. Praise Jesus Christ!

So, thinking again about the lioness in "Born Free" "returning to the wild". I don't look forward to a day when all the zoos are emptied as the animals "return to the wild". I look forward to the greater day when all creation no longer groans (Rom. 8:22), when the ground ceases rebelling with thorns and the animals cease rebelling with violence. The lion (and fox and wolf) will lie down with the lamb. And those who are righteous in Christ will all dwell in the light of the Lamb (Rev. 21:23).

How should we then worship? A personal journey.

Rarely do I get the time to think through one particular train of thought as its developed throughout my life. Because I feel I’ve grown a lot -- and looking back, I needed to grow a lot! -- I wanted to share my experiences. Worship is something I’ve found people don’t like to talk about. I’m hoping that this post will have offer some good things to start conversation.

Beginnings. When you grow up in church, you don’t realize what it is about worship that makes your church different from other churches because its the only one you know. Really, all you might notice is if the church you’re in undergoes changes in worship style. I grew up in a small church. We sang from a hymnal, the Trinity Hymnal. Services were accompanied by either organ or piano (we had alternating accompanists). Sometimes there was a children’s choir or an instrumental prelude to the worship service. For a while the church tried having one of the members who was a strong singer stand in front and lead the singing. I’m not sure why, but eventually they abandoned that practice. When we had a change of pastor, the church purchased Trinity Psalters to put in the pews, but their use never caught on. Overall, worship remained pretty consistent at this little church, and is still pretty much the same when I visit with family.

College. So, it wasn’t until I moved to college that I began to think through worship style. I went to the University of Missouri, Columbia and began attending RUF (Reformed University Fellowship) and transferred my church membership to the small church east of town where my sister and brother had gone before me. RUF had many hymns which were arranged to upbeat tunes which worked well with guitar accompaniment. I even joined the praise band as a vocalist, something I enjoyed as an outlet of my talent (though looking back I wonder if I really had any!). At the local church, worship was really similar to the church in which I grew up. When I took the new member class, the pastor had a "priorities target". In concentric circles, he had placed what was most important in the center, with lower priorities as you moved away from the center. In the center were things like Christology and justification by faith. Moving out several circles was eschatology. On the outside circle was style of worship. I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt that maybe he meant to say that all the things on the target were important and he was stressing only their relative importance, but at the time I interpreted it this way: that worship doesn't matter.

After my freshman year at Mizzou, I got a summer internship in St. Louis. During that summer, I visited numerous churches within my denomination. I was surprised to find such variety in worship style -- even among people who were doctrinally in agreement and organizationally united. With each congregation worshipping in a different way, I felt a subtle implication: that worship doesn't matter. That same year I visited another denomination’s church, a very large church. The worship there was with a large praise band up front and several vocalists on stage leading. At first I sang along, but I noticed that nobody around me sang. In fact, a few people around me looked at me in surprise that they could hear my voice over the amplified sound coming from up front (I do sing pretty loudly). I didn’t think about it at the time, but looking back it was obvious to me that if the praise band was supposed to be “leading” the congregation’s praise, they weren’t doing a good job. Quite to the contrary, they were drowning the praise from the pews (actually, seats, if I’m remembering right). My point is that I was beginning to see that even though many were saying that worship didn’t matter I couldn’t help feeling that it did. I didn’t like some of the worship styles. I admit it! In a way, I feel that I was wrong to not like some of the congregation’s worship. Worship shouldn’t be judged by my personal preference, but at that time in my life I did judge. Even if I didn’t say anything out loud, inside I felt uncomfortable before the living God next to some of my Christian brothers and sisters. I don’t think any Christian desires that uneasiness. Worship should unite Christians, shouldn’t it?

