Doxology

In the emotionally charged society in which we live, it has become central to the church music lexicon to use language consistent with emotions.  Yours truly has also, in the past, been subject to those inclinations.  However, recently (in the past eight years) I’ve come to the conclusion that our language needs to change in this regard—moving primarily from speaking to emotions during singing to speaking of affections.  “What’s the big deal?” “Isn’t it just semantics?” you may ask.

Not at all.

I’ve struggled as how to express that change.  That’s why I’m so thankful to have come across this little article at Justin Taylor’s blog.  It says in a few hundred words what I would try to say in thousands.  Let this begin to alter the way you think about emotions and emotionalism.

As Gerald McDermott explains, Jonathan Edwards saw affections as “strong inclinations of the soul that are manifested in thinking, feeling and acting” (Seeing God: Jonathan Edwards and Spiritual Discernment, p. 31).

A common confusion is to equate “affections” with “emotions.” But there are several differences, as summarized in this chart from McDermott (p. 40):

He explains why affections are different than emotions:

Emotions (feelings) are often involved in affections, but the affections are not defined by emotional feeling. Some emotions are disconnected from our strongest inclinations.

For instance, a student who goes off to college for the first time may feel doubtful and fearful. She will probably miss her friends and family at home. A part of her may even try to convince her to go back home. But she will discount these fleeting emotions as simply that—feelings that are not produced by her basic conviction that now it is time to start a new chapter in life.

The affections are something like that girl’s basic conviction that she should go to college, despite fleeting emotions that would keep her at home. They are strong inclination that may at times conflict with more fleeting and superficial emotions. (pp. 32-33)

Here is how Sam Storms explains the difference in Signs of the Spirit: An Interpretation of Jonathan Edwards’ “Religious Affections:

Certainly there is what may rightly be called an emotional dimension to affections. Affections, after all, are sensible and intense longings or aversions of the will. Perhaps it would be best to say that whereas affections are not less than emotions, they are surely more.

Emotions can often be no more than physiologically heightened states of either euphoria or fear that are unrelated to what the mind perceives as true.

Affections, on the other hand, are always the fruit or effect of what the mind understands and knows. The will or inclination is moved either toward or away from something that is perceived by the mind.

An emotion or mere feeling, on the other hand, can rise or fall independently of and unrelated to anything in the mind.

One can experience an emotion or feeling without it properly being an affection, but one can rarely if ever experience an affection without it being emotional and involving intense feelings that awaken and move and stir the body. (p. 45)

I’m not saying that emotions are bad or evil.  I’m just saying that the scriptures may be dealing with a realm higher and deeper than emotions only.

Brother Music Minister, begin to re-think your view on emotions

Share on Facebook

Twitter This

Usuario: Password:

Here’s this week’s version of my radio interview with Monk and Catoe at WSTS 100.9 FM.  In this show we deal with the power of grace and the worship it produces compared to worship through the law by looking at Luke 7:36-50.

Click HERE to listen!

Share on Facebook

Twitter This

Usuario: Password:

I don’t know if you’ve ever seen this little video with a couple of Australian Asians (totally cool!) but Piper once again reminds us of the importance of heart-engagement with worship.  It’s a message we constantly need to hear.  Enjoy!

Share on Facebook

Twitter This

Usuario: Password:

Here’s a re-vamped post from a couple of years ago.  I thought it worth sharing again.

Have you ever considered the source of praise? Have you ever thought about who generates those words, thoughts, songs, and acts of worship to God?

To attempt to answer these questions, let us look at one of the most amazing moments in all of scripture.

Then Moses said, “I pray You, show me Your glory!” And He said, ” I Myself will make all My goodness pass before you, and will proclaim the name of the LORD before you; and I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will show compassion on whom I will show compassion.” Ex 33:18-19 NASU

Can you imagine how euphoric, how terrifying, how incredible this moment must have been for Moses? We are so blessed that God chose to include it in scripture. He does so to tell us some very important truths.

God Is Sovereign
Of course you can say, “But it was Moses’ request to which God responded!” Well, yes and no. It was Moses who made the request, but it was God at work in Moses that caused Moses to make such a request. You also must notice all of the “I will” in what God says. It was God Who called Moses to the mountain in the first place. It was God Who took the initiative with Moses—not the other way around.

God Is Sovereign Over Himself
God did not say “I will pass before you”. He does not even say “My goodness will pass before you”. He says “I MYSELF will make all My goodness pass before you”. Have you ever considered the infinite Self-control of God? What if you had perfect self-control? Have you ever met anyone with flawless self-control?

