Observing the Lord's Day

We kicked off 2020 with a seven-part series of catechism sermons on “Observing the Lord’s Day,” structured around the “Rules for Observing the Lord’s Day” issued by the Synod of Dort.

The Protestant Reformation was a reformation of worship as much as it was a reformation of doctrine, or rather, it was a reformation of worship because it was a reformation of doctrine. The key marks of a Reformed church were the pure preaching of the word, the pure administration of the sacraments, and the proper exercise of discipline. All three of these marks were most notably in evidence when the church assembled for public worship on the Lord’s Day.

While all Reformed Christians emphasized the importance of public worship on the Lord’s Day, there soon developed a diversity of opinions about the relationship of the Lord’s Day to the Old Testament Sabbath. Continental Reformed churches often emphasized the importance of the eternal Sabbath, taught in Hebrews 4. This is reflected in Heidelberg Catechism (1563), Question 103, “What is God’s will for you in the Fourth Commandment?”

First, that the gospel ministry and schools for it be maintained, and that, especially on the festive day of rest, I diligently attend the assembly of God’s people to learn what God’s Word teaches, to participate in the sacraments, to pray to the Lord publicly, and to bring Christian offerings for the poor. 

Second, that every day of my life I rest from my evil ways, let the Lord work in me through his Spirit, and so begin in this life the eternal Sabbath.

—HEIDELBERG CATECHISM, QUESTION & ANSWER 103

Fifty-six years later, the Synod of Dort took up the issue of the Lord’s Day after the dismissal of the international delegates, when it addressed a number of national matters. Recognizing that there were a diversity of views regarding the relation of the Lord’s day to the Sabbath, they quickly issued a brief series of six “Rules for Observing the Sabbath or Lord’s Day” — the “or” suggesting the two terms were interchangeable. Below is the new translation of the rules which appears in the book, Saving the Reformation, by W. Robert Godfrey, with a minor revision to the third rule in brackets. 

1. In the fourth Commandment of the divine law, part is ceremonial and part is moral. (audio)

2. The ceremonial was the rest of the seventh day after creation, and the rigid observance of that day prescribed particularly for the Jewish people. (audio)

3. The moral truly is that a certain and appointed day [should be]* fixed for the worship of God and so much rest as is necessary for the worship of God and for holy meditation on him. (audio)

4. Since the abrogation of the Sabbath of the Jews, the day of the Lord must be solemnly sanctified by Christians. (audio)

5. This day has always been observed since the time of the Apostles by the ancient catholic church. (audio)

6. This day must be so consecrated to divine worship that on it one ceases from all servile works, except those of love and present necessity; and also from all such refreshing activities as impede the worship of God. (audio)

—“REGULAE DE OBSERVATIONE SABBATHI, SEU DEI DOMINICI,” POST-ACTA OF THE SYNOD OF DORT, 1619

* “Should be fixed” replaces W. Robert Godfrey’s translation, “is fixed.” The Latin reads “destinatus sit,” which is in the subjunctive. Rules four and five proceed to explain how the Lord’s Day has been fixed — by human tradition, not by divine command — as the day of worship, subsequent to the abrogation of the Sabbath of the Jews. 

Together, the Heidelberg Catechism and the instruction from the Synod of Dort provide healthy guidance for Christians today wrestling with how we should observe the Lord’s Day in our own context. Each week, we will also take the time to address practical issues in Lord’s Day observance that challenge us today. We hope you will join us at Christ Reformed for this important series of lessons. 

Preaching Through the Athanasian Creed

A weekly Catechism Service is a distinctive practice of our church, during which we teach what we confess in our creeds and confessions. Currently, we are teaching a brief series on the Incarnation in the Athanasian Creed.

To listen to the sermons in this series you can click here or you can visit the series page at SermonAudio.

Preaching Through the Gospel of Mark

In Spring of 2019 we began preaching through the Gospel of Mark. We are seeking to echo Mark’s rapid pacing and spare style by moving rapidly through the book, and preserving Mark’s relentless focus on identity of Jesus Christ and his work at the cross.

An archive of our Mark sermon series can be found here on our website, or on our sermon audio page.

Refreshment for the Soul

J. Gresham Machen concluded his classic work, Christianity and Liberalism (1923), with a moving account of Christian worship as a source of “refreshment for the soul.” In Machen’s vision, worship is a place where we gain refuge from the trials of this world by gathering with sinners “around the table of the crucified Lord” and uniting “in overflowing gratitude at the foot of the cross.” The following quote aptly describes the Lord’s Day worship as we seek to celebrate it at Christ Reformed:

There must be somewhere groups of redeemed men and women who can gather together humbly in the name of Christ, to give thanks to Him for His unspeakable gift and to worship the Father through Him. Such groups alone can satisfy the needs of the soul. At the present time, there is one longing of the human heart which is often forgotten – it is the deep, pathetic longing of the Christian for fellowship with his brethren… There are congregations, even in the present age of conflict, that are really gathered around the table of the crucified Lord; there are pastors that are pastors indeed. But such congregations, in many cities, are difficult to find. Weary with the conflicts of the world, one goes to Church to seek refreshment for the soul. And what does one find? Alas, too often, one find only the turmoil of the world. The preacher comes forward, not out of a secret place of mediation and power, not with the authority of God’s Word permeating his message, not with human wisdom pushed far into the background by the glory of the Cross, but with human opinions about the social problems of the hour or easy solutions of the vast problems of sin. Such is the sermon. And then perhaps the service is closed by one of those hymns breathing out the angry passions of 1861… Thus the warfare of the world has entered even into the house of God. And sad indeed is the heart of the man who has come seeking peace.

Is there no refuge from strife? Is there no place of refreshing where a man can prepare for the battle of life? Is there no place where two or three can gather in Jesus’ name, to forget for the moment all those things that divide nation from nation and race from race, to forget human pride, to forget the passions of war, to forget the puzzling problems of industrial strife, and to unite in overflowing gratitude at the foot of the Cross? If there be such a place, then that is the house of God and that the gate of heaven. And from under the threshold of that house will go forth a river that will revive the weary world.

J. GRESHAM MACHEN, CHRISTIANITY AND LIBERALISM, P. 179

Introducing Our URCNA Liturgical Forms

All worship is liturgical, that is, it follows a set rhythm and pattern. A church’s liturgy can be described in various ways: informal or formal, high or low, explicit or implicit. But all churches have a liturgy. 

Christ Reformed is a member of the United Reformed Churches in North America (URCNA), a federation of churches in the Dutch Reformed tradition. While there is great freedom and much diversity in how our congregations worship, all churches in the URCNA voluntarily commit to using a common body of liturgical forms for the celebration of key moments in the life of the church, such as sacraments, profession of faith, and ordination ceremonies. These liturgical forms have been approved by our churches at our Synod (bi-annual gathering), and published in a book along with a collection of prayer, Forms and Prayers (2018). The entire collection is also available online at www.formsandprayers.com. 

What is a “liturgical form”? It is merely a standard script directing the minister on how to perform a particular rite in the worship of the church. It may include many elements, such as an introduction, prayers, vows, or other teaching.

In the coming months we plan to present a series of blog posts exploring our liturgical forms, beginning here with the preface to our collection.

