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.

Psalm Shaped Liturgy

This morning I worshiped with the saints at Grace Church in Gibsonia, PA. One of the things about the worship service that stood out to me was the congregational singing. We sang Psalm 104. We sang all of Psalm 104. If you're not familiar, this is a long Psalm. It is 35 verses in length; five separate selections from the Book of Psalms for Singing. It took the whole worship service to sing it. When I think about it, though, this is appropriate. Here are some thoughts:

Psalm 104, like the many wonders of Hebrew poetry, has a great structure to it.

1-4 - God is majestic, exercising dominion over the elements.

5-9 - God has appointed the foundations and boundaries of the earth that cannot be thwarted.

10-15 - God sustains his creation from necessities of food and water to extravagances of wine and oil.

16-18 - God has provided shelter particular to the needs of each of His creatures.

19-23 - God marks the time for seasons and days; setting the sun and moon in their orbits.

24-30 - God is praised for the variety of His creatures and their continual dependence upon Him.

31-35 - A declaration of praise to God; He is to be feared.

I recall interacting with a friend who was taking a ministry of worship class at a local Southern Baptist Seminary. He said that the professor was instructing them in what I will call "Psalm Shaped Liturgy". Basically in class they studied the structure of a Psalm. They looked to each part and tried to supply a corresponding worship element. For example, if the Psalmist is expressing repentance then a corporate confession of sin might be read in unison. If the Psalmist is expressing praise to God, then a sermon on that topic would be appropriate. These ideas that my friend experienced in his class impressed me. It really reminded me that the Psalms are tools God has given to meditate and ultimately to lead our hearts to worship. My friend made a good point, 'it's not just some arbitrary order of service; it's a reflection of how God wants us to worship Him. The worship leader is submitting to God's instruction through the Psalm.'

Anyway, this morning's worship service reminded me of this concept. As we returned to the same spot in our Psalters 5 times it really impressed me that the Psalms are each a literary whole. We gain more from them by seeing their progression, their structure. In Psalm 104 in particular, the Psalmist moves from point to point underlining again and again God's majesty as creator and sustainer of the world. By the end we can do little else than praise Him!

His Emotions

I'm just three chapters into Singing the Songs of Jesus, and I have to say that this book is amazing. This last chapter in particular, "Recognizing Christ in 'Praising Conversations'" has left me meditating upon a conversation I had a few months back with a friend.

My friend leads in a praise band in a local church. He was telling me the tension going on in their worship. The new worship director desires to see some new praise choruses while my friend has had a growing appreciation for historic hymns. He voiced one of his complaints with the contemporary worship songs similar to this, 'you sing the same phrase 10 times... how many times can you say that you're happy and how happy you're happy?' I remember my contribution to this conversation. I told my friend that the Psalms have great depth of emotion. They remind us that we have emotions (happy, sad, angry, doubtful) and that God intends for us to bring these emotions into His praise. John Calvin has called the Psalter "The Anatomy of all the Parts of the Soul". (I forgot to mention that the closest thing the Psalter has to a repeated praise chorus is Psalm 136.)

Looking back on what I told my friend, there's something I feel I should have added. Seeing Michael Lefebvre's point, that the Psalms are conversations between Jesus, God the Father, and us, I feel that I was missing a huge point. The Psalms don't only tell us emotions we experience. The Psalms tell us the emotions He experienced. Jesus was full of emotion. He was fully human. In a way, the Psalms give us a deeper view into His emotions than the gospels do. I realized that I've been oblivious to this, but now I see so much of what I've been missing. By His grace, as today's Christians come to appreciate and use the Psalter we will better understand not just our own emotions, but also His.

A Window into Jesus' Humanity

While running some errands with my friend, Paul, he mentioned to me something I'd never thought about. He said, 'The gospels give you a view of Jesus' divinity; his miracles and so forth. The Psalms is where we turn to learn Jesus' humanity.'

I'd never really thought of it like that... and I think it's still worth pondering. I do know that there is a depth of Jesus' emotion that we find in the Psalms. More to follow...

The Songs of Jesus

I'm about to begin reading Singing the Songs of Jesus by Michael Lefebvre. Though I haven't read past the cover yet, something already stands out to me. Have you ever thought about the songs Jesus sang? What words comforted Him when He was sad? What poetry did He meditate on? The Psalms aren't just songs about doctrine, about theology, or even about Christ. They are more. They are also Christ's songs. He sang them. He meditated upon them. He lived them.

