Doxology

I realize that there are many churches out there that have simply outgrown their meeting space.  What a great problem to have!  I served in a church that had multiple Sunday morning services.  You may read my entry today and think that I’m condemning any church for so doing.  That is not the message that I want to convey.

However, when I look at the writings of the apostles in the New Testament and the gatherings of tabernacle/temple worship in the Old Testament I’m left wondering if multiple service setups are foreign to a biblical mindset.  To say the least, I would assume that the scriptures would exhort a church to only go to a multiple-service-scenario as an absolute last resort.  Why?

How can “of one heart and soul” be accomplished if a body is never assembled together?  One of the greatest scenes we get of a congregation is found in Acts 4:31-33:

And when they had prayed, the place in which they were gathered together was shaken, and they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and continued to speak the word of God with boldness. Now the full number of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one said that any of the things that belonged to him was his own, but they had everything in common.  And with great power the apostles were giving their testimony to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great grace was upon them all. (Bold mine.)

Notice that the believers in Jerusalem were “together”.  I realize that folks can be in the same room and yet miles apart in spirit.  But I contend that it is more difficult to be unified in spirit and physically apart than when together.  I question the accuracy of “absence makes the heart grow fonder” according to the Bible.  The scriptures unswervingly demand that we deal with our differences lovingly rather than avoid them.

Notice that Luke not only mentions that they were physically together but that they were of “one heart and soul”.  (Needless to say that there is much more in this passage that is well-worth highlighting but I will stick to my point.)  Coming together as part of a congregation challenges me to become less self-centered and more Body-centered.  It asks me to lay aside my own personal agenda and take up God’s agenda for the common good.  I contend that having, in effect, multiple congregations within the same church goes against this flow.

Many churches have multiple services for reasons other than space.  Even though there are churches that really don’t need more space, they will split up their congregation simply because they can’t agree on music styles.  Hence the traditional/blended/contemporary service(s) model seen in all too many modern churches.  Please forgive me if I’m wrong on this, but how does mutual edification principles found in Romans 14 or 1 Cor. 12-14 play out if a church simply punts on the issue?

As I’ve said before in pointing to what Russell Moore says, we need a new type of “Worship War” in our churches.  We need to see young people fighting for the music of their parents/grandparents in their churches and visa versa.  Rather than seeing gray-haired folks griping about guitars and drums we should be seeing them rejoice that students are being blessed.  Rather than seeing students disengage with blank stares when a Southern Gospel quartet is singing we need to seem them looking over with great joy at their older brothers and sisters as their faces gleam with hearing the gospel sung in a style palatable to them.

Is God not more glorified in a congregation rejoicing in another demographic being edified than in each demographic seeking its own edification?  The scriptures don’t tell us to avoid conflict.  They tell us to use conflict to die to self and learn how to defer to one another in context of a local church.  (Unfortunately, the world bears witness to the fact that we usually split over non-essential doctrine, preaching style, color of the carpet, etc. so why would we not do so over such a controversial subject as types of music?)

In my opinion, having multiple services due to music styles is akin to a husband and wife sleeping in separate beds, eating in separate rooms, and having separate checking accounts just to “save the marriage”.  If those measures have to be taken, there’s not much of a marriage being saved.  No, to really save a marriage, it requires confession, repentance, humility, service, and love and being together as it happens.  It’s no different with a congregation.

William Shakespeare

There may come a day when I might be at a church (again) that has multiple services—for good or bad reasons.  I might even have to eat my own words in this entry.  However, I still stand by my sincere belief that a split is still a split.  As good ol’ Willie once said, “What’s in a name?”

Share on Facebook

Twitter This

Usuario: Password:

Here’s this week’s radio interview dealing with the issue of a capella-only music in the church.

Click HERE to listen!

Share on Facebook

Twitter This

Usuario: Password:

The primary argument that hard-lined Regulative Principle folks use is that no where in the scriptures do we see instruments used in corporate worship.  They dismiss the Psalmists’ references to instruments (although numerous) as in a non-corporate context.  But what about this from 2 Chronicles 29?

²⁰ Then Hezekiah the king rose early and gathered the officials of the city and went up to the house of the Lord. ²¹ And they brought seven bulls, seven rams, seven lambs, and seven male goats for a sin offering for the kingdom and for the sanctuary and for Judah. And he commanded the priests, the sons of Aaron, to offer them on the altar of the Lord. ²² So they slaughtered the bulls, and the priests received the blood and threw it against the altar. And they slaughtered the rams, and their blood was thrown against the altar. And they slaughtered the lambs, and their blood was thrown against the altar. ²³ Then the goats for the sin offering were brought to the king and the assembly, and they laid their hands on them, ²⁴ and the priests slaughtered them and made a sin offering with their blood on the altar, to make atonement for all Israel. For the king commanded that the burnt offering and the sin offering should be made for all Israel.

