CALVARY HERALD

Worship Governed by God's Word

by Dave Mericle

A recent Mission to North America (MNA) newsletter highlighted some churches in the U.S. Southwest. The article uncritically states: "The contemporary worship format established by [the founding pastor] continues, now directed by Worship Director [name]." The current pastor is quoted as saying: "We have a four piece band and a drama team of 15 people who present brief productions during Sunday worship," and, "The idea is to re-enact real-life situations that relate to the sermon message." The message to those unfamiliar with PCA confessional standards is clear: drama is not only a legitimate part of worship, it is a desirable one at that.

(The article goes on to briefly discuss a second PCA church in the same area which describes their worship services as "completely different" from the previously described church, and "traditional, highly liturgical," which engenders "a sense of the majesty of God". One almost wonders if this statement is added to show the "diversity" of worship expression allowed within the PCA.)

In light of the current doctrinal differences over the issue of drama in worship, why does MNA give what amounts to denominational "approval" to a practice that is clearly at odds with the regulative principle of worship, the Westminster Confession of Faith, and the PCA Book of Church Order? My observation is that MNA is caught in a kettle of church growth soup, a kettle in which the temperature and excitement is slowly being brought to a boil, only to find that the Christian faith being presented tastes and looks like every other offering of the culture, instead of the truly radical calling that it is.

The slogan, 2000 churches by the year 2000, is associated with MNA. Does this not sound like the secular business world's approach to growth management? It appears that pragmatic methods have overtaken the minds of some in our denomination who are searching for the "right" formula to fill the pews. In contrast, God's Word proclaims: "I [Paul] planted, Apollos watered, God was causing the growth" (1 Corinthians 3:6).

Drama in worship is, I propose, a symbol of a church that is in a state of atrophy and confusion --- not truly understanding the times and the way it should go. Instead of pleasing God and calling all to truly worship Him, the lights and action of drama draw eyes and hearts away from the awesome holiness of God, and fail to follow the dictum of Christ to worship God "in spirit and truth" (John 4:24b). Christianity is built upon the Logos and must stand upon the Word of God. We have a word-centered faith, and must not abandon the centrality, sufficiency, and efficacy of sound expository preaching as the means of transmitting the truth. Listen to Paul as he instructs Timothy to "preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort, with great patience and instruction. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires; and will turn away their ears from the truth, and will turn aside to myths" (2 Timothy 4:2-4). If Paul left the inexperienced Timothy to pastor the church in pagan Ephesus and told him to preach the word, why do we purport to know a better way in the midst of our pagan culture?

The example illustrates an approach to ministry that appears to base its methods on the (shifting) standard of what the culture will respond to. In a statement entitled Green Lake Presbyterian Church and the Seattle Community, a PCA church in Seattle discusses how the church is to respond to the "post-modern" culture. After describing salient features of the post-modern culture, the statement makes the following affirmations (emphasis mine):

"* That the Word of God is changeless, timeless and transcends cultural differences, language, time, and place.

"* That for us, the non-negotiable are those truths, practices and forms prescribed by Holy Scripture, summarized in the Westminster standards and committed to in our denominational Book of Church Order.

"* That the negotiable include all else including some forms used in worship, the manner in which we do outreach (providing that at the heart of our outreach are gospel truths) and the language we use to communicate, and the ideas that we use to accompany the gospel truths."

I agree that the church needs to be educated and aware of the mindset of our prevailing culture. Our preaching and the terms that we use must communicate truth to the hearer. However, we do not need to presume that because theological terms and ideas may initially be foreign to our hearers, we need to reach them with a more "user friendly" form of communication. What is needed is clear communication of man's sin, a call to renounce our sinful ways, and pointed, frequent reference to the finished work of Christ. Paul's Acts 17 sermon on Mars Hill is a wonderful example of ministering in a "cross-cultural setting." Paul was observant enough to recognize a common point of departure ("... I observe that you are very religious in all respects...."), and then bold enough to preach plainly ("What therefore you worship in ignorance, this I proclaim to you.") the claims of Christ.

