Baptist Inconsistencies

I wanted to blog yesterday, but I was preoccupied. Was I singing Christmas carols? No. Eating the Christmas goose? No. Visiting family and friends? No. Last evening, I decided to finish compulating student grades since I have 4:30 p.m. deadline today. I cooked three meals for my wife, and graded. That's what I did yesterday in the true spirit of a non-Sabbath day.

Back to the issue of why Baptists even observe Christmas. To make a long story short, it has much to do with the interaction of American religious culture during the mid-19th century that began to include elements of Lutheranism. Remember, Luther never shunned the Roman Catholic Christian Calendar; therefore, Lutheran churches retained the feast days. During the 19th century, more and more German immigrants came to America and immigrants from Scandanavia all brought Christmas traditions such as Santa Claus, Christmas trees and decorations, etc.

My issue with Baptists observing Christmas is that it is inconsistent with their doctrine of Sola Scriptura and the regulative principle of worship. Christmass is a human invention; it is "will-worship." There is no warrant in Scripture for it. Jesus never commanded to celebrate his birt annually on Dec 25.

Please, don't get me wrong. The Church should proclaim the totality of the person and work of Christ, but not in disaccord with the biblical emphasis. Only two gospels narrate the birth of Christ, but all narrate his passion, death, and crucifixion. We, as African American Baptists, need to tell the whole story all of the time. If we preach through the gospels, we will give more than due emphasis on the whole of Christ's life and work on behalf of his people.

There is no biblical warrant for a Christian year. Let's hold truly to our doctrine of Sola Scriptura and the regulative principle of worship.

Baptist Bah Humbug

Would you believe that at one time in this country Baptists rejected the celebration of Christmas? This was the case during the Colonial period of American history into the 19th century. This was startling news for me when I read it because I grew up celebrating Christmas as a Baptist and attending worship service every Christmas Day.

Since Baptists emerged from the Puritan wing of the English Reformation, Baptists saw no biblical warrant for the celebration of holy days in NT. The only holy day Baptists observed was the Christian Sabbath, or the Lord's Day, which is the first day of the week.

What I observe now is that Christmas Day has more importance than all 52 Lord's Days put together. Just notice: Christmas Day is when no one works other than police officers, fire fighters, etc. What about the Lord's Day? Restaurants are in full swing, retail stores, grocery stores, etc. Business owners refuse to keep a Sabbath unless it's Thanksgiving or Christmas. What about Christians and their view of the Lord's Day? Very few Christians keep the Sabbath holy. Some argue that the fourth commandment has no bearing on New Covenant piety while others argue that all days are alike. Except Christmas.

Things are reversed from what Baptists used to practice. Baptists have historically held to a high view of the Lord's Day Sabbath, and rejected celebration of holy days. In the 1689 London Confession, Chapter 22 teaches that since the resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ the first day of week is the Sabbath. There is no mention the observance of any other day, but the Lord's Day. No Christian Calendar. No holy days.

This was the fundamental position of the Westminster divines when they crafted the Directory for the Public Worship of God. Regarding holy days, they wrote: "There is no day commanded in scripture to be kept holy under the gospel but the Lord's day, which is the Christian Sabbath." They go on to state, "Festival days, vulgarly called Holy-Days, having no warrant in the word of God, are not to be continued." Some argue that Reformed Puritans reacted to the retaining of the Church Calendar in the English Church, and this colored their rejection of holy days including Christmas. This is a response according to the word of God, not merely a gut reaction.

This was the prevailing practice among Baptists until the mid to late 19th century when observance of Christmas crept in the churches, which is about the same time that Americans began to observe Christmas in larger numbers. Baptist observance was more cultural than according to biblical conviction. This is unfortunate since Baptists have a strong tradition in Sola Scriptura and applying it rightly to worship matters.

If there is no biblical warrant to observe Christmas, why is this a general practice in our Baptist churches? Besides the point made in the previous paragraph, there is more to be said on this matter.

Baptists and Holy Days

For the vast majority of the Christian world and non-Christian world, people are gearing up for the big day on 25 December. This is, of course, Christmas Day; it is the birth of Christ. This day and this season was my absolute favorite time of the year. I dreamt of toys, feasting, conviviality, etc. I believed in Santa Clause, and I believed that 25 December was the actual birthday of Jesus Christ. Maybe you know where I'm going with this. Before I get into the real reason for this entry, allow me to share my story.

As a child, I was a baptized member of the Roman Catholic Church. Officially, I was a Roman Catholic until I was six. Then I became a Baptist. My mother was still Catholic, and I went to Catholic school. At school, we would light the Advent wreath every day beginning after the first Sunday of December. We sang, "O Come, O Come, Emmanuel" every day. It was very pious. I was a Christmas traditionalist.

While we did this in Catholic school, our Baptist church did other things. There was no Advent wreath, and our church never observed Advent, per se. We did put on a big Christmas play the Friday before Christmas. One year, I was the lead shepherd with a speaking part. My brother played Joseph during the same production. It was fun, fun, fun.

I loved helping put up the family Christmas tree, and making sure the wreath hung outside on the door. Of course, by Christmas Eve I was ready to burst. As a young child, I went to bed early anticipating Santa's arrival. One year I really believed I heard his sleigh park on our roof. On Christmas morning, I would wake up while it was still dark---maybe six o'clock. I would run to the tree and find all of the toys I wanted---racing car set, electric football set, etc. After this, it would be feasting with the family.

If the 25th of December was my absolute favorite day, the 26th was probably the most non-descript day of the year. I had my toys, and I would go to my friends' houses to play with their new toys. It just wasn't the same. Santa was back at the North Pole, and I wouldn't see him again until next year. Nevertheless, the Advent season would last until January 6, which is the feast of the Epiphany. That's when the tree would come down. I insisted that the decorations had to remain through January 6; I was a traditionalist.

As the years wore on, I became more sober-minded regarding Christmas. No more toys; I no longer believed in the myth of Santa Clause. I still looked forward to Christmas, but it was more nostalgic. I listened to the music, I looked forward to being out of school, and seeing family members. I tried to focus on the coming of Jesus Christ. Attending church became important for me, and that became part of my new tradition.

Something began to change. My father said that Jesus wasn't born on Dec 25, and that Christmas was invented by the Roman Catholic Church. I looked in the Scriptures, and there is nothing in Matthew 1, or Luke 2 stating that this was Christmas. There is no month and day given to mark the birth of Jesus. I read some of the history of Christmas, and I found that my father, a pastor, was right. I was still confused because he continued to celebrate Christmas and have church. This was a contradiction. Why if we are Baptists, a people who believe that we need biblical warrant to support worship practices, celebrate Christmas?

This turned me against Christmas because I saw so many inconsistencies. The confession my old churches held to stated that the Holy Scriptures are the "supreme standard by which all human conduct, creeds, and opinions should be tried." Let's apply this to Christmas and the celebration of other Holy Days like Easter. Do we read in the Scriptures were the Church is to celebrate the birth of Christ as its own regular, annual day? The answer is no. In fact, the Scriptures teach against such. Paul commanded the Colossians and the Laodiceans, "Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ" (Col 2:16-17). This is a clear statement that under the New Covenant the Church is free from celebrating yearly feasts, or even a Church calendar. All of the biblical feasts of the OT: passover, pentecost, firstfruits, New Moon Sabbaths, Seventh Day Sabbaths were shadows, or types that Christ through his person and work fulfilled. To celebrate those would be tantamount to rejecting Christ's perfect work. What about New Covenant feats? What about them? Where are they? They are missing. Why? Because Christ has come and fulfilled all of the types.

