Worship Services and the Fruit of the Spirit (part 2)

I offer below a revised version of my December newsletter article on how the fruit of the Spirit connects to the way we gather together for worship.  I hope these thoughts are helpful . . .

Around Christmastime the word “joy” is heard a lot.  So with all this talk about joy this month, it’s fitting for us to contemplate how the fruit of the Spirit should be manifest in our worship services.  Joy, of course, is listed among the fruit of the Spirit in Galatians 5:22.  In this passage, Paul is saying that joy (along with several other character virtues) is produced as the Spirit works within us.  So here’s a question for us . . . do we find joy abounding in our lives in general and particularly in the way we worship? 

The Scriptures have a lot to say about joy.  In fact, the Scriptures have a lot to say about how joy should be evident in our worship of God.  Consider this small sampling of Biblical passages:

Be glad in the LORD, and rejoice, O righteous, and shout for joy, all you upright in heart!  (Psalm 32:11 ESV)

But the righteous shall be glad; they shall exult before God; they shall be jubilant with joy!   (Psalm 68:3 ESV)

Make a joyful noise to the LORD, all the earth!  Serve the LORD with gladness! Come into his presence with singing!  (Psalm 100:1-2 ESV)

Do these verses represent our attitude when we gather to worship?  I understand the concern some people have that too much joyful expression negates reverence.  Yet Biblically speaking, expressing both reverence and joy in our worship services is not only possible, it is expected.  Reverent joy (or joyous reverence) is not an oxymoron.  Consider the following passage, for example, that actually links jubilant joy with reverent fear:

Clap your hands, all peoples! Shout to God with loud songs of joy!  For the LORD, the Most High, is to be feared, a great king over all the earth.   (Psalm 47:1-2 ESV)

So our worship of God shouldn’t be dry and dusty, but vibrant and vigorous.  Our singing, prayers, giving, and, yes, even listening to the Word read and preached should be done joyfully.  

Yet while these things are true, we shouldn’t jump to wrong conclusions that are not warranted.  At times we are tempted to link real joy with a certain type of worship service.  We may think that exciting, fast-paced services with upbeat songs and dynamic preaching are the epitome of what joyful worship looks like.  But we must remember the source of joy is not found in our circumstances (like the style of our worship services, the types of songs we sing, the types of instruments used, etc.).  Biblical joy comes from something beyond our circumstances.  In fact, according to the Scriptures, joy is something we can have when our circumstances are difficult and not what we would like . . . even when we are suffering (Romans 5:3-5; Hebrews 10:34; James 1:2; 1 Peter 1:6-9). 

The source of our joy is found in our God and his salvation (Habakkuk 3:17-18).  It is found in Christ and his kingdom (Matthew 13:44).  It comes from the work of the Spirit in us, not by trying to manufacture it by merely artificial means.  In other words, joy does not come from singing certain types of songs.  We sing joyfully because our songs are expressions of our joy found in Christ.  Joy isn’t nailed down to a certain style of service.  Joy comes from a heart that has been enlivened by the Spirit and captured by the glory of Christ.

So as Paul said to the church at Philippi, I say to you . . . Rejoice in the Lord always; again I will say, Rejoice (Philippians 4:4).  Please pray with me this joy of the Lord would abound in the heart of every follower of Christ.

Some Thoughts on Biblical Hermeneutics (part 2)

Interpretation doesn’t happen in a vacuum.  All of us approach any given biblical text with certain presuppositions.  No one is “objective” in interpretation, at least not in the way this term is generally used. 

Sometimes the above truths are communicated in such a way that we believe we can escape our presuppositions through self-knowledge and thus approach the text “objectively.”  This kind of thinking says that while I may be a Presbyterian, and so I approach Scripture from “Presbyterian presuppositions” (whatever those may be!), I can be aware of those presuppositions and therefore overcome them to interpret the text in a more objective manner.

I would agree there is some truth  to this sentiment, but I would also argue this way of construing reality is too simplisitc.  There is a bewildering array of presuppositions that influence and shape our hermeneutics.  It is not simply that I have “Presbyterian presuppositions” when I approach a text . . .  I also have a plethora of various kinds of presuppositions.  My starting point in reading Scripture is not simply Presbyterian, but ex-Baptist turned Presbyterian, which means that some of my categories and emphases in interpretation will be somewhat different from those of a life-long Presbyterian.  I am an American living in the 21st century, which shapes the way I understand Scripture in such a way that there will be noticeable differences in my hermeneutic and the hermeneutic of a first century Jew living under the Roman Empire.  I am male.  I live in the Southern US.  People from outside my own denomination have influenced my exegetical and theological thinking.  There are some historical issues in the fields of theology and exegesis I know fairly well, and others of which I am ignorant.  I have certain personal experiences that others have not.  I have a desire to find the relevance of the text for the situations and circumstances in which I find myself (which, of course, would be different than the situations and circumstances in which the text was written).  The list could go on and on, and each one of these things shapes and influences in some way my approach to Scripture.  There is no possible way I can be so self-aware that I can see all of these factors and “rise above” them all to be “objective.”  Even if I succeeded to a certain extent in recognizing how some of these presuppositions affect my interpretation, there are presuppositions behind those presuppositions which are harder to discern.   

Yet we need not see these truths as primarily negative.  “Objectivity” in the sense of “being completely unbiased” is actually not a virtue.  Surely we should not be “unbiased” when it comes to how we understand our position before the Triune God!  Certainly we should not be “unbiased” when it comes to deciding whether the God of truth has spoken truth.  Such “objectivity” places us in the position of God, trying to understand all that can be understood when our knowledge and wisdom is limited and creaturely.  So the “subjective” sense of approaching the Scriptures as those who believe what it says is not unimportant. 

There are also positive senses in which all of these various factors actually help us in understanding the text better.  First, Scripture is not simply a message written for long ago but also for today.  So while it is important for me to try to understand the original context of the text, understanding the contextualized “meaning” of the text for my current situation is an appropriate and vital part of being faithful to the text.  To do less than that is to misunderstand how the Scripture is God’s Word for us today.  Second, since the truth of Scripture is more like a beautiful diamond with many facets rather than a one-dimensional triangle written on a white sheet of paper, our various “perspectives” help us to understand things that others may have missed.  The reverse is also true, of course.  The perspectives of others in different situations may help us sharpen our own interpretations of Scripture.  This is part of what has been called the “hermeneutical spiral” to which we all should submit.  As the Scripture says, “Iron sharpens iron”, and so when our various presuppositions that we bring to the text collide against one another, they actually help us to get closer to the “meaning” of the text . . . that is, the meaning the Holy Spirit has spoken for the benefit of the Church.

Some Thoughts on Biblical Hermeneutics (part 1)

Hermeneutics . . . where to begin?

It seems so simple to say that biblical hermeneutics must begin by recognizing that the Bible is a collection of documents written by someone and read by others.   Yet this is where we begin, and as we unpack this idea we begin to see some of the complexities of hermeneutics in general, and biblical hermeneutics in particular.

For example, when we say that the book we call Malachi was written by someone, we imply the person had goals and purposes for writing the book.  This particular person wrote into a particular situation for particular people at a particular time for particular purposes.  So if we want to understand “the meaning of the text” we must understand as much of those particulars as possible.

Yet if we also affirm what we read in 2 Timothy 3:16, that all Scripture is “breathed out by God”, then there is a sense in which Malachi has two “authors” . . . God and the particular person who actually wrote the words.  Now if we realize that the particular person who wrote Malachi was writing for one audience, but God had in mind not merely that group of people, but others throughout history who would read the book, then we can begin to see some of the complexities that take place in trying to understand “the meaning of the text” from strictly an “authorial intention” viewpoint.

Another example of these complexities can be seen when we consider the readers.  Again, Malachi was first read by a particular audience at a particular time in history under particular circumstances.  Yet other people read this book at different times and under different circumstances. 

When I read Malachi, I bring to the text many thoughts, questions, and presuppositions that the original readers did not bring to the text.  This fact indicates that I may not understand the text as well as the original audience did. 

Yet this suggestion does not mean the original audience must have understood everything correctly.  What the particular person writing Malachi meant by a certain phrase could have been misunderstood even by the original audience.   And so even when we try to answer the question, ”What would the original audience have understood this to mean?”, we still may not have understood the text rightly.

One last example of the complexities inherent in biblical hermeneutics is found in the fact that the Bible is a collection of documents.  Malachi is not the only book of the Bible.  The Bible also contains Genesis, Psalms, Isaiah, Luke, 1 Thessalonians, and Revelation (to name a few).  And even though there are different books written by different particular authors at different times to different communities under different circumstances there is a sense in which all of these books should be read as one unified whole.  Obviously any unity of the biblical books must come from the “God-breathed” nature of Scripture, yet it can be tricky at times to see how each of the parts fit into the whole.  Add to this fact that there are many different genres in Scripture (narrative, poetry, law, proverbs, letters, etc.), then we can see how difficult it can be at times to see the unifying factors while seeing the differing details.

Over the next few months, I’d like to offer some thoughts on how one may navigate through some of these complexities.  I hope this exercise will help sharpen my own thinking as well as help any potential readers to think through their own hermeneutic approaches.

Discipleship and Evangelism: What God has joined, let no man separate

I’ve often heard people divide what the church does into categories like worship, evangelism, discipleship, fellowship, etc.  Some speak of these things as if they were totally distinct categories with well-defined borders.  I’m not so sure that is the case of most of those categories (Is there no worship when we evangelize?  Is there no fellowship when discipleship is happening?), but I’m certain we’ve often made too sharp of a distinction in the way we sometimes distinguish discipleship and evangelism.

It appears that some of us have too narrow a view of discipleship and evangelism.   Those who view evangelism as “reaching out” and “discipleship” as “growing within” have a point, I guess.  Yet if we define evangelism as “proclaiming the gospel” and discipleship as “learning from Jesus” then in a way discipleship is evangelism and evangelism is discipleship. 

Think about it this way . . .  what’s the “go to” verse for doing “evangelism” (at least on a global scale)?  Matthew 28:18-20 seems to be prominent in this regard.  But what does this passage actually say?

Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”  (NIV)

Here is it obvious that “discipleship” is linked to “evangelism.”

Now think about what Paul says to the church in Rome in Romans 1:15.

So I am eager to preach the gospel to you also who are in Rome. (ESV)

If evangelism is “proclaiming the gospel”, then Paul was going to evangelize the Roman church as well as those who did not know Christ (Romans 15:20) because the Roman church seems to be included in the “you” of the statement, “I am eager to preach the gospel to you also who are in Rome.”  This point fits with all of Paul’s other epistles as well.  He doesn’t leave the gospel behind in any of these letters, but continues to proclaim the good news as he seeks to see the church “discipled” (although he never uses this term) in the ways of the Lord. 

The point is this: perhaps discipleship and evangelism, defined simply as above, are more connected than we sometimes think.  It appears that biblically speaking, the Church needs to “disciple” those who are being “evangelized” as well as “evangelize” those who are being “discipled.”

Jesus: Author? Pioneer? Founder? of Faith

Hebrews 12:2 describes Jesus as ton thj pistewj archgon kai.teleiwthn which has traditionally been rendered something along the lines of ”the author and finisher of our faith.”

We should note the “our” in this translation does not correspond to anything explicit in the Greek text.  Thus the “our” must be inferred.  While this inference isn’t terrible, I think it is mistaken on the basis of what the phrase as a whole means. 

As we look at the phrase as a whole, some bible students are convinced that “author” and “finisher” (0r perhaps, “perfecter”) are the best translations since teleiwthn as “finisher” seems to require archgon to be “author.”   More recent scholarship and translations have rendered archgon differently.  Some opt for “founder” (see ESV).  Others opt for “pioneer” (see NRSV).