²⁵ And he stationed the Levites in the house of the Lord with cymbals, harps, and lyres, according to the commandment of David and of Gad the king’s seer and of Nathan the prophet, for the commandment was from the Lord through his prophets. ²⁶ The Levites stood with the instruments of David, and the priests with the trumpets. ²⁷ Then Hezekiah commanded that the burnt offering be offered on the altar. And when the burnt offering began, the song to the Lord began also, and the trumpets, accompanied by the instruments of David king of Israel. ²⁸ The whole assembly worshiped, and the singers sang, and the trumpeters sounded. All this continued until the burnt offering was finished. ²⁹ When the offering was finished, the king and all who were present with him bowed themselves and worshiped. ³⁰ And Hezekiah the king and the officials commanded the Levites to sing praises to the Lord with the words of David and of Asaph the seer. And they sang praises with gladness, and they bowed down and worshiped.  (Bold mine.)

King Hezekiah

Share on Facebook

Twitter This

Usuario: Password:

We continue on with our Top Five lists in today’s show on WSTS 100.9 FMwith Monk.  Today I share my top five classic Southern Gospel songs that should be included in every church that enjoys SoGo music.

Daddy Bill

Click Here to listen to the show!

Share on Facebook

Twitter This

Usuario: Password:

Here’s this week’s installment of Tuesdays With Tom on WSTS 100.9 FM hosted by Monk Boone.  Today, I give my top five praise and worship songs that every church should consider adding to their song list.

Click HERE to listen to the show!

Share on Facebook

Twitter This

Usuario: Password:

Here is today’s segment of Tuesdays With Tom on WSTS 100.9 FM.  Today we begin sharing my top 5 classic hymns.

Click here to listen to the show

Share on Facebook

Twitter This

Usuario: Password:

In today’s radio spot with Monk Boone on WSTS 100.9 FM we talk about getting the word of God to dwell richly in us through church music through appropriate use of music styles.

TWT-6.12.12 Click here to listen!

Share on Facebook

Twitter This

Usuario: Password:

Here’s today’s radio spot I did with Monk Boone at WSTS 100.9 FM.  Today we deal primarily (although in a tip-of-the-iceberg kind of way) with Worship Wars in the church as we continue talking about the role of music in the church.

Tuesdays With Tom–June 5, 2012 Click here!

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:

Freeeeeeedoooooommm????

In my last post in this series, I dealt with how I believe, in looking at the scriptures, the Regulative Principle (RP) is more conservative than God.  That’s not to say that there hasn’t been much good that has come from the RP.  However, I do believe that looking at God’s word through the lens OF the RP can take a church down some dead-end roads.

That can also be said of the Normative Principle (NP).  While the RP boasts in it’s a capella-only and psalm-texts-only (in varying degrees of strictness), to name a few ascpets, the NP boasts in its “freedom” of expression.  They say “If God didn’t forbid (fill in the blank) then we’re free to use it, right?”

Well, yes and no.  Yes, God has given much freedom in corporate worship, as has been previously mentioned.  But God’s silence isn’t necessarily a blanket endorsement upon any and all means.  Many times, what we do with God’s silence reveals more about us than at any other time.

For instance, God has not said specifically that you can’t have a firetruck baptistery (as one prominent SBC church has done).  However, one would question the wisdom in so doing as to cheapen the Ordinance.  God has not said specifically that a church must never twirl their socks during worship, but one would certainly ask the question “Is this in a manner worthy of the gospel?” (see video just below).

But there are also other times where God HAS specifically spoken about the use of a particular means.  Imagery and visuals are in an entirely separate category from the auditory senses.  In Exodus 20:4, God specifically forbids the creation of any image in heaven or earth and an object of worship.  Col. 1:15 does say that Jesus is the image of the invisible God however the scriptures are very careful not to ever give us a physical description of what Jesus, as the Son of Man, looked like.  (We are given a very detailed description of Jesus, as Son of God, in John’s Revelation (Rev. 1)), however.

Why would this be?  Because, I believe, that the power of idolatry is more quickly manifested with visual images than any other sense.  If God would have given us a detailed description of Jesus’ physical features, we would be prone to making an idol out of His appearance and not His Person.  This is the primary reason why I believe (after much repentance on my part!) that pictures, dramas, movie clips, and other imagery of Jesus is, at best, unwise, and at worst, a violation of God’s Word.

This is another reason why the argument against certain music styles on the basis of particular styles being objectively “sensual” (or as one person called a particular style “aural pornography”) breaks down.  God does not speak to music styles in the same way He speaks about visual images.  Never does God say “Thou shalt not sing along with a piano” or “Thou shalt not have rap in the church”.  It’s an “apples and oranges” argument.

But in regards to music styles, God has never spoken to the endorsement of one style or a category of styles and the condemning of others.  However, just because “all things are lawful, not all things are beneficial” (1 Cor. 10:23).  So, to my NP folks, I give a word of caution:  keep in mind that even though a music style may be legal, it may not be edifying to your congregation.  God said that all things must be for mutual edification (Rom 14:19).  The use of music styles may not be an issue of right vs. wrong or legal vs. illegal but of wise vs. unwise and loving vs. unloving.

That’s why I believe the stance of Biblical Principle (BP) would guard against the somewhat unbiblical excesses seen in the NP folks.  Again, many are well-meaning.  After all, I’ve certainly done things in the church in the name of “freedom” that I now regret—even though I had the best of intentions and with the glory of God in mind….Which leads me to my next post in this series….

Share on Facebook

Twitter This

Usuario: Password: