Why discuss theology? Why blog about it?

I have recently joined five other young evangelical guys in a community blog. Our blog name comes from Matthew 28:20 when Jesus exhorts the disciples to go and make disciples in all nations and teach them to "observe all things". I was able to write the first post explaining the reason we discuss theology and the reason we put our thoughts on a blog for everyone to read! I hope you enjoy reading my post and all the future posts by my friends who are much smarter than I.

The writers on this blog, of which I am a contributor, are all good friends and have a theological range within historic orthodoxy. Paul Conrad, Aaron Hanbury, and Sean Stewart have all recently graduated from college, and Chris Brantley and myself are still finishing up are undergrad. Two of the five are Reformed Baptist, One is reformed non-denominational, one is a PCA brother, and one a non-denominational, non reformed brother. So there is enough to be together on and enough to disagree on so that we may have productive discussion. Give it a look!

Review of "Worship in Song" by Scott Aniol

Review of “Worship in Song”
By Scott Aniol

Synopis

Scott Aniol attempts a defense of biblical worship in “Worship in Song.” Scott claims that “confusion about the music issue is primarily theological, rising out of a misunderstanding of several important doctrines” such as the meaning of Sola Scriptura, sanctification, essence of worship, and the relationship between the glory and beauty of God. Aniol divides his book into three sections: the foundation and essence of biblical worship, personal or lifestyle worship, and corporate worship.

Aniol begins by picking apart misunderstandings of biblical applications. He denies the “encyclopedic” approach to applying scripture by stating that it is a misunderstanding of Sola Scriptura. Aniol then describes what he calls a proper response to God in worship as “affections”. He suggests that our current culture has blended the lines between “passions” and “affections” and he attempts to distinguish them again. Aniol ends the first section by giving examples of men from the past like Edwards and Luther who had become weary (even in their day) of emotionalism in worship.
In the section on personal worship, Aniol focuses on the meaning of music and different responses that all music yields. He suggests that music has textual meaning, associative meaning, and intrinsic meaning. Aniol reasons that there is a strict relationship between beauty in music and the glory of God. Yet, he quickly warns us that beauty in music can become dangerous when the music becomes the idol we are worshipping. He concludes his second section by exhorting Christians to “sanctify” their emotions with godly music.

The area of worship which Aniol is probably most concerned about is his last section on corporate worship. He confirms from scripture that true worship is a response to God, therefore, should be primarily directed to God. He does explain that worship has horizontal affects but only as a secondary purpose. He claims much of the “worship music” used in the evangelical church is shallow and appealing more to our emotions than to God’s glory. Aniol makes a plea to pastors and churches not to focus on performance in worship but on congregational participation. He makes a final plea to worship leaders to seriously consider their worship service and take time to think through the importance of leading a congregation in response to the glory of God.

Critique

I thoroughly enjoyed reading “Worship in Song”. Aniol’s words and Scripture helped me once again carefully evaluate my motives concerning worship. His book was highly academic, well thought-out, and carefully constructed. Aniol’s discussion on the “essence of worship” was superb. He rightly explained God’s thoughts on worship using the story of the Samaritan woman in John 4. Aniol writes, “[Jesus] emphasized the two essential elements of worship, namely spiritual response (spirit) and understanding of truth.”

I want to expound on three important disagreements I have with Aniol. First, in chapter 4 he states, “I love my wife, I love pizza, I love soccer, and I love God. But I do not love each of these in the same way”. I mostly agree with that statement. He continues, “Likewise, if I express love to God in the same way I express love to my wife, He would be very displeased.” Of course our love for pizza or sports should be completely different than our love for God. But God set up the illustration of a bride and bridegroom relationship to mimic the relationship of Christ and His church. So we would vehemently reject any form of erotic or sensual desire for Christ, but we would agree that the affection you have for your wife should mimic the affection Christ has for you and vice versa. In a sense, the affection I have for my wife should replicate my affection for Jesus Christ in an infinitely deeper way.

Second, in chapter 6, Aniol claims music carries intrinsic meaning as its deepest level of meaning. I have no problem with that assumption. He argues that music can aurally represent certain good and bad emotions. Aniol attempts to show this relationship by saying music that is “loud, fast, and intense usually mimics anger.” As Aniol continues, he admits that these characteristics do not present absolutes in music. Not all music that is loud, fast, and intense mimic anger. Also, Aniol seems to think that different styles of music cannot legitimately produce similar characteristics or emotions. I assume this because his list of music in the appendix, which can “sanctify” our emotions, is all from one particular style of music. I would contend that music can produce meaning and many different styles of music can produce similar meaning. A song can sound somber or majestic with a string orchestra or with a guitar and drums. So to give a list of classical music as the only style of music which can properly display the characteristics of God drastically falls short of the plethora of God honoring music available today.

Interestingly enough, I strongly agree with Aniol’s thoughts in chapter 14 which is my final critique. Many evangelical churches today have a steady diet of sentimental or surface level songs in their corporate worship. This is one of the reasons why many evangelicals would rather not think deeply about God and his attributes. If worship is a response to the truth about God, our worship songs should be saturated with truth about God! My concern is not that Aniol would rather use doctrinally rich songs in worship but that he opposes the use of sentimental songs at any time in worship. He says, “In addition to shallowness, sentimentalism in modern texts does not foster deep affections for God, but rather surface emotionalism.” I am not convinced that a sentimental song only produces surface emotionalism in mature believers. I believe that a simple text can produce dependence and adoration for God (Psalm 42:1-2). If Aniol is referring to songs which appear to be speaking about our girlfriend or simply not speaking of the same characteristics that God possesses, than I whole heartily agree that music of that kind has no place in worship. I am in complete agreement that a steady diet of sentimental music can produce surface emotionalism. We should strive to sing songs about God that are filled with God and the person and work of Jesus Christ. This will aid the church in their sanctification.

In conclusion, I found myself agreeing with the vast majority of Aniol’s thoughts. I find that ironic because I have been educated on worship primarily by Bob Kauflin’s sermons and articles. Kauflin and Aniol agree on most aspects of Worship yet they come to very different applications. I think this dichotomy can be explained because much is said on worship in the Bible but never does the Bible mention style. We can correctly apply all principles in scripture concerning worship and still appear far from each other stylistically.

Luke

A new song (for me)

I wanted to share the lyrics of a song I sang for the first time at the NEXT conference. The song is entitled "All I Have Is Christ", and it is written by Jordan Kauflin (Bob Kauflin's son). You can find the recording on the Sovereign Grace website but personally I don't like that particular version of the song. SG is coming out with a live recording of the conference and it should be on the NEXT website shortly.

The second verse is very special to me. I was running my hell bound race and Christ found me.

ALL I HAVE IS CHRIST

I once was lost in darkest night
Yet thought I knew the way
The sin that promised joy and life
Had led me to the grave
I had no hope that You would own
A rebel to Your will
And if You had not loved me first
I would refuse You still

But as I ran my hell-bound race
Indifferent to the cost
You looked upon my helpless state
And led me to the cross
And I beheld God’s love displayed
You suffered in my placeYou bore the wrath reserved for me
Now all I know is grace

Hallelujah! All I have is Christ
Hallelujah! Jesus is my life

Now, Lord, I would be Yours alone
And live so all might see
The strength to follow Your commands
Could never come from me
Oh Father, use my ransomed life
In any way You choose
And let my song forever be
My only boast is You

Lyrics: Jordan Kauflin

Luke

Belated Reflections from NEXT 09

I had the privilege of attending the 2009 Sovereign Grace NEXT conference May 23-26 in Baltimore, Md. The conference theme this year dealt with the person and work of Jesus Christ. The goal was to know him better, develop a greater image of Him, and love Him more.

We were led through Scripture by brilliant men. Joshua Harris kicked off the conference with a message on the Preeminence of Christ. D.A. Carson followed Harris by speaking on "The Word Became Flesh." Kevin DeYoung, a young pastor of University Reformed Church (I was able to visit there in the winter!) in East Lansing, Michigan, spoke on the life of Jesus Christ. C.J. Mahaney spoke on the death of Jesus Christ. Sinclair Ferguson, Pastor of First Presbyterian Church of Columbia, SC. capped off the conference by speaking on the Resurrection, Ascension, and Return of Christ.

We had a panel discussion on one of the nights of the conference held by Mark Dever. The panel consisted of Dever, DeYoung, Ferguson, Justin Taylor, Harris, and Mahaney. Of course, the worship was led by Bob Kauflin and accompanied by three different bands (NA Band, Reilly, Zelos) as well as a string orchestra.

My vision of Christ became so much bigger as a result of every message. I was particularly impacted by D.A. Carson's message and C.J. Mahaney's message.So, here are a few of the truths that were made alive to me at NEXT.


The first verse Josh opened with to start of the weekend was Luke 6:46, "Why do you call me Lord, Lord, and not do what I tell you." What a way to start off my weekend. I am sitting cozy in my seat with my starbucks by my side and......... whack! Josh isn't worried about immediate encouragement. He wants us to be confronted by Scripture that is going to penetrate our thinking and actions. Josh exhorted us to be built on a firm foundation, a rock, who is Jesus Christ. He said, "If you want to feel deeply, you must think deeply." "Emotion is a good thing. But it needs to be built on something. Something solid". He didn't want all this teaching and doctrine to go straight to our head and never penetrate our lives. Josh ended his message with this exhortation:

Christian doctrine is for living. It comes to us in words on a page, but it was
never meant to stay on a page, it was meant to be lived in our lives. It’s not
enough to have your life in close proximity to the rock. It’s not enough to be
near people who are dug down deep into the rock. You have to build your house on
the rock. And that’s expressed in doing what he says.

Carson, tackled John 1 the next day with his message, "The Word Became Flesh." I am still going back to my notes from this message and recovering some aspect of truth that passed over my mind. Carson notes that "the Word" which is the "self expression of God" miraculously does four things for us: (these are his 4 points)

1. The Word creates us.
2. The Word gives us light and life.
3. The Word confronts us and divides us.

In John 3:16 the “world” is the human created order and their rebellion against
God. God’s love is not awesome because the world is not so big, it is because
the object of his love is so bad. The world did not recognize him – the world he
had made – and this is unthinkably bad. The most heinous thing we do is not
rape, or genocide, or lying…it is ignoring our maker.

4. The Word incarnates God to us.

Carson concludes his message by telling us how to know our God better.

Do you want to see what God looks like? Study Jesus. We can see Jesus, the Word
made flesh. The Word did not become a junior God, or “hide out” in Jesus. The
Word became the flesh. He was God and human being at the same time.

I am greatly indebted to the teaching and example of these men. I hope to say more about the other speakers later.

Luke

JUSTIFIED?

I have recently been thinking through the difference between the gospel and the implications of the gospel. They are different. If you try to make implications of the gospel the gospel then you have lost the gospel. Mark Dever has an excellent message on this from the 2008 t4g conference. This has also brought me to a very serious view of conversion. As I read about the nature of conversion in the epistles, it seems to be different than the simple "come down the isle, say the sinners prayer, and wala" you are a Christian. Now it can be that simple, but if that is true conversion, there is much more going on than a magical phrase. Some have proposed that repentance is not needed for justification and certainly seeing Jesus Christ as Lord over your life is not essential for the gospel. If this is the case, we have no gospel. I just stumbled across this verse in Romans about five minutes ago in my devotions.

Romans 2: 12-13
12For all who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. 13For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified.

If are faith in Jesus Christ never penetrates our life it is dead faith.
Thank God for his grace to us daily.

Luke

Thoughtful Words from Calvin

I heard a very inciteful quote today from John Calvin. I thought I would share it.

"Men are never duly touched and impressed with a conviction of their insignificance until they have contrasted themselves with the majesty of God."

The doctrine of our total depravity and God's majestic sovereignty should be so precious to us as Christians. I hope to praise him for his character every day.

Luke

The Wrath of God and the Death of Christ

Tim Keller, in The Reason for God, lays out an incredible picture of the spiritual suffering that Christ had to endure on the cross for our redemption. This excerpt is from the third chapter on how a good God could allow suffering and evil.

"The Son of God was not created but took part in creation and has lived throughout all eternity 'in the bosom of the father' (John 1:18)-- that is, in a relationship of absolute intimacy and love. But at the end of his life he was cut off from the Father.

There may be no great inner agony than the loss of a relationship we desperately want. If a mild acquaintance turns on you, condemns and criticizes you, and says she never wants to see you again, it is painful. If someone you're dating does the same thing, it is qualitatively more painful. But if your spouse does this to you, or if one of your parents does this to you when you're still a child, the psychological damage is infinitely worse.

We cannot fathom, however, what it would be like to lose not just a spousal love or parental love that has lasted several years, but the infinite love of teh Father that Jesus had from all eternity. Jesus's sufferings would have been eternally unbearable. Christian theology has always recongized that Jesus bore, as the subsitute in our place, the endless exclusion from God that he human race has merited. . . . The death of Jesus was qualititatively different form any other death. The physical pain was nothing comared to the spiritual experience of cosmin abandonment. . . . On the Cross he went beyond even the worst human suffering and experienced cosmic rejection and pain that exceeds ours as infintely as his knowledge and power exceeds ours. . . . The Bible says that Jesus came on a rescue mission for creation. He has to pay for our sins so taht someday he can end evil suffering without ending us" (Keller 29-30).