In my last year at university, I met the woman who would become my wife, Maggie. I noticed her right away, but because I was graduating soon I didn’t want to be in a relationship. And, she was Roman Catholic and I knew enough to know that Catholics and Protestants haven’t had a good track record at agreeing on things. But, as a friend I invited her to RUF. It was there that she heard the gospel preached. She believed, and to this day I praise God for granting salvation to my wife. So, after coming to faith in Christ, she wanted to know more about the differences between her church and mine. On Sundays, we started going to my church in the morning and to mass in the evening. After we had been to both, we opened the Bible and compared what we had seen to what we read. The thing we found was that the Protestant worship was, in comparison, profoundly Biblical. The words of institution for the Lord’s Supper were lifted directly from Paul. The congregation sang. There weren’t bells and incense and statues. These differences led Maggie to leave the Catholic church and join the same small church east of town where I was a member. Looking back, it seems that we were on to something important. If we did want to compare worship, shouldn’t the Bible be the place we’d go? Hasn’t God given instruction in how He is to be worshipped?

Just before I graduated, I overheard a friend of mine ask our campus minister a simple question -- what is worship? -- and I thought it was a profound question. But should it be? Shouldn't worship be a foundational thing for Christians? Shouldn’t we know a lot about it? Shouldn’t we agree on it, at least in principle? If we're going to spend eternity worshipping God together, shouldn't there be some concrete instruction for how we can begin now?

Post-College. After Maggie and I got married, she moved to Shawnee, KS where I had a job. We were both still members of the church we had gone to in college and, now in a new location, we wanted to find a church like that one. We went church shopping. I admit it, we were blatantly looking for what we were comfortable with. But we had a conflict internally. We had both been part of RUF with upbeat music and guitars but also the church we had come from had piano and hymns. Which would we find? Which would we choose? Similar to my summer internship experience, we found that even within our denomination, there was a wild variety of worship styles. One was like RUF, but with the guitars turned up a lot louder and a few extra solos. Another we jokingly described as "soft rock 102.5". The leader of the praise band had a cheesy, lounge-singer voice and neither of us liked it. We caught ourselves later mock-imitating his voice, “this next one is one of my favorite hymns.” But, looking back, what gave us the right to mock him? In doing so, weren’t we mocking worship! Where did our criteria come from which we used to judge our brothers and sisters? It was merely tradition, experience? Again, I admit that we were wrong in our hearts for some of the judgment we passed. In the end, we definitely didn’t go to some churches because we didn’t like their style of worship.

Was worship really just a matter of preference? Is it just my style against your style? Where did my style come from? Where did yours? If I'm a punk rocker and become a Christian, does that mean the church needs do develop a punk worship service? Or techno? Or opera, death metal, or bluegrass? Is worship just meant to draw people in? If so, why were my wife and I repulsed by some of the church’s worship? Or is there something deeper wrong with the way I, like many other Christians, had been seeing worship? Has something changed in the church in regards to our views of worship?

The church which my mother attends used to have an eclectic worship service. They tried mixing styles by having a hymn and then a piece with the praise band. They tried to please everyone by having something for everyone. Later, they started having a Saturday night service. This service was completely different in style than the one on Sunday morning. Later they split services on Sunday morning, to one traditional and one contemporary. In the end, everyone just chose to go to the one that they liked based on their preference. The issue of worship style is divisive. The old people would go to one service and the young people would go to another. I have a friend who raised some questions about the way his church, the church he had grown up in, was worshipping. The response he received was, “maybe this church isn’t for you.” Why is this dividing us?

Thoughts. I recently heard that the Beatles weren't just big in rock; they were big in music. What was meant was that in the 1960’s there wasn’t a rock station and a country station and an oldies station and a soft rock station. There were just music stations. The proliferation of genres hadn't happened. But contrast that with how things are now. Now, with Internet radio like Pandora, everyone gets his own radio station. Just click a few thumbs up or thumbs downs and there will emerge a music station that’s custom tailored to you and you alone. Sure there is overlap with others, but the goal of a personalized music station is for the listener to never have to hear a song he won’t already like. Our postmodern culture breeds people who are intolerant of music that doesn’t match preference. And, has this culture infiltrated the church? I think so.