Tiger Woods became a billionaire because he had unparalleled self-control over his golf game…..But he is lost out with advertisers and the public now that it is apparent that he didn’t have that same self-control in his private life. (Whether or not he returns to the elite place where he once was remains to be seen.)  Self-control is one of the fruits of the Spirit (Ga. 5:23). However, who can claim that they have had absolute self-control other than God?

Share on Facebook

Twitter This

Usuario: Password:

As we continue delving into the subject of the Regulative, Normative, and Biblical Principle I left you with a crucial aspect of this entire realm that must be visited now.  It’s an area that many would rather avoid.  It’s an element that is much more easily circumvented by following forms and patterns—it’s the subject of the heart.

Many times, I wonder if elaborate templates and formalisms are developed to cut us loose from having to look at our hearts.  As I’ve written about before, getting our forms right don’t make us right with God.  Only God gets us right with God (through Jesus and His gospel).  On the other hand, I wonder if churches avoid relying entirely upon God-sanctioned means because they also don’t want to face up to the condition of their heart.  I wonder if they are ashamed to preach and sing the gospel alone because it would reveal where their church is really at spiritually.

With that being said, I would rather see a church and its leadership not have all their lyrical “ducks-in-a-row” with their song list but striving to propagate a deep humility in the way they look to God’s Word than a church that has carefully scrutinized every “jot and tittle” of their lyrics and are arrogant about having their songs biblically accurate.  We can be formally correct and spiritually incorrect.  Conversely, I would rather see a church doing their music a bit too conservatively (expression, styles, etc.) with humility than boasting in their freedoms of styles, expressions, etc. (Gal. 5:13; 1 Pet. 2:16).  We can be stylistically free and in spiritual bondage. Every effort at reform and adjustment must be done with a gospel humility and selflessness.

Another thing of note is that too many church decisions are based on dealing with lost church membership.  There have been many church models created that attempt to engage unregenerate people in worship.  The problem is that individuals who have not been supernaturally born-again cannot worship God.  They cannot worship in spirit and truth.  But many churches deviate from biblical means in order to get “goats” to act like “sheep” (Matt 25) in a service and therefore give the impression of arriving at a biblical end without using the biblical means (preaching truth, praying for the power of the Spirit) to do so.  For example, using a secular song in a church service might get a rise out of lost people but it won’t edify Christ’s Bride.

Let me also mention that trajectory can be just as important as position.  In other words, where a church is headed (fruit-bearing, maturity, reforming pulpit and music, etc.) can be as vital as where it IS today.  No church gets it all figured out overnight.  Many churches lose out on corporate sanctification because they make idols out of trying to get healthy.  As Oswald Chambers says, “Think of the enormous leisure of God”.  That is to say, God is not wringing His Hands in heaven worried about your church being more appealing to lost people or being more reformed.  He is concerned that our hearts stay humble and directed towards His Word.

When you look at the scriptures, particularly with Jesus’ dealing with specific individuals, He always cut right to the heart.  He never avoided that issue.  Using the Biblical Principle (BP) approach, which means that both leadership and laity looks at all elements of church life with humility, joy, selflessness, and love, forces all involved to deal with their own hearts.

How we land on an issue can be just as important as where we land on an issue.

Share on Facebook

Twitter This

Usuario: Password:

This isn't spirituality

This quote by John Piper says it very well.  I’ve often said that a hyper-somber mood and carriage in congregational worship draws as much attention to the worshiper as does hyper-emotionalism.  Let us give evidence, in a manner worthy of the gospel, to the great joy and treasuring of Jesus when we congregate together.

Unbroken seriousness of a melodramatic or somber kind will inevitably communicate a sickness of soul to the great mass of people. This is partly because life as God created it is not like that.

There are, for example, little babies in the world who are not the least impressed with or in need of our passion and zeal and earnest looks. They are cooing and smiling and calling for their daddies to get down and play with them. The daddy who cannot do this will not understand the true seriousness of sin, because he is not capable of enjoying what God has preserved from its ravages. He is really a sick man and unfit to lead others to health. He is, in the end, earnest about being earnest, not earnest about being joyful.

The real battle in life is to be as happy in God as we can be, and that takes a very special kind of earnestness, since God threatens terrible things if we will not be happy.

Share on Facebook

Twitter This

Usuario: Password:

I received this question a while back and thought it was well-worth answering here:

What does formality lend to our reverence if anything at all?

