Can someone please direct me to God's great dance floor?

Recently, one of the most popular songs in Christian music has been the song “God’s Great Dance Floor” by Christ Tomlin. This song was recorded live at Passion Conference in one of their Worship times. This song is wildly catchy… like really really catchy. I can definitely see how it would be fun to use this in a live setting. You can’t help but tap your foot. Also, the spanish trumpet solo in the bridge is pretty fun.

I don’t use this song for worship… I actually face-palm every time I hear of someone using it for worship. Here are two reasons why: the lyrics don’t really make sense, and the lyrics combined with the style of music paint an inaccurate picture of God and our purpose as mankind.

First, in the song the verses say:

I’m coming back to the start, where you found me.

I’m coming back to Your heart, now I surrender.

These lyrics are not that bad… there isn’t much substance there, but they are not terrible.

Chorus:

You’ll never stop loving us, no matter how far we run

You’ll never give up on us, all of Heaven shouts let the future begin.

The first 3 statements in the chorus are nice. They talk about how God will never give up on us. This reminds me of the story of the Prodigal Son. 

However, the lyric ‘All of Heaven shouts, let the future begin’ doesn’t make sense. Rationally, talking about God’s great Love for us should lead to a statement like “We don’t deserve this Love” or “Praise God for His unfailing Love” or “I offer my life in response to this love” not “Let the future begin.” 

Why follow up a clearly Biblical theme (God’s unfailing love) with an unclear statement like ‘Let the future begin’? Is it even a Biblical concept? Do the angels and saints in Heaven ever shout ‘Let the future begin’? If they do, I haven’t read that verse yet. I do know that the angels and saints in Heaven are singing “Holy, Holy, Holy”. They also sing “Worthy is the Lamb who was slain…” But as far as I know they never shout “Let the future begin.”

The second reason that I don’t use this song in Worship is because of the picture that it paints of God.

The bridge lyrics are:

I feel alive, I feel alive, I feel alive on God’s great dance floor.

In my mind, what this lyric is communicating is two-fold. First, it is communicating the idea that how we feel is central; doing this by repeating the line ‘I feel alive’ three times. Im not saying that feeling alive is bad or even inappropriate in worship. However, I do not think that it should be a central theme in our worship. The reality is that we are made alive through Christ’s death and resurrection, even if we don’t feel like it. And that should be a central theme in worship, because that is the Gospel. I would ask the question, do the individuals singing and dancing to this song feel alive because of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, or do they feel alive because the music is catchy, the club dance groove is stimulating, and this style of music is manufactured to give the impression of energy and excitement?

The second thing that this lyric communicates (with the help of the catchy club groove) is the idea that God is some sort of cosmic DJ and he is playing music for us to dance to. God is not a DJ, God is not making music for us to dance to. God does not have a dance floor (He probably doesn’t even want one). The Heavens are not his stage, and the earth is not his dance floor. The Heavens are His throne and the earth is His footstool. God is a Sovereign King, not a entertainer of His creation.

To be a bit controversial (whats a good blog post with out some controversy), this song “God’s Great Dance Floor” is a wonderful example of what’s wrong with much of the popular worship music in contemporary Christianity. The music is written to manipulate emotions and give the impression of excitement and energy and the lyrics communicate something about God that is not true. People are deceived into thinking they are worshiping the Triune God when in reality they are being manipulated into an emotional response by the style of music that in the secular world is associated with and specifically manufactured for partying and having a good time.

What is most confusing to me about this song is the fact that on the same album Chris Tomlin sings a song called “Whom Shall I Fear”. The lyrics in the bridge say:

Nothing formed against me shall stand, You hold the whole world in Your hands

Im holding on to your promises, You are faithful, You are faithful

Riddle me this: how can an individual write a song with these great lyrics clearly proclaiming God’s sovereignty and faithfulness, and on the same album record a song that communicates the idea that God loves us and therefore just wants us to have fun?