Paul, again, makes it clear that there are no NT holy days: "Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years. I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed upon you labour in vain" (Gal 4:10-11). The days, months, etc. Paul refers to here in this verse are the OT feasts and times. The occasion of this letter was that Judaizers were teaching these Christians (Gentiles) that they had to be Jewish in order to be Christians. Paul here teaches that certain aspects of Judaism had been abrogated such as the observance of festivals and feasts. The Church looks to Christ as the one who fulfilled all of this, and it looks to him alone.

I'll quit here for today. I hope you understand this argument. There is more to follow.

Preach the Word

I have no idea how many pastoral anniversary services I have witnessed, but it has been quite a many. Most of the sermons have been from Paul's letter to Timothy, and his command to preach the word (2 Timothy 4:2). Rightly so, pastors have applied this command by Paul to the evangelist Timothy to the work of the local church pastor.

We who have been reared in traditional African American Baptist churches know that premium placed on preaching. Yet the premium has been placed on a certain style of preaching rather than the substance of preaching. As a kid and young man, I loved to hear a certain style of preaching---witty turns of phrases, humorous, and a good tune and a whoop. As a got older, I noticed that many pastors who used that style failed to preach a sermon with a sound argument and exegesis. What does it mean to preach the word?

I believe that in order for African American pastors to obey this command efficiently and effectively means that they need to preach expository sermons. The expository sermon takes its points from the biblical text. Every word is examined; every phrases is analyzed and contextualized. Applications are drawn straight from the text. In brief, every word of God is proclaimed. This is the type of preaching that glorifies God and edifies the saints.

For African American pastors to make the shift to preaching expository sermons will entail a culture shift. By this, I mean that pastors will preach longer sermons with more detail applied to explaining the text. It demands the attention of the listener, but the rewards are inexorable. The saints will actually learn the word of God with clear and pointed applications.

I have heard pastors who have three points to their sermons, and they deem themselves expository preachers. I have noticed that their points are actually applications, and not necessarily points of the passage of Scripture. Just yesterday I heard a sermon on-demand, and the sermon was called "An Open Letter to Mr. Obama." First, there is nothing in the Bible about Barack Obama; therefore, the sermon title had nothing to do with a biblical passage. The passage was from 1 Samuel 16, which narrates the initial anointing of David. The first point of the sermon was that the "anointing is more important than the appointing." The only thing remotely related about this point to the passage is that Samuel anointed David. In this passage David's anointing as the next king of Israel had everything to do with his appointment to the same.

A sample expository outline of this passage would be:
1. The Lord Summons Samuel to Anoint a New King (1 Sam 16:1-3)
2. The Lord Corrects Samuel's Assessment of the Anointed (4-7)
3. The Lord Chooses his Anointed (8-13)

Possible applications:
1. It is the Lord who directs the paths of his people
2. Often we mistake what the Lord will do, or we mistake the kind of people he chooses to do certain tasks. The Lord is compassionate upon whoever he chooses
3. The Lord is sovereign in his grace; he chooses whom he chooses, especially in the realm of salvation.
4. David's anointing anticaptes the coming of the Anointed One, Jesus Christ.

This is the type of preaching needed in African American Baptist churches. I pray for African American Baptist pastors to avail themselves to preaching expository sermons to glory of God, the edification of the saints, and the salvation of sinners.

The Place of the Scriptures in Worship

So far during this year I have made a strong argument based on historic Baptist and Reformed confessions as well as Calvin's Necessity for Reforming the Church that all we do as Christians in the worship of God is to be done according to worship commandments or clear and approved examples from the Scriptures. With that stated, the Scriptures themselves are part of the worship of God.

Baptist worship is Reformed worship; this is the case I've also attempted to place forward. Since I believe this is the case, Terry L. Johnson, longtime pastor of Independent Presbyerian Church in Savannah Church, has written in a nice little book called Reformed Worship that in Christian worship we read the Bible, we preach the Bible, we pray the Bible, and we sing the Bible. Our worship should be saturated with the Holy Word of God.

There is a place for the straight reading of the Scriptures in worship. Paul wrote to Timothy that he must give place to reading in the worship (1 Timothy 4:13), which specified the OT writings. Also Paul knew and assumed that the letter he wrote to the Church at Colossae would be read into their hearing at their Lord's Day assemblies, and he commanded that the letter he wrote to the neighboring church at Laodicea be read in Colossae(see Colossians 4:16). What these passages demonstrate by command and approved practice is that both the OT and NT are to be read in Christian worship.

In the Westminster Directory Public of Worship (1645), there are directions regarding the public reading of the Scriptures on the Lord's Day. The writers urge that both OT and NT books be read one chapter of each at every meeting. Whereever the minister leaves off reading on one Lord's Day, the next chapter is read the following Lord's Day. The Bible should be read in succession. Along with the reading there should be comment on the passage for the hearers to gain an understanding.

It has been my experience in National Baptist churches that a small portion of the Word of God is read at every service. Usually the reading is a few verses; I've never heard a whole chapter of the Scriptures read unless it was a short to moderately length psalm. Though the Scriptures are read, both testaments are hardly read in one service and the readings are out of continuity from week to week.

We need to hear the voice of God in the assembly on the Lord's Day; therefore, let us read the Holy Word more---both testaments in succession each Lord's Day.

Reflections on the Reformation

This may come as a surprise to many, but today is Reformation Day not Halloween. On this Reformation Day, I would like to offer some of my reflections on the issue of reformation in African American churches, which is the theme of this blog. For years, I thought the Reformation had nothing to do with me as an African American Missionary Baptist. I was quite comfortable in my little corner of the Christian world. I knew the Roman Catholic Church was wrong on much, but I never really believed that those who believed the gospel according to Rome were lost.

In college, I took a class on the Protestant Reformation and still never made a connection with what I professed to believe as a Christian and the foundation of that profession in Reformed Protestant theology. One could say that God had decided to leave my veil covering my eyes.

It was when the Lord removed the veil back in December of 1998 that I saw the connection between being Reformed Protestant and Baptist. The study of Baptist history made better sense to me, and of course I fell in love with the great doctrines of grace such as election, justification, and the preservation and perseverance of the saints.

I am an unashamed Calvinist, Protestant, and Reformed Christian. While I am still an African American Baptist, that label has taken on less significance the past few years. Even now, I am attempting to be more and more catholic in the Reformed sense. I believe that true catholicity begins and ends with the belief that the Holy Scriptures are the inspired, sufficient, inerrant, infallible authority in all things pertaining to the faith and obedience of the Church.

If I can help African American Baptists see and embrace this, by the help of God, we can see real reformation in this generation. I pray God that he will effect bonifide reformation among African Americans. We (African American Baptists) are content with emotionally-driven and culturally-driven church. There is no room for a true catholicity, which Luther and Calvin among others envisioned during the 16th century. Calvin and others of the Reformed wing of the reformation believed in uniformity of worship since worship is biblically-based. It is quite amazing how uniform Reformed worship was even into the 20th century. As I have written before, reforming worship is imperative for African American Baptists. I believe real and authentic reformation begins in the realm of worship.

How do we apply Paul's words in Galatians: "For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus." What African Americans have done is make ethnicity matter when Paul said that these ethnic markers have lost their significance in Christ. If we are to be welcoming to all ethnic groups in the Church of Christ, it means that our worship should never emphasize ethnic particularities. Christians are one through one Holy Spirit, who inspired the prophets and apostles to teach us how to worship God and Christ and to teach us the elements of worship.