There are two passages that have made me think about this. One is Matthew 26:30.

30 And when they had sung a hymn, they went out to the Mount of Olives.

What song did they sing after the first Lord's Supper? There can be little doubt that they sang from one (or more) of the Psalms. Many of the Psalm headings in the Septuagint use the word "hymn". And what would be better fitting for Jesus and his disciples to sing during the Passover season than the songs that feastgoers had sung for generations?

The second passage is Hebrews 2:11-12.

11 ... That is why he is not ashamed to call them brothers, 12 saying, "I will tell of your name to my brothers; in the midst of the congregation I will sing your praise."

The "he" in this passage is Jesus. The quotation is ascribed to Jesus. It is something Jesus is "saying". But notice the words... it is Psalm 22:22. The writer to the Hebrews is saying that Psalm 22:22 is Jesus' words. Now notice what Jesus says, "in the midst of the congregation I will sing your praise". Jesus sings with the congregation! He sings the Psalms in the midst of His people. This is what excites me about "the songs of Jesus". They are His songs, but because we are His they are our songs, too.

Have you never read?

In my reading for my upcoming gospels class I came across the parable of the tenants. This parable of Jesus is recorded in parallel accounts in Matthew 21:33-46, Mark 12:1-12, and Luke 20:9-18. In the story a king is away and leaves his vineyard to tenants. He sends servants to gather the harvest from the tenants but they are beaten, dishonored, or killed. The landowner then sends his son whom the tenants kill. The part of these passages that struck me, though, was the passage Jesus ends with. He quotes from Psalm 118.

22 The stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone.

It is obvious that the Pharisees and the chief priests were among those that heard these parables because they knew that it was them that Jesus was speaking against. These were the people who took pride in their study of the scriptures. Surely they had read this Psalm. Doubtless they had chanted or sung this Psalm as it is the last of the Psalms sung during Passover, the great Hallel. Notice how Jesus introduces it, "Have you never read...?" Notice the irony. Of course they've read it! They've sung it. They should know it. And yet what Jesus is pointing out is that they missed the point of it.

The point of Psalm 118:22 is that Jesus is the cornerstone, or the head of the corner. He defines where the boundary of the walls will be. He was rejected, though, by the Jewish leaders of his day and sent to death by them.

There were two things that struck me as I was reading this parable of Christ. First, this Psalm is about Him. It had always been about Him. It was about Him for the many years that the Psalm was sang during Passover. It is about Him as Christians sing it today. Second, we need to remind one another that this Psalm is about Him. Just as the Pharisees and chief priests may have read the words but failed to see the Christ standing before them, we can have hearts that are hardened to the true Christ who is revealed in the Psalms. But for those all who have hearts that have been regenerated by the Holy Spirit, we can sing in this Psalm of Christ, the cornerstone, but also the rejected one; the sufferer.

For further study, see how the Apostlic writers continued to preach and write about Psalm 118:22. Acts 4:11, Ephesians 2:20, 1 Peter 2:7.

Psalm Singing Church Map

Check out this map of congregations that sing the Psalms exclusively:


View Exclusive Psalmody Churches (North America) in a larger map

A special thanks to Tim from www.exclusivepsalmodychurches.wordpress.com for his efforts to create and keep this map up to date. If you haven't tried singing Psalms, check the map for an opportunity near you!

Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly, teaching and admonishing one another in all wisdom, singing psalms and hymns and songs of the Spirit, with thankfulness in your hearts to God. - Col 3:16

Reasons why I love the Psalms 002

I am part of the psalm-singing church. Most (if not all) Christians have sung psalms. A familiar one to many is psalm 23 (The Lord is my Shepherd). As I've been further studying the psalms I've come to love them.

One of the reasons I love the psalms is that we are told to sing them. I lead a weekly bible study that's been going through Colossians and here's what I discovered in Colossians 3:16:

Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly, teaching and admonishing one another in all wisdom, singing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, with thankfulness in your hearts to God.

(16) "and let the word of Christ dwell in you richly"... This is a command. The Colossians are to let Christ's word dwell in them. He also tells them how this is to happen:

• teaching and admonishing one another in all wisdom,
  
  This sounds a lot like preaching. Paul says that one way for the Christ's word to live within these Colossians is for them to preach to one another. What are they to preach? Paul isn't specific here, except saying that they are to do so in all wisdom. The proverbs are an excellent source of wisdom, and speak to how to give a wise word.
  
