Christian Politics and Policy

Disclaimer: Yeah, I know this will rub a lot of people the wrong way – that’s politics. Let’s discuss civilly and reasonably.

I’m going to take a rather bold (stupid?) shot at constructing a political platform based on Scripture – because I’m unsatisfied with the whole platforms we currently have. In other words, I can only cherry-pick positions from the major American parties, and I’m not even sure they have everything I need.

Let’s immediately admit the ideas we won’t entertain, before we start getting nasty over them. If we run into a mutual refusal to agree, we must suspend either disbelief or discussion. By that I mean that we can still discuss while qualifying with “assuming that you’re right,” and maybe we can even show the out-of-bounds issue to be irrelevant. We also must use discretion regarding what belongs in this discussion and what merits a new one, or belongs in another existing one.

Personally, I refuse to back down from Sola Scriptura, the doctrine that the Christian Bible is true in an obvious way from Genesis to Revelation. While I have my doubts and intend to resolve them, this is not the appropriate forum for that. I’m also closed to certain beliefs which fall within that; I’ll present them as we go along. (My hope that I’ll actually have anyone to discuss with is about as ambitious as this post’s purpose, considering how infrequently I post.)

Now, let’s start at the beginning. Mankind is both inherently beautiful and inherently flawed, being created in God’s image and having infected ourselves with sin. Our objective is to magnify God’s likeness and make our flaws as inconsequential as possible. The entirety of Scripture shows that we will never be fully successful, and what success we see will be attained by God’s grace alone. So, to rephrase the objective, we must accept and apply God’s grace at every opportunity.

Obviously, the fundamental and most significant expression of grace is salvation. Thus evangelism becomes the core of this platform. More correctly, this platform becomes a consequence of the Gospel. The more people repent and believe in Christ, the more society will experience grace.

I know that last version of the objective is very politically incorrect. “What, he wants to Christianize the world?!” Yes, and no. The popular concept of Christianization (the Crusades, Inquisition, etc.) is extremely distorted. Proper evangelism is dramatically different from this, being founded on analogy of universal experience with basic Christian theology. See Christianization for a more in-depth contrast.

Now, back to the objective: This means that current Christians are to exercise the fruits of the Spirit, all of which are manifestations of grace, in all capacities and toward all people. This naturally has modern political implications, and just what those are is the subject of this post. (I didn’t include the spiritual gifts because they apply very little to government policy.)

Following the Wikipedia link above, does anyone know an issue to which we can apply the fruits? I’ll be updating this page with more examples as the thoughts and time come to me. By the way, do you think each issue should have its own post and link from this one, or should I keep them here?

Political Discipline

I get disgusted by how loyal politicians, including pundits, are to their party fellows in light of error. Sometimes this error is just a result of poor research (e.g., Ann Coulter). At other times, it incriminates the author of being deliberately deceptive and requires a public apology (e.g., Sean Hannity). In all cases, politicians forfeit credibility when they refuse to call their party fellows out. Ironically, one website which has a policy of never doing so is the media watchdog MediaMatters.org. Wait a sec… Even watchdogs need watchdogs?

Scripture gives procedures for discipline within the Church, designed to keep it pure. I propose that the political arena should have a similar code. This would reaffirm the duty of participating politicians to call each other out, privately or publicly as the case requires, across party lines. But more importantly, politicians must call out errors which come from within party lines. Admittedly, bias may hide some of these errors, but that’s beside the point; we must alert each other to what we do see, including those who claim to abide by such a code but appear to be either lazy or selective about enforcement.

It’s been some time since I joined the Governance Wiki for this so here’s the URL for the category we’re working in, followed by the introduction URL:

• http://government.wikia.com/wiki/Category:People
• http://government.wikia.com/wiki/Help:Using_Giki

Political Correctness

All over the world and throughout history, those in power have tended to do horrible things to everyone else. In the modern western world, those in power are often in, or are at least supported by, the majority. So members of the majority (i.e., whites) have taken upon themselves the noble cause of regulating their fellows. Opportunists, however, have ironically manipulated this trend to gain power for themselves. And now we see a curious phenomenon: A large portion of the majority combines with minorities to make a new majority, which goes under the liberal banner. And this new majority then uses politics to oppress the rest of the original majority; this brand of politics is known as political correctness.

This goes hand-in-hand with the previous point in that, if a sizable majority of whites would denounce each other for prejudice, anti-majority prejudice might be rendered baseless. But we do all of society a disservice when we over-zealously search for and counter prejudice, because this actually nurtures the same prejudice. I have no doubt that the white supremacist movement has benefited from affirmative action and taboos against such legitimate actions as calling certain blacks racist or using accurate racial terms to describe minorities.

In case you would like a concrete example of this phenomenon, see this video, whose earlier comments reinforce my previous point about nurturing prejudice.

War

To begin with, I don’t believe the Old Testament is a valid source of war policy. God is forming Israel into His ideal bride, and war is one of His primary tools. However, the war front is now only in the spiritual realm, not the physical one. Not to mention that I don’t like that aspect of Scripture in the least, although it does make a good analogy for modern experiences.

So where does that leave us? I think groups of people are subject to the same moral standards as individuals, so just war theory must draw on morals pertaining to violence. Violence is not forbidden by Jesus (Luke 22:36; John 2:15), but it is certainly discouraged in general. Indeed, loving our enemies could improve foreign relations drastically; I wonder how Iranians would react if we were to help them construct solar energy farms to replace the need for nuclear energy. Would anti-Western propaganda still work? What if we tried helping citizens to non-violently topple dictators rather than killing some while doing it on our own? Or maybe we could even lessen our general involvement in the politics of other countries; that alone might save what little reputation we haven’t soiled.

Immigration

Many Americans fear foreigners because they need jobs. Poor foreigners are even worse because they would gladly work for less. But maybe we should let them in and give them free English courses, or even a little money in case they don’t find a job immediately (Luke 10:25-37). And of course we shouldn’t abuse or despise them (Deuteronomy 23:7, 24:14).

Christianization

In modern times, there have been numerous accusations that Christians want to Christianize the world.  However, the popular concept of Christianization is extremely distorted.  Proper evangelism is dramatically different from this, being both founded on analogy of universal experience with basic Christian theology (i.e., parables) and backed up by the evangelist’s personal sanctification.

The primary problem with this concept is probably the tendency of cross-cultural evangelists to promote their own cultural taste alongside the Gospel.  Culture and authentic Christianity, while always mixed in practice and often confused, are not the same thing.  If any part of a Christian’s culture obstructs evangelism, it is to be adapted – at least for a specific situation.  This is of course a very difficult skill, and adaptation may mean that a different person represents Christ to a certain group.

The record of wars in the Old Testament has often been used to justify atrocities, including the Crusades, the Inquisition and, with less involvement (maybe even none) from church officials, the Holocaust.  Modern Christians, myself included, have a deep loathing for any mention of these events.  It is therefore comforting, in a very biased way, that God’s war is now for souls and against sin rather than for Israel’s purity and against sinful ethnicities.

I want to make one final point which will reinforce both of the others.  Like the medical profession, Christianity has seen its share of malpractice.  But unlike physicians, Christians are often supposed guilty by association for what their fellows have done.  Yet several verses in Scripture confer a sense of duty which is similar to but greater than that of the Hippocratic Oath.  So I must ask anyone who wishes to blame modern Christians for historical atrocities, what is your rationale for doing so?

So in short, I refuse to apply the term “Christianization” to legitimate evangelism because it has been so tainted by historical usage.  For an explanation of what legitimate evangelism is, see Evangelism.

Evangelism

Sorry, this article is not yet written.

Churches in the World (First Edition)

This is an early version of a Sunday School lesson I gave on January 4 as part of a rotation of teachers for a Baptist youth class.  I’d appreciate any comments and/or suggestions on the content and the lesson’s format/style.

This is a first for me, so please bear with any stutters of mine.  I doubt I’ll get through this whole lesson, but if I don’t then maybe I’ll have a chance to finish it.  And these two chapters are a great source of study material, so don’t think I’m coming close to exhausting them.

In the Revelation to John, chapters 2 and 3, seven types of churches are identified and their members encouraged by Jesus. Who here has already heard someone characterize evangelicals (that’s us) according to this passage? (Mark their names.) You won’t be allowed to answer questions you already have the answers to, but you can help the others.

Out of these seven churches, one has nothing to be commended and is in a spiritual coma; another is thriving and receives nothing negative.  (Mark the continuum below on the board.) Each of the remaining five has its problems but also some merit. I’ve marked them on the continuum according to my estimation; does anyone disagree with me? (Open the room for discussion.) Which one are we in? (Open the room for discussion.)

Sardis      Laodicea     Ephesus     Thyatira      Pergamos      Smyrna     Philadelphia
  |------------|------------|------------|------------|------------|------------|
 Dead       Lukewarm     Loveless     Corrupt    Compromising  Persecuted    Faithful

(In case they don’t have an answer…) Richard Buckminster Fuller (1895-1983) was an American architect, engineer, and entrepreneur who made it his goal to anticipate the needs and wants of society and invent accordingly.  He’s best known as the inventor of the geodesic dome, an arrangement of triangles which achieves maximum structural integrity with minimum use of raw materials.  This expert on our consumerist society said:

Let architects sing of aesthetics that bring Rich clients in hordes to their knees:

Just give me a home, in a great circle dome
Where stresses and strains are at ease.

Revelation 3:15-17 – the problem

Revelation 3:18-19 – the solution

What other modern churches fit any of these labels?  (Open the room for discussion.)  I have some of my own estimations, but I generally rate the churches I know less about as higher than the ones I know more about. (Replace the names above for those below.) That could be because we’re all doing pitifully, or because I actually know very little about the more outstanding churches, or maybe a little of both.  But I base each of them on the characterization seen in these chapters.

Mainline       [  Evangelical ]       Catholic     Anglican [Arabic & Indian] Orthodox
   |------------|------------|------------|------------|------------|------------|
  Dead       Lukewarm     Loveless     Corrupt   Compromising   Persecuted    Faithful

I know zilch about the Eastern Orthodox Church, so they’re at the top. I’ve read about the persecution (but nothing else) in Islamic nations and especially India, so they’re next. I’ve read about the Anglican Communion’s compromise on homosexuality and how the African, South American, and some North American churches are having big disagreements with the rest. I strongly believe the management of the Roman Catholic Church to be corrupt, so they get my fourth place. And then here we are in fifth, evangelicals generally being loveless and some even lukewarm. Finally, we have the mainline Protestant churches, such as Joel Osteen – the only group that I think is doing worse than us.

Now, how can we improve our position?  Those who are lukewarm must acquire a zeal, a love for God and His word, and then they’ll be loveless.  The loveless (probably including me) must further acquire a love for men.  When we get that far, we will naturally discuss what we can do about it because love prompts action.  If we don’t compromise after that, maybe we’ll be in the faithful church.  (Open the room for discussion.)

A Psychological Metaphor of the Trinity

I was wandering through Wikipedia yesterday when I ran across A Canticle for Leibowitz and then its “midquel” Saint Leibowitz and the Wild Horse Woman. In the latter, the RCC has reformulated YHWH as Open Sky, and the Trinity as three avatars including the story’s second namesake.  I don’t know whether the term was applied by Miller or a Wikipedian, but that doesn’t matter a whole lot to me.  I’ve been meditating on the doctrine of the Trinity for a few days now, and this word helped me to express my thoughts to myself and further develop them.