Someone may argue that there was uniformity in Reformed worship because the Reformers and their followers were European. Take another look at this: there were vast differences among European ethnicities then as there are now. If we base our argument on this then we belittle real ethnic differences that led to wars and nationalistic rivalries. Reformation in worship was based on a right application of the doctrine of sola scriptura. If these men like Calvin and Knox were true Christians and their understanding of worship truly biblically, can we toss them and their teaching aside because they lived in the 16th century and were Europeans? If so, we would be guilty of ethnic chauvinism and favoritism, which the Scriptures condemn.

I believe there was uniformity in New Covenant worship. Take a look at what Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 11 and 14. The churches outside of Judea consisted of Gentiles and Jews. Some Gentiles had come straight out of idolatry such as those at Thessalonica, but they conformed to the worship pattern taught them by the apostle Paul. Why are we so stubborn? Believe you me, I know the history of racism perpetrated by professing Christians in this country. The Spirit of God conquers such, and he calls us to conform to the Word of God alone even in the worship of God.

These are my thoughts on this Reformation Day 2008.

Soli Deo Gloria!

Instruments in Worship

For the average National Baptist, such a topic seems to be irrelevant. All National Baptist churches are going to have at least one instrument, an organ (better if the organ is a Hammond organ), and the majority of churches will have a diversity of instruments: organ, piano, keyboard, drums, lead guitar, and a bass guitar. The more instruments the better.

About a month or two ago while reading a history of Black Baptists in Alabama, I read that black Baptists there during the latter half of the 19th century worshiped without the aid of musical instruments. These folk may not have had a biblical reason why they practiced this. Probably there were few black folk in Baptist churches immediately following Emancipation who could play a piano. A Capella singing was probably practical. I mention this to make a larger point: it is not a necessity to have musical instruments in the song worship of Christian churches.

Another historical point I would like to make is that instruments in worship is an innovation among Protestant churches since the late 19th century. Methodists, Baptists, and Presbyterians all worshiped without the aid of musical instruments the balance of their histories as distinct Christian communions. J. L. Dagg, a Baptist theologian of the 19th century, stated this regarding instrumental music: "Instrumental music formed a part of the temple worship; but it is nowhere commanded in the New Testament; and it is less adapted to the more spiritual service of the present dispensation." Dagg's assertion is significant because it establishes the framework of the argument against the use of musical instruments in NT worship: first, musical instruments were part of Temple worship, which has been superseded (with the exception of psalm-singing); and second, there is no command to use musical instruments in NT, or a clear example of their use in worship. I agree.

Why I am placing forward such an argument in this day and age? First, I believe it is biblical. We are to obey our Lord who speaks through the Holy Scriptures. Second, I believe the plethora of instrumentation in National Baptist churches takes away from true worship in spirit and truth. Musical instruments create undue emotionalism in worship, which is as much intelligent as it is with the heart. Does not Paul implore us to making melody in our hearts anyway? See Ephesians 5:19.

In National Baptist churches, music drives worship. If it sounds good, it must good for worship. Who determines the sound? Nashville? Detroit? Chicago? I hate to state this but the sound coming out of National Baptist churches is unholy, for the most part. It scintillates; it titillates; it makes the body move, but it fails to capture something of the holiness of God and the reverence that is supposed to mark his worship.

Next topic

It's been a month since I've added something to this blog. In that month, a hurricane it my home state on Labor Day, and another hurricane hit where my in-laws live. I've been side-tracked. I do want to introduce my next topic, though. We've written about worship songs, and now it's time to write about music---more precisely, musical instruments in worship.

For the vast majority of African American Baptists, no thought is given to the propriety of musical instruments in the worship of God. As far as I know, the only group of African American Baptists who reject the use of musical instruments in worship is Primitive Baptists, who are visible mainly in the American Southeast.

For me, the use of musical instruments in worship became an issue for me as I studied the beginnings of Baptist history. When Baptists began their movement, there was no singing; therefore, there were no musical instruments in worship. As I have mentioned in an earlier blog, Calvinistic Baptists (Particular Baptists) believed that singing was a NT worship ordinance. Even then, there were no musical instruments.

What about during the reformation? No musical instruments. Is there warrant from NT? Not really. Some argue that the word psalm itself in the Greek necessarily means that the psalm itself must have musical accompaniment. This is our debate: instruments, or no instruments.

Let's be real here: instrumentation in National Baptist churches is out of hand. There are organs, pianos, guitars, trumpets, saxophones, drums, etc. Choirs are backed by professional musicians who jam. Is this what our Christ had in my mind in sanctioning worship song?

This is where we're going.

Not Done Yet

I've been away from the blog for nearly month working hard on a project. I'm not done yet with this topic of worship song. To end, I want to summarize a couple of points: first, I believe psalmody encourages National Baptists to be more Catholic, in the positive sense. I truly believe that Christ and the apostles assume uniformity and catholicity of worship in the churches. This is evident on two counts: first, under OT there was uniformity. This may seem too simplistic, but I believe it is important. Judging from Paul's argument in Romans 11, the Gentiles have been grafted onto a cultivated branch, which is the whole structure of Jewish worship with the exception of the ceremonial aspect of it. Also in 1 Corinthians 11 Paul clearly states in connection to women wearing headcoverings that there is no other practice among the churches. Does not this mean the Paul assumed uniformity of worship?

For there to be different types of worship forms based on ethnicity is an affront to God. Even though I tolerate hymn-singing, hymns have the fingerprint of man; the psalms have the fingerprint of the Holy Spirit.

Second and last: psalm-singing offers the Church of Christ pure doctrine. What is evident today in many National Baptist churches is that the songs are from outside the tradition. Mostly the songs are Pentecostal and Word-faith. This is sub-Catholic. How can we have the word of Christ dwell richly in us by singing false doctrines and at times outright heresies?

Now, I'm done.

Spiritual Songs? I thought...

If psalms are psalms, and hymns are also psalms, then spiritual songs are songs about spiritual things, right? According to the superficial reading of the Ephesians and Colossians passages, yes. This is what I thought until I read the passages in the Greek, and I found that the Greek word for "spiritual" refers to "of, or by the Spirit." This indicates that the songs the apostle commands us to sing are inspired songs, not songs about spiritual things merely.

This is huge. This really led me to embrace exclusive psalmody (even though I'm not arguing for such in these blogs). If we are to sing psalms, which are inspired by the Holy Spirit and songs inspired by the Holy Spirit, then whatever we believe hymns are we are to sing primarily inspired material. Since we know where to find psalms, where do we find spiritual songs (the commands assume that there are a bevy of spiritual songs ready to sing; this is not a commandment to compose them)? We find in them in the Holy Scriptures. A spiritual song is the Song of Moses in Exodus 15, Deborah's Song in Judges 5, and there are other inspired songs in the Holy Scriptures outside of the Book of Psalms. Habbakuk has a song, and there are songs throughout the prophecy of Jeremiah in addition to the Book of Lamentations. Could Paul have been pointing us back to those? I don't know. The bottom line, however, is that it is clear that the Church of Jesus Christ is to sing inspired songs in its praise. All of the above mentioned songs in Scripture came from inspired people.