  Consider also the union with Christ we've seen Paul claim. He sees his suffering as Christ's suffering. He would also see his preaching as Christ preaching. Considering this, what better way to have Christ's word richly dwell within us, than to be preached to by Him?
  
  
• singing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, with thankfulness in your hearts to God.
  
  The second way for Christ's word to live within them is for them to sing. What are they to sing? Paul says literally "psalms, hymns and songs spiritual". Are these 3 different types of music? Does "spiritual" refer only to songs?
  

What would psalms, hymns, songs spiritual (ψαλμοῖς, ὕμνοις, ᾠδαῖς πνευματικαῖς) mean coming from Paul's mouth? (See also parallel in Ephesians 5:19). What did Paul have in mind? "Psalms" (ψαλμοῖς) would instantly make his audience think of the psalms in the Old Testament. They would be most familiar with the Septuagint, which is the Greek translation from the Hebrew. In the Septuagint translation of the Psalms, there are headings, many of which title themselves as "psalms". Interestingly enough, some of the psalms are also called "songs" or "odes" (ᾠδαῖς) in their title. (18, 30, 47, 48, 65, 66, 68, 75, 76, 83, 87, 88, 92, 98, 108). Consider also the title of Psalm 76 (in the Septuagint, psalm 75):

To the choirmaster: with stringed instruments (= "a hymn"). A Psalm of Asaph. A Song.

εἰς τὸ τέλος ἐν ὕμνοις ψαλμὸς τῷ Aσαφ ᾠδὴ πρὸς τὸν Ἀςύριον

Psalm 76 is described in the Septuagint as a psalm, a hymn, and a song! As seen in the translation, "hymn" originally meant something similar to "to pluck a stringed instrument". It's meaning changed over time. Psalm 76 is not alone, many other psalms are referred to as "hymns" in the Septuagint, including 6, 54(53), 55(54), 61(60), 67(66), 76(75). We also see hymn used to refer to a group of psalms in the note found in Psalm 72:20:

Psalm 72:20 (numbered in the Septuagint as 71:20)

The prayers (= "The hymns") of David, the son of Jesse, are ended.

ἐξέλιπον οἱ ὕμνοι *δαυιδ τοῦ υἱοῦ Iεςαι

In Psalm 72:20, Hymns were synonymous with prayers. Hymn later came to mean the words of a psalm. The meaning of the word changed yet again as it is commonly used today.

See the examples above for yourself at: http://www.septuagint.org/, also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psalms#Numbering

The most natural meaning for Paul saying "singing psalms, hymns, and songs" would be the the 150 psalms of the Old Testament. (See also Matthew 26:30, Mark 14:26, Acts 16:25, 1 Corinthians 14:26, James 5:13) Paul is emphasizing his point by saying the same thing in three ways (Like, "Friends, Romans, Countrymen"). If this is His meaning, what an incredible gift we have in the 150 psalms! These are the word of Christ that we may sing to one another... the same words Christ himself sang.

What about "spiritual" (πνευματικαῖς)? The adjective comes at the end of the list of words, and thus can describe all three "psalms", "hymns", and "songs". "Spiritual" for Paul usually means having to do with the work of the Holy Spirit. In this case, it would probably mean "psalms, hymns, and songs" (i.e. the whole psalter) which is inspired by the Holy Spirit. Notice the union between the word of Christ and the work of the Spirit.

And how are we to teach and sing? In what manner are we to let Christ's word dwell in us? With thankfulness in our hearts. Thus I am thankful for the psalms. They are a means God has given us to let the word of Christ dwell within us! As we sing the psalms we hear the word that Christ inspired by the Holy Spirit. We learn of how to express deep emotion with the very words God has given for that purpose.

"The Invention of Lying" - A Review

The movie was a gross perversion of many things, but worst of all, the person and work of Jesus Christ.

I am ashamed that I've watched this movie. This post is intended to deter people from watching it, for the sake of the name of Jesus Christ.

Spoiler Alert

The movie starts with a general exposition narrated by the voice of the main character. He explains that the human race had not yet evolved to be able to lie. He noted that his character would be the first in the history of mankind to lie. He is unattractive and would be fired from his job as a "script writer" (i.e. an exact recollection of actual events that had happened in the past). He is fired, is accused of being a homosexual, and must leave his apartment as he lacks $800 rent. His first lie is at the bank teller when asking what to withdraw he tells her $800 knowing that he only has $300. She willingly trusts him, despite the computer in front of her telling something different.

A suicidal neighbor reveals that he lives life in despair. The main character tells him that things will get better and that he shouldn't commit suicide. The neighbor willingly believes him and stops attempting to end his life.