Having a Bad Church Website Isn't Really Ok Anymore...

So, full disclosure… my wife works for a website design company. They do a lot of work for non profit organizations, a lot of those being churches. While my purpose for writing this post is not to try and get more churches to buy a website from them, I do hope that if you find that after reading this post you feel your website is inadequate you might look them up and see if they can help.

The primary means of communication for the common person in our culture is the Internet. The primary goal of the Church is presenting the Gospel. It stands to reason then that a powerful means for the church to present the gospel to the common person in our culture is through the Internet. And since we believe that the Gospel is the most important information that anyone can receive we should then present it with excellence. (Please don’t read in too deeply to that statement. I’m not trying to say that someone’s salvation depends on how cool your website is. I’m trying to say that we should take seriously communicating well the message we’ve been given to present.)

Lets face it... this Internet thing isn't just a fad. Chances are that we will not wake up tomorrow thinking to ourselves "Wow, that Internet thing was crazy... I'm glad we're done with that. I prefer to not be able to communicate (almost) instantly with anyone anywhere. I also prefer not being able to access (almost) unlimited information about pretty much anything. It was just a real bother." We’re in the information age, and the Church should embrace this fact, and praise God, for the most part I think it has.

One of the primary goals of the church is to communicate the gospel to people in a way that they can understand it. Paul did it at Mars Hill. The Reformers did it by translating the Word into the common tongue. Missionaries continue that process by seeking out people who do not have the Word in their language and by creating translations for them. Jesus did it by becoming flesh and dwelling among us. He even used the same story telling method of teaching that Rabbis often used to teach (Parables).  Also, Jesus not only communicated in a way that people could understand, he communicated with excellence.

I’d argue that the Church should seek to use the Internet effectively to communicate the Gospel.  And I think that poor quality websites and media (audio/video) are ineffective… I think using poor quality stuff does more damage to some ones understanding of the Gospel then it does to help advance the Gospel.  So, in light of this, I’d suggest that paying for a high quality website is worth it. Don’t just settle for your cousin’s fiancé' who kind of knows how to program and has a little bit of design experience and will do it for free. You’re not helping you church by putting a bad website up just for the sake of being able to have a website up. 

Also, when it comes to posting media don’t settle for poor recordings that make the pastor look like the cookie monster and make it hard to understand what the he's even saying. You’re not helping anyone learn about the Gospel… Chances are that if it’s a poor quality recording they’re going to turn it off in the first 30 seconds anyway (unless your video is so bad that it's funny and it ends up going viral... then tons of people will watch it and then someone will make a remix of it with a cut scene to a goat screaming). If you really want to have sermon recordings online do a bit of research, get some new equipment, train a volunteer to run the thing, and do it right. If you can’t afford to do it right, don’t do it. Maybe think about posting only audio... but that will take a bit of research, money and training to do  good job of too... If you can afford that than think of another way to present the pastor’s sermon online. Maybe ask him to write out a brief summary of it and post it in a blog or something. What ever you do, do it well. Don't settle for poor quality media just so that you can say you have media online.

The Internet is a powerful tool for communication. But it is important to keep it in its place. It is a tool. The Church should never have the goal of creating something so that it can be posted online. The Church should have the goal of creating something that can take advantage of the Internet’s power to communicate the Gospel.  Our goal is communicating the Gospel. Not looking cool to outsiders who have an appreciation for good website design.

As Father Abraham (Kuyper) used to say, “There’s not a square inch in the whole domain of human existence (including the internet) over which Christ who is sovereign over all does not proclaim ‘Mine!’” So lets use the Internet to proclaim the Gospel. And lets do it well. After all it is the Gospel. Why wouldn’t we try to communicate it well?

(Also… shameless plug… if you want to check out a great company, owned and operated by believers, that can help you with improving your website click here.)

Why Worship Together?

