The Freedom of Restraint

“Many of us are rediscovering the truth of Edmund Burke’s dictum that many of the restraints upon us, and not merely our liberties, should be reckoned among our rights and the grounds of our freedom. Pursuing unguarded liberty with things puts us in very real danger of having those things “take liberties” with us (1 Corinthians 6:12). The loss of natural limitations often doesn’t leave us better off, and many struggle to re-establish these broken barriers in the far less certain form of sanity-restoring disciplines.”—Alistair Roberts

Law of Sanctuary, Law of Society --by Peter J. Leithart   

The Ten Words (Exodus 20) are organized in two sets of five commandments, one pertaining to our relationship to God and the other our relationships with one another. James Jordan has argued that the two sets of five run in parallel. The five words about worship match the five words about social relations.

The first commandment forbids idolatry: “You shall have no other gods before Me,” Yahweh says. Israel is to give honor and glory only to Him. Corresponding to that, the sixth commandment that prohibits murder requires that we honor the image of God in human beings (cf. Genesis 9). A community that honors the one God above all gods is a people that honors His image, and vice versa.

Yahweh says that worship with images provokes Him to “jealousy,” a marital term, and a term that links the second commandment with the seventh’s prohibition of adultery. A church that refuses to worship God through images is liturgically chaste, and is being formed in worship into a community marked by sexual and marital faithfulness.

God tells Israel not to bear His name lightly. They have been marked by the name of Yahweh; they are His people and His property, and are not to use God’s property in ways that displease Him. And the structure of the Ten Words suggest there is a link between bearing the name of God and protecting our neighbor’s property: Bearing God’s name lightly is a form of theft, and a people who does not steal from God is a people that honors the “sacred” boundaries of property and ownership. When we refuse to steal what God has sealed with His name, we are learning to to seize what our neighbor has sealed with his name.

God demands that Israel keep the Sabbath day holy, inviolable, a day of solemn assembly for witness and praise. Worship is truth-telling about God, witnessing to His mighty works and His faithful character. In this way, the Sabbath command matches the ninth word that prohibits perjury: A people who keeps Sabbath is a truth-telling people. Sabbath-keeping also includes giving rest, breaking yokes, releasing from burdens (cf. Isaiah 58), and that too connects with the ninth word: Keeping Sabbath means not binding our neighbor with lies and slander.

It has long been said that the command to honor father and mother has a broader application, requiring respect and honor to all human authorities. The link between the fifth word and tenth seems to be this: As we honor human authorities, so we also respect our neighbor’s authority over his house, wife, family, property. Covetousness is a desire to damage our neighbor’s honor.

This can be filled out in all sorts of ways, but my main point is that the law of the sanctuary is parallel to the law of society and, more strongly, that the law of the sanctuary determines the law of society. What we do in the sacred space of the liturgy forms what is done in the profane space outside. The liturgical music we play before God is repeated in a different key in social life.

 

Does the church idolize music?

--by Jonathan Aigner

 

Idolatrous Introit

Inevitably, any discussion of corporate worship eventually seems to descend into a competition of musical preference. Everyone wants to get their way all the time. And the church has bought it. Like I alluded to in my post on the problem of multiple worship “styles,” the almighty right to get our own way now governs much of what our congregations do.

Of course, the issue has been clouded by our American culture, with our long-held consumerist, “customer is always right” mentality. Indeed, it has spilled over and saturated Christian culture, as well. I have the right to pursue what makes me happy all the time. To suggest otherwise is seemingly worse than denying the basic tenets of Christian belief.

I can think of one word that seems to perfectly describe this situation.

Idolatry.

I think we’ve often made an idol out of our music.

Litany of Lies

The truth of the matter is that we are all far too willing to bow down in front of any number of God-substitutes. Like empty carbs in place of well-balanced meals, it’s easier, it’s quicker, it’s momentarily exciting, it’s addictive. But it’s a lie. It won’t last. Like striking a match, it erupts into an thrilling flame, but then it’s gone. Just like that.

In the words of great hymnwriter Dennis DeYoung (you know, the guy from Styx), “All the heroes and legends I knew as a child have turned into idols of clay.”

Instead of being an ideal vehicle for proclamation – for praise, for expressing the truth of the Christian story, and for reflecting the imago dei within us through human creativity – I think we’ve often expected far too much out of our music.

Perhaps the underlying problem is that we’ve expected it to provide a good emotional experience for us. Instead of using music as an aid to something infinitely more satisfying and lasting, we’ve sought for one emotional high after another, Sunday after Sunday, year after year. And when one congregation can’t provide it for us anymore, we go looking around for a new place to get our jesusy thrills.

If my suspicions are true, then it shouldn’t be any real surprise why the christianized rock concert has taken over, and why the purported encounter with the Holy often looks an awful lot like an emotional high. Maybe we’re bowing down at the wrong altar without realizing it.

I read this guest post on the terrific Jesus Creed blog a while back. Though I suspect the author and I might differ on some things, I found this to be a helpful discussion. Singing, like most other parts of gathered worship, is a spiritual discipline.

Problem is, discipline isn’t always a lot of fun. That’s a reason why relationships fail, why workout routines slide, why educations aren’t completed, why projects collect dust, why results fall short of potential. Those things require oceans of patience and effort in pursuit of something of real value. But in the end, participating in the Christian story is something much more beautiful, much more enduring, and ultimately much more exciting than an emotional high.

Call to Look at Worship Differently

If we were to begin looking at our worship, especially our music, as a discipline instead of bowing at the altar of individualistic and emotional experience, I think our gatherings would be drastically different.

• We would stop mistaking music-making for worship. Music can be an important worshipful act in a number of ways, but it is not the only mode of corporate worship. Though good songs give an added dimension to truth, all elements of a service are to be worshipful acts.
• We would stop mistaking evangelism for worship. We gather for worship because God is worthy, because God is working through human history, because we are called out as covenant people to play a part in the Christian story. If observers come to Christian faith through the drama of liturgy, that is great, but we don’t worship to attract unbelievers, or our gathering ceases to be Christian worship.
• We would re-frame any discussion of corporate worship from preference to meaning. Most churches ask subjective questions like, “What are people going to like?” or “What will connect with people? in essence asking “What will get the most positive emotional reaction from the majority of our audience?” Better questions push for more concrete answers: “What does our music mean textually? Theologically? Musically? How well does this song communicate the Christian story? What instrumentation best supports the congregation voice? Even when the answers aren’t cut and dry, we should always be pushing for better answers.
• We would be free of slavish pursuit of our own personal preferences, and avoid the obligatory nod to the false egalitarian ideal that all opinions have equal merit. All options are not equally valid or edifying. Meaning, not taste, should be the primary criteria for choosing music.
• We wouldn’t be reactive if the merits of our favorite songs were questioned.
• We would open our eyes to the fact we can’t worship “corporately by ourselves.” We don’t gather to find music that creates an individual experience. If that were the case, we might as well stay home and opt for comfort and convenience, without the community and covenant.
• We would see increased pursuit of musical and artistic excellence, and a reduction of congregational loafing. Not because our music has to be perfect, but because it’s part of the discipline of worship. Some of us are more talented than others, but each must do their best.
• We wouldn’t split our churches according to worship “style.”
• We wouldn’t mistake emotional stimulation for divine interaction. As the Palmer article mentioned, music can easily manipulate us into believing we’ve sensed God’s presence (Was it the Spirit or the kick-drum?). There’s nothing wrong with emotion, and good music will at times draw it out of us, but if it’s essential for us to believe we’ve worshiped, we may be bowing at the wrong altar.
• We would see a broader range of human emotion during worship. I can’t count how many times I’ve heard congregations labeled as “dead” only because their emotional displays weren’t boisterous or bombastic enough. That illustrates the problem quite clearly.
• We wouldn’t run from the discipline of liturgy, or mistake it as being a lifeless, rote exercise. I can’t count how many times I’ve heard congregations labeled as “dead” only because their emotional displays weren’t boisterous or bombastic enough. That illustrates the problem quite clearly.
• We would expect to be changed, renewed, re-centered, and reoriented by the retelling and reenacting of the Christian story, instead of looking to be emotionally charged. It’s the work of the people, not the pop culture entertainment of the people. If you’re bored, you might need to look in the mirror.
• Music would fulfill specific functions in specific places in the liturgy, instead of being a 30 or 45 minute submersion in a crowded musical wave pool. I think Luther’s assessment is right: music is the handmaiden of theology. It’s not the worship. It serves worship. It gives dimension to our sacred storytelling.
• We would stop being so sensitive and reactive when someone asks us to take a deeper look at how we worship. Just read the comment section on any of my posts to see what I mean.

A Changed Charge

It’s like a lackadaisical college student who eventually develops a love of learning. What was once a drudgery turns into a quest for deeper meaning, for something that will last, for the vision to see God in what we used to think was boring or mundane. Disciplining ourselves to forsake the idols of emotional experience in our music-making is not easy, but it is imperative.

Otherwise, we may look up and see the god we’ve been worshiping crumble into mere pieces of clay.

Six Days

The Six Days of Genesis

What if...

If you could live in this life forever with everything you could ever want or need and with no possibility of death or sickness or pain or injury, would you look to God at all?

Church Website Resource

https://www.finalweb.com/

Pro-Life Basics

Pro-Life Basics --by Douglas Wilson  

Introduction
Faithful Christians are necessarily pro-life, by definition. But having an instinctive knowledge that God’s gift of life should be respected is not necessarily the same thing as being equipped to explain from the Bible why this is so, or being able to answer some of the standard objections that may be raised.

1. What is the pro-life position?
This view is that from the moment a human sperm fertilizes a human egg, a unique human being comes into existence. Prior to that moment, we do not have someone who will live forever, and from that moment on, we do. Consequently, love for our neighbor requires that this unique person be treated with dignity, respect, hospitality and kindness, as much as it is possible with us. That is the position.\

2. What are the biblical reasons for believing this?
You will not find abortion listed by name as a sin in the Bible, meaning that the word is not used. But a number of things are said in Scripture that mean that abortion must be considered a sin — and a very grievous one. This is why Christians have been pro-life from the very beginning. For example, the early church document The Didache, prohibits the murder of a child, whether born or unborn.

We begin by noting that mankind bears the image of God, and the image of God is passed on from generation to generation.

“So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.” (Genesis 1:27, ESV)

When the first child was born, Eve speaks of him as exhibiting full continuity with his parents. “Now Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and bore Cain, saying, “I have gotten a man with the help of the Lord”” (Gen. 4:1, ESV). Descendants of Adam and Eve also bear the image of God (Gen. 9:6, 1 Cor. 11:7). We have no indication in the text of Scripture anywhere that this image of God ever disappears as we move from one generation to the next. It is not as though we ever have the image of God > inert substance > image of God again.

Here is a description from the psalmist of his formation in the womb.

“For you formed my inward parts; you knitted me together in my mother’s womb. I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made. Wonderful are your works; my soul knows it very well. My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately woven in the depths of the earth. Your eyes saw my unformed substance; in your book were written, every one of them, the days that were formed for me, when as yet there was none of them.” (Psalm 139:13–16, ESV).

There are two things to note here. Who is the craftsman, the artisan? Who is doing what is being done in the womb? He would be an insolent and arrogant man who is willing to interrupt such a marvelous work of God — and all for the sake of personal convenience, and on the basis of a false doctrine of man.

Second, it is very important to note the personal pronouns in use here. You formed my inward parts. Knitted me together. My mother’s womb. I am fearfully and wonderfully made. My unformed substance. Speaking of his time of formation in the womb, the psalmist uses personal pronouns the same way you would when speaking of a human being of any other age.

Another example of great respect for unborn life is found in the case law of Exodus.

““When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that her children come out, but there is no harm, the one who hit her shall surely be fined, as the woman’s husband shall impose on him, and he shall pay as the judges determine. But if there is harm, then you shall pay life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.” (Ex. 21:22–25, ESV).

The law concerns what to do when two men are fighting and they accidentally cause a pregnant woman to miscarry. When this happens, and there is no harm to the child, then the one who hit the woman will pay a fine. But if the child is damaged, then the penalty that is applied is lex talionis — eye for eye, etc. This is the same penalty that is applied when the victim is an adult (Lev. 24:20). For those who want to argue that this simply refers to the woman being hurt or wounded, this makes no sense — in that case why would it be necessary to mention that she was pregnant at all?

And last, consider the greeting that the New Testament records the first meeting of the John the Baptist and the Lord Jesus. They were both of them in the womb at the time. John, who later would say, “Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world,” in this first instance acted like he was in the presence of the Lamb of God.

“For behold, when the sound of your greeting came to my ears, the baby in my womb leaped for joy” (Luke 1:44, ESV).

In short, we have no scriptural basis for treating an unborn child as a lump of tissue, and we have compelling reasons not to do so.

3. What does right reason tell us about abortion?

You cannot “not know” in one limited area of your life what you know in every other area of your life. You would not crush the eggs of a bald eagle and try to defend yourself in court by saying that it wasn’t an eagle, but rather an egg.

This means that the first order of business is to determine what an unborn human being is. When we have done so, many of the other (so-called) complicated questions resolve themselves. We don’t reason from difficult situations (the standard ones being rape and incest) to what we would like the unborn child to more conveniently be.

4. So what about rape and incest?

In the case of rape, we have three people involved. The mother, the rapist, and the child. Two of them are innocent, and one is guilty. What kind of moral sense does it make to execute one of the innocent parties for the crime of the one guilty party? What would you say if someone proposed that we fix the problem by executing the mother? You would say, “Are you crazy? She’s a person . . .” Oh.

With regard to incest, the concern has to do with the increased probability of birth defects. But this operates as a hidden premise, and reveals that many politicians do not know what they are talking about. They would not say that we ought to execute unborn children with birth defects, but they are willing to say that we can perform abortions when the pregnancy is the result of incest. And why? Because there might be birth defects.

The issue is always this — does the unborn child bear the image of God? If so, respect it. If not, then don’t. But do not pretend there is a middle way — for if the unborn child does not bear the image of God, then neither do you. If the unborn child has no rights, then neither do you.

5. You Christian pro-lifers are just trying to impose your morality on the rest of us.

Yes, we are. That is quite right. But even this acknowledge is important to place in context. It is not as though we are doing that while nobody else is. No, all law, by definition, is an imposition of morality. The only question is which morality it is, and who will be the person it is imposed on.

I do want Christian morality to be imposed, against their will, contrary to their consent, on doctors who are willing to perform abortions, and on mothers who are willing to have abortions. I want this stopped by force of law. I want this morality to be imposed.

This makes me a bad person, right? Going around imposing my morality on those who don’t share it. But this is actually inescapable. Everyone does this. It is not whether, but which. Not whether we impose morality, but which morality will be imposed. And this relates to Lenin’s famous two questions — who? whom?

I would rather have a morality prohibiting murder imposed on murderers than to have the morality of murderers imposed on children. Our choice here is whether we impose a godly morality on abortionists or whether they impose an ungodly morality on little boys and girls. There is no human society anywhere where nobody imposes on anybody.

The best thing we can do for little children in this instance is face the facts, and follow the argument.