Regarding the modernity/post-modernity thesis, Peter J. Leithart, in his essay "Testing the Modernity Thesis" (PREMISE, Volume II, Number 10, December 1995), has the following summary: "If in its confrontation with the new world of industrialism, urbanization, and technology, the church has surrendered one thing after another, let us not blame her capitulation on modernity, at least call this process by its proper name: a failure of nerve." The Seattle church should be commended for looking at their situation and questioning their effectiveness, but the answer is not in the culture and its forms du jour.

The church described in the MNA newsletter has a position referred to as their "worship director." The only true director our worship is, and must continue to be, God Almighty. Those who would lead God's people in worship must take their responsibility seriously. Our worship is unto the LORD. Those who preach are entrusted with careful explanation of the Scriptures -- no more, and certainly no less. Instead of drama teams reenacting real-life situations relating to a sermon message, the preacher must be precise in exposition, convicting, and encouraging, so that the hearers will be ready to live real-life situations. Watching a dramatic vignette only serves to reinforce a spectator sport mentality in worship. As preachers of the gospel, our elders should pray for the ability to explain Scriptures to men as Christ did on the road to Emmaus, and ask the Holy Spirit to reproduce the results of "hearts burning within," just as He did in the two individuals listening to Christ.

Time and again, Scripture resounds with the command to preach the Word. Nehemiah records the Levites reading "from the book, from the law of God, translating to give the sense so that they understood the reading" (Nehemiah 8:8). In Malachi 2:6,7 we read the following about God's covenant with Levi: "True instruction was in his mouth, and unrighteousness was not found on his lips; he walked with Me in peace and uprightness, and he turned many back from iniquity. For the lips of a priest should preserve knowledge, and men should seek instruction from his mouth; for he is the messenger of the LORD of hosts." One must ask, if God has said that preaching and instruction are to transmit the truth of His Word, where is the warrant for any other means of expounding truth in the worship setting?

In a recent essay on contemporary worship, John H. Armstrong quotes Bill Hybels, pastor of Willow Creek Community Church as saying he "will never quote Charles Spurgeon in his public services. Why? He confidently assures fellow ministers that Spurgeon is outdated and will not speak the language of their modern hearers." Armstrong continues, "I for one am concerned that this creates, intended or otherwise, a reverse elitism. We are the ones who communicate with our age, but does it not follow from this that Isaiah, Jesus, Paul, and John are also irrelevant?" Turning to the ministry of Jesus we see that His method was to speak the truth and essentially let the chips fall where they may. In John 6 we see so-called disciples grumbling over His teaching and eventually withdrawing from Him. In Matthew 13, the disciples ask the Lord why He was teaching in parables. Jesus' answer includes the statement, "To you it has been granted to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven but to them it has not been granted" (Matthew 13:11). Subsequent to this Jesus teaches in yet more parables. Imagine the advice Jesus would have received from the session of a "seeker sensitive" church of the 90's when people left or didn't seem to grasp the teaching!

What about those who sit in the pew? Let us go again to Scripture for the characterization of our proper attitude. In 1 Peter 1:25 and 2:2 we read "But the Word of the LORD abides forever. And this is the word which was preached to you . . . like newborn babes, long for the pure milk of the word, that by it you may grow in respect to salvation." Never does the Word of God give us the expectation that we are to be entertained by sights we see in worship. Scripture does tell us in the words of the psalmist that we should pray that the meditation of our hearts would be acceptable in the sight of God (Psalm 19:14).

In the days prior to the Protestant Reformation, worshipers were witness to the resplendent visual images of the Mass. In a language few understood, the priest stood between God and man, dispensing what the church deemed to be the means of grace. With the advent of the Reformation we saw the stress placed on the preaching of the Word, while that translation and printing of the Word of God placed the truths of Scripture in the hands of the common people. One of the great themes of the reformation was Sola Scriptura. Calvin in his Institutes of the Christian Religion had this to say in his exposition on the second commandment: "To sum up, he wholly calls us back and withdraws us from petty carnal observances, which our stupid minds, crassly conceiving of God are wont to devise. And then he makes us conform to his lawful worship, that is, a spiritual worship established by himself."

May God grant His church the courage to remain convinced, taught, and led Sola Scriptura.

The Singular Nature of Pluralism

by Byron Snapp

The serene stable scene of Joseph, Mary, and the shepherds surrounding the infant Lord Jesus marks the Christmas season. In Matthew's inspired account we read that events became ugly once King Herod learned of Christ's birth. When the wise men journeyed home without telling him of the young child's location, Herod went into a rage. "Then Herod, when he saw that he was deceived by the wise men, was exceedingly angry; and he sent forth and put to death all the male children who were in Bethlehem and in all its districts, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had determined from the wise men" (Matthew 2:16).

Herod would permit no potential rival to his throne. No matter how many lives had to be destroyed, the infant Lord Jesus had to be killed. Scripture clearly teaches the Father's protection of the incarnate Christ (See Matthew 2:13ff.).

This incident has important instruction for Christians in our society. Numerous Christians support the idea of pluralism within our culture. Pluralism is the idea that all religions are to be treated equally and none should have undue influence on public policy. Our generation has seen the removal of many biblically-based laws as a result. Abortion, once illegal, is now legal. Homosexuals have "come out of the closet." Euthanasia is gaining greater interest and acceptance. Large numbers of employees are required to take sensitivity training -- so that workers will be sensitive to the varied lifestyle choices that fellow workers have made.

Having high hopes for open and even victorious dialogue in a pluralistic society, Christians appeal only for a spot and a voice at the cultural table. With this they are satisfied.

In many ways Rome, in the first century, appeared to be a pluralistic society. The customs and religions of many nations were permitted. That is, they were permitted so long as they did not conflict with the goals of Rome's real god, the state. To the policies and goals of the state, Rome demanded ultimate allegiance. No other religion was equal to it. Laws were designed to advance the cause of the state. Thus, Rome, like every other society before and since, did nothing more than give lip service to pluralism.

The humanist King Herod understood this truth far better than many Christians in our day. Although he was wrong in thinking that Christ was a rival to him for the physical throne, he was right in thinking that Christ was a rival to the state for the devotion of the people. Thus it is little wonder that Herod demanded infanticide in order to destroy the threat to his power. His law to kill all male infants was a religious law, in the sense that it extolled Rome's god -- the state -- and opposed God's rightful place and just laws.

As I mentioned earlier, some Christians will say that pluralism is fine because Christians can convince others of the Christian position through discussion and debate. I do not want to belittle the fact that whenever we present Christian truth we must do so prayerfully, cogently, and compassionately. However, the world is not anxiously awaiting Christian truth.

Herod wanted no part of Christian truth. Long ago the psalmist was inspired to point out that earthly kings and rulers take counsel against the Lord and against His law (Psalm 2:2,3). Man is depraved. Without the working of the Holy Spirit, and God's mercy, man will always choose laws that oppose God. Man's mind is as depraved and prone to sin as the rest of his being.

We should not be surprised to see no room in the public arena for creation in the teaching of the origin of the world. The fact that "Happy Holidays" has replaced "Merry Christmas" should not shock us. Nor should we be so naive as to think that the motivation for this replacement has been the recognition that the Scripture neither tells us the date of Christ's birth nor commands us to celebrate it. Instead, We should expect to see further attempts to remove the remaining vestiges of Christianity from our culture, because we do not live in a pluralistic society. No such society can exist, except in name alone.

The Christian answer is not to respond as Herod did. Our response must be several-fold. First, we must pray that God would open the ears of those in our society to the truth of God's Word and its application to all of life. We must humbly use God-given opportunities to lovingly teach God's Word and appropriately apply it in conversations we have with others. We must teach our children how Scripture applies to life. The next generation lives in a culture in which, for their lifetime, abortion has always been legal, homosexuality is acceptable, and the Lord's Day is treated no differently than Saturday. We must know the times in which we live and teach the our children how to live in them. We must also pray that church leaders do not adapt the church to cultural thinking. Instead we must desire nothing less than for church officers to train the laity by example and instruction in the biblical response to cultural issues.

We must never be ashamed of Jesus Christ and of biblical teaching. Biblical teaching culturally applied leads to Christian culture. This begins as people are regenerated by the Holy Spirit, not through political change in Washington, D.C. Christian culture is not equal to other cultures. It is far superior. We should prayerfully and joyfully desire to see biblical teaching implemented in our culture. None of the alternatives have good track records. The proof of their failures is as close as our morning paper and evident in fallen cultures such as the Roman Empire of Herod's day.

Necessary Consequence: Will My Children Go To Heaven? (Part 2)

by C. Michael Holloway

Will My Children Go To Heaven? is the title of a recently published book by Edward N. Gross. Dr. Gross' answer to his title question is, "Yes, if you are a faithful Christian parent." In the February/March edition of the Calvary Herald (volume 12, number 2), I stated the opinion that Dr. Gross fails to show that his answer is right. In this issue's column, I will explain the reasoning that supports this opinion.

Recall that one of the foundational premises of this column is that the Westminster Confession of Faith is correct when it states in Chapter I, Section VI: The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture.... Thus, the assertion "all children of faithful Christian parents will be saved" is true if either the Scripture explicitly states it, or it may be deduced from Scripture by "good and necessary consequence." The question before us is whether Dr. Gross shows that at least one of these two conditions is satisfied.

We may quickly focus our attention on the second condition. Dr. Gross places particular importance on several specific Scripture passages, but he does not quite claim that these passages directly and unquestionably support his thesis. Instead, he asserts (without actually using the phrase) that his thesis follows by good and necessary consequence from these and other passages.

In this short column, we do not have space to look at every passage cited by Dr. Gross; however, because his basic approach is the same for all passages, looking at just one passage will suffice to show the inadequacy of his argument. For this purpose, let us consider the first Scripture passage he cites, and what he has to say about it.

Acts 2:36-39 reads as follows: "Therefore let all the house of Israel know for certain that God has made Him both Lord and Christ-- this Jesus whom you crucified." Now when they heard this, they were pierced to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, "Brethren, what shall we do?" And Peter said to them, "Repent, and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and your children, and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God shall call to Himself."

About this passage, Dr. Gross writes: "The promise offered to those repenting sinners was the promise of salvation. And the same promise was extended to their children, too. ... Was this promise only for them? Or does it continue to be in effect today? ... That promise was not only a Jewish promise, confined to those then present. It was a universal promise made to all everywhere whom God would call to salvation. The Gentiles were those who were 'far off' (Eph. 2:13,17), and so the promise is for you and me just as much as for those who first heard it."

These words reveal three errors that Dr. Gross makes throughout his book: (1) assuming that whenever the Scripture speaks of children, it means all children; (2) ignoring qualifying text within a passage; and (3) failing to recognize that his own interpretations are fatal to his thesis. Although only the third of these errors is specifically a question of logic (the first two are primarily hermeneutical questions), I'll address each briefly.

First, for Peter's words to support Dr. Gross' assertions, it is necessary that they be read as, "... the promise is for you and for each and every one of your children ...." To read the passage in this way is to make the same error that many Jews did in thinking that God's covenant with Abraham insured the salvation of every child born to Jewish parents. The natural and orthodox understanding of Peter's words is that the promise continues from generation to generation, in the same way as God's previous promise to Abraham does.