This question was asked in context of a blog entry in which I was explaining that formality and reverence are NOT synonymous.  Unfortunately many do equate formality and reverence as one and the same.

Terminology is important.  Today’s church services are increasingly associated with terminology that might be as familiar to spiritism and mysticism as to the Bible.  It is not uncommon to hear worshipers speak of being “ushered into God’s Presence” and “flow” and “atmosphere”.  However, the goal of a church service is to remind the congregation that they have already been ushered into God’s Presence through the work of Jesus.  It is to remind the congregation that the function of the service is to revel in the fact that God has come to us and that we need not “do” anything to get to Him relationally.  (Now, if worshipers understand the difference between justification and sanctification biblically then they may be more correct in the use of those terms—another blog entry?)

Position is important.  How then can one explain a service that seems docile at the beginning but eventually swells into a crescendo of powerful expression of worship?  Isn’t that God “falling” on the congregation in response to the people’s calling out on God?  Isn’t that a “moving of the Spirit”?  I believe it to be more biblically accurate to think of those wonderful times of corporate worship as simply a congregation engaging its affections gospel-ward.  It would be better to think of a congregation focusing its heart and mind on God instead of a mystical action happening to them to get them to that point.  Paul is clear in 1 Cor. that worship is not mindless but that it is with the mind engaged.  Rather than speaking in terms of God responding to our initiation, we should remember that a congregation is responding to God’s initial action.

That’s where formality enters the equation.  A church service must be intentionally structured so that a congregation will be led to repent out of all the distractions that compete for its attention.  It is important to remember that the formal structures used are invented by God Himself through His word.  Not just any formal structures are permissible.  Only those prescribed in scripture.  God does remain “sovereignly silent” to a point, but the principles guiding those structures are in place (sounds like yet another good blog entry, huh?). Formality is the means.  Reverence is the end (in the context of this discussion—remember, the glory of God is truly the “End”).

Reverence is important.  With that being said, formality doesn’t guarantee reverence.  After all formal structures are in place and every attempt biblically has been made to guide a congregation to engage its “mind” towards the gospel of Jesus, a humble, faith-filled intercession to God for His Spirit to attend His Word (spoken and sung) must be made.  As God is the “Alpha and Omega” of our faith, so He is also the One Who directs our formal structures and the One Who empowers our affections.

However, to forget that a group of truly born-again believers have already been filled with the Spirit at conversion and in that sense, nothing else needs to “happen” to them to see a powerful corporate experience take place.  They simply need to be reminded of the gospel and then allowed to respond to it.  (I’m tempted to launch into a tangential discussion on the dual perspectives—God’s and man’s—but that be for yet another blog entry!)

God’s formality leads the horse to the water.  God’s Spirit then makes him drink.

Share on Facebook

Twitter This

Usuario: Password:

I know the comparison to fans at a sporting event and born-again believers in a church service in one sense is comparing apples to oranges.  I mean, when a man is given a new heart he is placed in an entirely different category spiritually and comparisons break down.  But in at least a sociological sense, I’m still amazed when the elation and passion and unity exhibited at secular events exceeds that of those who have been redeemed out of eternal death unto the matchless glory of the risen Christ.  I’m not suggesting that a church service should look like this video but I am wondering how often gathered believers accurately display worship in a manner worthy of the gospel.  I suppose I won’t truly have an answer to that musing this side of glorification.

Enjoy!

Share on Facebook

Twitter This

Usuario: Password:

In my first post on this subject, I began to deal with the concept that the impact we have on a congregation is more seen than heard.  We can have all of our music elements put in place in an excellent way but through deadpan facial expression or too much body language we can discredit the truths we are singing.

One question I often ask our choir is this:  If the sounds were removed from viewing one of our song services, what messages do we send to an observer? Would the observer be able to tell that whatever the text might be, we are overjoyed at that text or are we blatantly apathetic?

To look at what God’s word has to say about it, I wish to draw your attention to the following from the first chapter of Philippians:

²⁷ Only conduct yourselves in a manner worthy of the gospel of Christ, so that whether I come and see you or remain absent, I will hear of you that you are standing firm in one spirit, with one mind striving together for the faith of the gospel; ²⁸ in no way alarmed by your opponents—which is a sign of destruction for them, but of salvation for you, and that too, from God. ²⁹ For to you it has been granted for Christ’s sake, not only to believe in Him, but also to suffer for His sake  (bold mine)

The immediate context of this passage is dealing with suffering.  However, a secondary and very important application dealing with our subject does apply.  Are you leading the song service in a “manner worthy of the gospel”?  Are the homiletics, if you will, of your song leading appropriately pointing to the greatness of Jesus and His saving work on the cross?  Do unsaved visitors in your church services see that Jesus is worth following by accurately being reflected on your face?