The main character's mother is elderly and lives in "a sad place for hopeless people". She is soon on her deathbed and comments that she is saddened by the nothingness that awaits her in death. He lies by telling her that at death she will be in the happiest place she can imagine and that she will receive her very own mansion. She dies happy, but he is overheard by doctors and nurses who willingly trust him. News spreads and crowds follow him to hear what he "knows" about what happens to people when they die. He writes a list of 10 things and posts them on 2 pizza boxes, because he lacks 2 tablets (of stone). He delivers to the world via international television broadcast that there is a man in the sky who will give everyone mansions provided they don't do 3 bad things (3 strikes and you're out, like baseball). The man in the sky is responsible for everything that happens and cannot be seen. Everyone willingly trusts the main character. Buildings resembling churches are erected as "quiet places to think about the man in the sky". At a wedding ceremony, the officiating minister wears a gold cross, which upon closer inspection is just a gold representation of the main character holding out the two pizza boxes.

The main character becomes incredibly rich by defrauding a bank, casino, and the general populace. He improves his financial situation, but the woman he wants still will not marry (or procreate with) him because he is undesirable for his genetics. He decides not to lie to her about genetics even though he has opportunity to. He becomes depressed and doesn't shave nor cut his hair, and when she later rings his doorbell to invite him to her wedding to a pompous, vain rival, he answers wrapped in a bedsheet wearing sandals, an obvious allusion to stereotypical images of Jesus.

In the end, he gets the girl. Only he and his son can lie. There is no indication that he was punished for gaining money through deception or any of the lies he told. There is not even indication that anyone ever distrusts a single thing he said.

Review

The premise of the movie seemed intriguing. What would happen in a world in which no one lied. What would be inclination of the first person to lie, and what would be the result? For these reasons I was drawn to watch this movie. Nevertheless, the following are contentions I hold with the writers of it:

Contention 1:

The idea of lying being an evolution of man. The writers of this movie reveal that they believe in some sort of evolution, with the general understanding that over time improvements are added to the human race, while disadvantages are discarded. One will notice immediately that lying is an improvement according to their theory. If lying is an improvement, what about distrust? As noted in the synopsis above, no one distrusted anything the liar said. But what is the logical outcome of a person continuously saying things that are not? It is inevitably that people would eventually come to distrust one another. Is this an advancement among members of the human race? I wonder if the writers of this movie consider that what they are marking as evolution is, in fact, degeneration? Perhaps that was their intent.

Contention 2:

A confusion of hope and dishonesty. The liar on several occasions is able to temporarily improve someone's mood who is otherwise depressed or in despair. While the intention may be commendable, the idea of helping someone by lying to them is convoluted. Apparently, the writers believe that it is impossible to have hope without also being liars. It paints a very dreary world, where we see characters who wish to commit suicide because they are unattractive and others are slaves to their own vain desires. What is odd is that by setting a world in which people only speak what is truth is that they deny the possibility that things could change. The writers seem to imply that to expect change for the better is at it's root a lie. How very pessimistic! These writers paint a very depraved view of hope, for they don't portray people as having hope until the lie enters the world. Is hope dependant upon lies by it's nature? I beg to differ. Hope can be based on truth, but not on what is visible. The author of Hebrews tells us:

Hebrews 11:1
11:1 Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.

The writer's definition of a lie comes to mean anything that cannot be seen. They create a world in which having faith itself has to become a lie. They create a world in which believing in the invisible God becomes, itself, a sin.

Contention 3:

The premise of the movie's writers: "god is a lie." In their scenario, the first man to discover lying also invents a god. Everyone in that world believes him because they have no concept of a lie. In effect, the writers are concluding that religion is false. We see this in the movie in that no religious symbols (or even moral labels on behavior) exist in this world where no one lies until the main character begins to tell lies.

I'll note, the religion which the main character creates is one which is very agreeable to his own character. He creates a religion which benefits himself. This is most clearly seen when he says "the man in the sky says that you can't have sex before marriage". This is a lie, of course, as he has made up the man in the sky (per the writer's plot line). The context in which this is that his love interest has mentioned that she will likely have sex with his rival. He creates a religion which is beneficial to his needs at the time. This is, by definition, a man-made religion, which is false. Oddly enough, I do not find this point as disagreeable. If their point is only that man made religion is false, I will not disagree with them. Religion which has it's doctrinal source and object of praise in man and not in God is blasphemy. Sadly, I fear that their point is that all religion is man-made and is therefore false, which I vehemently disagree with. If they've excluded the possibility that God could possibly truly exist and would actually reveal a religion to mankind, they've fallen into serious error with eternal consequences.