“Founder” is not that far removed from “author”, although it provides some distinct nuances.  “Pioneer” is good in that it connects to what the author of Hebrews says in 6:20 . . . that Jesus is our forerunner.  The idea is that Jesus “runs ahead” of his followers leading them into glory (2:10).

When I wrote my ThM thesis at Duke, I believed “pioneer” was the best translation.  Yet since that time I’ve become more convinced that William Lane was right to render archgon as “champion.”  

As I’ve pondered this issue over the last several years, thinking through the argument and theology of Hebrews again and again, “champion” has made more and more sense  to me.  I agree fully with this quote from Lane’s Commentary on Hebrews . . .

The dense expression . . . is extraordinarily concise and resists facile translation. It must be given precision in the light of the larger developments in Hebrews.

Lane’s own translation of the phrase in 12:2 is as follows . . .

. . . Jesus, the champion in the exercise of faith and the one who brought faith to complete expression . . .

Putting the two terms together seems to work better than seeing the phrase as explaining two opposite pictures of what Jesus does (he is the “author” or th”pioneer” and the “finisher”).  This nuance may be there, but it seems that when we read the terms as working together to get a similar point across, the result is squarely in touch with the race metaphor of 12:1 and the fact that Jesus has finished the race of our salvation on our behalf.   Because he finished the race (so to speak) he is the first . . . not only in the sense of pioneering, but in the sense of “winning.”   While it is true “author” seems to fit the connection with “finisher,” and “pioneer” seems to fit the forerunner langauge in 6:20, the emphasis of the whole of this “sermonic epistle” and the context of Hebrews 12 itself leads me to believe the “champion” nuance is best. 

 Such a translation clearly demonstrates Jesus as the epic hero.  He demonstrated faith, faithfulness, and endurance to bring salvation to all who would fix their eyes on him.  And because of this he serves as our ultimate encouragement and supreme example of faith. 

 

 

Implicit Christology in Luke 13:17?

Could the allusion to Isaiah 45:16 (LXX) in Luke 13:17 provide an implicit statement of Luke’s Christology?  The phrase pa,ntej oi` avntikei,menoi auvtw/ (all who were opposed to him), which is shared by both the LXX translation of Isaiah and Luke, points to the shaming of opponents.  It is true that Isaiah uses the verb aivscu,nw while Luke uses kataiscu,nw, yet any difference in meaning is minimal.  In Isaiah the dative masculine personal pronoun certainly refers to o` qeo.j tou/ Israhl swth,r (the God of Israel, Savior), while in Luke the referent is Jesus as the opposed one. 

I don’t want to make hasty conclusions, but Luke’s use of this phrase, coupled with the fact that Jesus is explicitly called swth,r  in Luke’s Gospel (2:11), is highly suggestive.  Earlier in Luke’s narrative, another Sabbath incident causes Jesus to proclaim, ku,rio,j evstin tou/ sabba,tou o` ui`o.j tou/ avnqrw,pou (the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath).  Luke’s use of  ku,rio,j (Lord) in 13:15 recalls that statement of authority, which is vividly demonstrated by the power he displays to declare deliverance to the crippled woman. 

Could it be that Luke also had in mind the next verse in the LXX (Isaiah 45:17) which states, Israhl sw,|zetai u`po. kuri,ou swthri,an aivw,nion ouvk aivscunqh,sontai ouvde. mh. evntrapw/sin e[wj tou/ aivw/noj (Israel is saved by the Lord with a salvation of the age: they shall not be ashamed nor confounded unto the age)?  If so, Luke is making a subtle point about who he believes Jesus to be.

One of my favorite Calvin quotes

“By nature I love brevity.”
John Calvin on page 685 of his 1,521 page work, Institutes of the Christian Religion.

My 5 “De-Christian” Doctrines

I encountered an interesting challenge last week on T.C. Robinson’s blog.  The gist of the challenge was to list 5 doctrines taught within the church that I believe to be deeply de-Christian.

One may ask . . . what does de-Christian mean?  The prefix “de-” can mean:    

1) “down” or ”away”

2) completely

3) removal or reversal

Based on the answers I’ve seen given by others concerning this challenge, I’m going to assume the meaning intended is more about “moving away from Christianity” or the “reversal of Christianity” than a doctrine being “completely Christian.”

So here’s my list (with some explanatory comments) concerning what I have seen taught (sometimes implicitly) in the church that moves away from, or is the reversal of, biblical faith (there are other things I could mention, but the challenge was for 5 . . . and these are 5 of the ones I think are easy to overlook). 

1)      The “god” we worship is a generic god.

I realize no one really uses this language about God in any explicit teaching, but the message may be implicit nonetheless.  Christians believe the Scriptures teach us that God is Triune.  The one true God is three persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.  Yet sometimes this doctrine is basically relegated to theology classes (if we have them), Trinity Sunday (if we  celebrate such a day), or when we sing “Holy, Holy, Holy” (if we sing this hymn).  Thus when we attend worship services, we sometimes hear generic “god-talk” rather than a robust Trinitarian understanding of who God is.  When this happens, sermons are preached in which the name of Jesus is never mentioned, let alone the Holy Spirit.  Songs and prayers address a “generic” God, without so much a mention of Father, Son, and Spirit.  If God is Triune, then why would we speak as if he is not?     

2) Theology and practice are completely two separate entities.

One error I see on many fronts in the church is the tendency to separate theology and practice.  This happens in two different ways.  First, it happens when people believe the lie that theology is something dry, dusty, and impractical.  An emphasis is placed on what we do over doctrine.  In some cases, doctrine is seen as a bad thing.  Second, the tendency to separate doctrine and practice comes from well-meaning people who love doctrine.  These folks see doctrine as an end in itself.  In the worst cases, knowing doctrine is really what it means to be a disciple of Jesus.

Over against these two extreme views, the Scriptures teach that our theology/doctrine (what we believe) and our practice (what we do) should never be divorced.  In fact, what we believe (our theology and doctrine) shapes what we do (our practice), and our practices themselves are, in a sense, our theology and doctrine (see, for example this post). 

As an aside, what I find humorous about those who say doctrine is not important is that the very statement “doctrine is not important” is part of their doctrine which they believe is important. 

3) The ultimate hope of the Christian is to die and go to heaven.

I’ll quote two authors to get the substance of this point across . . .

First, Ben Witherington from his book, Imminent Domain: The Story of the Kingdom of God and Its Celebration . . .

It is never adequate theology to say, “this world is not my home, I’m just passing through” as if heaven were all that really mattered.  To the contrary, the New Testament suggests just the opposite.  Heaven is simply a place through which believers pass between the time they die and when they are raised from the dead.

Second, N.T. Wright from his book, Surprised by Hope: Rethinking Heaven, the Resurrection, and the Mission of the Church . . .

We should recall in particular that the use of the word heaven to denote the ultimate goal of the redeemed, though of course hugely popularized by medieval and subsequent piety, is severely misleading and does not begin to do justice to the Christian hope.  I am repeatedly frustrated by how hard it is to get this point through the thick wall of traditional thought and language that most Christians put up.  the ultimate destination is (once more) not “going to heaven when you die” but being bodily raised into the transformed, glorious likeness of Jesus Christ. (The point of all this is not, of course, merely our own happy future, important though that is, but the glory of God as we come fully to reflect his image.) Thus, if we want to speak of ”going to heaven when we die,” we should be clear that this represents the first, and far less important, stage of a two-stage process.  Resurrection isn’t life after death; it is life after life after death. 

4)      Defining worship as singing or a service.

This one may be more implicit than explicit, but it is a real problem in some churches.  Sometimes people unwittingly relegate the worship of the Triune God to the time of singing during a service.  They say things such as “The worship during the service was really good today” which when translated means, “The music was really good today, I was really focused on worshipping God when we were singing.” What about the other parts of the service?  Don’t we worship when we listen to the sermon, or when we pray, or when we give tithes and offerings?  Some people understand that since we call it a “worship service” everything we doin that service is an act of worship, not simply the singing.  Yet even this view doesn’t go far enough.  Romans 12:1 indicates that everything we do is in some sense an act of worship.  Every moment we are pulled to worship something.  Do we offer ourselves as living sacrifices to the Triune God of our salvation, or do we offer ourselves to the idols of our own heart?  Christian worship entails all of life.  If we miss this point, we miss what it means to worship in spirit and truth. 

5) The real problem with the world is “those folks out there.”

There is a fairly popular form of preaching that looks around at our society and points out the sins of our age.  While there may be some legitimacy to that kind of preaching, the problem I have is when that is all that is preached.  The underlying message of such preaching may be, “Watch out for these people!  You guys are OK, but be careful of everybody else.”  This type of preaching seems too close to the parable of the Pharisee and the tax-collector (Luke 18:10-14).  It’s way too easy to see the sins of everybody else and not see the sinful tendencies of our own hearts.  There is a quote, commonly attributed to Leo Tolstoy, that fits this mindset . . .

Everyone wants to change the world, but no one wants to change himself.

Interestingly enough, the very act of pointing out errors in the teaching of the church at large (as I’m doing in this post) can be a symptom of this very problem.  It’s easy to see the doctrines I see as ”deeply de-Christian” when they are taught by those “out there,” but what about those “deeply de-Christian” ideas and habits of my own heart for which I need to repent?  Doesn’t Jesus say to take the log out of my own eye before I try to remove the speck in someone else’s eye?

May God give me the grace to see that I am what’s wrong with the world, that Christ is my only hope of peace and pardon, and that I need to be transformed by his Spirit to reflect his glory and character more fully.

Quote from Oswald Chambers

A brief quote worth pondering . . .

The greatest competitor of devotion to Jesus is service to him.

 

Talkin’ ’bout my generation?

All three Synoptic Gospel writers cite Jesus saying something like this . . . “Amen, I tell you, this generation will not pass away until all these things have taken place” (Matthew 24:34; Mark 13:30; Luke 21:32).  This verse tends to be a problem for many commentators, and there have been various ways of dealing with it.  Some of the options offered have been . . .

1) Jesus was mistaken (Albert Schweitzer, The Quest of the Historical Jesus).

2) The phrase “this generation” should be understood in some other way than in a straightforward, literal reading.  Various suggestions along these lines are:

a) “this generation” refers to people who are evil and resistant to God’s prophets (Luke Timothy Johnson, The Gospel of Luke).

b) “this generation” refers to the “generation” of witnesses making disciples of all nations (Elizabeth Achtemeier, “Luke 21:25-36″ in Interpretation  48 Oct 1994).

c) “this generation” refers to Jewish people.

d) “this generation” refers to all humanity.

e) “this generation” refers to the generation that sees the end-time signs (Joseph Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke).

3) The phrase “until all these things have taken place” could be understood to refer to aspects of the discourse other than the Second Advent.

4) The Son of Man coming in a cloud (referenced earlier in the Synoptics than the statement in question) could be understood in another way (for example, see this post).

5) Richard Pratt argues that prophecy (in Jewish terms) was not usually meant to give a prediction of the future with 100% accuracy, but was given to provoke God’s people to action.  As an example Pratt cites that Jonah predicted, “Yet forty days and Nineveh will be overthrown,” but because of the repentance of the Ninevites, God held back judgment.  Thus Pratt suggests that it may be possible that Jesus’ words should be seen as a means to stir up repentance, which in turn would delay his coming beyond his current generation (Richard Pratt, “Historical Contingencies and biblical predictions” in J.I. Packer and Sven K. Soderlund, eds. The Way of Wisdom: Essays in honor of Bruce K. Waltke).

Personally, I think only #’s 3-5 above are viable options.  I especially can’t agree with Schweitzer that Jesus was mistaken.  In my understanding such a view would undermine what Scripture teaches about Jesus as a whole.  As you might guess by checking out the link above, I lean toward #4.  Yet I’m open to the other views (#3 and #5) as possibilities. 

I would welcome any thoughts by others who have considered these issues.