For those who aren’t familiar with the term “avatar,” it means an incarnation or, as more generally used above, a representation of one’s nature.  Modern examples of avatars include main characters in a story which represent aspects of the story’s author, and a sock-puppet show which can contain up to two (or three, including the head) avatars of each puppeteer.  But any popular instance of either example would be imperfect; if all the main characters are essentially the same, there’s no room for a story – right?

I had better tie the title into my point before anyone gets bored.  Why would YHWH manifest as avatars?  He is the relational God, which implies that He has emotional and psychological “needs,” or motivations.  So because of His need to relate to someone else, He has forever been acting as three distinct persons with the same nature but different offices, or responsibilities.  But the perspective used by these persons when they consider their relationship is unique; Jesus consistently refers to His Father as distinct from Himself (see particularly John 8:18).  So each person has not only a different office but a different identity.

Now, that last point may not seem so unique at first; a character in a story or a puppet in a show calls itself “I.”  The uniqueness is in the sincerity of the designation; authors and puppeteers know theirs to be false, but YHWH believes His.  God is not simply putting on a show for us, because such a show would indicate that we were to follow His lead.  But the only reason for Him to direct us in such a way would be that we might become more like Him.  And that requires that the show is a shadow of something deeper, something essential to the divine nature.

This is not schizophrenia because YHWH not only “hears voices” but also produces the same.  So the Father is knowingly pretending to be two avatars – additional, separate, interacting persons, but each of these persons is realer than any of us and as real as the Father Himself, who perfectly projects His own nature onto the other two.  And I lifted this concept of comparative realness out of C. S. Lewis’ Great Divorce, which compares righteousness to a person’s mass and, by extension, either volume or density.  In Heaven, which is much larger in every way than the Grey Town (Hell), visitors from the Grey Town have such low density as to essentially be ghosts (less real than the Bright People), unable to accomplish anything.

This is also distinct from dissociative identity disorder because:

• such a person is not consciously aware of their own masquerade;
• each avatar, or personality, expresses an incomplete piece of a person’s psyche; and
• no two personalities are ever active at the same time.

Scripture necessarily contradicts all of these points regarding YHWH.

Finally, I want to explain how I arrived back at the conventional term of “person” for each aspect of the Trinity.  I actually wanted to avoid its use because it gives the impression of three independent gods who happen to agree, and that was where “avatar” came in.  But then I realized that each avatar must be identical in nature, and the Puppeteer must also be identical to them.  For otherwise He would be misrepresenting His own perfect nature, but now I had four identically perfect beings.  So I assigned the Father as Puppeteer and reduced the avatars to two.  Then I had to promote the avatars to persons because they are necessarily just as real as the Father.

So I think the sock-puppeteer analogy is the more accurate of the two regarding the relationship in the Trinity.  But as YHWH relates to humanity, He is the protagonist in an epic romance – the Bible.  And within that romance, He is the Puppeteer.

Relationship Versus Faith

This was originally Comment #62 on Condemnation by Virtue of Beliefs.  That post and its comments discuss the essence of salvation:  Is it primarily physical or intellectual?

Certainly, the relationship aspect of both the Fall and the Atonement, and the resulting works are important to theology. Any theology which lacks them is necessarily deficient, and any Christian who doesn’t live accordingly needs to be discipled. The perception of importance for this aspect increases with maturity, so only one who is fully spiritually mature (only Jesus) can claim any objectivity in the matter.

However, the faith aspect is also important, and it is often considered more important. This aspect is accurately perceived (insofar as we comprehend eternity), and is usually the primary reason that people seek a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ.

If I were to fully know God (a staggering thought in itself), which would I consider more important? Since no one but Jesus has ever reached such a height, we can never know for sure. But we can guess at Jesus’ priorities by reading His teachings. How often does He mention knowing versus obeying God? I’ve never performed such a Bible study, but even it would be limited in certainty by John 21:25.