In my last post I spent a lot of time explaining the order of our Worship Services. The fact that the Gospel should shape our services is very important to me, and I hope after reading those articles you can see why. But for this article I want to change my focus from the shaping function of the Dialogue of Worship to the participants in the Dialogue of Worship and the direction of those participants’ contributions to the Dialogue. If that doesn’t make sense to you right now, that’s ok. Hopefully by the end of reading this, you’ll understand what I mean.

The first and primary participant in the dialogue is obviously God. It is He who reveals himself to us causing our response of adoration and confession. It is He who offers us forgiveness through Christ’s death on the cross, causing our response of thanksgiving. It is He who instructs us on how to live, causing our renewed commitment to Him. And it is He who offers us His blessing as He sends us out, causing us to live for Him in everyday life. Every action causes a reaction. In worship God is the ‘Actor’ and we are the ‘Reactors’. In terms of the direction of dialogue, think of this as God speaking down to earth from heaven (imagine an arrow pointing from God’s mouth down to man’s hearts).

The next participant in Worship is us. As I already stated, we react/respond to God in worship. In directional terms think of it as us sending praises from earth up to God in heaven (imagine an arrow pointing from our hearts to God). An important thing to realize is that when we send our praises up to heaven, we are doing it out of a response to God’s goodness. We are not doing it hoping that God will respond to us by blessing us. We are doing it because God has already blessed us. Now don’t get me wrong here, I’m not saying that God does not respond to us when we seek him in worship. I am saying however, that God’s response to us is not because of our will for Him to respond, but rather because it is His will to respond to us. God wants to engage with us! What wonderful grace have we received, that the Creator of heaven and earth wants to meet with us!

Now, there are not really any more participants in the dialogue than God and us. But I do want to talk about one more direction of the dialogue. It is man to man (imagine an arrow pointing horizontally from your mouth to the other people gathered with you in the worship service). This direction of the dialogue is the most often overlooked. Often times when people come to worship they are most concerned about their own personal experience of God. They say things like, “I close my eyes when I worship because I don’t want to be distracted the other people that are around me. It’s all about me and God.” Now this is not all together a bad thing. Your personal relationship with and experience of God should be strengthened through worship. But that should not be your only focus when coming to a corporate worship service. In Worship we need each other. When one person in our community is suffering, we as Christ’s body should join in their suffering. When we sing a song like ‘In Christ Alone’ we proclaim to our hurting brother the hope that we have in Christ. When another person in the community is celebrating, we should join in their celebration as well. When we sing a song like “Grow in Grace” we are encouraging one another. Check out Psalm 95. Most of it is written in the plural. “Come, let us sing for joy to the Lord; let us shout aloud to the Rock of our salvation.” The Psalmist is urging the gathered community to worship and we do the same when we gather together for corporate worship.

In summary; in worship God speaks to us, we speak to God, and we speak to each other. Here’s an illustration of the directions. I hope you enjoy my awesome drawing skills.

In the next worship service you attend, try this on for size; think about how what you are doing would be diminished if you were doing it all by yourself. Look for opportunities to proclaim the Gospel to the person sitting next to you. Look for times when you can join into the suffering of the person in front of you (if they are suffering). And if you are at a point in your life when you feel like you can’t worship God, listen to your brothers and sisters in Christ as they sing praise to Him on your behalf.

One of the most moving worship experiences that I have ever had was the day after my friend Kyle Siegers died when I was a sophomore in high school. I was on vacation with my family in Florida at the time, and never before had I ever felt so isolated. All of my friends were back at home together, mourning Kyle’s death, and I was stuck 22 hours away. My family was at a worship service. I can remember it quite clearly. My dad was sitting behind me, my sisters to my side, and my brother on the end. We were singing the song “In Christ Alone”. Well, at least they were singing. I couldn’t sing (kind of like how I can’t type right now as I begin to relive that moment). They got to the line “No guilt in life, no fear in death. This is the power of Christ in me.” And I heard my dad’s voice singing when I couldn’t. And He proclaimed to me the hope that we have through Christ.