I'm calling National Baptists back to the psalms! I have a nice collection of hymnals, and what I have found is that the Lutherans have a psalter section in the Lutheran hymnal, and the United Methodists have a psalter section in the 1989 hymnal. What do we Baptists have? Other than lots of psalms in the Baptist edition of Trinity Hymnal, Baptists are hard pressed to find plenty of psalms in their hymnals. National Baptists have a few psalm settings in their hymnals.

We need to sing the psalms! Are the songs of Andrae Crouch, Kirk Franklin, Lucie Campbell, Clevant Derricks, Charles A. Tindlay, Thomas A. Dorsey, and our slave forebears greater than those written by David, the sweet psalmist of Israel? Did not Jesus tell the Eleven that the psalms speak of him in Luke 24? Do we believe that there are Spirit-inspired "psalmists" today? Traditionally, National Baptists do not. Let's sing the psalms!

Hymnals for National Baptists

I know there are three extant hymnals published by National Baptists. There is the ever so popular New National Baptist Hymnal published by Boyd, there is the New National Baptist Hymnal 21st Century also published by Boyd, and there is the Baptist Standard Hymnal published by the Sunday School Publishing Board of the National Baptist Convention USA, Inc. Out of the three I prefer the Baptist Standard Hymnal because it contains better hymns by better hymn writers like Watts, Toplady, and Bliss. The hymns mostly are Evangelical Protestant hymns that agree with Baptist doctrine.

Outside of these National Baptist hymnals, I would suggest others for National Baptists who are serious about reform. First, Trinity Hymnal (1961 or 1990). This hymnal is used by conservative Presbyterian churches such as the Orthodox Presbyterian Church and the Presbyterian Church in America. There is a Baptist Edition of the 1961 Trinity Hymnal used by Reformed Baptist churches. The strenght of Trinity Hymnal is in the richness of its psalm settings and psalm paraphrases. For National Baptist churches that have never sung a psalm there are very good psalm settings here. There are also hymns that reflect that doctrines of Protestantism. This is a far cry from what is being sung in National Baptist churches today. The contemporary stuff is largely from a Charismatic-Pentecostal bend. National Baptists need to begin to sing the Bible from a Reformed Protestant perspective, which would be true to the New Hampshire Declaration of Faith. Second, I recommend the Psalter-Hymnal, which the Christian Reformed Church publishes. The strength of this Psalter-Hymnal is just that: it has 150 Psalms plus other psalm settings. The hymns reflect the teachings of Reformed Protestantism.

In the service of song, it is imperative to sing what is true of God, Christ, the Spirit, man, salvation, etc. First, the psalms do this in perfect truth; second, good scripture songs do it as well. We must sing the Bible!

Even though I believe in supporting Boyd Publishing and the Sunday School Publishing Board, National Baptists must support the Scriptural mandate to sing psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs. Current hymnals lack the wherewithal to carry out the biblical commands. There is a gem published by Boyd. It is the National Baptist Hymnal originally published in 1905 (I believe); it is a words-only hymnal with great old, classic Evangelical hymns. There are plenty of Watts' hymns, which I would sing in a heartbeat compared to Contemporary stuff. If churches refuse to adopt the Trinity Hymnal, or the Psalter-Hymnal, the National Baptist Hymnal would be a better choice than sticking with the New National Baptist Hymnal.

Hymn in Acts 16:25

As I did some more bible reading and studying on the nature of a hymn, I found that I made a mistake regarding the rendering of Acts 16:25. In the previous blog, I mentioned that Luke used a verb form of hymn. Actually, Luke wrote the noun form. So Paul and Silas actually sang a hymn, or sang hymns. I went to Matthew Henry's commentary today and Henry argues that the hymns or hymn Paul and Silas sung were psalms. He, like other Puritan Reformed commentators of yesterday, believed that the use of the word hymn in Scripture was synonymous with the word psalm.

The great Baptist pastor and theologian, John Gill, also held that hymns (especially in Eph 5:19) were synonymous with psalms. His point is that the hymns listed by Paul were inspired just as the psalms were.

This poses a big problem for contemporary proponents of singing uninspired hymns. Anyway, I blogged today just to clear up one of my own mistakes.

What hymns?

I spent a lot of time dealing with psalm-singing because it is nearly universally neglected these days. I can also say that hymn-singing is neglected these days. Most Evangelical churches sing praise and worship songs, and African American Baptist churches sing a mix of praise and worship songs and Urban Contemporary Gospel. Hymns are infrequently sung. With the exception of one church, the African American Baptist churches I've been a member of sung the same few hymns over and over such as "Amazing Grace," "At the Cross," "Blessed Assurance," "Blessed Quietness," etc. I never sang "A Mighty Fortress is Our God" until I was in my early twenties, and I had been a baptized member of a church since I was six years old! As I lamented the absence of psalm-singing, I must also lament the absence of hymn-singing.

As I came to think of reformation in African American Baptist worship some years ago, I was eager to learn a definition of a hymn. I automatically assumed that a hymn was any song in a hymnal, and the only hymnal I was familiar with at the time (1999) was the New National Baptist Hymnal, which has a good number of traditional hymns such as "A Mighty Fortress is Our God," and hymns by Newton, Wesley, and Watts. As I thought about the meaning of a hymn, I knew that the apostle Paul could not have meant those when he commanded the Church to sing psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs. I asked a friend of mine who was Russian Orthodox and working on a Master's degree in music; she also directed a choir at a Methodist Church here in the Lansing area. She told me that a hymn was a biblical text set to music. With that, I knew that most hymns in hymn books are not hymns!

After this, I was done with my own assumptions. I finally went to the bible, and I found that the word "hymn" is used a few times in NT. Other than Paul's use in Ephesians 5 and Colossians 3, Matthew and Mark use the verb form of hymn in their accounts of the Lord's Supper. In Matthew 26:30 and Mark 13:26, the writers state that Jesus and his disciples sang a hymn after the supper. Well, I knew that because at my home church we ended our Lord's Supper service with those words from the gospels. We sang "Glory to his Name." I learned from commentators that Jesus and the disciples sang from Psalms 113-118, the Hallel. No one disputes this. Here in the gospels to sing a hymn is to sing psalms. It is interesting that translators of the 1599 Geneva Bible translate hymn as psalm in Matthew 26:30. The only other use of the verb form of hymn is found in Acts 16:25, where Paul and Silas sing "praises" in the prison at midnight. Again, the translators of the Geneva Bible translate "praises" as "psalms," and most commentators agree that Paul and Silas sang psalms. If we use the Scriptures to interpret themselves, then, we have a good argument that hymns and psalms are interchangeable terms.

For those unconvinced with this argument, at least, you can agree that a hymn must be addressed to God, or Jesus Christ that is biblical; a hymn must express the true character of the Trinue God and his marvelous works. Where do we find such? I'll address this in the next blog.

Helps for would be Psalm-Singing

It is clear that the Church of Jesus Christ must sing the Songs of Zion, which are the holy psalms. The Reformers were in agreement on this: Luther loved the psalms and retained psalm-singing in the German Mass; Calvin loved the psalms and he recruited a French poet named Clement Marot to put many of the psalms in meter for congregational singing; Anglicans loved the psalms and sang them exclusively well into the 18th century; and the Puritans loved the psalms and sang them exclusively. In fact, the first book published in Colonial America was the Bay Psalm Book.