On the other hand, some have proposed that they are actually the same thing – that is, that someone who doesn’t know God would necessarily be tormented in an eternity where He turns out, with all His holiness, to be real. C. S. Lewis, for example, offered such an explanation (or two, if you count the agony of being a ghost in the presence of light) in The Great Divorce.

But I think the entire discussion misses the point.  “For we know in part and we prophesy in part.  But when that which is perfect has come, then that which is in part will be done away.”  (1 Corinthians 13:9-10, NKJV) Just as our works are a shadow of our faith, so too is our intellectual understanding.  I don’t know that either can be reliably tested, yet we must attempt such inside the Church as both are essential to the Christian walk.

Churches in the World

This is a Sunday School lesson I gave on January 4, 2009, as part of a rotation of teachers for a Baptist youth class.  I’d appreciate any comments and/or suggestions on the content and the lesson’s format/style.

This is a first for me, so please bear with any stutters of mine.  I doubt I’ll get through this whole lesson, but if I don’t then maybe I’ll have a chance to finish it.  And these two chapters are a great source of study material, so don’t think I’m coming close to exhausting them.

In the Revelation to John, chapters 2 and 3, seven types of churches are identified and their members encouraged by Jesus. Who here has already heard someone characterize evangelicals (that’s us) according to this passage? (Mark their names.) You won’t be allowed to answer questions, but you can help the others.

Out of these seven churches, one has nothing to be commended and is in a spiritual coma; two others are thriving and receive nothing negative, but one of them is about to suffer for its faithfulness.  (Mark the continuum below on the board.) Each of the remaining four has its problems but also some merit. I’ve marked them on the continuum according to my estimation; does anyone disagree with me? (Open the room for discussion.)

Sardis      Laodicea     Ephesus     Thyatira      Pergamos      Smyrna     Philadelphia
  |------------|------------|------------|------------|------------|------------|
 Dead       Lukewarm     Loveless     Corrupt    Compromising  Persecuted    Faithful

Which state is [removed for publication] Baptist Church in?  Which one best fits your personal character?  (Open the room for discussion.)  To ask it another way, which epistle is your favorite?  My favorites are those to the Corinthians (the decision between first and second is a tough one).  The church at Corinth was approximately in the same state as at Pergamos: compromising.  I’ve concluded that I like all the rebukes to the Corinthians partly because I’m self-righteous.  I should learn to better enjoy the other epistles, particularly those to the Ephesians and Romans.  (Open the room for discussion.)

I think the state of a congregation reflects the percentage of its members who are saved.  If we’re lukewarm or loveless, does that mean we’re not all saved?  Are you saved?

As with all sin, the problem is pride.  The Ephesians are proud of their obedience, which is commended by Christ; but they are cheating on Him with His gift.  The Laodiceans are proud of their self-sufficiency: their Internet, physique, socialization, eloquence, and ideas.

Let the lowly brother glory in his exaltation, but the rich in his humiliation, because as a flower of the field he will pass away. For no sooner has the sun risen with a burning heat than it withers the grass; its flower falls, and its beautiful appearance perishes. So the rich man also will fade away in his pursuits.

James 1:9-11

Nothing will ever take this love away
The grass will wither and the flower fade
These things don’t change

–Chorus to “These Things Don’t Change,” by Sherri Youngward

These are expressions of faithfulness and rebukes against lukewarmness.  The strong man, the beautiful girl, the wise mentor, the original artist, the smart intellectual, and the skilled crafstman all need to apply them.  We need to learn, deep in our heart of hearts, that we have no merit (especially righteousness), and that merit we do have comes only from him – for we were originally made in His image and those who repent are continually made in His image as much as they submit to improvement.  In other words, we need to accept the Gospel, or at least admit that we don’t really like it, to avoid being spat out.  The rich young ruler, when confronted with the challenge to give up the temporal, improved by becoming cold rather than lukewarm.  He went that much closer to admitting the problem, which is always the first step to solving it.