Contention 4:

The inventor of lying is compared to Jesus Christ. If you didn't catch that in the synopsis above, let me repeat it: the inventor of lying is compared to Jesus Christ. Does this sound like Jesus to you? Let's compare this with Jesus's own words:

John 8:44
44 You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies.

Jesus identifies the devil (yes, the devil, himself) as the father of lies. The devil has nothing to do with the truth; there is no truth in him. The bible tells us that lying, deceit, dishonesty, etc. are from the devil. This movie is saying that they are from Jesus. What blasphemy! Consider who Jesus is:

John 14:6
6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

Jesus is truth! Not only is he truth, but he is THE truth. Jesus is truth, and in him there is nothing false:

John 7:16-18
16 So Jesus answered them, “My teaching is not mine, but his who sent me. 17 If anyone's will is to do God's [5] will, he will know whether the teaching is from God or whether I am speaking on my own authority. 18 The one who speaks on his own authority seeks his own glory; but the one who seeks the glory of him who sent him is true, and in him there is no falsehood.

I am finding it hard to appropriately express what I feel toward the themes presented in this movie. I cannot find words to express the disconnect between what the writers of this film have presented and what God tells us in His Word. They are liars. The movie is a lie.

Psalm 119:163
163 I hate and abhor falsehood,
but I love your law.

Legalism: a definition

I've recently been thinking about the subject of legalism. I've come to the conclusion that no matter which branch of the body of Christ a person belongs to he will agree that legalism is wrong. Imagine going to hear a sermon and the pastor beginning by saying, "well, I hope everyone is enjoying being legalistic! Today I'm going to preach on why legalism is great". Legalism is generally held in disdain and for good reason. Legalism is contrary to Christianity. The problem I've found, though, is that legalism, while unanimously condemned is not often well understood. I've been thinking for the last few weeks on a good definition. Here's what I've got:

Legalism is one of two things:
1) an attempt at conformity to a good law for a substituted purpose
2) an attempt at conformity to a substituted law for a good purpose

Allow me to explain. Legalism is a word that has at it's root what is "legal" or "lawful". People who are legalistic either pervert a good law into something for which it was not intended OR they begin with good motives but seek to meet proper ends with an improper law. A Legalist person is aware of and concerned about law, though, which the inverse, an Anti-nomian or Licentious person would not. Biblical Christianity, in contrast to both, has an aspect of attempt at conformity to a good law for a good reason.

The Letter and The Spirit

Let's take a law: "You cannot drive over 70 MPH along X stretch of highway". This may be, and for the sake of discussion let's say that it is, a good law. A law has a letter and a spirit. The letter of this law is that it is wrong to drive at any speed greater than 70 MPH. If a person were to drive 70.000001 MPH, he or she would be breaking the letter of the law. Consider, though, that the example law is not an isolated thing. Behind the creation of this law there is an intention of whoever wrote the law. We might say, and for the sake of discussion let's conclude that, the intention, or spirit, of the law is "Do not drive in a way which puts persons or property at risk of harm or damage." This is rooted in the second greatest commandment, "Love your neighbor as yourself."

Suppose a man is driving 69.999999 MPH. He is swerving to the left and right as he weaves through traffic. He cuts off a bus full of children. To save a few seconds off of his commute, he drives through a person's front yard and flower bed. Is he obeying the letter of the law stated above? Yes. Is he doing it for the intended purpose? No. He is obeying the letter but not the spirit of the law. He is a legalist by the first definition. His utter contempt for the spirit of the law reveals the wrongness of legalism.

Suppose, now that a young woman desires to protect life and property. She learned from her parents to always drive 10 MPH below the speed limit. As she enters the highway she cautiously accelerates to 59 MPH. As people pass her traveling at speeds of 65 or 68 MPH, she smiles at them but wonders in her heart, "Why are all these people breaking the speed limit?" She finds another car going her speed and carefully paces them, preventing anyone following from going above 60 MPH. Is she being legalistic? This is where we enter the second definition of legalism, and to be completely honest this part is a bit more difficult to see the error. She is keeping the letter of the law. She is even keeping the spirit of the law to some extent. I'd say she is being legalistic, though. What makes it difficult to determine is the idea of Hedging.