When Baptists came on the scene in the 17th century, there was debate regarding the propriety of singing in the worship of God. General Baptists in England (and in America)believed that NT gave no warrant for singing in the public worship. Particular Baptists were the ones to begin singing, but there was disagreement regarding what to sing: were they to sing the biblical psalms, or was there warrant to compose their own hymns to sing? Some Baptists did sing the psalms, as reported by Terry Johnson in his marvelous essay, "Why the Psalms." So important was this issue of singing that the writers of the Philadelphia Baptist Confession of 1742 added an article called, "On the Singing of Psalms." Thank Calvinistic Baptists for recognizing that NT does warrant praise in the public worship of God.

As may be obvious, Baptists did include hymns of human composition in their service of praise. The 1689 London Confession actually differs from the Westminster Confession on this note. In chapter 22, article five, the Baptist writers stated "psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs" are to be sung. The Westminster divines, however, write in chapter 21, article that only "psalms" are to be sung. Also the Westminster Directory of Worship indicates that psalms are to be sung only. The Westminster Standards allow only psalms to be sung, but the Baptists theoretically allow humanly composed hymns and spiritual songs. (The meaning of hymns and spiritual songs are up for debate). It is interesting that hymns of human composition totally replaced the psalms within a few generations among Baptists.

Besides all of this, Baptists must sing psalms. How to get started? First, make psalm-singing a priority in the service of song. This means adding a Psalter for congregational singing. There are three psalters I suggest: one, Trinity Psalter, which published a words-only thin psalter that is good for churches used to singing hymns because the suggested tunes will be familiar; second, the Psalter-Hymnal of the Christian Reformed Church, which has all 150 psalms in the front of the book with good scripture songs that are mostly psalms; and third, The Psalter used by more conservative Dutch Reformed communions and published by Eerdmans.

I suggest singing one psalm per service (or portions of longer psalms) to begin with. Use a setting with a familiar tune. For example, in Trinity Psalter Psalm 3 is set to the tune of "Amazing Grace." Eventually, I suggest singing two psalms, or two portions of psalms during the service of song. Since the psalms are the inspired word of God, it makes sense to sing what is perfect, true, full of heavenly wisdom, and that reveals our God and his Christ more than the best uninspired words of man.

Can we improve upon what the Holy Spirit has given? Calvin, in his Preface to the Psalter, wrote:

What is there now to do? It is to have songs not only honest, but also holy, which will be like spurs to incite us to pray to and praise God, and to meditate upon his works in order to love, fear, honor and glorify him. Moreover, that which St. Augustine has said is true, that no one is able to sing things worthy of God except that which he has received from him. Therefore, when we have looked thoroughly, and searched here and there, we shall not find better songs nor more fitting for the purpose, than the Psalms of David, which the Holy Spirit spoke and made through him.

Why the Psalms?

According to Church history, Christians have always sung psalms. There are many who argue that the Church of Christ must sing the psalms exclusive to the singing of uninspired hymns. My intention in these blogs is not to argue for exclusive psalmody, though I believe the argument for exclusive psalmody is convincing. My intention is simply to posit a humble argument that the Church must sing the psalms in the worship of God.

Why the psalms? First, it is commanded. I've already given scriptural support for this. Second, the Holy Spirit has given the Church 150 psalms to sing. Third, the psalms are the Word of God that speak vividly about the Lord Jesus Christ (see Luke 24:44). Fourth, it is clear that NT churches sang the psalms (see 1 Cor 14:15, 26). Fifth, the Holy Catholic Church sang the psalms throughout its history as attested to by Church Fathers like Chrysostom and Augustine. Fifth, the 16th century Reformers restored both congregational singing and psalm-singing to their rightful place; and John Calvin is most responsible for this by helping to produce the Genevan Psalter. Psalm-sing became synonymous with Protestantism.

Protestants have forsaken a noble and spiritual heritage by neglecting the psalms. Since National Baptists hold to a confession of faith that upholds the inspiration, infallibility, and inerrancy of the Scriptures, to sing uninspired hymns and other songs in place of the psalms is grave problem. Because our worship must be Word-based, I argue that psalm-singing must dominate the element of praise in Christian worship.

African American Baptists must never allow tradition to cloud our thinking regarding reforming our praise. More than Negro spirituals, Thomas Dorsey's gospel blues, and the songs of contemporary artists are the biblical psalms. How can we sing the words of man more than the words of God?

How to reform this element of worship? In the next blog, I'll offer some suggestions.

Why NOT the Psalms?

I came into Reformed theology in late 1998. For me, the word of God began to make better sense, especially regarding the doctrine of election. Eventually, I learned that being Reformed, or Calvinistic had a great bearing on worship. In the Summer of 2002 I began to study worship song. Previously, I had come to hold seriously Paul's commands to sing psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs. My superficial understanding of those commands led me to believe that we should sing the biblical psalms in addition to hymns such as "A Mighty Fortress is our God," or "Amazing Grace," etc. I basically equated spiritual songs with good hymns that were doctrinally and theologically sound.

In 2002, I wanted to know more of the degree of prominence of psalm-singing in the contemporary church and historically. As I grew up in traditional African American Baptist churches, we never sang an entire psalm. I remember our choir at one church that sang a portion of Psalm 27 as a "prayer chant." That's it. As I thought about this, no one, I mean a pastor, ever looked in the Scriptures to state that we need to sing psalms. The first time I heard anyone even suggest psalm-singing was at a leadership meeting at a church where I served in the ministry; because of my ignorance, I blasted the idea calling it "High Church." I was wrong. The person that offered the suggestion was a musician who played at a Lutheran church and had been reared in African Methodism. I later learned that both of these traditions feature psalm singing or chanting.

When I did begin to study psalm-singing, I became convinced that not only should we sing psalms but we MUST sing psalms. How could I have missed this? I've referred already to Paul's commands in Ephesians 5 and Colossians 3. James also commands psalm-singing: "Is any merry? let him sing psalms" (5:13b). We know that the Church at Corinth sang psalms (see I Corinthians 14:26). All of these NT commands support the commands in OT to sing psalms (see Psalm 95:2; 98:5). It is clear that the Church of God must sing psalms.

Since this is a clear command, why are there only two metrical psalms in The New National Baptist Hymnal(see Hymns 2, 7), one psalmodic refrain (Hymn 532), and four paraphrases of psalms (Hymns 19, 210, and 289). That's it. We know that few, if any, African American Baptist churches only sing from the hymnbook. Most of the singing is from whatever is contemporary in the gospel music industry. Because of such, psalm-singing is obsolete and forgotten.

To worship according to the word of God, African American Baptists must rediscover psalm-singing.

And What Shall We Sing?

As mentioned in the previous blog, singing is an important portion of African American Baptist worship services. It is common, at least traditionally, for African American Baptist churches to have annual musicals. In these musicals, gospel music is the usual focus; though one of my former churches put on a portion of Handel's Messiah every December.

In the worship services I've attended over the years at African American Baptist churches, choirs usually sing up-to-date gospel and Urban Contemporary Christian music. Today, the writers are mostly Pentecostal/Charismatic and the lyrics often put forth false doctrines such as Word of Faith doctrines. Within the Pentecostal framework, there are many "Oneness" song writers and performers such as Marvin Sapp.

With this, if African American Baptist churches are to keep the commandments of biblical worship they must sing "psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs." Paul gave this commandment on two occasions (Eph 5:19; Col 3:16). This is it. The Church of Jesus Christ is to sing these only, but the question begs: what are psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs?

I intend to answer the question in subsequent blog entries. Have a blessed Lord's Day!