Imagine if things were different. What if every church was moving in the same direction? What if every church had the same goal in mind as regards worship, even worship style? What if the church weren’t meant to adapt to everyone’s tastes, but was intentionally trying to refine each Christian to grow to like a certain thing? Imagine if in a generation or two Christian's tastes were refined in the same direction and that direction led to greater unity in the church? To me, this sounds good. I know some people don’t like the sound of it, though. Perhaps this sounds like a brainwashing exercise to them. At the same time, though, when we get to heaven, will anyone say, “you know, I was hoping for something else”? Of course not! Our tastes in everything will be changed -- be perfected -- when we get to heaven. We will worship together, in the same way, and we will delight in doing it! If our preferences will be changed in the future, why shouldn’t we be beginning to refine them now?

And why can’t we talk about this? Recently, I posted some brief comments about worship on Twitter and Facebook. Granted, I was limiting myself to 140 characters and there’s a thin line between brief and terse, but I got some prompt feedback from a dear Christian sister. I called her and we spoke for a while. She said that some of the things I’ve said about worship have shut down the conversation, that she feels that she wouldn’t want to talk to me about worship. I am heartbroken that anyone would feel that way, especially a sister in Christ. I don’t want us to feel we can’t talk about worship; to the contrary I think we really need to be talking about worship. I don’t have everything figured out! I need to learn from Christian brothers and sisters more than anyone. But, there’s also a sentiment that I think is unhelpful when such conversations begin. I’ve heard people ask the following, “How can you judge between worship?" At first it sounds right because I recognize that there is a degree to which I’ve judged worship wrongly, basing my judgment upon my personal preference and degree of comfort based on prior experience. However, just because there is a possibility of judging with poor motives, does that mean we are hopeless to have discernment when it comes to matters of worship? Does it mean that no one can learn from one another about worship? Is there is no hope for unity on matters of worship? When someone next asks me, “How can you judge between worship?” I will ask them back, “How can you not?” Surely every one of us could walk into a Christian worship service from a different tradition and feel out of place, awkward, uncomfortable, or just plain confused. But the point should not just be to stop there. If there’s such a thing as wrong worship, we as Christians should be seeking out what is right worship.

Conclusion. There are two recurring themes I’ve discovered as I’ve written all this out. 1) Many Christians hold that style of worship doesn’t matter. 2) Style of worship is divisive. I’m convinced that these two themes are incompatible. One of them is wrong. Let me illustrate. Suppose two churches couldn’t agree on something trivial, on which color was best. Their disagreement was so sharp that they could not worship together, they would not assemble as the body of Christ because they could not agree on pink or puce. If Jesus were to come that day and judge them, how would they fare? Should something trivial, something which doesn’t matter, be allowed to divide? More and more I’m convinced that worship is not trivial. Style of worship matters because it divides. And if it matters, we need an arbiter. We need someone who is not just pushing his or her personal preference. Perhaps it would be best to say, not that style of worship doesn’t matter, but that our preference in style of worship doesn’t matter. If it is only our preference which divides us from our brother, we need to be willing to let go of our preference and embrace our brother. It shouldn’t be about us, it should be about the object of our worship. Our worship should be about the Triune God! As such, we need a word from God, and we as Protestant Christians should agree that this word is the Bible.

In the Bible, God does judge worship. Consider the examples of Nadab and Abihu; Hophni and Phinehas. Also, Deuteronomy 12 (esp. v. 32), where God warned of a coming unification of the place of worship and that Israel should not seek to syncretize worship of God with the worship practices of pagans living in the land. The first four of the ten commandments concern worship. Jesus himself talked about worship with the Samaritan woman at the well John 4:19-24. There’s plenty more. I’ve been surprised to find how little I knew about what the Bible says about worship. Let’s get a conversation going and let’s start with the Scriptures. And let’s be willing to say what is coming from us rather than Him. If its coming from us we should expect it to be divisive -- we’re all different people. If it’s coming from us, we should be willing to let it go for the good of our brother and the glory of God. But if what we believe concerning worship is from Him, truly from Him, it should truly unite us as one because there is only One True God.

Does Jesus use an iPhone? - Some thoughts on technology

I was recently thinking -- a common pastime for a seminary student -- and came to the following question. “Would Jesus use an iPhone?” But, I remembered that Jesus has His human body now. He is resurrected and He sits in heaven now. So, a more important question would be, does Jesus use an iPhone? Well, perhaps it is not an important question, but it got me thinking about technology. I used to be an engineer and so I have had a lot of experience with how things work and how to use technology to make things great. Here are some of my thoughts.