Trimming the Hedges

Hedging is, simply, to impose a boundary upon one's self to help prevent transgression. Let's take the speed limit example above. If I decide that to help myself obey the law I will always drive 2 miles below the speed limit, I am building a hedge. Building a hedge for one's self is OK, provided it is for the correct intention (i.e. toward the spirit of the law). Hedges are not a problem so long as they are kept only for one's self. Hedges become legalism when the hedge is substituted for the law. This is portrayed clearly for us in Mark 7:

7:1 Now when the Pharisees gathered to him, with some of the scribes who had come from Jerusalem, 2 they saw that some of his disciples ate with hands that were defiled, that is, unwashed. 3 (For the Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they wash [1] their hands, holding to the tradition of the elders, 4 and when they come from the marketplace, they do not eat unless they wash. [2] And there are many other traditions that they observe, such as the washing of cups and pots and copper vessels and dining couches. [3]) 5 And the Pharisees and the scribes asked him, “Why do your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat with defiled hands?” 6 And he said to them, “Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written, “‘This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; 7 in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’

8 You leave the commandment of God and hold to the tradition of men.”

9 And he said to them, “You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God in order to establish your tradition!

The elders of the Pharisees and scribes had developed hedges to help themselves obey the letter of the law. Generations later, the hedge had been mistaken for the law it surrounded! We see the horror of this when the Pharisees accuse Jesus of leading his disciples into sin. What a bold thing to do! The Pharisees accuse Jesus, who is God, of breaking the God's law! God is perfect and cannot deny himself. We see the rebuke they receive is well warranted. By replacing God's law with man's traditions, the Pharisees were the ones who were rejecting God's law.

As followers of Christ, we need to guard against confusing our own hedges with God's perfect law. God's law is perfect as we are reminded in Psalm 19:

7 The law of the Lord is perfect, [3]reviving the soul; the testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple; ... 10 More to be desired are they than gold, even much fine gold; sweeter also than honey and drippings of the honeycomb. 11 Moreover, by them is your servant warned; in keeping them there is great reward.

Since God's law is perfect, we must not substitute our law for His. We must continually trim our hedges to make sure that they do not impede upon the spirit of His law.

The Greatest Commandment

So, how do we ensure that we are keeping the spirit of the law? What is the spirit of God's law? Jesus tells us the greatest commandment, and I do not think it is just another law to add on top of the rest, I think it is the spirit of all of God's law:

Mark 12:

28 And one of the scribes came up and ... asked him, “Which commandment is the most important of all?” 29 Jesus answered, “The most important is, ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. 30 And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ 31 The second is this: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.”

All other laws God gives are only extensions of this fundamental law: that God is one and that mankind is to love him wholly. Even the second commandment to love one another flows out of the first. We love one another because we love God. We love God because He loves us.

1 John 4:

19 We love because he first loved us.

A Guardian that is Good

The law is rooted in that we should love God. We know God first loved us because of the gospel. Paul the Apostle was quick to point out that the law should point us to the gospel. The law is good in that it drives us to Christ.

1 Timothy 1:

8 Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully, 9 understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, ... and whatever else is contrary to sound [3] doctrine, 11 in accordance with the gospel of the glory of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted.

Paul even calls the law our guardian, imprisoning men until they are justified by faith:

Galatians 3:

23 Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed. 24 So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith.

As Christians, we should oppose legalism. It is either a misuse of God's law or a rejection of God's law in favor of man's law. In either case, legalism destroys the laws power to draw us to Christ. If we are not drawn to Christ, we will never have love for God who is a just judge. If we have no love for God, we will be forever doomed to fail at meeting the spirit of the law: to love the holy God with the whole of our being.

Reasons why I love the Psalms 001

I was just watching this video on a new revision of the psalter. The psalter is, of course, a copy of the book of psalms but arranged to be sung. At my church, we sing the psalms. I realized somewhat recently that I love singing the psalms. I love them. So, let me share with you a reason why.

As Duncan Lowe (the elderly gentleman) points out in the video, "sometimes the psalms can be bold in saying certain things... that a hymn writer wouldn't have the right to say." Pretty profound. I think immediately of psalm 13. Consider the first 2 verses:

Psalm 13:
13:1 How long, O Lord? Will you forget me forever?
How long will you hide your face from me?
2 How long must I take counsel in my soul
and have sorrow in my heart all the day?
How long shall my enemy be exalted over me?

These are words that God led David, the man after His own heart to pen. These are words specifically meant for God's people to sing. I'll be honest, if it weren't for God giving me these words to sing, I wouldn't be able to express this emotion. And this gets to my point: I see so much of praise music these days focused on expressing emotion. It seems that there is a general feel that if things aren't flowing with free emotion that the Holy Spirit isn't working. Are modern praise choruses, written by men, capable of expressing a feeling that God has forgotten me? Can they express without blasphemy that I'm overcome with sorrow all day? Should they?

I'll stick to the psalms. I love the psalms.

on the label "Calvinist"

A Calvinist is someone who agrees with John Calvin. Often, when someone speaks of being a Calvinist, they are speaking of someone who agrees with the "5 points of Calvinism". These points aren't actually written by John Calvin himself but are a summary of his views on salvation and the sovereignty of God. In this article, I'll introduce these points. I rely heavily on the book "The 5 points of Calvinism documented, defined, defended".

I'll start with a point which is foundational to all of the five: God saves sinners.

Psalm 118:

14 The Lord is my strength and my song;
he has become my salvation.

Matthew 1:

21 ... and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins.

From this premise all the five points of Calvinism find their meaning. These five points are easily remembered using the acrostic: TULIP.

Five Points - like amazon.com ratings... only not.

Total Depravity - All humankind are fallen because Adam sinned and they are descendants of Adam. Mankind will not choose God of his own power. This point proves that sinners cannot save themselves.

Unconditional Election - Because it is God who saves sinners, the decision of who He will save is entirely His. He doesn't save anyone based on anything in the person (neither inherent in them nor forseen response to His grace).

Limited (or Definite) Atonement - God chose who He would save. He sent Jesus to die for those people. This is a note about the intended scope/efficaciousness of Jesus' death, not it's value. If God had chosen to save everyone in the world, Jesus' death would have been entirely sufficient.

Irresistible (or Efficacious) Grace - Because God is the one who saves sinners, he acts in a way that the sinner cannot resist. He changes the depraved will to a regenerated will. Because God is sovereign, when he wants to change a person's will, their will is changed.

Perseverance of the Saints - Those whom God has chosen to save He will save. God's plan cannot be thwarted by the schemes of the devil nor the old flesh of a sinner whom He has chosen.

What the 5 points do not mean:

Some men have read the 5 points and concluded "If God saves men, He can do it without my help. I don't need to evangelize... in fact I don't need to do anything. If God is going to save me, he'll save me." This line of thinking expresses the thoughts of those that are known as hyper-Calvinists. This is somewhat of a mis-nomer, however, as this line of thinking is not only non-Calvinist, it is non-Christian. Recall that a Christian has Jesus as their Lord and Savior. If a person believes that their responsibility to evangelize (or even have Jesus as Lord of their life) is nullified, that person is not a Christian.

Some people take Calvinism to mean that they are robots and that people aren't able to do what they want to. I've heard that the expression "Damned if you do, damned if you don't" was first said by someone who disagreed with Calvinists for this reason. A common scenario is theorized where someone might really want to please God, but because they are not part of God's elect they will be eternally condemned. I can understand that this would be a very bleak picture of God. God, though, has not left us without light on this particular theorized scenario.

Romans 3:

10 as it is written: “None is righteous, no, not one; 11 no one understands; no one seeks for God. 12 All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one.”

Fitting with the idea of Total Depravity, God tells us that no one seeks after Him. Apart from God regenerating a person's will to enable them to, "no one seeks after God." So, this hypothetical objection to Calvinism is proven to be invalid. I'll note that this may not match what we see. There are often many people who appear to want to please God, but for one reason or another, seem to fall away. I believe these people have these appearances but not true faith. Remember that men can see fruit and judge by appearances, but God judges the heart.

Unity in Mission in the Godhead

I am a Calvinist and I believe in the Trinity. I believe the 5 points demonstrate a unity among the 3 persons of God. Unconditional Election means that God the Father chose a people to love whom He would redeem unto Himself. Limited (or Definite) Atonement means that God the Son loved, lived for, and died for those same people. Efficacious Grace means that God the Holy Spirit draws these same ones to repent of their sins and have faith in Jesus Christ. There is profound unity in the Trinity. God is indeed the God who saves.

Imagine the alternative: If God chose men based on what he foresaw, or worse, did not choose men at all, he basically set out a way for men to come to Him and waited for them to do so. He would only love men when they first love Him. This seems quite the inverse of 1 John 4:19.

1 John 4:
19 We love because he first loved us.

Furthermore, if Jesus' death is for everyone, then what truly decides if they are saved is not what He has done, but whether they accept it or not. Instead of "Jesus saving His people from their sins" it would best be described as "Jesus enabling people who chose Him to save themselves from their sins".

Perhaps worst of all, if the Holy Spirit's job is to draw men to God, and He equally distributes grace to all men toward repentance and faith, then He is a failure. If God is trying to save all men, then either all men will be saved or God is failing. Now, God does tell us His revealed will that we are to evangelize to all men:

1 Timothy 2:
3 This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, 4 who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

God's revealed will is that all men should be saved. This is the goal that we as men should shoot for because we don't know whom He has chosen. His secret will is to save those whom He has chosen.

Applying the Label

I am a five-point Calvinist. As a summary of reasons why and how predestination makes sense, and how to understand that God saves sinners, I think the five points are incredibly helpful. At the very core, Calvinism lets God be God. It elevates God in His supremacy. It also puts man in his place. It reminds me that I am ever a debtor to God and His grace shown to me. If I was once a child of wrath but now am a son of God, then I cannot point to myself and say, "look what a great person I am." God is the one who has made me who I am, and if he saved a wretch like me, then I can and will proclaim the gospel boldly to all men regardless of how clean or wretched they look on the outside. It will be for them what it has been for me: the grace of God alone that saves men from their sins.

on the label "Christian"

"Have you accepted Jesus as your personal Lord and Savior?"

It's a question that most people are familiar with. In some, it stirs up feelings of annoyance. In others, it stirs guilt or even anger. The question has been asked so much that it may have become cliché. Nevertheless, it is the most important question a person will ever answer. Christians are those who have personally accepted and ever seek to maintain Jesus as their Lord and Savior.

Saved from what?
If every Christian believes that Jesus is their savior, then they must believe they were in danger of something from which they needed to be saved. What would be the purpose of a savior if there was nothing to be saved from? Christians are saved from their sins. Put simply, sins are bad things done or good things left undone. Ultimately, God defines what is sin and God hates sin. When Christians say that they are saved from their sins, they are usually referring to being saved from the punishment due their sins. Christians believe that sin is punishable by an everlasting sentence in hell. Literally. Christians believe they are saved from hell and saved to everlasting life. The way that Christians become saved is called the gospel. I'll cover this in detail when I talk about "Evangelical". For now, suffice it to say that a person is saved by Jesus. We see this clearly at the beginning of Matthew's account of the gospel: Matthew 1:21

...you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins.

What now, My Lord?
Christians have Jesus as Lord of their lives. This is not commonly used terminology today. When I was growing up, I recall hearing the phrase "what now, my Lord?" when I played "Lords of the Realm". In this video game, I would play the part of a ruler of several provinces. I would manage labor, raise armies, grow crops, and attack and conquer neighboring territories. (I was especially good at the conquering). I had control over my lands and the people that lived there. They did what I wanted them to (except when I didn't feed them and they rioted...). The point is, Jesus is Lord of the Christian's life. They do not make decisions for themselves without first seeking to know what Jesus would have them do. Consider this well known psalm:

23:1 The Lord is my shepherd; I shall not want.
2 He makes me lie down in green pastures.
He leads me beside still waters.
3 He restores my soul.
He leads me in paths of righteousness
for his name's sake.

Most people who know this psalm know of the soothing phrases "he leads me beside still waters" and "He restores my soul". It is important to see these in context, though. The Lord is the Christian's "Shepherd". The Christian is led by Him in paths of righteousness. This is for his name's sake, the Christian doesn't do things from selfish motives, but for Jesus' sake. This is affirmed in the Great Commission at the end of Matthew's account of the gospel: Matthew 28:18-20

18 And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”

But wait... there's more!

There are other things, too, that are true among Christians. Christians hold the bible to be the word of God. Christians believe in the true and living God who is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (called the Trinity). Christians worship God. Christians are baptized. Christians are members of a local Church. Christians love one another. I'll explain what I mean with these in later posts as I am able. For now, I'll suffice it to say that Christianity is about Christ, what He has done to bring man to God and what He calls men to do in light of this.

Applying the label.
I am a Christian. I believe that Jesus is the Messiah and that he has saved and will save his people from their sins. I believe that he has saved me from my sins through his perfect life on earth, death, and resurrection.

If the above were a mere assent and ended here, it would be nothing but a dead theology. A living theology leads to change in a person's life.

I hold Jesus to be the Lord of my life. I'm in no way a perfect servant, but I seek to do his will in my life daily.