So I urge you, don’t come to worship thinking it’s just about you and God. Come to worship ready to encourage your brothers and sisters. Come ready to meet not only with God, but with those whom God has chosen along with you. Remember the Psalmist says, “Come, let us sing for joy to the Lord; let us shout aloud to the Rock of our salvation.”

*Whenever I spoke of God acting in worship in this post, please know that I am referring to all of the different functions of the Triune God. This includes Father, Son, and Spirit; all of whom play a different role in worship. Look forward to a future post in which I try to flesh out some of the different ways our Triune God works when we engage with Him. 

Do We Over-emphasize the Sermon?

One of the things I love about the Reformed tradition is its intense focus on and love for the Word of God. The Reformation came about as a result of multiple issues in the Church at the time. One of those issues was that the people of God did not have an understanding of the Word of God. This had a lot to do with the fact that Mass was held in Latin. Also there were no Bibles available in the common language of the people, they were all Latin too. You had to be a scholar to be able to read it for yourself, and if you weren’t a scholar and you went to mass, chances are you didn’t understand much of the sermon either. Thank God that we have the Word in our own languages!

The Word of God is vital in the life of a Christian. The Word of God is the Gospel of Jesus Christ! The Reformed Tradition understands this, and as a result rightfully emphasizes the preaching and proclamation of the Word of God in Worship Services.

The negative result of this emphasis on the Sermon is that sometimes the other aspects of the worship service get de-emphasized and even misunderstood. We often think of every aspect of a service in relation to the sermon. Many people think the first portion of the service is meant to get the people excited and happy to worship God, guide them through an emotional experience which then in turn will prepare their hearts to hear the sermon. Many people see the singing time after the sermon as a time that is meant to allow the Sunday school teachers time to get to their classrooms and set up before their students come. (Just an aside for your information: Martin Luther did not think this way, neither did John Calvin… read chapters three and four of Christ Centered Worship by Bryan Chappell if you don’t believe me… also if you’re going to read those chapters you might as well read the whole thing.)

Let me come right out and say it. The music before the sermon is not meant to prepare you for the sermon. The music after the sermon is not meant to give you time to get out of the sanctuary before everyone else. The music in the service is not secondary to the sermon. Music is not a tool meant to be used to prepare hearts for the sermon; it is meant to be a tool used for glorifying God and proclaiming the same Gospel that the sermon is meant to be proclaiming. (Note: The sermon is also a tool used to accomplish goal of proclaiming the Gospel.)

Our services are meant to be an engagement with God formed by what I like to call the Gospel Pattern. This is how Bryan Chappell, in his book Christ Centered Worship, describes this Gospel Pattern in the context of an individual’s interaction with the good news of Jesus Christ:

 “The gospel first affects the heart by enabling us to recognize who God is. When we truly understand the glory of his holiness, then we also recognize who we really are and confess our need of him. The gospel then assures us of the grace that he provides, and our hearts respond in both thanksgiving and humble petition for his aid so that we can give proper devotion to him. In response to our desire for his aid, God provides his Word. We heed his instruction, know that we are both charged to do so and have the promise of his blessing as we live for him (p 99).”

Our services should be formatted in such a way that every element proclaims some aspect of this Gospel Pattern. Thankfully we don’t have to come up with this format all by ourselves. We see it in scripture (check out my last post about the dialogue of worship) and we see it in many of the liturgies of the churches throughout history.

Bryan Chappell summarizes the consistent elements found within many Historic Liturgies (p 100):

                         Recognition of God’s Character (Adoration)

Acknowledgment of Our Character (Confession)

Affirmation of Grace (Assurance)

Expression of Devotion (Thanksgiving)

Desire for Aid in Living for God (Petition and Intercession)

Acquiring Knowledge for Pleasing God (Instruction from God’s Word)

Living unto God with His Blessing (Charge and Benediction)

This same Gospel Pattern should shape our worship. Not because it’s tradition. But because if we follow this pattern in worship, each element of our service will work with the next to proclaim the Word of God and the Gospel of Jesus Christ—this is of utmost importance.