The world, even without technological advance, is made for humans to enjoy. Apples, oranges, and peaches all fit in the palm of the human hand. So do chicken eggs. A horse’s back is flat and long enough for one or two human riders. Wouldn’t it be a stretch to say that each of these came to be by mere chance? Wouldn’t it be even more of a stretch to say that all of these, together, randomly occurred? The agriculture and livestock which we enjoy demonstrate that all things were made for the enjoyment of mankind.

Someone may object, saying, “Perhaps humans adapted hands to the size of the fruit. Or, perhaps the horse was selectively bred to have a flatter, longer back.” Essentially, they may look at what appears to be the nature of things and say that perhaps technology is hidden behind things getting the way they are now.

But, what strikes me here is even if the horse was selectively bred, why was it possible to achieve what we now know as the horse? We know that selective breeding has limitations - you can breed bigger and bigger meat chickens, but eventually they get too big for their hearts and die of heart attacks before they can reproduce. Selectively bred stock can have common immune deficiencies or inherent illnesses. So why is it that horses aren’t too big for their hearts? Why is it that the horse breeds which are suitable for human use are stable and have relatively few maladies? For a Christian, that horses are designed for humans makes sense. When God made the first horses, he made them with the genetic diversity to make it possible to breed a clydesdale. Another way of saying it is that God had a clydesdale in mind when he created the horse, and not only that, but he also had in mind what man would look like riding that clydesdale. Furthermore, God made man at the peak of creation, man is made to be steward/ruler over all other creatures.

The world has characteristics which make technology easy for humans. Rams grow horns which can be used as trumpets. Olives can be crushed to make oil, grapes to make wine. Anything stable on one end can be used as a sundial with which to tell time. These are simple technologies, perhaps nothing to write home about, but they beg a question, “why is technology so easy?” So, what about more complex technologies?

Once, during my college years, I went to the Amana colonies and took a course in blacksmithing. It was there I first used a hand cranked bellows, a coal-burning forge, and an anvil. It was there that I learned some of the properties of metal which are for man’s benefit. For example, iron turns bright red when malleable. Metals can be very brittle, but with heat treating can be made hard. This heat treating is visible to the human eye; the color of the metal goes from a yellow straw color to purple to blue. You can see the effect in the pictures here:
http://ironoakfarm.blogspot.com/2011/01/fiery-friday-making-center-punch.html. Metal is made to be worked with by humans. Our eyes are able to see the changes which heat makes in the metal.

Consider also the basic avionics instruments. They measure environmental phenomena and from that are able to determine the necessary information for flight, including altitude, airspeed, heading, pitch. Here are some examples:

Static air pressure is proportional to altitude. The differential between static and impact pressure is proportional to airspeed. An iron ball in whiskey can provide a magnetic heading. A weight on a string points opposite the direction of acceleration plus gravitation. With these two vectors, you can know your airplane’s attitude.

Now, this is more than just about man. Why should visionless flight be possible? Why should the vectors of gravity and magnetic field be roughly orthogonal? Why should pressure differential produce lift? Are all these “just so”? If they are, then they are perfectly “just so”. If they occurred randomly, then they apparently all occurred perfectly for flight AND the mind of man just randomly was able to discover them all. Is it just random that the mind of man can understand the way the world works? Is it just random that the eyes of man can see things which are important for him to understand? Is it just random that the hands of man can manipulate the raw materials around us to make devices which our minds conceive? Is it just random that these devices work or are capable of working? I do not see randomness -- I see design and purpose and wonderfulness! God made the earth to be of use to man and God designed man to make use of the earth.

Psalm 139:
13 For you formed my inward parts;
   you knitted me together in my mother's womb.
14 I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made.
Wonderful are your works;
   my soul knows it very well.