Service of Song

Besides a unique way of preaching, African American Baptist churches have been known for their vibrant singing. It is a given that in order for an African American Baptist church to grow it needs a stellar music ministry with multiple choirs and great musicians. I've been a part of churches without large, great sounding choirs, and these churches have experienced very little growth.

Is this singing that occurs in the majority of African American Baptist churches true to biblical commands? In this particular article, I want to focus solely on congregational singing as a commandment. My simple argument is that in NT worship the whole congregation must sing the songs of the Lord---all of the songs. This would exclude choir singing.

Some will counter argue at this time that there were levitical choirs in OT temple worship; this is true. Without going into great detail, the important point to note is that there is no longer a Levitical priesthood to sing. We know from 1 Peter 2:9 that the Church is a "royal priesthood." We also know from Hebrews 13:15 that all of the people of God are to offer the sacrifice of praise. Sacrificing is a priestly duty that all of God's people are to offer through the Great High Priest, Jesus Christ. A levitical priesthood has been fulfilled in both the work of Jesus Christ and now the work of the Church in its praise of God. In brief, this is one biblical argument that precludes choir singing in NT worship.

Another argument is that there are two specific commands from Paul to sing psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs to each other (Eph 5:19; Col 3:16). There is no way to interpret these passages to mean that a choir is to assume this duty because it would mean that the members of the choir would teach and admonish each other and not the rest of the congregation. In addition to this, we have command after command in the Psalms themselves to praise, thank, and bless the Lord (see Psalm 95, Psalm 96, Psalm 103, etc.). These are commands for the people of God, not a choir.

The Reformers sought and succeeded in reforming singing in the Church during the 16th century. Luther gave the service of song back to the congregation, and so did the other Continental Reformers like Calvin. Singing in the Roman Catholic Church had become the privilege of professional singers; yes, choirs. Calvin abolished choir singing in favor of congregational singing in Strasbourg and in Geneva.

Congregational singing was dominant among Anglicans, Puritans, Methodists, and Baptists through the 19th century. Choir singing that began among Evangelicals in the mid and late 19th century was a nuance. Among African Americans during the times of slavery not only did they sing congregationally in their own congregations and mixed congregations, but also in informal prayer meetings. Even today, it is practiced in traditional "devotional services" and prayer meetings.

To reform the practice of choir singing in African American Baptist churches, it must be realized that singing is a commandment for all of the people of God; we are to sing psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs together. In worship that is dialogical, God speaks to us in the call to worship, the reading of the Scriptures, and the preaching of the Scriptures. We speak to God in praise and prayer. We are all priests; so let us offer the sacrifice of praise through our Lord Jesus Christ.

Till I come...

To the credit of what folk call traditional African American Baptist churches, there is a time for a straight reading from the Holy Scriptures. This is in obedience to Paul's command to Timothy, and by implication all ministers, found in 1 Timothy 4:13.
In that passage, Paul states, "Till I come, give attention to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine." When Paul states "give attention to reading" he means the reading of the Holy Scriptures. For Paul, the Holy Scriptures were the Old Testament. In the New Testament Church, there was still the reading of the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms. Does this mean that we in the New Testament church have innovated in our reading of the New Testament? No. Paul commanded the Colossians to read the letter he wrote to the Laodiceans, and vice versa (see Colossians 4:16). We are to read both the Old Testament and the New Testament in the public worship.

I've seen this command executed in a few ways. First, I've seen an Old Testament passage read and a New Testament passage read at every worship service. Second, I've seen an Old Testament passage read in the morning, and a New Testament passage read in the evening. Third, I've witnessed random readings.

I believe the most useful execution of this command is to read a passage from both testaments at every worship service. This allows the worshippers to know the connection between the testaments, and comprehend that there is no disjuncture in the Holy Scriptures.

One more thing that is needed in the reading of the Holy Scriptures: one needs to give the meaning of the passage. This is what Ezra and other priests and Levites did as recorded in Nehemiah 8:1ff. The Scriptures owing to their inspired nature are able to give one the wisdom that leads to salvation that is in Christ Jesus through faith (see 2 Timohty 3:15). With explanation, the reading of the Holy Scriptures can lead sinners to salvation by the power of the Spirit. Because of this, it is important that Scripture reading should not be neglected in African American Baptist churches. Also someone qualified to teach should read the Scriptures so to give a proper interpretation of the passages. This would include ministers, lay teachers, and deacons. Children and women are disqualified biblically from reading the Scriptures in public since women are precluded to teach in public assemblies and precluded to teach men (see 1 Corinthians 14:34; 1 Timothy 2:11-15), and children are under the subjection of their parents (see Exodus 20:12; Eph 6:1-4).

Let us be churches always reforming.

Prayer and Tongues

In the previous post on public prayer, I mentioned that prayer is to be understood by all and if in a tongue it is to be interpreted. With that statement, I was in no way endorsing Pentecostalism or the Charismatic movement. I was just following Paul's injunctions in 1 Corinthians 14.

For the record, I am a Cessationist (I've always have been). At this point, I want to mention a hindrance to reformation among African Americans---the Full Gospel movement, especially the Full Gospel Baptist movement.

"Bishop" Paul S. Morton, formerly of New Orleans, spearheaded this movement in the early 1990s. As a result, a number of National Baptist churches left the National Baptist Convention, USA, Inc. to form this fellowship with Paul Morton, the presiding bishop. Some churches may have remained with the convention, I don't know. A National Baptist church has a right to embrace Pentecostalism and remain in good standing with the convention.

The emphasis on tongues-speaking and the "gifts" has set biblical worship a drift in African American Baptist churches, as younger pastors have grown up with this type of worship and re-form (or maybe it is proper to write "deform") the worship taking further and further away from biblical commands and precepts.

To place the tongues issue into Reformed confessional context, the Westminster Confession states that prayer must be in a "known tongue." Were the Westminster divines responding to proto-Pentecostalism? No, they responded to the Roman Catholic Church and its Latin liturgy. Let us give the divines credit for a good application of 1 Corinthians 14; drawing from that chapter, they knew that Paul commands that speech in worship is to be done in a language that is understood by all. Language in an element of worship edifies; therefore, the singing is to be in the common language, the preaching, and the praying also. The Roman Church had circumvented this commandment, and nowadays Pentecostals and Charismatics that practice what they call tongue-speaking abrogate this commandment as well, especially when men and women (usually preachers or worship leaders) break out spontaneously in "tongues." I see them on television, and they never interpret these "tongues," which is in clear rejection of Paul's commandment.

According to the Holy Scriptures, prayer is to be in the common language, or interpreted into the common language so all may say, "Amen."

Prayer Priority

One of the biblical elements of worship is prayer. That the people of God are commanded to pray to their God is assumed in all of Scripture, but there are some specific commands to pray. We have the Lord God speaking to his prophets like Abraham and Moses. Moses, whom God spoke to "mouth to mouth" (see Numbers 12:8), offered many prayers to the Lord (see Exodus 33:12-16 for example) as did Joshua. In the book of Psalms, many of the praises are also prayers such as Psalm 51 and Psalm 119. We have the great prayers of kings and prophets such as Jehoshaphat (2 Chronicles 20) and Daniel (Daniel 9). If all we had was the Old Testament there would be no doubt that prayer is both a command for individual believers in the Most High God and when the congregation of the people of God gathers together for worship.

When we come to the New Testament, we see in bright characters the example of Jesus Christ, who devotes his earthly life to prayer. He has given his people a model prayer to use in both private and public worship (see Matthew 6). The Early Church prayed as we read in Acts 1 and 2 and in I Corinthians 14. Prayer is a priority in corporate worship for the elect of God.