The “Preface” to our Liturgical Forms

The “Preface” to Forms and Prayers begins with a simple claim:

Liturgical forms are an important part of the Reformed faith.

The Protestant Reformation was a renewal of the church’s worship, as much as it was a renewal of doctrine and life. Just as catechisms and confessions were used to teach the rediscovered principles of Scripture alone and faith alone, so too liturgical forms were prepared to teach the proper understanding of the church’s sacraments and guide faithful practice.

Note that liturgical forms are a resource for teaching the doctrine of our worship. They are filled with biblical instruction that explains what we understand to be taking place in our worship.

Next, the preface walks through the organic development of these forms as they arose from debates about the nature of the church’s worship, and most importantly, about the meaning and significance of the sacraments.

Liturgical Forms were prepared initially for the celebration of the two biblical sacraments confessed by Reformed Churches: baptism and the Lord’s supper. In time, additional forms were provided for other ceremonial moments in the life of the church, including profession of faith, marriage, ordination of ministers and elders, and excommunication and readmission. These forms were prepared to enact and teach the sacramental doctrine found in our confessions and catechisms.

Because the Reformed drew upon scripture alone as the foundation for this doctrine, they contain rich biblical teaching. The forms at this site are therefore a timeless resource of sacramental and practical theology for all believers today.

The Reformed Churches on the continent of Europe drew from a common pool of liturgical forms, and there is much overlap in the German, French, and Dutch speaking churches. The preface sketches this development in broad outline:

The book of Forms and Prayers recently published for use in the United Reformed Churches of North America (URCNA) is reflective of the Dutch Reformed tradition. This tradition was heavily shaped by an early Psalter published for Dutch speaking refugees in Heidelberg by Petrus Dathenus in 1566. Dathenus drew heavily upon the liturgy of the Church Order of the Palatinate (1563), where Heidelberg was located, which had largely been prepared by Zacharias Ursinus and Caspar Olevianus. This liturgy drew upon the forms prepared by John Calvin for Geneva in 1542. The work of all these Reformed liturgists can be traced back to the earlier work of Martin Luther and Huldrych Zwingli. 

As a rule, the Reformers did not seek to reinvent the wheel, but rather recovered and restored the most faithful practices of the medieval and ancient church. Their work reflects the writings of church fathers such as Augustine, Tertullian, and Chrysostom. Though notably Reformed in character, these forms exhibit ancient practice and thought.

Finally, it is worth noting that the Reformed tradition on the continent developed a different sensibility about liturgical forms than the Presbyterian churches that arose from English-speaking lands. The Dutch Reformed and their continental brethren were comfortable with committing to a common body of liturgical forms, that would be approved for use by a general gathering of the churches, or a Synod. We agree to uphold our Church Order in which we commit to use “the appropriate liturgical form” for sacraments and other key rites in the life of the church. By using approved forms, we recognize the fact that these liturgical practices are a formative part of the life of the church; they teach our faith in a similar fashion to the creeds and confessions that summarize it doctrinally. 

So, for instance, in the sacramental life of the church, we not only commit to a common doctrine of the sacraments in our confessions (Heidelberg Catechism 66 – 85); Belgic Confession Articles 33 – 35 ), but we also commit to a common liturgy and practice of the sacraments, for the liturgy and practice are the means of manifesting the doctrine in the life of the church. Good theology (orthodoxy) can be undermined by bad practice.

This is why the preface also identifies, in broad historical overview, how and when our forms have been approved:

The Synod of Dort (1618 – 1619) approved liturgical forms for the use of the Dutch churches, and this liturgical tradition remained fairly stable in Dutch speaking churches for hundreds of years. Reformed church synods in North America approved English translations of these liturgical forms, notably in 1912 and 1934, with minor alterations and revisions.

In the latter half of the twentieth century, there was a great deal of liturgical innovation, not all of it taking the sacramental theology of the Reformation as its starting point. The URCNA Liturgical Forms committee sought to preserve the best of our tradition, and provide a collection of liturgical forms reflecting what was in use by our churches in the early part of the twenty-first century. Revisions were undertaken to ensure the language and sentence structure was clear and understandable to modern readers. After many years of work and much deliberative input from all our churches, these forms were approved by the Synod of the URCNA in 2016.

You can view all of our liturgical forms at www.formsandprayers.com.

Preaching the Psalms Sequentially: 8 Practical Benefits

This article was originally published at Christian Renewal Magazine.

The Psalms series referenced in this article is available in our sermon archive.

I became a Calvinist in the Religious Studies Department at Stanford University. That’s my favorite proof for the sovereignty of God… and also one of my excuses for why at age 46 I’m still learning anew many of the remarkable contours of my adopted theological tradition. Most notably, the power and beauty of the Psalms in Christian worship.

Baptized and educated as a Roman Catholic, I migrated with my family out of the Roman church when I was about twelve years old, into the wild west of evangelical Christianity. By the time I reached college my interest in the philosophy and theology of Søren Kierkegaard and Karl Barth left me wondering what the boundaries of evangelical faith were, or if there even were any. A related interest in questions about free will and predestination led my undergraduate thesis adviser to direct me to Martin Luther’s Bondage of the Will and John Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion. I never looked back.

At the time this remarkable transformation in my faith was taking place, I knew very little about the Psalms. To my mind, Reformed theology was roughly identical to the doctrines of grace and the sovereignty of God. Gradually I discovered the means of grace, ecclesiology, and catechesis. I suppose I had read the psalms as much as any part of the Bible, probably more because of their bite-sized beauty. But they held no special place in either my old evangelical faith and worship or my newly adopted Reformed faith. 

I learned in seminary as a matter of church history that psalms had a special place in the worship of the Reformed churches, and I learned to love the close study of Hebrew poetry. But it was only as a minister and worship leader over the last eleven years that I have finally begun to appreciate the power of the Psalms to shape Christian prayer and worship; the prominence of the Psalms in the Reformed tradition; and as a result, the extent to which the Psalms have shaped the Reformed tradition in particular. 

Early in my ministry, I preached a series of 20 sermons through the Psalms. The idea was to introduce my congregation to the Psalter, preaching on psalms from each of the five books and illustrating the various forms of praise, confession, lament. Naturally, I preached on many of the best-known psalms, 1, 22, 23, 32, 110, 119, 150. 

A few years later, I was struck by the idea of preaching through all 150 Psalms sequentially, and in January of 2013, I began doing so. Obviously, one downside of preaching all 150 Psalms in order is that the series can run to three years in length — or more if you take your time with Psalm 119. While there’s nothing wrong with a long sermon series, lack of variety in the sermon diet can be challenging for some congregants. 

Thus, I decided to preach an annual set of about 10 – 15 sermons. This year I preached Psalms 42–51 over the summer months, the opening of Book II. Lord willing, I’ll finish preaching through the psalter in about another decade or so. It’s one of my small personal goals in ministry. 

I have no data to back this up, but I suspect that preaching through the psalms in order is fairly rare. The longer I do it, however, the more I’m convinced that this should be a more common practice. Here are a few advantages I have found:

1. Preaching the whole Psalter teaches us how to Praise God. The Hebrew title for the Psalter is “The Book of Praises,” despite the fact that we find more songs of lament and confession than songs of praise in the Psalter. In fact, as you read through the Psalter, you see a progression from more lament to more praise, with a climax of Praise in Psalms 146 – 150. In a sense, the Psalter teaches us how we can move from lament to praise in our own lives, how we can Praise God in the midst of life’s struggles. 

2. Understanding the argument of the whole Psalter deepens our knowledge of God’s word. Recent decades have seen a flowering of both academic and lay literature that views the psalter as a unified collection with an argument that progresses from Introduction (Psalm1-2) to Conclusion (Psalm145-150) through each of its five books. Understanding this unity and flow add greatly to the understanding of individual psalms, and can bring great pleasure to even the most experienced psalm readers. This summer, we accompanied our series with a mid-week study through W. Robert Godfrey’s Learning to Love the Psalms, which our congregation thoroughly enjoyed. 

3. Reading Psalms in their individual context enlarges our appreciation for each psalm. Most Christians read each psalm as an isolated unit. However, when you begin to read the Psalter as a carefully structured collection, you see that there are often interesting relationships between neighboring psalms. This summer, I noted that Psalm 42-43 (I agree with those who believe they are originally a single composition) and Psalm 44 deal with dark seasons in Israel’s history, first individually then corporately. Then Psalm 45 was a royal marriage song, shifting our attention to the beauty and glory of the Lord’s anointed — quite an answer to Israel’s darkness. Likewise, Psalm 49 is a wisdom psalm warning the rich and powerful of their pride, and Psalm 50 was a song of God’s coming judgment. This pair is followed of course by Psalm 51, David’s great song of confession following his sin with Bathsheba, made all the more poignant when you see that the King had as it were been warned by the preceding psalms.

4. Preaching rare, unfamiliar, or difficult Psalms broadens our perspective on the Psalter. It’s natural for preachers to gravitate to more familiar, more beautiful, or more “important” Psalms when selecting texts to preach. But in preaching the psalms selectively we tend not to preach the whole counsel of God, and we overlook many psalms we’re just not very familiar with. Often in wrestling with these unfamiliar psalms you can see beautiful facets of God’s revelation.

5. Preaching the entire psalter connects us with the people of God through history. Reading through the entire Psalter in a regular cycle (weekly for many monastics, or monthly) has been a regular practice in Synagogue and church. It is a discipline that, if practiced regularly, deeply enriches our vocabulary for prayer and song in church and home. Modeling this through a consecutive sermon series is a great way to introduce the practice to God’s people. 

6. Preaching the whole Psalter helps us sing the Psalter with understanding. When I preach a psalm, we always try to sing that psalm. Some are more difficult to sing, with unfamiliar music than others. But gradually we are exposed to more psalm tunes and broaden our selection of familiar psalms to sing. And when we return to them in subsequent services, we can sing them with a deeper anchor to their main points, which ultimately makes the sung worship of God’s people more significant for them. 

7. Preaching the Psalter sequentially improves our prayer life. The psalms are inspired prayers, and the more of them we are familiar with, the better. As a pastor and a student of God’s word, I often don’t “get” a psalm until I take the time to study it deeply and preach it to God’s people. Likewise, God’s people may not get the thrust or logic of many of these prayers without hearing a well-constructed sermon. Our prayer language is weak, and we can always use more biblical instruction in how to pray. 

8. Preaching the whole Psalter lends balance to our view of the Christian life.  The preponderance of laments in the Psalter reminds us that the life of the faithful in this world is a life of pilgrims and sojourners, often filled with difficulty and struggle. Modern Christians are often drawn to the cheerful and upbeat; we desire optimistic sermons, even if we’re not listening to Joel Osteen teach us how to have “Our Best Life Now.” If we preach the Psalter selectively, we may naturally gravitate to preaching more positive, upbeat Psalms. The discipline of preaching the entire Psalter selectively, however, ensures that we cover the whole inspired range of emotions in the psalms, and serves as a corrective to the view that the church is full of “shiny, happy people.” 

I’m sure there are more benefits to be found in preaching through the entire psalter, and I’m sure that after another 99 sermons (including Psalm 119) I’ll have unearthed a few more of them. The Psalter is a rich resource, too often neglected in the Christian church. Thankfully, its place has been well preserved in our Reformed tradition, and I believe we should do a better job of proclaiming this part of God’s word to those who have largely forgotten it.

Celebrating the Hymns in the Trinity Psalter Hymnal

In two recent columns, I celebrated the joint URCNA / OPC publication of the Trinity Psalter Hymnal (TPH). First, I looked at how significant this cooperative effort is from missional, ecumenical, and confessional standpoints. Then in the subsequent column, I dug deeper into the Psalm collection in particular, seeing how the new psalter reflected a broader swath of the Reformed psalm-singing tradition.

In this column, I want to look a little more closely at the hymn collection, and then offer some practical suggestions about we might harvest the fruit of this project. The caveat from my last column remains in force: I’m no musicologist, and my analysis is based on a very cursory exam, mostly based on the tables of contents of the two collections. Caveat lector. 

Hymn Collection By the Numbers

The first thing to grasp about the hymn section of the TPH is that it is much larger than what many URC members may be accustomed to in the Blue Psalter Hymnal (BPH). The BPH contained 183 hymn settings in addition to 310 psalm settings, for a total of 493 songs. The TPH, in contrast, has 428 hymn settings to go along with 279 psalm settings, for a grand total — and I mean grand — of 707 songs. Put differently, the TPH has over twice as many hymns as the BPH, and 43 percent more songs total.

Parenthetically, this expanded song section — and the great space it occupied — was one reason why it was necessary to publish a separate book for the URC-specific liturgical forms that comprise the back section of the BPH. While all of our confessional documents are included in the TPH (Ecumenical Creeds, Westminster Standards, and Three Forms of Unity), a separate volume of liturgical forms and prayers is being published for URCNA churches. This volume will also contain the Ecumenical Creeds and Reformed Confessions. 

The good news for those who may be apprehensive about adopting a new songbook is that a healthy majority of the BPH hymn collection has found its way into the TPH. My very cursory examination suggests that of the 183 BPH hymn settings, at least 132 (or 72%) are in the TPH. The actual number may be a bit higher, as some songs come over with slightly different titles.

What are we to say of the 51 or so hymns from the BPH we are leaving behind when we adopt the new hymnal? No doubt, some of my readers might have a favorite song or two on that list. And that is precisely why I am so grateful for the labors of the Psalter-Hymnal committee, wrestling for years with the worship practices of our church, providing for an open selection process, and welcoming feedback. They are to be commended for this decades-long effort.

However, in any collection of 183 songs, there are songs that don’t rise to the top. We wouldn’t expect every single song to be retained in a new collection — whether their musical beauty doesn’t prove to be timeless, or their lyrics speak to the concerns of an earlier age. Furthermore, it seems as though the songs that were cut were not frequently sung in our churches; many of their names are relatively unfamiliar. 

Do We Need This Many Hymns?

On a typical Sunday at Christ Reformed in Washington, we sing one or two hymns. Most of those hymns we sing at least a couple of times a year. So on average, we sing maybe fifty different hymns a year. Even if we committed to singing our way through the hymn collection in the TPH — we probably won’t — it would take us six to eight years to do so. If we only sang hymns, it would still take us over two years to sing them all even if we only sang each one once. 