So, where did technology originate? So, given that I’ve just been talking about how great technology is and how perfectly suited man is to discover it, you may be surprised at my next comment. The first records of technological advancement are attributed to ungodly men. In ancient times, as recorded by Moses in Genesis 4, it is the line of Cain (who murdered his brother, Abel) which makes use of technology. Cain built a city. Jabal was the patriarch of camping and livestock (though Abel was a keeper of sheep before him). Jubal was the patriarch of musical instrumentation. Tubal-cain was a metalworker of bronze and iron. Yet, Cain was a murderer and his progeny, Lamech, was a murderer and proud of it. When Israel comes into the promised land under Joshua, it is the pagans who have chariots of iron. The Biblical account is clear, the origins of technology often aren’t the godly, but the ungodly. And this matches our experience, does it not?

Steve Jobs, cofounder of Apple, died last year. From what I’ve read of his life, he was a talented, brilliant man, but no Christian. I recall hearing (but can’t seem to find the quote) that he thought technology would solve all our problems. As great as the iPhone is, it certainly hasn’t solved all our problems. Some have theorized that our modern devices have shortened our attention span (even you probably have been scanning this article and not reading every word, admit it!). Also, is the device recyclable or will it just end up in a refuse dump? There have also been many concerns about the working conditions at the Chinese Foxconn factory where iPhones have been manufactured. Several workers there committed suicide, begging the question of whether they were being exploited.

So, is technology bad? Certainly exploitation of third world countries is wrong. It is wrong to destroy the environment. Technology has always been used for evil ends, e.g. internet pornography. BUT, technology originated in the mind of God. When God made sand He wasn’t ignorant that it could and would eventually be melted down into silicon which could be fabricated into transistors programmable to be computers. Far from ignorance! God had planned liquid crystal displays long before we discovered they were made by man. God knows the technology we haven’t yet dreamed of. He designed all things with how they can and should be used in mind! So, technology is meant to happen. It is pictured as a blessing and will endure to the consummation.

Technology is a blessing. God Himself commanded construction of the tent of meeting, the tabernacle. Later, David collected bronze and iron for construction of the Temple (1 Chronicles 22:3). Even before entering the promised land, God promised the Israelites that it would be plentiful with iron and copper (Deuteronomy 8:7-9). Isaiah promises every material used for technology would be replaced by things more precious (Isaiah 60:17). God gives the building blocks used to make technology because He delights in blessing His creation.

Furthermore, God tells us that the world to come will include technology. The picture of the redeemed world is a city (Revelation 21-22). This is an alarming contrast, especially since the first mention of a city is the one built by the hands of wicked Cain. Even the technological advance of a city will be redeemed by God. But, not every technological advance will be necessary. The swords will be beaten into plowshares (Isaiah 2:4, Micah 4:3, c.f. Joel 3:10). In the eternal state we will no longer need weapons and medicine. But even though there won’t be swords, there will be plowshares. There won’t be spears, but there will be pruning hooks. In Heaven, there will be technology, but it won’t be used except in the way in which God intended it - for His glory and for being a blessing to His people.

So, does Jesus use an iPhone? What do you think?

"Never Forget" - to what end?

Ten years ago today the United States was attacked by Terrorists. The destruction of the two towers of the world trade center are vividly remembered. Today many had as their Facebook status and tweets "Never Forget". Why?

Before I jump into that, this morning's sermon was on the text of 2 Samuel 1. David has just learned that Saul, the king who had been pursuing him to death, and Jonathan, the king's son who was also David's great friend, have died in battle. How did he respond to the death of his rival?

"Your glory, O Israel, is slain on your high places! How the mighty have fallen!" - 2 Samuel 1:19 (c.f. 27).

David mourns the fact that Saul, the anointed of the Lord and leader of His people Israel, has died. Why? Personally, Saul's death will be very advantageous to David. Why doesn't he rejoice?

This topic then leads the Christian to the following passages: Romans 12:15 and Matthew 5:4.

15 Rejoice with those who rejoice, weep with those who weep.

4 “Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted.

David didn't rejoice because he mourned the loss to the people of Israel. His mourning with them put him closer to them. We, too, should mourn with those who mourn... not that we should be lost in a world without hope, but that like Christ we should bring the hope of Christ to a world that is lost.