Of course, balance is very important.  Just as apathy can be a distraction so also can too much exuberance be.  Just as we don’t want to send non-verbal cues that Jesus is just a “ho-hum” we also don’t want to tell folks that He turns us into mindless freaks.   Depending on the culture of your congregation, what qualifies as a worthy manner of our behavior will vary from congregation to congregation.

It is worth mentioning also that on a much broader scale that if a congregation only has warmth and positive body language but is cold, distant, and indifferent to others outside of the confines of the song service or church service, it negates anything that would try to be done during the services.  It is my assumption while discussing this issue that a church is striving to live out the gospel at all times with their communication.

Worship is a response and if your church’s Music Department has no visible response in body language and facial expression during the service then it’s hard to see how it is leading anything to encourage the congregation to also respond to God and His word.

Brother Music Minister, teach your Music Department the primary importance of leading the music in a manner worthy of the gospel.

Share on Facebook

Twitter This

Usuario: Password:

I’m re-posting this (as well as the follow up posts) for the newer readers to this site.  I pray that it will be worth your time to read it (or re-read it as the case may be).

My pastor mentioned something to the staff the other day that I thought was very profound. It was in the context of preparing for a service that included the Lord’s Supper. It was a passing thought but it grabbed my attention completely. It was something like this (I am paraphrasing) “It is my prayer that the service today will be reverent; I know it will be formal but being formal doesn’t guarantee that it will be reverent.”

Until he had said that, I had not thought much about the difference in those two terms. Is it possible to be formal without being reverent? Absolutely. How?

The word “formal” comes from the word “form”. Some definitions for formal are as follows: “Pertaining to the essential form of something” and “following accepted conventions or proper forms” and “characterized by strict observation of forms” and “done for the sake of forms only”. (Taken from The American Heritage Dictionary.)

The scriptures describe false professors as:

But realize this, that in the last days difficult times will come. For men will be lovers of self, lovers of money, boastful, arrogant, revilers, disobedient to parents, ungrateful, unholy, unloving, irreconcilable, malicious gossips, without self-control, brutal, haters of good, treacherous, reckless, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, holding to a form of godliness, although they have denied its power; 2 Tim 3:1-5 NASU Bold mine

We can have all the appropriate music, we can say all the right things, sing all the correct lines, we can include all the biblical commands for what a service should be and still miss the power of the gospel. Isaiah cried out to Israel in this regard in his 58th chapter. The body had the form of fasting included in their “worship” but Isaiah said that even though they were acting as a people that “delight in the nearness of God” (v. 2b) they were people of “transgression” (v. 1b). He called them thusly because the fruit of their lives were not in keeping with God’s grace (v. 6-8).

Let’s put it into today’s language….We have here a people who loved praise and worship music, love doctrinal preaching, love to go to church, etc. but were transgressing against God. How can that be?

Let’s get to the second word we are focusing on—reverence. The definition for this word is as follows: “Profound respect and awe” and “an act of showing respect”. In the context of this discussion, showing respect for what? For God, His Nature, His word, and a lifestyle that lives that out. You cannot separate your corporate worship from your lifestyle. You might say “I don’t want to look at my lifestyle when I am worshipping God—it’s too discouraging”. You say correctly.

However, you must evaluate yourself in the sense that it causes you to revere the grace of God. You must compare yourself to the infallible, immutable word of God and see how your justification is not based on anything of yourself but totally of Christ’s work. You must come to God in worship clothed in humility and rejoicing in the might of Jesus’ work alone. We must lead worship realizing that having all of our formal “ducks in a row” does not guarantee that we are pleasing to God in corporate worship.

The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit; A broken and a contrite heart, O God, You will not despise. Ps 51:17 NASU

When we come together in corporate worship, let us strive to clothe ourselves with humility (1 Pet. 5:5). Let us lead with brokenness, with our only confidence being that the work of Christ! Let us come with a testimony of God’s favor as we have lived out the gospel every day and seeing our failures along the way as signs of God’s grace to justify the ungodly. Let us also see any obedience to the scriptures in the same light; that any successes make us more in debt to grace!

In my next entry, I will try to come at this from the other side of things and ask the question “Can we be reverent without being formal?”

Share on Facebook

Twitter This

Usuario: Password: