Forward to the Reformation

Communion of the Saints and Invisibility

2011-06-13T09:43:00.000-07:00

In recent weeks the reality of social invisibility has resonated in my mind as I commune with saints of European descent. Yesterday I had the pleasure of participating in a worship service at an African American Baptist church focusing on manhood. I spoke for 23 minutes on "The Purpose of a Christian Man." That's not the point here. My point is that when I told people what church I go to, no one knew about it. The large Orthodox Presbyterian church I have made my home is invisible to African Americans who are Baptists and non-denominational Evangelicals.

This hurts my heart especially as the line in the Apostles' Creed echoes in my head: "I believe in the holy catholic church; the communion of the saints." Also there's an entire chapter in the Westminster Confession of Faith devoted to the communion of the saints. Here's a brief snipet that's operative to this issue: "Saints by profession are bound to maintain an holy fellowship and communion in the worship of God, and in performing such other spiritual services as tend to their mutual edification." When it comes to the practice of this truth as it pertains to communion outside of ethnic enclaves we fall way short. It seems as though we are comfortable with our distance. We can nod to the belief in the communion of the saints, but we just lack the gumption to put it into practice. It seems as though our sociology takes precedent over our theology.

Our lack of true community as Christians is sin. Our indifference is sin. Our mutual arrogance and aloofness is sin. Let's pray for holy boldness like Paul who confronted Peter's sin of racism recorded in Galatians 2. I have news for everyone: heaven is integrated! Lord God, let thy will be done on earth as it is done in heaven.

Reformed Worship is Biblical Worship

2011-02-20T17:17:00.000-08:00

We have another Winter Storm rolling through W. Michigan today and now into the evening. No PM service at church. Besides sleeping for over 3 hours I've listened to a sermon, and watch Tenth Pres's live stream. I just finished reading a chapter in D. G. Hart's Recovering Mother Kirk. For anyone serious about worshiping God in spirit and truth this book is a must read. This my second time reading the book, and Chapter 4, "Reverence and Reformed Worship" has struck me once again. Hart laments the fact that then (early-mid 1990s) there were Evangelicals leaving their Evangelical churches to join Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches because of their dissatisfaction of the onslaught of contemporary worship practices and styles in their churches. They prefered the majesty and dignity of Roman Catholic and Orthodox liturgies. Hart's argument is that Reformed worship offers the same in its historical liturgy. He wonders why these folk bypassed Geneva on their way to Rome, or Athens.

Since I've been Reformed my whole theology of worship has changed. I was locked in the cultural captivity of my Missionary Baptist upbringing and failed to appreciate historic worship let alone liturgical worship. I mocked liturgical worship as being dead to the Spirit, and being "European." As a Reformed Christian, I realize that God has provided liturgy for his people. Liturgy is a gift to the Church so that we can worship as he proscribes. What we have in Reformed worship is the dialogical cadence and rhythm: God speaks, we listen, we respond. All must be tempered in godly fear.

Some may criticize this as worship that is dull and staid. If someone responds such as this, he/she fails to recognize that even regenerate people cannot approach God on our own and with our own program. The starting point of Reformed theology is God's holiness and our unqualified (on our own) position to even offer him one iota of praise from our own. This is why our worship is mediated by Christ and the Spirit. This implies that we must worship God on his terms. He has dictated that we sanctify him in our worship. Our posture must be that of humility, but also joy in the fact that God has drawn near to us by Christ and the Spirit.

As one who believes that God has commanded us to sing psalms exclusively in the praise, psalm-singing offers us a variety of ways to offer the sacrifice of praise to God. Many psalms are sung prayers, others are majestic hymns, and some are laments and confession of sin. All of these elements of praise must be part of the entire corpus of liturgy. To neglect these elements time and time again means that our praise will be limp and will fail us.

The Heavenly Father invites us to worship him, but we must do so "acceptably with reverence and godly fear" (Heb 12:28).

Luke's Birth Narrative and Christmas

2011-02-16T20:24:00.000-08:00

Christmas has passed. It is the middle of February and no one has his/her mind on Christmas. This is a perfect time to remind people that there is no biblical warrant to observe Christmas as a holy day. It is a secular holiday cloaked in Christian garb. That aside I am reading the birth narrative in Luke's gospel and savouring it. I'm reading it slowly, and focusing upon key things such the angel's announcement to the shepherds. The poetry of Luke's narrative as it is translated in the KJV. I love Luke's birth narrative.