So, back to "never forget". Is the desire to "never forget" an excuse to never forgive? Does our grief lead us to become mongers of hate against the Muslim extremists? If so, what will happen after years of dehumanizing a faceless enemy? We would likely become the terrorists.

If "never forget" is to remember the sacrifice of first responders who put themselves in harm's way to protect others, this is worthwhile to remember. The selfless acts of such men and women should draw our eyes to the One who put Himself in our place.

I think the part I hope to "never forget" is how the nation was humbled and turned to God in repentance and faith. Are we still humbled? Or have we grown proud once again? God brought Israel down from their pride by conquering them by a pagan king - Nebuchadnezzar. God then humbled Nebuchadnezzar, the height of human power of his day. God can and will humble us. Let us repent and turn to Him. As we remember the loss to this nation of 10 years ago, let us weep with those who still hurt. But let us bring them the hope of Jesus Christ.

Bricks

During the month before classes began I chipped away at the work study hours for my first year. Before classes began I had over 100 hours! Praise the Lord! A majority of work was pressure washing, cleaning bricks, and painting (a shed, windows, whiteboards, and parking lot stripes). This type of work was really enjoyable for me. Yes, you heard me right. I enjoyed the physical labor. I think part of it was the fact that for the past five years I’ve spent most of my days sitting in front of a computer or at best crouched over a circuit board with a soldering iron. The work that I’ve been able to do reminded me that God gave me a body - a body that is strong and capable. There’s more though. I think the best thing about painting (or pressure washing, etc.) is the time it affords the mind to think. Let me share with you my thoughts:

Bricks are used to build buildings and walls. They are held together by mortar. Together, they distribute weight, support one another, and form an even and stable barrier to wind, rain, sun, bugs and persons. Bricks together are a unit. You don’t usually look at the side of a brick house and say, “Look at those bricks”. You might say, “Look at that wall” or “look at that building”. They form a whole. That is the good side of bricks and mortar. During my work with bricks last month, however, I saw another side. There was once a shed at the opening of the entry to the Seminary Parking Lot. It was here when I visited a year ago. It was not here when my wife and I moved in. Instead, there was a large pile of bricks elsewhere on the grounds. My work was to “clean” a portion of these bricks. This meant firing a 3600 PSI pressure washer at the bricks until the old mortar came off. As the dirt and old bits of sand removed from the bricks they flew everywhere, even sometimes sticking to me. The work was a little bit like Christ’s work. Let me explain. These old bricks were useless. They were “rubble”. They weren’t fit for new construction. Why? They still had the old mortar stuck to them. That which originally held them to one another and made them a cohesive whole was now keeping them from being clean - from being useful in a new wall. All that changed when they were washed. This mortar and sand and dirt was removed - through a pressure intensive process - and ended up off the bricks - and on me! Once cleaned the bricks were as good as new and were stacked neatly and will soon be put to use in repairing an old wall. The analogy is like this: we are dirty bricks. Not just dirty... but useless rubble. We have sins which cause us to cling to the world and to other sinful persons. Christ breaks up the sin. He works powerfully by the Holy Spirit to remove the power of sin over our hearts. He even took our sins upon Himself and died for them... for us. By His work we are renewed. We are then united in a new building project. Christ builds us into His Church.

4 As you come to him, a living stone rejected by men but in the sight of God chosen and precious, 5 you yourselves like living stones are being built up as a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. - 1 Peter 2:4-5

Maybe its a bit of a stretch. Maybe I had too much time to think. Even so, I marvel that Jesus Christ has chosen to use a stone (or even a pebble) like me in His Building. To Him be the glory!

Favorites... in Context

My 16 month old son loves books. He can't read of course, but he likes the pictures and voices and sounds that his mother and I make when we read to him. Usually, though, he has a favorite page. Sometimes he'll pick up a book and turn right to his favorite. He wants to look at a particular page's drawing or hear my elephant impression. There's been times that we've been reading a book and once we've passed his favorite page, he'll turn back the page to "re-play" his favorite part. If I don't let him go back he'll wiggle out of my lap to find a different book or toy. If it's not his favorite, he doesn't want to hear or look at it!

I find that in many ways my son is like me. The saying goes, "like father, like son". I have my favorites. This can be especially true of Psalms. Looking back at my practices over the last few years, I tend to sing the same familiar selections during family worship. Perhaps I'm not the only one who does this. For a recent post I was looking up the lyrics to Chris Miner's "God be Merciful to Me (Psalm 51)". I was reminded as I compared it to the ESV translation that verses 16 to 19 were omitted. In a sense, I think this is understandable. Even at only 6 stanzas, its a long song. Perhaps the last four verses were meant to be sung as an accompanied selection. But there's the problem: where is it? If I didn't know better (and for a long time I didn't) I'd have thought that I knew all of Psalm 51 when in fact I was missing some of the larger picture; I was missing the rest of the story.

All this to say that the little book, Singing the Songs of Jesus has made me thirst a little bit to know the context. I think as my son grows up he'll learn more of the stories I read to him. That doesn't mean he won't still love that favorite drawing or laugh when Daddy does the elephant impression. Perhaps the drawing will take on more meaning as he realizes what it means to the plot. Perhaps he'll like the elephant impression because it helps him to feel like he's part of the story. Perhaps that what I want, too.

The Words Change Us

I'm gearing up to do a Psalter review soon: The ARP Psalter. Reading the preface by Rev. David Vance and Dr. Gabriel C. Statom, though, I was struck by the following words which contrast the Psalms of the bible with other songs.

When we sing other songs, we feel at times that the words should change. But something very different occurs when we sing the psalms. The words do not have to change. We have to change. The words change us.

Wow. I don't think I'd ever thought about that. It reminds me to a conversation I had in college. During my days at the University of Missouri - Columbia (go TIGERS!) I attended RUF (Reformed University Fellowship). It was through this ministry that I made my deepest friendships and learned much of how to be a Christian and college student. I remember one time after the RUF large group meeting one of my friends wrestling with something. We had just sang "God, Be Merciful To Me" during the time of praise. My friend was offended at what he took to be an error in the song. Particularly, he didn't like the first lines of the last stanza:

Sinners then shall learn from me,
And return, O God, to Thee ...

He said, 'that's arrogant, how can I sing about others as sinners needing to return to God when I'm a sinner?' It was a well meant question; my friend was truly aware of his sin. What I didn't realize at the time, though, was that the whole song is taken from a Psalm. The verse my friend wrestled with was first penned not by Christopher Miner but by King David. This Psalm of repentance gives us a look at David's sorrow over his sin with Bathsheba. But he, himself, says after crying out to be purged, regenerated, and restored, "Then I will teach transgressors your ways, and sinners will return to you." (Psalm 51:13) Had I made this connection at the time I would have had something better to encourage my friend with.

1) David is right to ask for this. David is not merely crying out as a sinner. He is crying out as a mediatorial king who is a sinner. Not only will David suffer for his sins, but His people will also unless one more righteous than he stands in his place. This Psalm points us forward to Christ. Christ must be our King. When David asks that transgressors (sinners) be taught, He's referring to the teaching that comes from someone redeemed. Once he, David, receives the forgiveness that's found only through Christ, he desires that this example of God's forgiveness be granted to others who can then be enfolded in the flock (i.e. "sinners will return to you").

2) It is right for us to ask this. I think sometimes when I sin I am so conscious of my own sin and my own need of forgiveness that I forget that God has plans for people other than myself. God wants to forgive through Christ... but that is often so that His forgiveness is shown to others who have not yet experienced it. Looking at this Psalm in this way gives us an awareness of others that many hymn writers overlook. God forgave David not just for David's sake but also for ours. God may forgive us now not just for our sake but for the sake of His people He's not yet called to Himself. Again, it underscores the point of the ARP Psalter preface: "the words do not have to change. We have to change. The words change us". Vance and Statom continue, "The words enter our hearts, our very being, and they teach us how to be men and women after God's own heart. They are a perfect model of devotion and a mold which gives proper form to your Christian experience."

David was a man after God's own heart (Acts 13:22). As we sing the Psalms of David, the Psalms do not conform to us, but by God's grace our hearts are conformed to Christ, David's greater son.