Do we need this many hymns?

Probably not. There is a school of thought that it is better for a congregation to really master the singing of about one hundred songs — more if you include psalms — rather than singing 200 – 300 less-familiar songs infrequently. I think there is a lot of truth to that. 

Arguably, we have gotten by with only 183 hymn settings in the URCNA in part because of our prioritization of singing Psalms. We frankly don’t need 428 hymns, given the role of Psalms in our worship. A collection this large is probably more reflective of a tradition where singing a majority of psalms is not the norm.

The advantage, however, of the size of this collection is that it serves to bridge and unify diverse worship traditions. I am more than willing to embrace a larger song collection for the sake of drawing Presbyterian and Reformed churches into closer relation. Members move between Presbyterian and Reformed churches more frequently in our day, and there is a real benefit to making us feel more at home in a new sister church.

One benefit of a larger collection is that there is a greater likelihood of finding songs our whole church is familiar with. Take, for example, Christmas songs related to Advent and Birth of Christ. A Christmas “Lessons and Carols” service has become a favorite tradition in our young church. While the BPH had approximately 15 songs in this category — many of which were less common — the TPH has 33. A partial list of those found in our new hymnal and missing from our old includes: Let All Mortal Flesh Keep Silence; Angels We Have Heard on High; As With Gladness Men of Old; God Rest Ye Merry Gentlemen; Good Christian Men, Rejoice; Lo, How a Rose E’er Blooming; O Little Town of Bethlehem; Once in Royal David’s City; Savior of the Nations, Come; and What Child is This?

There are some profound and beautiful Christmas songs on this list. While we couldn’t have sung our Lessons and Carols from the BPH, we can easily do it from this new collection The expansion of this section alone will enrich our congregational singing at this season of the year. 

How Should We Celebrate the TPH?

God has given the OPC and URCNA a great gift in the TPH. However, like all of God’s good gifts, it is necessary for us to make the proper use of them. Here are a few practical suggestions to help ensure that we take advantage of this gift that we have been given.

First, let’s sing together. I would encourage URC and OPC churches who adopt the TPH to seek out neighboring congregations for ecumenical hymn sings. This is a very simple suggestion, but it could take some real effort and sacrifice to execute well. Let’s find a way to make it work, if not in our churches, then on a smaller scale in our homes.

Second, our churches should strive to adopt the book. This is of course not a mandate, but it may well be a matter of gospel wisdom. Granted, investing in new hymnals may not make sense for every congregation, financially or otherwise. Perhaps our Presbyteries and Classes could remove financial obstacles to adoption by offering subsidies for congregations that want to adopt it but can’t afford to do so. 

Third, I believe we should work hard to produce a state-of-the-art electronic version of the TPH. Here I’m openly advocating for a position that is pending before our 2018 Synod. However, I think it is undeniable that we can drastically extend the reach of this publishing effort by making them available in a format that is readily accessible both in our homes and on mission fields. We should have these hymns — along with musical accompaniment — in the pockets of as many members of our churches as possible. Also, many churches no longer interested in print hymnals would be able to benefit and use electronic resources, so it broadens the potential impact of the TPH outside the URC and OPC. Electronic publishing or mobile app development may require us to get out of our comfort zone and invest in web technology and development in a way that we haven’t done before, perhaps even creating subscription or sale sites. However, this is well worth the investment. 

Finally, let’s give thanks to God for this gift he has given the church, for the many hours of faithful labor that have been invested in this day. I can’t wait to get to Synod in Wheaton and sing with our OPC brothers and sisters, especially songs of thanksgiving for this great gift he has given us to sing of his many glorious works. Praise God. 

Chronological Snobbery: Celebrating the Trinity Psalter Hymnal

This article originally appeared in Christian Renewal magazine.

In my last column, “Celebrating the Trinity Psalter Hymnal,” I argued that we should celebrate and embrace the new Trinity Psalter Hymnal (TPH) on missional, ecumenical, and confessional grounds. In short, this songbook gives us the opportunity to sing songs that are more familiar and more widely sung, to make our worship more accessible to guests and visitors, and to sing songs that are more frequently sung in sister Reformed churches. 

It gives us the opportunity, in short, to think about the preferences of those who aren’t yet sitting in our pews, but those whom we pray will be through our evangelistic and missionary efforts. It gives us an opportunity to be outward facing, not inward facing, in our worship choice. And, just to be clear, this “outward facing” stance isn’t about bending to cultural whims. The TPH is about embracing the best of five hundred years of Reformed hymnody. 

But still, that’s a hard decision for a church to make. Music is a communal experience. When we sing a familiar tune, it makes us feel as though we are a part of something bigger than ourselves, the body of Christ not only today but also down through the ages. To adopt a new songbook invariably means abandoning some familiar songs and learning some new ones. This is where conservatism in Christian worship is so important, it connects us to the past.

In my last column, I claimed that “much of the music we love to sing… can be found in the new book.” Since I’m a bit of an amateur numbers guy — and a very amateur student of music — I figured I’d attempt to quantify how many songs from the Blue Psalter Hymnal (BPH) carry over into the TPH, and look at a few other statistical elements. 

First, a caveat. I’m not an expert in music; the following statistics are by my own count, and I certainly could have made a mistake here or there. I haven’t served on the Psalter Hymnal Committee, and I don’t have any access to solid data. Also, I’m going to focus on the psalter portion of the TPH and set the hymn collection to the side, because I think introducing the psalms to a new generation in the church should be one of the most important goals of the TPH. 

How Much Has Changed?

The new songbook has 279 psalm settings in it, with every psalm having at least one full-text setting, with the exception of Psalm 119, which has a full-text setting for each of the 22 stanzas. In addition, there are 40 partial settings and 32 paraphrases. While I’m focusing on the music in this article, the texts in the TPH are generally far more faithful to scripture than the BPH.

The BPH had 310 psalm settings, 31 more than the TPH. Of these 310, 81 psalm settings are carried over into the TPH, or about 25% of the whole collection. While 1 in 4 might not seem like a great deal of overlap, it is worth noting that these are distributed over 74 psalms. In other words, half of the psalms in the psalter will be represented by a tune that is familiar from the older collection. 

Of course, most congregations don’t sing all 150 psalms with any regularity. Given that the committee sought to preserve the best and most frequently sung psalms in the old collection, the odds are good that this 49% of the psalms represents far more than half of the psalms that were actually sung out of the old book. 

Chronological Snobbery? 

In Why Johnny Can’t Sing Hymns, T. David Gordon noted that one of the flaws of “contemporary Christians music” is that it elevates “contemporaneity” itself to a musical virtue. Newer music is de facto better music. 

Of course, we don’t believe that. But it has always struck me that the BPH had a heavy bias toward a single period in church history, namely, the 19th century. While the dates of tunes can be a bit misleading — sometimes traditional folks tunes are first publish at a much later date — a count of dates of tunes and/or composers bears out this fact. Fully 76% of the tunes in the BPH are from the 19th  or early 20th century (61% and 15% respectively). The nearby chart shows the relative percentages of tunes in the collection from each century.

While many fine tunes were written in the 19th century, I confess to harboring a bias against much 19th century American church music, much of which was infected by the revivalistic spirit of that age. The pre-1800 songs in the BPH (23% of the collection) have stood the test of time. They are the cream of the crop. The same can’t be said for the tunes from the 19th century, a whopping 186 of them, or 61% of the collection. Reflecting on the fact that the BPH contained such a thick slice of a narrow band of the church’s music, I once overheard someone say that the BPH is contemporary Christian music from a hundred years ago.  

Though it is a newer collection, including a number of tunes from the 21st century and later 20th century, the TPH manages to slide the average date of its collection back about ten years. The average date in the TPH is 1806, versus 1814 for the BPH (if you throw out the 21st century songs, the average drops back to 1799). Both collections draw about the same share of their tunes (13%) from the 16th century, mostly Genevan settings. But the TPH has three times as many tunes from the 17th century (6% vs. 2%) and almost twice as many tunes from the 18th century (14% vs. 8%).  

As the accompanying chart makes clear, the TPH represents a much broader swath of Protestant sacred music, with 33% of its tunes coming from pre-1800, 50% from the 19th century, and 17% coming from after 1900. Many of these new tunes are drawn from English and Welsh sources, and will sound familiar to God’s people from popular hymns. The collection of psalm tunes is therefore more mainstream, more relatable, and less eccentric, while also being more historic. That’s quite an accomplishment, and those who assembled this work are to be commended.

All of these numbers exclude the hymn collection, but by incorporating much of the hymn music from the widely used red Trinity Hymnal, there will most likely be a similar broadening effect. 

Conclusion 

Of course, none of this should be read as a condemnation of the BPH. It has served the churches well, and many of its tunes are beloved by our people. There will invariably be some loss in moving to a new songbook. Furthermore, this frustration will disproportionately fall upon those who have sung from this book for the longest, and we should always be slow to cause our senior church members any unnecessary sorrow. I speak as a convert to the tradition with barely 20 years experience, and the last thing I’d want to suggest is that newcomers should cast off the tried and true ways.

And yet, we must not forget the “benefit” side of the ledger. A new collection that preserves the best and most beloved of the old, while incorporating a broader sweep of church history can make the singing in our churches more attractive to a new generation of Psalm singers. Lord willing, the TPH can help re-introduce some of our Presbyterian brethren to the benefits of psalmody. And unity in song across the OPC and URC — as well as any other Reformed churches that adopt the TPH — is for the good of an increasingly mobile membership of our churches.

Celebrating the Trinity Psalter Hymnal

This article originally appeared in Christian Renewal magazine.

I am excited for the impending release of the Trinity Psalter Hymnal in the summer of 2018, or TPH, as it’s coming to be known.

Contrary to the spirit of the age, our churches believe that conservatism in worship is a good thing. We don’t go rushing about for the latest fad, and we don’t believe that novelty or contemporaneity is itself a virtue. There is good reason why many of our churches may be less than energized about adopting new hymnals when the old hymnals are serving our purposes just fine, thank you very much.  

So perhaps it runs against type a little bit for confessionally Reformed folks to get excited about a new songbook. But I am, and I think we should. I understand that not everyone will adopt this new songbook immediately, but I think we should all pray for its success, and pray that the great cost and labor that has gone into its production will be used for the greater glory of God. 

So, why should constitutionally conservative worshipers be excited about a new psalter hymnal?

We should be excited for its use on the mission field, both at home and abroad. As a church planter, the vast majority of those who have worshiped in our church in Washington, DC over the years have had little or no previous experience with the United Reformed Churches. Our prioritization of psalm singing has been a new experience, and many of the tunes that our churches have treasured for generations are foreign to them. 

In short, our special mix of worship has numerous obstacles baked in for newcomers. Without changing any of our historic commitments, the TPH removes or mitigates many of those obstacles. I am not a musicologist by any stretch of the imagination, but in my experience over the last number of years, the music of the TPH represents a much broader historic swath of Christian hymnody, both geographically and chronologically While many of the most beloved tunes of our tradition remain in the book, there are a whole host of tunes that are more accessible to a broader audience. 

Buying the TPH was a no brainer for our church in DC, as we’ve never owned any hymnals before, singing from photocopied bulletins each week. We are thrilled to be able to put an attractive new psalter hymnal in our pews that immediately sends the message to guests and visitors that we are not only committed to the best of historic Christian hymnody but also committed to the continued maintenance of that tradition for the coming generations. That’s the implicit message this songbook will send. 

I am just a single data point, but I represent a believer who didn’t grow up in the URC and never stepped into a Reformed church until I was out of college. The psalm tunes in the TPH are hands down more inviting, more accessible, and easier for me to sing than the psalm tunes in the blue psalter hymnal. By making that claim, I am in no way judging the blue songbook as musically inferior, nor am I demanding that longstanding URC members give up the music that they love to sing. Indeed, I believe much of it can be found in the new book. But I am speaking as an outsider to the Reformed tradition, and I see a great opportunity for our churches to introduce a new generation of believers to the riches of singing the psalms. 

For the sake of mission, all of our churches should think seriously about adopting this book. 

I’m also excited for the partnership between the United Reformed Churches of North America and the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. Obviously, it is this very partnership that has given the book a musical appeal beyond any one reformed tradition, drawing upon the best of Presbyterian and Reformed worship. But it is also an excellent example of sister churches working together in a practical fashion. This is the best of ecumenism in action, pooling resources to address a need in our churches. A joint OPC-URCNA hymnal doesn’t mean that our churches will merge any time soon, or that they should. But it certainly increases the likelihood that we will grow closer together. 

While OPC and URC folks are often justifiably proud of our rich theological heritage, I think we sometimes to forget just how small we are. Membership in our two bodies is around 60,000, combined. We could have a joint worship service for all of us in a decent sized college football stadium (conveniently, they are free on Sundays). For the sake of comparison, two of the biggest churches in America — Lakewood and Second Baptist, both in Houston — boast more members than all our congregations combined. 

In many ways, we are a cultural and statistical blip. 

Given our small size, and how much we share in common, as well as the shared independent seminaries that many of our ministers have in common, it would be malpractice for us not to work together on a project of this nature. And I praise God that in his providence the men in charge of these projects in their respective churches were led to that same conclusion and joined forces to make the cooperative effort work. 

We live in an increasingly liquid, mobile society. Members of our churches change jobs and change cities with some regularity. Our children are educated in distant cities. We often visit each other churches when moving about, and we often consider joining a church in this small fraternity, before looking at others. It may seem a small thing, but it is a good thing if you can pull a familiar book out and sing from it in an unfamiliar church. It is another bit of glue that can help us all stick a little closer together — and help us keep from losing our wandering flocks — in a time of great fragmentation. 

The sooner we adopt these songbooks, and adopt them widely, the sooner we can enjoy this fruit of growing together. 

Finally, I am excited to have a hymnal in our church pews which contains both the Three Forms of Unity and the Westminster Standards. There are few novelties in the publishing world, so I am sure such a book exists, but to my knowledge this is the first hymnal to contain the confessional standards of continental and English speaking reformed churches in a single volume. While I am decidedly partial to the Three Forms — what URC minister isn’t — the Westminster standards complement them beautifully and form a delightful counterpoint. Stretching over eighty years and four languages, the combined confessional collection speaks from a wide diversity of social and political circumstances, and reflects a breadth of our tradition that each one on its own lacks. The warmth of Heidelberg is supplanted by the precision of Westminster. The Belgic was written by a persecuted martyr, Westminster by an assembly commissioned by parliament. 