The loveless are in a different position than the lukewarm only because they idolize the Scriptures rather than worldly attractions, and the Scriptures point them in the correct direction.  So they are a somewhat more correct incarnation of the Pharisees – the folks who received Christ’s harshest words.

Now, how can we improve our position?  (Open the room for discussion.)  Those who are lukewarm must acquire a zeal for God’s word for their own sake, and then they’ll be loveless.  The loveless must further acquire a love for God, and develop a relationship with Him.  When we get that far, we will naturally discuss what we can do about it, because love prompts action.  If we don’t compromise after that, maybe we’ll be in the faithful church.

What is a Christian?

A random internet person recently asked this question, adding that his own definition was “a kind and just person.”  I can understand where he’s coming from, given that, for example, “America is a Christian nation.”  “Christian” is a very old word and, for nearly two millenniums, it has also been a very popular word in some section of the world or another.

Over time, the popular understanding of a word, especially a popular word, can change drastically because people gradually ascribe to it new meanings slightly different (in the speaker’s mind) from the one(s) previously known.  Thus “happy” (fortunate) became “happy” (glad) and “gay” (glad) became “gay” (homosexual).  This happens everywhere in every language to the degree that the language is used liberally.  It’s a reason we have trouble reading ancient text supposedly authored in our current language; indeed, it’s one of the reasons we have so many languages.

So, back to the question:  What is a Christian?  In my opinion, there’s no good reason to abandon the original meaning of the word.  The word is first recorded in Acts 11:25-26, where it means “follower of the Christ.”  “Christ” is a Greek translation of the Jewish “Messiah,” which implies the Jewish concept of God.

To consider someone a Christian, I require that they (earnestly desire to) agree with Jesus on every point.  And the New Testament canon is the most reliable account of Jesus and His contemporary followers. Although there may still be a bit of subjectivity, it’s mostly objective; I cannot see a secular humanist, Moslem, or any other person whom I would consider “lost,” except of course members of ‘Christianish’ cults, claiming the label given those bounds.  And in the case of such cultists, I believe they’re on very shaky ground to say the least.

Peter Confesses Jesus as the Christ and Rebukes Him

I just returned from church camp, where the below Matthew and Mark passages were used as a foundation for the theme, “Who do you say Jesus is?” and a friend of mine, who couldn’t go to camp, mentioned the story as a foundation for ministry. To help him and anyone else who finds this page to study these corresponding passages, I’ve lined them up, according to what each includes and omits, for study.

Matthew 16:13-28	Mark 8:27-38	Luke 9:18-27
Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?” And they said, “Some say John the Baptist, others say Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”	And Jesus went on with his disciples to the villages of Caesarea Philippi. And on the way he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that I am?” And they told him, “John the Baptist; and others say, Elijah; and others, one of the prophets.” And he asked them, “But who do you say that I am?” Peter answered him, “You are the Christ.”	Now it happened that as he was praying alone, the disciples were with him. And he asked them, “Who do the crowds say that I am?” And they answered, “John the Baptist. But others say, Elijah, and others, that one of the prophets of old has risen.” Then he said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” And Peter answered, “The Christ of God.”
And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
Then he strictly charged the disciples to tell no one that he was the Christ. From that time Jesus began to show his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and on the third day be raised.	And he strictly charged them to tell no one about him. And he began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders and the chief priests and the scribes and be killed, and after three days rise again. And he said this plainly.	And he strictly charged and commanded them to tell this to no one, saying, “The Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and on the third day be raised.”
And Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him, saying, “Far be it from you, Lord! This shall never happen to you.” But he turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a hindrance to me. For you are not setting your mind on the things of God, but on the things of man.”	And Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him. But turning and seeing his disciples, he rebuked Peter and said, “Get behind me, Satan! For you are not setting your mind on the things of God, but on the things of man.”
Then Jesus told his disciples, “If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. For whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will find it. For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world and forfeits his soul? Or what shall a man give in return for his soul? For the Son of Man is going to come with his angels in the glory of his Father, and then he will repay each person according to what he has done. Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.”	And calling the crowd to him with his disciples, he said to them, “If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. For whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake and the gospel’s will save it. For what does it profit a man to gain the whole world and forfeit his soul? For what can a man give in return for his soul? For whoever is ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, of him will the Son of Man also be ashamed when he comes in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.”	And he said to all, “If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me. For whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will save it. For what does it profit a man if he gains the whole world and loses or forfeits himself? For whoever is ashamed of me and of my words, of him will the Son of Man be ashamed when he comes in his glory and the glory of the Father and of the holy angels. But I tell you truly, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the kingdom of God.”