Second, Dr. Gross ignores the phrase, "as many as the Lord our God shall call to Himself." Even if "children" means "each and every child", the concluding phrase modifies the otherwise apparent universality of the promise by restricting it to those whom God calls. The promise is not to everyone in each generation, but to everyone God calls to Himself in each generation.

Finally, even if we adopt Dr. Gross' interpretation of "children" ("each and every one of your children"), and even if we ignore the passage's concluding phrase, the passage does not support Dr. Gross' thesis. Recall that his thesis is that every child of faithful Christian parents will be saved. If his interpretation of the passage is correct, then every child of Christian parents --- regardless of whether the parents are faithful --- will be saved; nothing in the passage restricts the promise to faithful parents only. Thus, Dr. Gross' own interpretation of the passage is fatal to his thesis.

Acts 2:36-39 does not support Dr. Gross' thesis. Although I've not shown it here, analysis of the other passages he cites shows that none of them support him, either. Thus, Dr. Gross does not prove that all the children of faithful Christian parents will necessarily go to heaven. Please note that I have shown only that Dr. Gross has not proved his thesis; I have not shown that his thesis cannot be true (the thesis cannot be true, but the proof of this is left as an exercise to the reader). Nor have I explained what the Scripture does teach about the salvation of believer's children. On this issue, we should take comfort and confidence in the knowledge that God promises to richly bless those who honor Him.

Women in the Church

by Wendy Livingstone

Women in the Church (WIC) got off to a very active start this year at our September meeting. A session on Spiritual Mothering by Susan Hunt, was led by Glory Gill. This was followed with briefs on the various Circles and Accountability Partnerships. We enjoyed a wonderful lunch and great fellowship with one another.

Our upcoming quarterly meeting will be held on December 7th from 9:00 - 11:00 AM. Bethel Anthony will be speaking on "Equipping and encouraging women to be spiritual mothers;" also from Susan Hunt's book. We will serve breakfast, so be sure to sign up. There will be a Christmas cookie exchange; bring six dozen cookies if you wish to participate. Also, we will have our "Very Inexpensive Gift Exchange" (under $10.00 please). Participation is voluntary. We hope you will join us for a time of great teaching, food, fun and fellowship!

Bible Studies -- The Wednesday morning Bible study group is finishing By Design. We will begin a new study on a book of the Bible in late January. Look for sign-ups in early January. The monthly Saturday morning Bible study group will continue to use By Design through next spring.

Circles -- The Garden and Gourmet Circle meets the first Tuesday of the month and is led by Karen Phillips. The Encouragement Circle meets the fourth Tuesday of each month and is led by Glory Gill. Please feel free to join if you're interested!

Accountability Partnerships -- Several partnerships have been formed to provide biblical support and encouragement. The Partnerships consist of two or three women committed to meeting at least once a month. This has proven to be a wonderful ministry to those involved. If interested, contact Wendy Livingstone.

Look for the new WIC bulletin board coming to a church hallway near you!

Session News

October

• Discussed various shepherding concerns.
• Received report from Deacons regarding purchase of a new copy machine and piano.
• Heard report from Ed Moore regarding youth group participating in a summer youth mission trip.
• Approved School Board fund raising letter.
• Elected Sam Derr to serve on Budget Committee.
• Reviewed Church Handbook for Elder liaison with various committees.
• Heard presbytery report from Ed Moore. He and Pete were asked to give a 10 minute report at an Evening Gathering.

November

• Received upon profession of faith: Melissa Comeaux, Ken Dorian, and Jennifer Whiting.
• Transferred Anna (Snapp) Lindauer membership to Westminster Church, Kingsport, TN.
• Heard final report for Mortgage Reduction pledges.
• Received report from Long Range Planning Committee.
• Approved Christian Worldview Student Conference speakers for 1997.
• Agreed to sponsor two tables at Operation Breaking Through Banquet.
• Received various other reports and addressed other concerns.