What is prayer? This is how the Westminster Shorter Catechism defines prayer: "Prayer is an offering up of our desires unto God, for things agreeable to his will, in the name of Christ, with confession of our sins, and thankful acknowledgment of his mercies." This is Christian prayer.

How should we prayer in the public worship of God? We should pray reverently in sensible words (tongues-speaking is unwarranted in prayer unless interpreted by the speaker himself), and it should be inclusive of all. We need the help of the Spirit to help us worship rightly; therefore, we should pray for the Spirit's help and filling. We should use the psalms, the Lord's Prayer, and other biblical prayers to guide us. We have the mind of God regarding prayer; therefore, there is no excuse for men to falter in public prayer.

How much should prayer be a part of the public worship? There should be an invocation, a longer, pastoral prayer, a prayer for enlightenment before the sermon, and a prayer of consecration or submission after the sermon that would also include a benediction. That's at least four times of prayer in the public worship.

For African American Baptist churches, I believe there is room for more prayer; since there is a covenantal dialogue in worship it is important that the people of God address their Covenant Lord through prayer much in the service of worship. There should be no room for trite expressions and emotionalism in prayer. This is why holy men should lead in prayer as commanded by Paul in 1 Timothy 2. This would mean children are not to lead in prayer, or women. It is so common to have Children and Youth Sundays when children and youth lead the worship service, but this is totally unbiblical. The same goes for women; it is against the Holy Word of God for women to address the public gathering of God's people in teaching, preaching, or prayer (see 1 Timothy 2, 1 Corinthians 14). Though many large African American Baptist churches hold to the legitimacy of women preachers this is an area that needs serious reform. There is still a strong enough contingent of African American Baptist ministers who are against this. Also there needs to be a revival of the pastoral prayer that addresses the needs of the local church, but also the universal church. In some churches, the pastoral prayer is called the "Altar prayer." Though I have serious problems with the term "altar prayer," I commend churches that still have a concentrated time of public prayer.

Let us key in on reforming prayer in the worship of God because it is a means of grace.

Sola Scriptura and the Elements of Worship

I'm glad to be back blogging; my time has been short owing to teaching, grading, etc. At this point, I want to narrow our focus while still building from the scriptural law of worship, which I have argued is a historic Baptist doctrine. The question I want to explore now is: what is included in a Christian worship service? To state this question another way: what are the element of New Covenant worship services?

Using the confession as a guide, the Westminster Confession lists the elements of worship as: prayer, the reading of the Scriptures, the preaching of the Scriptures, the conscionable hearing of the Scriptures (both read and taught), the singing of psalms, and the adminstration and receiving of the sacraments. The Directory of Worship written by the Westminster Divines in 1645 states the same elements.

Again, the London Baptist Confession repeats the Westminster Confession on this issue with the exception that it states that the singing should of psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs drawing directly from Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16. Though it seems pretty innocuous, this extension signified that Baptists believed in singing more than the biblical pslams in worship; they believed it was warranted to sing hymns of human composition. This is a discussion I'll take up in the future.

From the confessions, we see that both Baptists and Reformed Presbyterians share the same liturgical commitments. When we look at worship now, especially in African American Baptist churches, we see a great divergence. African American Baptists have gone far from the simple Reformed Protestant liturgy.

Sola Scriptura

Now that I've established the fact that Baptists historically are Calvinists as it pertains to the worship of God, the next argument I want to forward is this: the scriptural law of worship is merely the application of the doctrine of Sola Scriptura (Scripture alone) in the area of Christian worship.

I believe this strengthens the previous argument. Confessional Baptists (and even non-creedal Baptists) hold to the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. Chapter 1 of the London Baptist Confession makes it clear that 17th century Baptists held to this doctrine. Our English Baptist forebears wrote: "The Holy Scripture is the only sufficient, certain, and infallible rule of all saving knowledge, faith, and obedience..." This is an all-encompassing statement on the Scripture's scope of authority. In short, the Scriptures regulate everything pertaining to Christian life, especially worship.

I've already drawn from this confession regarding the scriptural law of worship; however, I want to quote one more passage that relates to worship; and it's found here in Chapter 1: "The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down or necessarily contained in the Holy Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelation of the Spirit, or traditions of men." This is a very important component of the confession's statement on the Holy Scriptures. Let me make two points in analysis of this statement. First, Baptists confess that there is no other source of revelation by which Christians are to look regarding everything that pertains to the doctrines and practices of the faith; second, the confession repudiates those who claim "new revelations" and those who claim that tradition has equal authority with the Scriptures. This statement attacked the Quakers, who claimed special, inward revelation, and Roman Catholics who taught that tradition was equal with Holy Scripture. Nowadays, this statement also attacks Pentecostals and Charismatics who claim direct revelation from the Spirit. In short, Baptists have confessed that everything needed for the faithful adherence to the faith is found only in the Scriptures.

For those of you who know of the 1834 New Hampshire Declaration of Faith (also known as the "Articles of Faith"), there is a strong statement of Sola Scriptura in the first article. It refers to the Scriptures as "the supreme standard" by which creeds, conduct, and other opinions will be judged. By implication, this article is enough to teach and uphold the scriptural law of worship. There is another article in this confession that clearly points to this doctrine. In Article 13, "A Gospel Church," the writers state that a gospel church is "governed by" the laws of Christ. The laws of Christ are none other but the Scriptures; and worship must be under the governance of Christ, the Head of the Church.

With this stated, all African American Baptists should give careful consideration to these arguments and study these confessions and the scriptural support. African American Baptist churches are in dire need of reformation as it pertains to worship. I pray that God will help us.

Are Baptists Calvinists? Part Two

In the previous post, I drew from the Philadelphia Confession (1742) to answer the question posed: are Baptists Calvinists? The article I quoted from is basically what Calvin had argued in The Necessity of Reforming the Church in the 1530s. Let me also add that the article from the Philadelphia Confession is the same as that in the London Baptist Confession (1689), the Savoy Declaration (1658) used by Independents and American Congregationalists, and originally written by the Westminster Divines published in 1647.

Someone may ask the question: this is only from the Calvinistic wing of the Baptist movement; what about the General Baptists? Before answering the question, allow me to confess one thing: though I am a convinced and ardent Calvinist, I first learned of the "Regulative Principle" by reading the early General Baptists. Men like John Symth and Thomas Helwys believed that the Church must believe and practice what is specifically taught and commanded in the Holy Scriptures with the New Testament as a sort of final authority within the Scriptures. This conviction led them to reject infant baptism and episcopal and presbyterian governments, and affirm believer's baptism and local church autonomy. General Baptists carried this conviction so far as to deny a place for singing praise in the corporate worship believing that the commands to sing psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs (Eph 5:19; Col 3:16) were meant for private and family meetings. Even though I disagree with much of General Baptist doctrince (including their doctrine denying singing in corporate worship), I must give them credit for introducing me to a type of the Regulative Principle.

Other than Baptist Confessions, which uphold the spiritual law of worship, Baptist catechisms do as well. The Baptist Catechism that attached the London Confession of Faith teaches this regarding the Second Commandment:

Q/A 56-What is required in the Second Commandment? The second commandment requires the receiving, observing, and keeping pure and entire all such religious worship and ordinances, as God has appointed in his Word. (Italics mine).

Q/A 57-What is forbidden in the Second Commandment? The second commandment forbids the worshipping of God by images, or any other way not appointed in his Word. (Italics mine).