It is a delight for the members of both our churches to be more frequently exposed to the other church’s confessional documents. For ministers and teachers to refer to them. To grow in our understanding and appreciation of global Calvinism, as these standards have spread across the world and embrace believers on every continent. I’m not usually a proponent of formally adopting additional confessions for one’s church — I think this ecumenical effort often results in overload, such that no single confession is truly used or appreciated. But having them present in our hymnals is a great opportunity for our churches to learn, and grow, and grow together. 

Our conservatism in worship is a good thing. It has kept us faithful through many years, and it is unique in our age of faddish worship. But I hope that conservatism doesn’t stand in the way of every church giving serious consideration to adopting the new TPH. By gathering the very best of the Presbyterian and Reformed worshipping tradition in a single volume, I believe this songbook has the potential to pass down to a new generation our commitment to biblical worship, while at the same time making it more inviting to newcomers. May the Lord establish this work of our hands, and use it to adorn his bride with song. 

A Review of The Museum of the Bible

This article was originally published in Christian Renewal Magazine.

Do You Know The Story of the Bible?

Do you know the story of the Bible? I’m afraid most people don’t.

Not only its content, the broad plot, the redemptive thread running from Genesis to Revelation, but the story of its origin. The story of its sources, its peoples, its cultures. The story of its transmission and impact in the world. 

The Museum of the Bible aims to tell that story, and on the whole, it does a remarkable job. It is, of course, a big story, spanning thousands of years and millions of artifacts. And the Museum of the Bible is a big museum, spanning 450,000 square feet over seven floors and sparing no expense, reportedly costing upwards of $500 million. It is a beautiful museum.

Of course, the vast majority of people don’t know the story of the Bible. Educated citizens today are told a very bigoted, dismissive version of the Bible’s story, and on the whole believe the Bible is a hodgepodge of myths with no grounding whatsoever in history. 

And herein, I believe, lies the greatest value of the museum: It brings visitors face to face with the Bible as a cultural artifact. The museum reminds us of the historical character of the events the Bible recounts, and of the Bible’s tremendous role in shaping the world in which we live. The museum successfully avoids outright evangelism, but it does engage in what I would characterize as pre-apologetics, preparing the soil for an otherwise secular visitor to pick up the Bible and read it in a new light. As familiarity with the Bible in our culture continues to fade — both inside and outside the church — I think this will be of increasing value.

Of course, while I believe the Bible is inspired, this museum isn’t. There is a critical word to say about the Museum of the Bible, but I’ll reserve it to the end of this review so it doesn’t drown out all the good that can be said.

What’s Inside? An Overview

I repeat, this is a large museum. I failed to view all its exhibits over the course of two visits and five total hours. While the museum has a suggested donation of $15, entrance is free of charge, which is remarkable given this is a private museum with a large price tag. What follows is a quick overview from top to bottom. 

The sixth floor has a glass-enclosed gallery with beautiful views of the Capitol, as well as the biblically themed fast-casual “Manna Restaurant” and a biblical garden. I didn’t sample the food, but heard it is excellent. The fifth floor contains a theater, currently hosting “Amazing Grace,” a Broadway musical telling the story of John Newton and the writing of the famous hymn. There are also a collection of smaller galleries. An archeology exhibit from the Israeli Antiquities Authority sets the context of ancient life in Canaan, while there is an art exhibit showing how themes of Ecclesiastes were demonstrated in early modern art. It appears as though these galleries may rotate exhibits over time.

Explanatory videos, computer reconstructions, and live action documentary films throughout the museum are of extremely high quality and production value. There is a bit of History Channel-esque “Edu-tainment” aspect to many of the videos, but no more than you will find in many mainstream museums today. On the whole, I was impressed that the museum avoided the cheesy or smarmy factor that sometimes imbues religiously themed productions. It seems to be aimed, successfully, at the mid-level visitor and at families, avoiding both elitism and populism in its presentation. Scholars will no doubt find nits to pick, as they always do (more on that later). 

The fourth floor is dedicated to the History of the Bible. This is the heart of the museum, and attempts to trace the story of the text of the Bible from early oral traditions, manuscripts, the transmission of the text, and finally modern translations. It covers everything from the Dead Sea Scrolls to medieval manuscripts to renaissance and reformation flowering of translations and editions. There is a large section dedicated to Torah scrolls, describing their production and use in synagogues. This is a large and impressive collection of texts, richly displayed and described. 

The third floor attempts to tell the stories of the Bible. I didn’t have time view the New Testament story, which is told via an animated short. The Hebrew Bible story is told via a narrated “experience” whereby walk from room to room, hear narration, see video and various other multimedia experiences. It is not a bad attempt to condense the Old Testament into a thirty minute narrative. The other element on this floor is “The World of Jesus of Nazareth,” a reproduction of a Galilean village. This type of thing is not exactly my cup of tea — it felt a bit more like Disney’s Pirates of the Caribbeanthan a museum exhibit. But it did give my daughter a very concrete feel for a biblical setting, not unlike other living history exhibits.

The second floor covers the impact of the Bible, both in America and in the world. It is of much more mixed value than the history of the Bible section, though there is a very interesting mock-up of a Gutenberg Press where demonstrations are regularly conducted. I worried that the “Bible in America” might tell a narrow story of a Christian America, but was pleased to find that it mostly avoided that. What you do get here is an impressive set of mostly historic texts that illustrate the role the Bible played in our nation’s European settlement, founding, and development. The great awakening, slavery, civil rights movement each receive some treatment. Obviously, this is not a comprehensive history, and historians will find room to quibble, but the thread of Scripture’s role through phases of America’s development is clearly presented. 

A series of video presentations demonstrate the museum’s effort to strive for balance. Actors are presented on stage reading the founders presenting diverse views on Scripture on topics ranging from revolution to government to the Bible: Jefferson vs. Adams, Seabury vs. Franklin, Washington vs. Rush. These displays effectively teach that there were a diversity of views on religion in our founding, which was far from monolithic in its approach to Christianity.

One of the kitschier elements of the entire museum is the “Washington Revelations Flyboard Ride” ($8 fee). This is the type of thing I’d never do in a museum, but for the sake of this review my daughter insisted I give it a try (there were only a few other people who joined me, so I doubt this will be very popular). The ride transports you in magic carpet fashion around the Washington, D.C., identifying the prominent places where scripture and scriptural themes are on display, from the Supreme Court to the Capitol building to the Washington Monument.   

There are a handful of smaller temporary galleries on the main lobby level, including a collection of mostly reproductions from the Vatican Museums and Vatican Library, as well as an exhibit from the Jewish Historical Museum. Along with the involvement of the Israeli Antiquities Authority, these efforts clearly represent the museum’s desire to appear to be ecumenical in its presentation. There’s also a Children’s Gallery, basically a play room for kids to blow off steam.

Finally, there is a basement level, with three smaller galleries. One of the galleries traces the story of John Newton and the writing of “Amazing Grace,” while another presents an art exhibit of sculptures of stations of the cross. Finally, an archeological exhibit “In the Valley of David & Goliath” can be accessed for an additional charge of $8. This is a fairly small traveling exhibit of artifacts from an architectural dig near the believed historic site of the biblical battle between David and Goliath. This significance of this dig is that it purports to demonstrate an early, literate, monarchic culture at approximately 1,000 BC, near the time of King David, which is much earlier than many scholars have argued for. Clearly, this exhibit purports to make a case for a historic setting as presented in Scripture.

Reaction and Critique

As the length of this very cursory review indicates, there is something for everybody at the Museum of the Bible. But does it work? Is it worth the time and effort, especially when there are so many other remarkable attractions to see during a short stay in Washington, D.C.?

On the whole, I believe the museum does work, and I could see the value of adding it to a week-long itinerary in DC. It is, in itself, a remarkable project, in scale, in quality, and in scope. Some parts of the museum feel more like filler than museum exhibits — bright, shiny objects designed to fill space and entertain, rather than educate. Some of the press at the opening suggested that criticism and stumbles in development of the museum led to a shift in focus during development, and the unevenness of the exhibits bears this out. 

Finally, not to be taken lightly is the aforementioned matter of scholarly criticism, detailed in many articles at the museum’s launch and in a book length treatment, “Bible Nation: The United States of Hobby Lobby.” The Green Family, the Hobby Lobby billionaires behind the museum, have been criticized for their acquisition of items of questionable provenance. It further appears that they shipped materials from the Middle East to the United States without appropriately declaring the items, and have entered into a multi-million settlement with the U.S. Government. Additional criticisms include the enforcement of non-disclosure agreements with scholars, whereby you are prohibited from saying anything negative about the museum if you study their materials or artifacts. There are other issues of concern as well, including claims that artifacts that don’t support the argument of the museum are excluded and kept out of circulation and scholarly examination.

Bottom line, critics allege that the story of the Bible told at the museum is not comprehensive, but selective. It is not the consensus story of academic scholars, but the believing story of faithful adherents, people who are committed to an broadly orthodox and traditional portrayal of the Bible’s development. Because critical voices are excluded, the claim is that the Bible museum isn’t so much educational as it is propagandistic. It tells a particular story of the Bible, and not necessarily the whole story. 

This is a serious charge, and it should be taken seriously. There is of course no such thing as an entirely neutral take on the Bible. The question Satan puts to Eve in Genesis, “Has God really said?” rings in the ear of every student of the Bible. But in my view, an orthodox view of Scripture should stand up to the most rigorous of scholarly cross-examination. A Christian view of history should be a historical view of history. I hope the Museum of the Bible pursues the highest standards of scholarly integrity in all of its efforts going forward, and recognizes that shortcuts which call that integrity into question will only undercut its apologetic value.

Here’s an analogy:

Across the mall from the Museum of the Bible is the Smithsonian Museum of Natural History, in which there is an exhibit of human origins that most decidedly excludes a theistic understanding of Creation ex nihilo. It is a most engaging exhibit, and you can get your picture taken and find out what you would have looked like as a Neanderthal. The exhibit has an agenda, to make the case for a strictly naturalistic and materialistic development of human life on earth. Likewise, the Museum of the Bible has an agenda, to make the case for the Bible as an utterly unique holy book. 

Caveat visitor!

Before You Politicize the Pulpit...

Originally featured on Real Clear Religion on October 4, 2012.

For the faithful, Sunday worship is a respite from the cares of the world, a time and place offering peace, unity, and refreshment for the soul. What are the odds, with election season in full swing, that worshipers streaming into church this Sunday are looking political advertisements here, from the pulpit?

That's what Jim Garlow and the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) are urging preachers to deliver. ADF is promoting October 7th as "Pulpit Freedom Sunday," and is asking ministers to dedicate their sermons to explicit politicking. According to an online pledge, sermons should evaluate the presidential candidates according to "biblical truths and church doctrine," and make a specific endorsement. Launched in 2008, over 500 pastors signed last years pledge, though promotion of the event seems to peak in election years.

ADF's goal is to openly defy the 1954 "Johnson Amendment" to the tax code that prohibits tax-exempt organizations from making political endorsements. The provision has never been actively enforced, and by forcing the IRS to such action ADF hopes to trigger a court challenge and eventually have the provision overturned on constitutional grounds.

It's not clear whether the church doctrines of the Trinity or the hypostatic union should incline one to vote for Romney or Obama, but that is neither here nor there.

ADF believes the Johnson Amendment, though unenforced, nevertheless stifles religious speech of a political nature, silencing ministers by propagating an unconstitutional view of the separation of church and state. Garlow hopes to restore the pulpit to its prior and rightful place in our nation's politics, suggesting it played a leading role shaping public opinion during crusades for independence, abolition, and prohibition.

Constitutionally, ADF may have a great case. In our hyper-politicized age, the line between religious and political speech is an exceedingly difficult one to draw. Teaching on the morality of war and peace, on social issues including marriage, life, and finance are inherently political. It's not clear who in the IRS is qualified to evaluate religious speech for its political content, or what the political support would be for committing a few thousand IRS agents to enforcing this ban.

Perhaps this is why the Johnson Amendment has never been enforced, despite decades of quasi- or outright political activity in the form of voter guides and other exhortation. The degree to which ministers cower in fear of the IRS is questionable, and the role played by preachers in the Civil Rights movement post-1954 is prima facie evidence that the Johnson Amendment doesn't silence voices of faith.

Most would agree that it would probably be best for our political order if an unenforceable ban were no longer on the books, and ADF is correct that we need a renewed affirmation of the freedom of religious speech in the public square. But Pulpit Freedom Sunday clearly has a broader goal, that of encouraging and increasing explicit political content in the Sunday sermon.

But most pastors are reluctant to exchange their spiritual freedom from politics to demonstrate their political freedoms for politics. A survey of 1,000 mainline and evangelical protestant pastors released this week suggests that only 1 in 10 believe they should endorse a candidate from the pulpit, despite the fact that almost half plan to personally endorse outside of their church role.

Furthermore, previous studies have shown that this reluctance isn't based on belief that the government has a say on the content of their speech. Clearly, many pastors are constrained by the sanctity of their office, and in particular, the pulpit. They recognize the very real tradeoff that in our polarized age political speech may offend and drive off many members of the flock they are called to shepherd.

Furthermore, the New Testament offers no encouragement for direct political action. When Jesus was asked a trick question about the propriety of paying taxes -- is there any other kind? -- he asked whose name was on the coin, and told his followers to "Therefore render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's." Later, when on trial for his life, he did not deny his royal authority, but instead claimed "My kingdom is not of this world."

At a time when the major issue in Jewish politics was the overthrow of the oppressive regime, neither Christ nor his Apostles had a word to say about it. The Apostles surely could not conceive of a democracy, or shaping imperial Roman policy, yet they urged submission for the Lord's sake "to every human institution." In his letter to the Romans, Paul twice called the deeply flawed governing authority of his day -- that of Nero, persecutor of Christians -- a "minister of God" for good and evil. With Jesus, he urged for this reason the paying of taxes that were owed, along with honor and respect. Clearly, loss of tax-exempt status may be an injustice as well as a threat to our constitutional liberties, but it poses no threat to the well being of the church.