So in the next service that you attend I’d encourage you to think about each element of the service individually and then think about them all as a whole unit. Think of them as different scenes in the drama that is the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Without one of the scenes the drama might make a little bit of sense. But when all scenes are put together there is no mistaking the drama for anything but the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Here’s the point: the Word of God is the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Our entire worship services are meant to proclaim this Gospel, not just the sermon. If the Gospel Pattern is followed in our worship services, we have proclaimed the Gospel, participated in the Gospel, and personally and corporately experienced the Gospel. We leave the service having encountered the Triune God and His power to save. This is life changing!

"Postmodern Hymnody (is that even a real word?)"

In my last post I asked the question "Are we too dumb to sing hymns?". I ended with the helpful conclusion: "I don't know." But as promised in my last post, this post is going to touch on the same subject. A better answer to the previously posed question I think is, "No, we aren't too dumb. We just think differently now." In our current postmodern age we engage information differently than did the people in the modern age. By exploring this distinction between the thought process of people in the modern age verses the thought process of people in our current age we will discover some helpful insights into why we sing what we sing in church.

Through a brief discussion on Modern Art vs. Postmodern Art, how hymns and contemporary songs fit into those categories, and how this can be good and bad, Christians can be more mindful of what they like to sing and why they like to sing it, and if it is even a good thing to like to sing.

First thing's first... Modern Art. Its hard to describe art with out looking at it... but since I don't want to have to worry about copyright infringement I'm not going to post any images (if you want to see some, google Pablo Picasso). But here's a basic understanding of modern art... let me emphasize that, this is basic, basic, basic stuff. Modern art seeks to portray the ultimate reality or essence of the subject. For example, if you take away things that make a dog a dog one by one, eventually you will get down to the last thing that makes a dog a dog. If you take it away the dog will no longer be a dog. That last thing could be described as "Doginess." So, an artist painting a dog would not just look at a dog and paint exactly what he sees, he would paint what makes the dog a dog. The artist would seek to paint doginess. A difficult task if you ask me. The value in Modern Art comes with the Artist's engagement and treatment of the subject of the art. This is why modern art often seems to be abstract. To be honest, a lot of it looks weird to me. But it makes sense that it would look weird. The artist isn't just painting a dog. He's painting the doginess of a dog. An artist painting doginess might try to convey loyalty, an always present need for approval, doofyness and intelligence (at the same time). A painting with all of those things in it would definitely look weird. The important thing about Modern Art is the emphasis on objective truth. The modern artist seeks to portray Objective Truth through whatever medium he is using.

Postmodern art is a bit different. And it will make more sense to us... after all we live in the postmodern age. A postmodern artist seeks to portray a subject with the intentions of having the audience engage with that subject (google Andy Warhol). So instead of painting doginess like a modern artist, a postmodern artist would paint a dog. The value in the postmodern artists work comes when the audience looks at the dog and thinks about what this dog means to them. Maybe the image reminds them of their childhood dog. Maybe it reminds them of a time they got bit. The painting of the dog is valuable to some people because some people love dogs. However other people might hate it because they are cat people (which is a mystery in itself).

In summary, the main distinction between Modern Art and Postmodern Art is the thinking behind the art. Modern Artists seek to portray an objective truth about the subject. Postmodern Artists seek to portray a subject that will mean different things to different people emphasizing the subjective truth about the subject.