How to Gather

Whether we are to gather isn’t a question (Hebrews 10:25), but how are we to gather? As it is, we (my usual congregation) have:

• an early service for the more traditionally minded, where the small audience sings out of the hymnbook and the pastor delivers his sermon,
• a class discussion period of thirty minutes, where conversation is lead by the teacher, and everyone tries to stay on the specific topic,
• a second service, where contemporary worship music is displayed on a screen, the kids are released for children’s church, and the pastor gives his sermon,
• a night service, an hour of class discussion identical in format to the earlier thirty minutes,
• and a Wednesday night service, with fun activities and a sermon from the youth minister (I’m not sure what it is for everyone else).

It seems to me that the pastor would get slightly bored during the second delivery of the same sermon in the same morning, but I won’t take issue with that right now. However, I do want to examine the Scriptures on the subjects of:

• sermons,
• corporate song and orchestration,
• and discussion.

I expect it to be readily obvious that sermons themselves are Biblical, as “the sermon on the mount” is one of the most-spoken phrases in the Church, but their Scriptural context contrasts with our custom. I won’t reference every sermon in Scripture, but I assert that not one of them was scheduled; all were -to the audience- apparently spontaneous, and prompted by the fact that something really needed to be said (or a false prophet needed to ‘earn’ his bread). But now the pastors are expected to fill an allotted time slot every week. Christ replaced the priests, so why do we think we should invent unscriptural clerical duties?

I also assert that corporate song, where an entire congregation is expected to worship with predetermined songs almost like clockwork, is completely absent from Scripture. Orchestration, on the other hand, with a team of musicians and singers praising, was used in battle (2 Chronicles 20) and the Temple (1 Chronicles 16:4-6; 23:5; 25:1; 2 Chronicles 29:25), but (judging by the topical indexes at BibleGateway.com) was only mentioned once (Palm Sunday) in the New Testament as a form of worship (except Revelation 5:8,9;14:2,3;15:2,3). As we can see, musical worship didn’t cease in Israel at Christ’s birth, but the Church was never advised to use it. Shouldn’t it take a back seat to the thing(s) we were advised, maybe even commanded, to use?

Discussion is the main thing, if not the only thing, I had in mind while typing the previous sentence. Unfortunately, there remains a stark contrast between Scriptural specifications and current practice: teachers direct conversation according to their lesson plans. Paul (Corinthians 14:26-33) says to discuss in an open forum. Jesus spoke in such a format, and indeed the entire history of Israel shows this to be the general case, the only exceptions which I know of being when an authority captures the attention of all by means of the open forum. Paul (Acts 20) discussed with a group of people of unknown (likely immense) size, and they were so engrossed that it continued till midnight (verse 7), not noon as is the modern convention.

The Sabbath, whichever day one holds it on, sets the spiritual and emotional pace for the entire week. Just like a physical pace, this one slows as the weary -and, in many cases, sleepy- pilgrim advances, so shouldn’t we start out as briskly as possible?