This is the same catechism used by American Baptists during Colonial days and into the 19th century. In fact, this was the first catechism used by proto-Southern Baptists as the framers of the Charleston Baptist Confession (the same as the Philadelphia Confession) attached this catechism to the confession in 1813.

Compare this catechism's questions and answers on the second commandment to the Westminster Shorter Cathechism (Q/A's 50-51) and the Heidelberg Cathechism (Q/A 96). The conclusion is clear: Baptists historically are Calvinistic, even Reformed in their teaching on the Second Commandment, which the spiritual law of worship emerges. To reiterate the Church of Christ (corporately) is to worship only according to the express commandments and approved examples of the Holy Word of God, and is never to add anything to, or take from these commandments and examples. I also believe that the spiritual law of worship is in effect in private and family worship, but this current conversation is concerned with public worship.

African American Baptists have lost sight of this teaching along with other Baptists. On a personal note that I believe illustrates how far African American Baptists have drifted, I attended a well-to-do, progressive African American Baptist church in Houston, Texas over two years ago on December 25. Actually, the "worship service" was held in an arena with possibly a thousand people in attendance. The "service" was replete with "praise dancers," a hand-bell choir, special music, and NO SERMON. When asked, "how did I like the service?" I answered, "I didn't." When asked, "why?" I stated, "The worship was unbiblical; it went against the second commandment." That assertion caused a little rancor because I wholly believe that the other person in the discussion had no idea that the second commandment dealt with praise dancing, etc. The conversation shifted abruptly, but one other person stated that, "Everyone worships in his own way." That statement more than anything else left me in a mournful state of mind. If a worshiper believes such, can he/she really worship God in spirit and in truth? I think not. To follow the logic this person used, Christians have the authority to change the elements of the Lord's Supper; rather than using the fruit of vine, why not mineral water, or Jones Soda? Instead bread, how about calamari, or egg rolls? That would be blasphemous, wouldn't it? How would Christ feel about this usurpation? When we, the creatures, assume to know better than God in either doctrine or practice, we have usurped God's authority and sovereignty. We are guilty of idolatry.

Brother and sisters, we have some worked to do and much praying to do on this issue.
We who are committed to historic Reformed theology and practice must argue (lovingly) what the Scriptures teach on the issue of worship.

Reformed4ever.

Are Baptists Calvinists?

As we have seen, Calvin argues that God institutes his own worship; if man either abrogates these worship ordinances, or adds to them it is the same as idolatry. Herein lies the simplicity of gospel worship. The question posed is this: are Baptists historically and confessionally Calvinists on this point? The answer is: yes!

When the Baptist movement emerged in earnest during 17th century England, Baptists worshiped with simplicity continuing a Puritan emphasis. The simple elements of gospel worship as found in the NT are: prayer with thanksgiving, the reading and hearing of the Holy Scriptures, singing of psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs, the preaching of the word of God, and the administration of the sacraments of baptism and Lord's Supper. Baptists in England confessed such in the Baptist Confession of 1689, and Baptists in America adopted this confession with two additional articles in 1742 as the Philadelphia Confession.

Read a portion of Chapter XXII, "Of Religious Worship and the Sabbath Day" from the Philadelphia Confession of Faith:

But the acceptable way of worshipping the true God, is instituted by Himself, and so limited by His own revealed will, that he may not be worshipped according to the imaginations and devices of men, or the suggesstions of Satan, under any visible representations, or any other way not prescribed in the Holy Scriptures.

The Confession goes on to list the aforementioned elements of worship in articles 3-5.. Here is a quick survey of the biblical passages to support these elements: prayer-1 Cor 14:16-17; reading the Scriptures-1 Tim 4:13; singing of psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs-Eph 5:19; the preaching of the Word-2 Tim 4:2; and the observance of the sacraments-Matt 28:19-20; 1 Cor 11:26.

Take note of the quote from the confession: it is a re-statement of Calvin's scriptural law of worship. My conclusion is simple: in terms of their conception of worship Baptists are Calvinists. We, yes, we Baptists confess that the acceptable way of worshiping our great God is instituted by Himself.

Reformed4ever.

Calvin and the Scriptural Rule of Worship

As mentioned in the previous post, Calvin ranked reforming worship slightly above recovery of the true gospel. Calvin was by no means minimizing the true gospel, but he emphasized what the chief end of man is, which is according to the Westminster Shorter Catechism "to glorify God and enjoy him forever." Man glorifes God the best when he worships God. According to the word of God, God is pleased with worship that accords with his revealed will regarding worship. In short, this is the scriptural rule of worship.

Returning to Calvin's The Necessity of Reforming the Church, Calvin offers more light upon this understudied and ignored biblical doctrine:

Moreover, the rule which distinguishes between pure and vitiated worship is of universal application, in order that we may not adopt any device which seems fit to ourselves, but look to the injunctions of him who alone is entitled to prescribe.

The scriptural law of worship is a very simple law: the people of God are to worship God according to his prescriptions. We bring nothing of ourselves into the worship. Man-made elements and practices are violations of the second commandment, which negatively teaches against idolatry; but it teaches postively to worship God according to what he has commanded.

We'll get more into this doctrine over the weeks because it is so crucial for the Church. Why do we gather together on the Lord's Day? We come to worship in God's special presence. It is critical that we "get worship right."

Worship: The Arena of Reformation Beginnings

When most people think of the tenor of the Protestant Reformation of the 16th century, they think of the recovery of the gospel summarized in those timeless slogans: sola gratia, sola fide, and sola scriptura. The gospel that has been revealed in the Holy Scriptures is a gospel of grace through faith in the person and work of Jesus Christ, who gave his life as the ultimate payment for the sins of his people.

As I read Calvin's The Necessity of Reforming the Church, I was mildly surprised to read what Calvin believed was the most important aspect of Reformation. Calvin wrote:

If it be inquired, then, by what things chiefly the Christian religion has a standing existence amongst us, and maintains its truth, it will be found that the following two not only occupy the principal place, but comprehend under them all the other parts, and consequently the whole substance of Christianity: that is, a knowledge, first, of the mode in which God is duly worshipped, and, secondly, of the source from which salvation is to be obtained.

From there, Calvin goes on to write about and defend the "scriptural law of worship," which argues that the people of God are to worship God only according to what God has commanded. Any worship that deviates from God's commandments is false worship and will-worship. This doctrine, I believe, is the most underappreciated and ignored in all of Evangelicalism. During the Reformation, worship was overhauled in accordance with the recovery of the true gospel. The clear implication, I believe, is that good theology and good worship go together. In African American Churches, worship practices are invented all of the time. Is this symptomatic of many African American Churches drifting along a sea of aberrant theology? What of the Baptist churches that confess the New Hampshire Declaration of Faith (1834)? It is moderately Calvinistic. Why is worship an "anything goes?"

I ask folk here to describe what you have seen in African American Churches, and your thoughts on what you have witnessed. Also have you ever considered the "scriptural law of worship" and its implications toward Reformation in the African American Church.

Grace and Peace,

Reformed4ever

A New Year, a New Blog

Good Afternoon, all; Happy New Year!

I am a Reformed Christian, who is African American; and who loves Christ and His Church. This is the topic of this blog. My focus will be primarily commenting on Church issues related to African American churches, and calling for repentance and Reformation in those circles.

This is my introduction, and I pray that God will use this blog as a means to bring about Reformation in African American churches. I want to have good conversation with all.

Reformed4ever.