The primary message the New Testament commends to preachers -- "Christ, and him crucified!" -- is scarcely a political one. But this doesn't mean preachers should be constrained from speaking politically. One care barely open one's mouth on a moral question of the day without giving political offense, and no one would suggest God's word has nothing to say on these matters.

But the further the minister of the word ventures from the claim of "thus sayeth the Lord," there is a spiritual and political price to be paid. We risk squandering moral authority and offending the politically disaffected. The Gospel we are commanded to preach to all reaches a precious few, and the heavenly respite of worship becomes a good bit more earthly. Almost a century ago, J. Gresham Machen voiced a similar concern with the rise of politically progressive pulpits:

The preacher comes forward...not with the authority of God's Word permeating his message, not with human wisdom pushed far into the background by the glory of the Cross, but with human opinions about the social problems of the hour or easy solutions of the vast problem of sin. Such is the sermon. Thus the warfare of the world has entered even into the house of God, and sad indeed is the heart of the man who has come seeking peace.

The minister doesn't speak for himself; the title means "servant." Perhaps preachers should ask themselves, before they step up to the pulpit this Sunday, whether they'd feel comfortable reading on behalf of their boss the standard campaign disclosure when they're finished:

"I'm Jesus Christ, and I approve this message."

What’s wrong with Joel Osteen?

Originally appeared on Daily Caller on May 1, 2012.

On Sunday night, 41,000 fans packed Nationals Stadium in Washington, D.C., to hear a message of hope, inspiration, and encouragement from Joel Osteen. Most paid about $20 (including fees) for the privilege.

Osteen sold out the stadium — a feat the Nationals rarely accomplish. But did he have to sell out to do so?

Osteen is the latest embodiment of the American Religion — Revivalism. For centuries now, preachers have known how to fill stadiums or circus tents and send people home with hope in their heart and a skip in their step. Osteen promises you will leave a transformed person — at least until his tour comes around again next year, when you can be transformed again.

Osteen’s message is a positive one for a difficult time. Every one of us has seeds of greatness inside, potential that has not yet been released, buried treasure waiting to be discovered. If you were a car, you would be the fully loaded and totally equipped model — “with pin stripes,” he says, gesturing to his suit.

Before God created you, he planned great things for you. As you stretch your faith, “God is going to show up, and show out, in tremendous ways. … If you don’t step into your destiny and release your gift, then this world will not be as bright as it should be.”

That’s a pretty positive message. What could be wrong with that?

The biggest problem with Osteen’s message about God is that it is really a message about me. God is a potential, a force, a co-pilot, waiting to be tapped and deployed. I may have a net below me, but I am the one that has to take the first steps on the wire:

Taking steps of faith is imperative to fulfilling your destiny. When I make a move, God will make a move. When I stretch my faith, God will release more of his favor. When I think bigger, God will act bigger.

God is as big as I think him to be.

Yes, this is the American Religion: a program, a plan, five simple steps to help me be all that I can be. This is the religion of the bootstraps, where “God helps those who help themselves.”

By the way, an overwhelming majority of Americans believe that is a quote from the Bible. It’s not.

And that’s the second problem. Osteen’s message is not biblical. His promise that his audience will be taught the Bible — from a preacher who has admitted that teaching the Bible isn’t his strength — is fulfilled with a smattering of verses. These snippets are at best torn out of their context, at worst fabricated.

There’s this stretch: “God is saying to you what He said to Lot, ‘Hurry up and get there, so I can show you my favor in a greater way.’” In Genesis 19:22, the Angel does tell Lot “Get there quickly, for I can do nothing until you arrive there.” God waiting on Lot to step out in faith so he can bless him? Not exactly. It is God telling Lot to flee to Zoar, a city of safety, so he can rain down fire on Sodom and Gomorrah.

Osteen bolsters his bootstrap religion by quoting Jesus: “Roll away the stone, and I’ll raise Lazarus.” This, Osteen says, is a “principle,” “God expects us to do what we can, and He will do what we can’t. If you will do the natural, God will do the supernatural.”

One problem. Jesus does command them to roll away the stone, but no such quid pro quo is found in holy writ. This foundational principle is one of Osteen’s own making.

It is not primarily the details of Osteen’s biblical sunbeams that are problematic. It’s the overall message. What’s missing is any sense of human sin. Osteen leads his crowd in a mantra at the opening of his performance: “This is my Bible. Tonight I will be taught the word of God. I can do what it says I can do.” Again, bootstraps.

What does the Bible say we can do for ourselves? Our best works are like filthy rags, the prophet Isaiah teaches (Isaiah 64:6); we are like sheep gone astray (Isaiah 53:6). Paul says “all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23) and includes himself in this “all” as “the chief of all sinners” (1 Timothy 1:15). The big problem is that we don’t want what’s good for us, and when we do, Paul says, “The good that I want to do, I do not do” (Romans 7:19).

Ring true? It does for me. That’s why the stadium will be full next year. Self-esteem doesn’t help me, it just leaves me with more me, digging deeper within.

How about Jesus? Surely he’s more upbeat than Paul or the prophets? Well, he does offer this simple recipe to happiness: “Sell all you possess, give it away to the poor, and follow me.” You done that yet? Yes, he does say that our faith makes us well, but he is the healer our faith looks to. He also tells the paralytic to take up his bed and walk, but only after he has healed him.

What we want is the excitement and encouragement and affirmation of the stadium — “God is waiting for you to act.” What we need is the truth and compassion of Jesus — “Come to me you who are weary, and I will give you rest.”

After the adrenaline boost, I hope some of those 41,000 find their way through the desert to some place where they can get a drink of water.

Earlier Sunday, 45 worshipers (about 0.1% of Osteen’s crowd) gathered at Christ Reformed Church in Logan Circle — and other churches in this city — to hear a message of sin and salvation, the Good News of a God who loves those who are his sworn enemies. They responded to God’s word with prayer, song, and confession, and received the benediction of a God who pardons sin full and free.

There was hope and inspiration too, but of an entirely different sort. Admittance was free.

[Note: The author didn’t make it to Nationals Stadium on Sunday; he caught the previous “Night of Hope Event” at Yankee Stadium online.]

Christianity is Neither Conservative Nor Socialist

In 2011 I was asked to write an article for @DailyCaller addressing the question, “Is Christianity Conservative or Socialist?” It was a part of a series of articles, with different authors writing on each viewpoint.

I wrote that “Christianity is Neither Conservative Nor Socialist”:

Both the Christian Right and the Christian Left get the question of Christianity and politics wrong.

Christianity is not politically conservative or politically liberal — though Christians may be either. Christianity is not political at all. It is in a sense politically agnostic. But in another sense it calls into question the basis of every earthly power, including politics.

Those looking to dig into the Bible and find a political platform are going to be sorely disappointed. It’s not there. That is for the simple reason that it is not a book about politics, but about God, and how He is saving His people through Jesus Christ. This distinguishes Christianity from Old Testament Judaism and modern day Islam, both of which contain detailed political agendas. Well-meaning Christians that want to outline a detailed “Christian” agenda of their own, however, will simply not find one.

You can read the full article at Daily Caller, “Christianity is Neither Conservative Nor Socialist.”