What to Wear In Church

Posted on by
2

In America we either dress up or dress down for church. By dress up I mean the men wear suits and the women wear dresses. By dress down I mean anything from what we’d wear hanging out with friends to what we’d wear at the gym. I’ve personally never seen the latter, but I’m sure it’s normative somewhere. Congregations are typically mixed where the older members dress up while the younger dress down. In any other case the majority either dress up or down.

I’m a member of a largely conservative Presbyterian (PCA) church. We meet in a white sanctuary modeled after a Puritan meeting house – two levels of seating are gathered around a grand pulpit, giant chandeliers hang from a fifty-foot ceiling and the music of some eighteenth century composer pours from the balcony as you take your seat on Sunday. I’m a rough-around-the-edges layman who dropped out of both high school and college to tour in a metal band – I’m not exactly blending in there (sort of, I dress a little different nowadays, but no suit). That said, I know first-hand that when a visitor doesn’t typically wear or even own the clothes the majority does it can make them feel a little uncomfortable; it makes them feel less like they’re going to church and more like they’re crashing a wedding.

I love my church and have no plans of leaving for another. I sincerely believe it’s the best place for my wife and I now and in the future. But it’s not the aesthetic that I love, it’s their dedication to faithfully preaching and teaching the Word of God. My church champions reformed theology, honors reformed tradition, they adhere to the Westminster Confession of Faith, are active in missions, exercise church discipline, provide free counsel not only to its members but also the entire county and a whole bunch of other great things. I could go on forever, but suffice to say it’s those things that matter most in my church not how I feel (Jer. 17:9).

America has grown very independent in the last century. Our children are indoctrinated with a self-righteous attitude that they can and should get or be anything they want, they indulge in television shows like My Super Sweet Sixteen and our companies encourage that greed by marketing slogans such as “have it your way”. This has bred a culture of little gods, each running around with heads so inflated I’m surprised they don’t just lift off the ground and float away; sometimes I wish they would.

But I think what’s worse is that attitude has seeped up through our Church floors and left a few stains one of which is the idea of church-shopping; going from church to church in hopes of finding the best possible one. Potential congregates are on the hunt for style and that means attire, music and culture. I don’t want Christians to choose the first church they see, but I want the point of reference for the best church to be the one that most aligns itself with the Word of God. Church shopping becomes a selfish nightmare when the point of reference is our own satisfaction. The Sabbath isn’t about us. God doesn’t care that we’re comfortable, but instead commands to be worshiped. That’s far more important than ensuring the way people dress is much more like Bon Iver and a lot less like Beethoven.

Real Marriage

Posted on by
1

Mark Driscoll, preaching pastor of mega-church, Mars Hill Church, and his wife, Grace, have written a new book called Real Marriage: The Truth About Sex, Friendship and Life Together. The book is split into three parts (marriage, sex and the last day) and reads like an instruction manual. In the wake of its release lies a firestorm of controversy.

I enjoyed the first half of the book which is on the issue of marriage. It included the Driscoll’s story, practical tips on how to best serve one another, an in-depth look at Martin Luther‘s marriage and championed complementarianism. It wasn’t scholarly by far. In fact, there was no biblical case for marriage made; however, it was helpful and fun to read.

The majority of the second half of the book is on the issue of sex. It aims to help the hundreds of couples Mark and Grace have counseled who’ve asked virtually every question imaginable. The big problem here is they basically misinterpret 1 Corinthians 6:12 to teach married couples that they’re allowed to perform any conceivable sexual act so long as it passes these three questions: is it helpful, lawful or enslaving? I feel the taxonomy falls short, but I’ll leave that to other, more educated reviewers. The Driscoll’s then go on to give, in some cases very detailed, tips on how to perform some of the more taboo sexual acts. The only thing I liked about this part of the book was their boldness to go where no elder has gone before, at least in writing.

I won’t go wild taking shots at what I didn’t like, but one thing did stand out; I wondered why Mark and Grace never stopped to consider if a certain sexual act was unnatural in the same way homosexuality is. Just as nature gives us an anatomical clue as evidence for why homosexuality is unnatural you’d think the Driscoll’s could put two and two together as to why God probably never intended for certain sexual acts to be performed by a husband and wife. It seems not.

Overall I didn’t like the book, but I didn’t hate it either. In the end I felt there were far more exhaustive, biblical works available on all the issues the Driscoll’s sought to cover. Readers would’ve been better served if Mark and Grace spent more time on each section and released them as three separate books; of course with a better hermeneutic and not without excluding the contextualization, crassness and sexual pro tips.

The book has been under criticism both inside and outside the Church. A number of pastors in the reformed faith (a faith the Driscoll’s claim to share) have pointed out the fatal misinterpretation and contextualization of Scripture in the book. Right now Mark is currently preaching a sermon series based on Real Marriage at Mars Hill Church – I wonder if he’ll yield to the Church and answer his critics before he reaches those parts of the book the criticism pertains to.

Real Marriage Reviews

Better Books on Sex and Marriage

The Image of Adoption

Posted on by
Reply

My wife, Desiree, and I have struggled with infertility for about seven years. It’s something very much on my mind throughout the year and I hope to write more on it this year than ever before. We’ve become increasingly interested in adoption which led us to a book called Adopted for Life: The Priority of Adoption for Christian Families & Churches by Russell D. Moore. We decided if there’s a possibility we’ll someday adopt we had better start preparing our hearts and minds for it now. Without a doubt the number one thing I’ve taken away from Moore’s book is just how selfless, humbling and powerful it is when the doctrine of adoption is fully realized and honored in the adoption of a child.

Like marriage we have a model for adoption in Scripture. This doctrine states when a believer is justified by their faith in Christ by grace they’re adopted by God and become one of his children. But to capture the full depth of the doctrine I’d point to the Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter 12: Of Adoption:

All those that are justified, God vouchsafes, in and for His only Son Jesus Christ, to make partakers of the grace of adoption, by which they are taken into the number, and enjoy the liberties and privileges of the children of God, have His name put upon them, receive the spirit of adoption, have access to the throne of grace with boldness, are enabled to cry, Abba, Father, are pitied, protected, provided for, and chastened by Him as by a Father: yet never cast off, but sealed to the day of redemption; and inherit the promises, as heirs of everlasting salvation.

In all my research I’ve yet to read a more thorough or beautiful description than this.

When parents adopt a child it’s the image of a spiritual reality. Fully honoring the doctrine of adoption is to not care whether or not the adopted child is cute, if they look anything like you, where they came from or if they have special needs. Adoption makes a child equal to any biological children we have or may have, it commands that they’re part of our family without exception and promises to them our unconditional love – what a powerful expression of God’s love for his people. In fact, so powerful that Moore asks those potential parents who would disregard the weight of that call to not adopt and I couldn’t agree more.

Questioning Spontaneous Worship

Posted on by
4

There’s yet another fad taking place in modern worship services called spontaneous worship. Apparently it’s what happens when the congregation is singing songs of praise and the worship leader (I mean the person who has control of the service for that time, not the real worship leader, Jesus Christ [1 Tim 2:5]) feels that there’s an extraordinary amount of the spirit present and decides to allow the music to drag on a bit longer and give more time for themselves and the congregation to soak in it. In other words the band strays from whatever sheet music they’re using and simply jams, the vocalist sings lyrics from their heart and the congregation worships God in various ways for an indefinite amount of time.

I want to be clear that the language I’m using is not my own. Words like worship leader (as I’ve pointed out), spirit (in a way that suggests it can be measured) and soak are not part of my vocabulary, but I use them solely because its the language surrounding the subject.

Spontaneous worship isn’t anything new. Forgoing all the liturgy in a corporate worship service in favor of just the singing of songs because of the aforementioned reasons has probably been happening since the birth of Pentecostalism in the early 20th century. But the name spontaneous worship and this new strand of it seems to have come out of Bethel Church in Redding, CA, and spearheaded by Skyler and Kim Walker of Walker Music; a husband and wife team that regularly lead at Bethel. And like all fads, and because of Bethel’s popularity among modern churches, its quickly spreading throughout north America and other parts of the world.

In my research on the subject I’ve come across a video on YouTube called Spontaneous Worship 12-14-08 Bethel Church. I assume from the overwhelmingly positive feedback in the video’s comments section that its recognized as a valid representation of spontaneous worship. Also in the comments were debates taking place over the fact that during the video Kim speaks in tongues (the part where she sounds like she’s speaking another language). And other Christians were raising concerns as to whether or not it was actually spontaneous worship. Then a commenter by the name of MURDERwithDRUMsticks had this to say:

It saddens me that, one way or another, some form of theological debate arises out of anything and everything these days. I don’t understand the compulsion to having to prove your point, or to be “right”. The fact is, you aren’t going to change anyone’s mindset on a video discussion. How about just putting all that aside for a bit and just take it for what it is; people worshipping [sic] God and enjoying His presence.

I see or hear this argument all the time in the modern church when theological issues are raised. There’s this idea out there that Christians are free to carry out corporate worship however they see fit, that theology has no place in the matter and whatever they do in the name of God is ultimately good. It’s the same line of thinking that gave us the saying “no creed but Christ, no doctrine but the Bible”. Here its written as “why can’t we just take it for what it is”. What they mean is “why can’t we take it for what these people mean it to be” because its clear not everyone understands what it is. I empathize with wanting peace among Christians, but Scripture commands us not to agree (1 Peter 3:15). What they’re really asking for (whether they’ll admit it or not) is Christians to lay the Word of God aside, to ignore theology, simply because these worshipers are doing something they believe is good. In light of this person’s plea I can’t help but think of Dr. D. James Kennedy‘s warning for that type of thinking:

Some people say, “Why do we have to have doctrines at all?” They announce, “No doctrine but the Bible, and no creed but Christ.” This is a pleasant motto and sounds spiritual. But when you examine it closely, it is superficial. We can say we have nothing but the Bible and still be a great many things. Do not be deceived by simplistic solutions to difficult problems.

Theology is the knowledge of God. When Christians commit acts in the name of God and want not to be bothered with theology it should cause those who follow to yield.

Spontaneous worship raises a lot of reasonable questions. First of all, since we can’t find a model for this behavior in Scripture are we saying we’re free to choose what’s appropriate for worship? I believe God is the object of worship and God’s Word ought to be consulted on exactly how we’re supposed to worship him. The Church has never seen anything like this before in history. Have the Christians at Bethel found a new form of worship that has escaped every other Christian for 2000 years? And how are Christians who subscribe to spontaneous worship measuring the spirit of God? Can the spirit of God be measured? Are certain Christians more gifted to sense that amount? If this type of worship is reliant on a certain amount of the spirit doesn’t that imply small amounts of God’s spirit are in some way insufficient? I would argue that if amounts did exist (and I don’t believe they do) that any amount of spirit from an omniscient, all-powerful creator, God of the universe would be unmistakably sufficient. Finally, what happens if people don’t spontaneously worship? Is God worshiped any less? If so, why leave this particular liturgy to the spontaneous?

As a reformed Christian I don’t believe spontaneous worship is necessary at all. But I respect and want myself what I think is at the heart of it; a deep desire to worship our creator. But what keeps me from joining in on this extraneous offering is that I also believe Scripture is clear that the name of God and good intention are not enough to justify the act (consider Nadab and Abihu, two priests killed by God for offering in worship what God did not require [Numbers 3:4]). When we approach God in corporate worship we have a biblical mandate to ensure we’re conducting ourselves in a manner that honors solely those things that God has asked of us in Scripture; everything else is of no value.

Do atheist scholars understand Christianity?

Posted on by
Reply

I’ve been re-watching videos of Dr. William Lane Craig, arguably the world’s foremost Christian apologist, on YouTube debating many of the world’s leading atheists (with the exception of Richard Dawkins). I’ve also been re-listening to his appearances on the Unbelievable podcast. Since coming to the reformed faith I’ve become fascinated with Christian apologetics. I think because its wealth of doctrine leaves little room for the Christian to shy away from the call to know what they believe and why.

Dr. Craig clearly dominates his opponents. He frames debates in a way that slices straight to the heart of the topic. Being that he’s a professor of philosophy he uses thought and logic over personal opinion to cripple any opposing argument. And that’s precisely where I think his atheist opponents go wrong. By the end of the debate they’re desperately trying to divert Dr. Craig’s attention from his opening arguments by taking uneducated shots across the bow of Christianity.

A great example of this is Dr. Craig’s debate with Sam Harris at Notre Dame. Harris jokes at one point that prior to the debate his colleagues encouraged him to make them proud. I sincerely hope they were horrified when he used his time to talk about his latest book, completely ignored Dr. Craig’s opening arguments and showed himself to be ignorant concerning orthodox Christianity. Frankly, I felt It was a waste of two hours. But still all the students and faculty applauded. It felt disingenuous to me. There was a time for students to ask questions at the end. I kept hoping one of them were brave enough to point out the ridiculousness of it all. I had no such luck. Instead I’m stuck waiting for the day an educated atheist, one who actually understands Christianity, meets Dr. Craig on a stage for debate.