In general, we can apply this understanding to Hymns and Contemporary praise songs as well. Where hymns often seek to articulate some sort of deep theological truth and tend to be written using lines directly taken from scripture, contemporary songs tend be written in a way that can mean different things to different people. Here's a good example:

Modern Worship Song - "Holy Holy Holy"


Verse 1
Holy holy holy
Lord God Almighty
Early in the morning
Our song shall rise to Thee
Holy holy holy
Merciful and mighty
God in three persons
Blessed Trinity

Verse 2
Holy holy holy
All the saints adore Thee
Casting down their golden crowns
Around the glassy sea
Cherubim and seraphim
Falling down before Thee
Which wert and art
And evermore shalt be

Verse 3
Holy holy holy
Though the darkness hide Thee
Though the eye of sinful man
Thy glory may not see
Only Thou art holy
There is none beside Thee
Perfect in power
In love and purity

Verse 4
Holy holy holy
Lord God Almighty
All Thy works shall praise Thy name
In earth and sky and sea
Holy holy holy
Merciful and mighty
God in three persons
Blessed Trinity


Postmodern Worship Song - "Holy is the Lord"



Verse 1
We stand and lift up our hands
For the joy of the Lord is our strength
We bow down and worship Him now
How great how awesome is He

Pre-Chorus
And together we sing
Ev'ryone sing

Chorus 1
Holy is the Lord God Almighty
The earth is filled with His glory
Holy is the Lord God Almighty
The earth is filled with His glory
The earth is filled with His glory

Misc
It is rising up all around
It's the anthem of the Lord's renown
It's rising up all around
It's the anthem of the Lord's renown

These songs are both concentrating on the same theological truth. However, where the first uses language describing God's holiness as well as scenes from scripture, the second speaks of our interaction with God and uses a lot of repeated lines. I don't think that this means that the writer of the second song is lazy and the writer of the first was more elegant and articulate... Rather I think the second writer meant to repeat the lines multiple times to offer the people singing the song time to ponder God's holiness and what it means to them, where as the first writer meant to articulate the objective truth about God's holiness as seen in scripture.

There are good and bad things about both Contemporary songs meant for the congregation to engage with, and Hymns meant to articulate truths. A good thing about Hymns is the fact that they teach us Biblical truths (not to say that contemporary songs don't) and in troubled times in life we are reminded of the promises of God through reciting a hymn we grew up singing. A good thing about Contemporary songs is that we have the opportunity to reflect on our own life and the unique way that God has brought us to Him and praise Him for that. The bad thing about hymns is that some times there is so much information and truth packed into one 3 minute song that we don't have time to engage and understand the truth that the hymn is articulating. A bad thing about contemporary music is the fact that some times it is shallow and lacking in the truth department and depends to much on the music and the way that the congregation engages with it so much that the individuals become the subject in worship rather than God.

So fellow Christians, BE CAREFUL!

If we're not careful, contemporary songs become more about our engagement with them then about our engagement with God. If we're not careful we start to write and sing songs that we think will be meaningful to people because of the experience that we as leaders can create for the participants in worship. Eventually we start to emphasize the experience of worship over the subject of our worship, and we stop focusing on God and we focus on the spiritual high that we felt the last time we sang "that song." The congregation gets this emotional high at certain points in a song, and worship leaders are smart enough to key in on this point and are able to recreate it over and over and over.

Ultimately, worship becomes more about the emotional experience, controlled by the worship leader and band (whether the congregation knows it or not), than the engagement with God. 

So, I'd like to suggest that when we gather together to worship we sing truth... But let's not only sing truth, lets engage truth, lets reflect on how it effects our lives, and lets be changed by it! After all, He is the Way, the TRUTH, and the Life.

Are we too dumb to sing hymns?

So, interwebs, I'd like to ask you a question. Are we to dumb to sing hymns? Let me rephrase that... Can the average church goer process the deep theological "meat" often found in hymns, worship God for these truths, and be changed by these truths in the time that it takes for a congregation to sing 5 verses of 'Amazing Grace'? My answer in short is: I'm not sure. BUT I'd like to suggest that people might prefer not to sing hymns not only because the style of the music is not as popular nowadays, but because it takes less brain straining to sing something more contemporary. Contemporary songs are easier to understand because the subject matter in the song usually isn't as deep as that of a hymn.

Speaking of Amazing Grace, lets take a look at the verses.

Verse 1 
Amazing Grace how sweet the sound, that saved a wretch like me.
I once was lost, but now am found. I was blind, but now I see.

Verse 2 
Twas grace that taught my heart to fear, and grace my fears relieved.
How precious did that grace appear the hour I first believe.

Verse 3 
The Lord has promised good to me, his word my hope secures.
He will me shield and portion be, as long as life endures.

Verse 4 
Through many dangers toils and snares I have already come.
Tis grace hath brought me safe thus far, and grace will lead me home.

Verse 5 
When we've been there ten thousand years bright shining as the sun.
We've no less days to sing God's praise then when we'd first begun.

Now since you probably didn't read through those verses (bc you saw they were in italics and you thought to yourself, "I've sung this song a thousand times... I don't think I'm too dumb to sing all of them") I'd like to encourage you to re-read them as if you were reading them for the first time. Think about what they actually mean, not just how nice and poetic they sound.

I'm going to be honest, I was tripped up by verse 2. I think my thought process was something like "uh... grace taught my heart to fear?.. Fear what? oh yeah, God obviously... Grace my fears relieved... obviously I dont have to fear evils of the world b/c God is on my side... but maybe I don't have to fear God's punishment bc of grace? Could go either way.. I like the second interpretation better... Fits with the first line better...
How precious did that grace appear the hour I first believed... ok now we are going back to a conversion moment... I guess that works with the first two lines... I was taught to fear God because of grace, I was taught that I don't have to fear God's wrath because of grace, and when I realized these truths, grace is even more precious."

Please excuse the disjointed rambling above...

My point is that even with a hymn as familiar as Amazing Grace, there are a lot of truths being discussed in a short period of time and even after having sung the song for my whole life, I had never internalized the truths that verse 2 was talking about until I took the time to read it line by line. I don't think I'm the only one to experience this either...

Here's another example from the same song -

The earth shall soon dissolve like snow, the sun forbear to shine.
But God who calls me here below, will be forever mine.

Ever wonder why the Gray Psalter doesn't include that verse and adds its own verse 5... which Newton didn't even write? Well, it's because the Christian Reformed Church (the publisher of the Gray Psalter) doesn't believe that the earth is going to dissolve like snow, or that the sun will forbear to shine. The reformers believe that all of creation is going to be reformed, redeemed, and renewed.

So in the short amount of time that it takes to sing 5 verses of Amazing Grace we have discussed a conversion experience, the fear of the Lord, the faithfulness of God in regard to the promises in His Word, experiencing trials in life and overcoming through God's grace, and Eschatology. There is a lot of deep theological truths going on in there... but is it to much for the average church goer? I don't think so. But I do think that it is more difficult for someone to internalize a song like this over a song like Chris Tomlin's Your Grace is Enough. Is this bad? Maybe...

Have we de-intellectualized church? Have we over-emotionalized it so much that when we sing about theological truth we don't even realize what we're singing rather we just get lost in the music?

I think that exploring the effect that postmodern art has on what we sing in church would provide insight for my original question: "Are we to dumb to sing hymns?".

Stayed tuned for my next post "Postmodern Hymnity (is that even a real word?)"

Celebrating Limited Atonement

This week in my New Religions class we had a discussion on Calvinism, TULIP, and what we don't like about it. I guess I was a bit surprised to hear that a lot of my classmates don't like the idea of Limited Atonement (the 3rd point of Calvinism). I guess I'm still figuring out that if I like something that doesn't mean everyone in the world likes it...

Most people struggle with the Limited part of the doctrine, so I'll start on the part that I would wager most Christians like: Atonement. I've heard this concept explained simply as "at one ment", the state of being at one with God.  Christ has paid the  price for our sins and as a result we are put in to right standing with God. To this I believe all Christians can say amen. 

Now the Limited part. Many see this as meaning A Select Few, A Small Group, it means not all people will be saved. People have issues with this because it seems to place a limit on the breadth (the amount of people that are saved) of the atoning sacrifice of Christ on the cross. I would argue the opposite. (Here's my thesis) The concept of Limited Atonement, when understood as Definite Atonement, lends itself to imply a larger breadth of atonement than does the opposing Arminian view: Unlimited Atonement. Let me tell you why I think this way.

In one of my doctrine courses we discussed TULIP in depth. My professor made it easier for us to understand by replacing the L with a D. They mean the same thing, but in our current culture and the with the way we use the word Limited now-a-days the word Definite more clearly communicates what the word Limited, in the context of TULIP, is meant to say. To explain further, the word limited in this context has little to do with the size of the number of the elect, rather it has to do with the fact that there is a defined number of elect. This is why the word Definite fits better. Definite Atonement more clearly emphasizes the fact that the breadth of atonement depends on God's sovereignty. God has defined how wide the breadth of atonement is, and this is good. You might agree with me if I talk about the alternative, Unlimited Atonement.

At first this concept sounds nice. Unlimited Atonement is the third point of Arminianism (the five points of Calvinism were written to refute the five points of Arminianism). According to the five points of Arminianism, salvation is for all who believe (I agree). The Arminians would say that the expanse of atonement, since it is dependent on the amount who believe on Jesus, has the potential to be unlimited, because there is a potential for all mankind to believe. What Arminians seems to over-look is the fact that there is also the possibility that none will believe and that Christ would have died for naught.  I don't like that idea. Unlimited Atonement de-emphasizes Christ's Sovereignty when it comes to carrying out His plan for our salvation, and emphasizes man's role in obtaining his salvation. We should not be ok with leaving the breadth of Christ's Atoning sacrifice up to man. 

Since Arminianism and the concept of Unlimited Atonement leaves the amount of people who will be saved by Christ's sacrifice up to man's decision I would argue that if that were true it would undoubtedly result in a smaller breadth of atonement than Definite Atonement would. Man is fallen, we can make good decisions, but when it comes down to it, I'd rather trust God to define who is saved and who is not... I think that that way many more people will be saved. 

Imagine we are all on a football team. God is the quarterback, we are all His team mates. Scoring a touchdown and winning the game represents God's purposes and plan of salvation for the world. Limited Atonement does not limit God's ability to win, it emphasizes God's power to win. Unlimited Atonement places the ball in man's hand. And if history is any indicator of human tendencies, we will definitely fumble and fail to score. Praise God for the fact that He see's fit to hold onto the ball Himself, remain the star of the game, ensure victory, and then allows us to join in the victory celebration.

This concept should comfort us when we think about our loved ones who do not believe the Gospel. It is tempting to feel anger towards God for not "electing" them. But I would argue that we should praise God for the fact that their salvation does not depend on their ability to understand the gospel, rather it depends on God's sovereignty. We should pray that God may chose our friends for salvation and praise God when it becomes clear that He has, and plea with God in their last days when it seems He hasn't. My non-christian friends' salvation does not depend on my ability to articulate the Gospel and their ability to understand it, rather it rest's solely on God's Sovereignty. However, this is no excuse for me not to make an attempt at sharing the Gospel with them. Let's go back to the football analogy. We as blockers on the team who will undoubtedly win cannot simply decide not to block. Sure, God will score the winning touchdown regardless of our efforts, but we cannot use that as an excuse to get lazy in our efforts to help. We do God a disservice by not doing our best to assist in scoring. And when we fail and miss our block, God will undoubtedly make some sort of spectacular play because it is in our "weakness that God's power is made perfect (2 Cor. 12:9)." Praise God for that!