We historic Reformed folk who know that Calvin and the Puritans could care less for Christmas may project to the rest of the Christian world that we disdain reading the birth narratives and speaking with joy about the birth of Christ. Nothing could be further from the truth. How could a Christian read this text and feel no joy welling up in his/her heart?

Well, let me get back at Luke 2 and read with joy, passion, and eagerness. Sola Scriptura!

How Reformed Theology has Made Me More Catholic

2011-02-11T08:17:00.000-08:00

To all of my followers, let me apologize for the long period between posts. This will be quick since I'm sitting in my office on a frigid Friday morning with a few flurries penetrating the sky with plenty of other things to occupy my time.

In a previous post, I revealed that I received Christian baptism as an infant in the Roman Catholic Church. I received "believer's baptism" only 6 1/2 years later in a Baptist church! I have a Roman Catholic context to fall back on in addition to receiving my elementary and high school education from Catholic schools.

Since I've been a Reformed Christian, I'm becoming more Catholic (not Roman). Since I'm a teaching historian, I've realized through studying the Reformation was that was the point of Luther, Calvin, and others. They were interested in bringing the Church back to its biblical, apostolic, and ancient history. When Calvin writes of the Church in his Institutes, does he use the term Reformed, or Presbyterian? No. He calls the Church the Holy Catholic Church.

As a Reformed Christian, I fully embrace my Catholicity as defined by my Reformed forebears. I lustily recite the Apostles Creed in church, and I've begun to pray through the Belgic Confession of Faith. I'm claiming the words Paul wrote first to the Church at Corinth, "all are yours." The apostles are mine, Alexander of Alexandria is mine, Ambrose is mine, Augustine is mine, Luther is mine, and Calvin is mine. For African American Christians, especially Protestants, this is a crucial point. Owing to our unique historical context, we tend to be parochial in our thinking and our approach to church matters. Almost by nature we attend African American churches. I understand the history, but are we being truly Catholic in spirit? Have we given up the fight on this front? We complain about racism in the church universal, but we stand aloof from fighting for inclusion and integration in the most important institution in the world.

I think the Spirit is grieved how we place culture above biblical Catholicity. Let's not wait on large numbers of white brethren to initiate discussions, or to invite persons of color to their churches. Where we see the marks of a true church, let's join no matter what. Why? Because it glorifies our Christ who died for Jews and Gentiles alike. His death tore down that middle wall of partition that Paul speaks of in Ephesians 2:14. In fact, the Apostle states(2:15)that the Church consisting of all nations is "one new man!"

Ecclesia Semper Reformanda means in part that we pray and work for local churches to reflect Paul's words.

What the Reformed Can Learn From Black Preaching

2010-07-11T20:39:00.001-07:00

Every Lord's Day evening I take time to reacquaint myself with my heritage of hearing and appreciating traditional Black preaching. The late Dr. Olin Moyd wrote a book that called Black preaching the Sacred Art, and traditional Black Preaching has been just that--a sacred art. Black preachers have been able to hold worshippers on edge with their sense of capturing the drama of Holy Writ. Their preaching has been full of power, passion, and pathos that causes one to tremble. It is a visceral experience to hear good Black preaching, and by good I mean preaching that is faithful to the Scriptures and to the gospel of Jesus Christ.

I believe African American preaching has something good to offer traditional Reformed preaching. There is no doubt that Reformed pastors can preach, but much of the preaching lacks pathos that is able to resonate with worshippers. As I alluded to in the above paragraph, Black preaching is dramatic. It builds, and with it the worshippers rise with the preacher. He leads them through the text--pushing them and prodding them to understand it and connect to it. The "amen's" from the congregation feed into the sense of drama before there is the climax with exultation. This exultation in classical black preaching is rooted in the fact the Jesus has died, has been buried, but now lives! Black preaching at its best is centered on the cross of Jesus Christ--his sacrifrice on behalf of his people.

In Reformed circles, we need to hear preaching with passion. It would be fine for Presbyterians to get loud sometimes in proclaiming the work of Christ; it would just dandy if a Christian Reformed pastor asks "can I get a witness?" when making a wonderful point about our justification through faith in Christ alone. Let's not use culture as an excuse. The biblical record is clear that the church is to respond to prayers with "amen." If the truth is proclaimed, let the church say, "amen."

Lessons from Eternity

2010-06-02T09:07:00.001-07:00

After reading Revelation 4, the thought came into my mind regarding the mode of praise rendered by the 24 elders who sit around the throne of God. Do they dance? Do they play pretty tunes on instruments? Do they mime? Do they run and "shout?" In reading the text with answering the questions posed, the answer is clearly no. Is this pattern for our worship now when we gather in the name of the Lord on the Lord's Day? I say, yes.

The mode of praise here in this chapter is spiritual words, perfect words. Are spiritual and perfect words available to us? Why, yes. We find them in the Word of God in the Book of Psalms. The Book of Psalms contains the spiritual songs referred to by the Apostle Paul in Ephesians 4 and Colossians 3.

Judging from Revelation 4, our praise must be and can only be spiritual words rendered unto the Lord God. What do we see in churches, especially African American churches? We see dancing? We see whirling about? We see "mimestry?" We hear all sorts of dead instruments? We do hear singing, but are the words spiritual? I'm not referring to do the words reflect spiritual realities, but are the words themselves from the Spirit of God? Some may claim to have a special gift by which the written inspired songs, but such claims are erroneous.

In African American churches, reformation and revival is needed in the mode of praise rendered to our thrice holy God. May God be pleased to grant his Spirit to these churches to follow the commandments pertaining to praise.

The Mount Calvary Primitive Baptist Association October 2009

2010-05-30T21:21:00.000-07:00

Here is an example of singing in an African American (Primitive) Baptist Church without the aid of musical instruments. I am in no wise endorsing the song itself, but the a cappella style.

What if the Hammond Organ was Removed from African American Churches?

2010-05-29T22:11:00.001-07:00

I'm back. It's been a long couple of months in which I have had no time to blog. This one will be short. As I watch church services on the internet, I often wonder what would African American churches be like without musical instruments? This is no question without a glimpse. There are Primitive Baptist churches predominately in the Southeast that have historically worship without musical instruments. Why? Tradition? Well, yes and no. No, in that it is not because of a man-made tradition. Yes, because of apostolic/biblical tradition. Primitive Baptists as did other Baptists in history argued that there is no NT warrant for the use of musical instruments in NT worship. That's it.

Is pure worship replete with organs, pianos, keyboards, drums, etc.? No. We have added what delights us rather than what delights God.

Calvin and Holy Days

2010-04-03T19:49:00.001-07:00

This is by no means an exhaustive treatment of Calvin's view on Christians celebrating holy days. With so many of Calvin's theological progeny observing holy days (other than the Lord's Day-Sabbath), I have to write something on this.

First, there is an interesting statement from the French Confession worthy of quoting on this issue of the observance of ceremonies, which I believe is connected with the observance of holy days: "We believe that the ordinances of the law came to an end at the advent of Jesus Christ; but, although the ceremonies are no more in use, yet their substance and truth remain in the person of him in whom they are fulfilled." Calvin co-wrote this confession with one of his students, and it was published in 1559. This article (23) teaches that all of the ceremonial law has been rendered obsolute because it has been fulfilled in Christ.

Christ is the end of the law, according to Paul. Tied with the ceremonial law is the observance of Jewish festival days such as Passover, Pentecost, etc. Since God had commanded that the Jews keep these days they were in effect until changed. We have apostolic testimony that these feasts no longer have currency with the people of God. Paul makes this clear in two passages of Scripture: Gal 4:9-10 and Col 2:16-17. Calvin comments on the latter passage with some clear instruction: But some one will say 'We still keep up some observance of days.' I answer, that we do not by any means observe days, as though there were any sacredness in holidays, or as though it were not lawful to labour upon them, but that respect is paid to government and order--not to days." The immediate context of the passage has to do with Jewish mystical teachers (possibly Gnostics) who implored Gentile Christians to be circumcised and observe the Law including holy days. If it was wrong for Jewish teachers to impose upon Christians the celebration of biblical (OT) holy days, it is wrong for the Church to impose on Christians the celebration of holy days that have no warrant in NT.

Calvin's teaching (and Reformed teaching) was that Christians have been freed from the annual observance of festival days. The OT days have been abrogated owing to Christ's coming in fulfillment of the types and shadows. Christ is our Prophet, Priest, and King has given us no more annual festival days to celebrate. Where are they? Christmas, Easter, etc. are the creations of man, and have no binding power on the conscience of any Christian.

As Reformed Christians (or Reforming Christians) we must examine in the light of Scripture the things we do and celebrate in the name of Christ. Christmas and Easter diminished the weekly Sabbath. I know that Easter is always on the Sabbath, but Easter is celebrated as though it is holier than any other Sabbath. This is unbiblical. Every Lord's Day is a commemoration of Christ's resurrection from the dead because that represents his finished work of redemption for all of his people. Let us delight in the Sabbath always.

Biblical Worship

2010-03-23T08:55:00.000-07:00

I've said it once and I'm re-stating this biblical principle that I believe with all of my heart: God commands us to worship him according to his Word. This has been re-affirmed in my heart by reading Exodus 34:12-17. In this passage, the Lord commands Israel through Moses that when they go into the Promised Land they are to destroy all of the altars, images, etc. of the people who dwelled in the land. They must worship God. How? This command implies that Israel is to worship the Lord his way.

If this is clearly written in the Scriptures, why do Protestants believe they can worship God in ways he has never proscribed? On the Lord's Day, I saw (live streaming) a church service at an African American Baptist church (a large one) where kids were engaged in stepping--the kind I used to do in college when I stepped representing my fraternity at Greek Shows. These kids stepped during worship; it was meant to be an offering to God. How can any Protestant who holds to Sola Scriptura believe that stepping is an appropriate sacrifice to the Lord!

Listen to God's Word regarding how he is to be worshiped, not the worship gurus of the day.

Remaining Protestant

2010-02-14T20:23:00.000-08:00

In our day of religious pluralism, there is a tendency among Christians to be more inclusive than Christ. Who are Christ's people? Those who have repented from their sin and turned to Christ for the forgiveness of sin based upon his work on the cross. These have been baptized; therefore, they are members of the Church.

Should we be inclusive of Roman Catholics into the Church? There are two responses to this question: first, institutionally the Reformers of the 16th century declared convincingly that Rome is apostate. It has modified the gospel of grace and faith and turn it into one of grace, faith, and works to maintain justifying grace. Roman Catholics readings this may cry foul! It's okay. Second, I believe that there are members of Roman Catholic churches who are part of the Church; yes, they have repented from sin and have trusted in Christ alone for their salvation.

In 1545-1563, the Council of Trent (an ecumenical council of the Roman Catholic Church) declared that those who believe in justification by faith alone, or those who believe in two sacraments are anathema---accursed. The Canons of Trent are still operative and binding and dogmatic. How can Anglicans, Lutherans, Presbyterians, and Reformed speak of rapproachment with Rome when Rome has never retracted those anathemas against Protestants laid it in the Canons of Trent?

This is a gospel issue, not merely an intramural disagreement. Luther stated that the doctrine of justification of faith alone is the article by which the Church stands or falls. He was right. If a Church denies this doctrine, is it still a Church? No. Let us heed Paul's inspired declaration rather than Trent's: "But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed." Compare the gospel revealed in the inspired Scriptures to what Rome promotes as the gospel. You will find that Rome, not historic Protestantism, is accursed.

I write this to help we who claim to be Protestant to preach the gospel clearly and with love, but also to encourage us to pray for Roman Catholics we know; let us pray that God would be pleased to gather his own from the ranks of that apostate church. Lord, have mercy!

Has our Culture become an Idol?

2010-01-27T10:43:00.000-08:00

Big question. I'll make this point short though. I have noticed African American Christians (I can't speak for European-Americans, or other hyphenated Americans) have a rather chauvinistic view when it comes to church and worship culture. I have been criticized for teaching my little one psalms set to "European" tunes. I had to think: is this a sin? At the same time, we have sung a psalm set to an African tune. Go figure.

Does the communion of the saints mean that ethnic groups remain segregated and worship in cultural ways nullifying the commandments of God? Can we draw from reverent and appropriate tunes from the global church?

If churches reformed their worship to the elements we see in NT, maybe the cultural questions and chauvinism will fade away.

Worship that is a Covenantal Dialogue

2010-01-18T09:34:00.000-08:00

For readers who are African American Baptist or outside of the Reformed tradition, the title of this blog entry may sound strange, or may seem as though I'm referring to the traditional "call and response" mode of worship in traditional African American Baptist worship. What I am referring to is an ordered way of liturgy. In the annals of this blog, I've written about liturgy so I'll refrain from warming cold soup this time. What is behind this worship principle is the covenant. The Church is a covenant community and worship is covenantal. God greets us, we respond through praise and prayer, and God speaks to us (Scripture read and preached). This is biblical call and response.

I want to focus on the response. We respond in prayer and praise as a covenant community, a community of priests. This is why I believe the Scriptures teach that worship song is congregational, not choir or soloist alone. In African American Baptist churches, the choir has near top-billing. While the choir does its thing, the congregation has an option to sing with the choir (granted if it is a song known), or just to clap and stand and encourage. In this we have a bifurcated priesthood.

Oh, would African American church return (yes, I said return) to congregational singing. That would mean going back to singing psalms and doctrinally correct hymns. Return, my people, return.

Regulative Principle is Biblical

2010-01-01T22:02:00.001-08:00

A friend of mine told me that his pastor upon learning that we coming here to Grand Rapids to study and worship told him "to watch out for that regulative principle." The pastor is a Calvinist, and offers words of warning about the regulative principle. In my estimation, to be a Calvinist is to hold to the regulative principle. In posts long ago, I made the case (convincingly, I pray) that historic Baptists do hold to the regulative principle in agreement with the Calvinistic wing of the Reformation.

Yesterday as I thought about defending the practice of congregational psalm-singing using the NT I re-read portions of 1 Corinthians 14. To refresh some memories, the regulative principle asserts that God must be worship according to his commands; we must worship God within the confines he has set. In NT we see Jesus and his apostles regulating worship. Jesus regulates the Sabbath Day, and he renders the Passover obsolete by insitutionalizing the Lord's Table that points to him. Paul in Corinthians regulates the worship practices of the Corinthians. Note in this chapter that Paul approves of the singing that took place at the Church of Corinth. He approves of psalm-singing. He deems psalm-singing a part of New Covenant worship never to be neglected. Also note that he mentions no other type of singing. The Church at Corinth practiced exclusive psalm-singing.

For those who rail against exclusive psalm-singing, would you substitute coffee for the fruit of the vine at the Lord's Table? Would you substitute good Christian literature for reading the Scriptures in corporate worship? Why not? We know that there are clear commands behind our rituals in worship, and we have no liberty to do as we please. This is all the regulative principle argues. Is this something to be warned about? Or is it something to be joyful about?

Can We Do Better?

2009-12-18T16:33:00.000-08:00

As Christians in this world we must live in the very presence of sin all around us. We must also live with the reality that sin dwells in us. I wish I would never sin now that I am in Christ, but Christ and the apostles teach us that we do. This is why the doctrine of justification is so vital, and Luther called it the article by which the Church rises or falls. Without justification, Christians are left to attempt to earn our salvation. This is impossible. Without justification, all will go to hell. Thank God that by the merits of Christ all believers are justified.

In light of this, I'm referring to the day-to-day struggle with indwelling sin, two psalms come to my mind immediately. As I have stated over and over again, the psalms are for singing not only for reading. Psalm 51 and Psalm 32 come to my mind. Since I began to sing psalms in my devotional life, I've sung Psalm 51 the most. The gospel is there; forgiveness through the gospel is there. The assurance of a sinner's salvation is there.

As I ruminated on this today, I said to myself: "Can we do better?" What I meant is that we can write nothing better that gets at the heart of our sinful condition and the remedy provided by God through Christ. Psalm 51 is sufficient if read, and it is sufficient when sung and prayed. This is why I love to sing the psalms, and this is why I believe we should sing the psalms to the exclusion of all humanly written and devised compositions. We can do no better; it is no contest. The Holy Spirit is God Almighty, and he inspired David, Asaph, Moses, and other psalmists and prophets to write spiritual songs. God has given us these to praise him with, to pray, and to learn of our conditions. If we believe in the sufficiency of Scripture we must believe that the psalms are sufficient for our praise of God. Oh, would the words of the Holy Spirit rest upon our lips as we praise our God! Think about it: is Charles Tindlay greater than the Spirit? Is Thomas Dorsey? Alex Bradford, Andre Crouch, Donald Lawrence, etc.? These gospel song writers are fallible and subject to error. What the Spirit has written is inerrant. Every word is pure; the doctrine is perfect. Perfect praise available to the imperfect.

Pray and sing with me: "God, be merciful to me, On Thy grace I rest my plea; Plenteous in compassion Thou, Blot out my transgression now; Wash me, make me pure within, Cleanse, O cleanse me from my sin."

Calvin, Singing, and African American Praise Service

2009-12-12T21:11:00.000-08:00

Very few African American Baptists realize how indebted we are to Calvin and the Protestant Reformation for many of our cherished beliefs. Those who know a little about Calvin have a narrow view of him, and see him as overly cerebral, stuffy, cold, and too intellectual. On the surface Calvin's Institutes, seems to be monstrous and too heady for the average Joe or Jane Christian. Not so. It is full of sharp intellect, yes; but also Calvin's personal winsomeness shines.

One aspect of Calvin's theology that is often overlooked is his theology of worship. Obviously Calvin is consumed with the doctrine of God in the Institutes, and his theology of worship emanates from this. Two things are important to consider regarding Calvin's theology of worship: first, God is sovereign and must be worshiped; and second, God commands how he is to be worshiped. Within this, reverence and humility in worship is a necessity and commanded as I wrote of last week.

With this stated, Calvin's remarks on singing reflect the above mentioned emphases. In Book 3 Chapter 20, Section 32, Calvin states that singing must "be tempered to that gravity which is fitting in the sight of God and the angels" because singing helps us to pray. Elsewhere, Calvin would assert that singing is a second type of prayer. Anyone would say that there is a humility and reverence inherent in prayer; therefore, Calvin recognizes that such should mark singing since it is a type of prayer.

If such would be applied in African American church circles, a great reform would occur. This reform would dismantle much of the performances characteristic of singing in African American churches. Some may argue that it is our culture to sing with such bravado and passion, but is it biblical? No Christian would argue that zeal and emotion should be left out of our corporate praises, but it is wrapped up in reverence and humility. Paul commands Christians to sing with the spirit and the mind. This assumes a type of sobreity in praise, and also a type of moderation. That's the key. Moderation. Calvin states, "when this moderation is maintained, it is without any doubt a most holy and salutary practice." Is this cultural? No, it is biblical. It is worthy of following and applying in African American worship.

Return to Reverence

2009-12-03T18:00:00.000-08:00

On the Lord's Day I attended a United Reformed Church in the Grand Rapids area, and the pastor preached on the second commandment articulated in the Heidelberg Catechism. For those unfamiliar with Reformed confessions, the Heidelberg Catechism is confessed by churches of the Dutch Reformed family---Reformed Church in America, Christian Reformed Church, and the United Reformed Church among others. The biblical passage used by the pastor was Hebrews 12:25-29. Verse 28 has struck me since I became Reformed. It reads: "Wherefore we receiving a kingdom which cannot be moved, let us have grace, whereby we may serve God acceptably with reverence and godly fear."

I know I've commented on this issue before, but I feel the need to re-iterate one thing. First, when discussion of worship in an African American context takes place there lacks discussion of what pleases God in our worship and what God requires. This verse clearly teaches the how of our worship, and this regardless of what ethnicity we are. Reverence and godly fear must pervade every aspect of our worship. Reverence refers to a sense of awe---an awe that results in a type of humility before God. Our praying should have this quality, our singing, our reading of the Scriptures, and our preaching. The music should be reverent, not upbeat but not sorrowful. We can rejoice while remaining reverent. We should do as the psalmist sings in Psalm 2 "rejoice with trembling."

I'm sorry to say that worhip in African American churches have little reverence. Often what I see is that man is the audience, not God. The emotionalism, the histrionics, the performances, etc. Are these reverent? Oh, God; give thy people a fresh sense of thy holiness when they gather to worship thee.

Why Reformed Theology is Particularly Suited for African Americans

2009-11-15T19:55:00.000-08:00

This is big title, but I have only a few moments to write. Why do I believe this? First, let me state that I believe that Reformed theology is Biblical theology. So many people, especially professing African American Christians, are ignorant of Reformed theology and scoff at what they are ignorant of. I believe Reformed theology answers the question of why African Americans are here. God's sovereign purpose and his gracious and merciful purpose. We are the descendants of slaves. European slave traders were implicit in the kidnapping of millions of Africans. The vast majority had done nothing to deserve enslavement. At the same time, millions of African slaves would turn to Christ in true faith. Look at this: European slave traders had a bad intention, but God had a good and glorious intention. On Reformed theology keeps these contrasts in tension believing that man is sinful and all of his ways are sinful, but that God has ordained whatsoever comes to pass while maintaing second causes such as human sinful actions.

Nothing happens by chance. God is sovereign. To argue against this is to lend oneself to atheism.

Happy Reformation Day

2009-10-31T22:08:00.000-07:00

As the world (and many Christians) celebrated Halloween, Oct 31 marks the anniversary of Martin Luther's nailing of his 95 Theses to the door of the Church at Wittenberg. This is the official beginning of the Protestant Reformation.

For African American Baptists and all Protestants, do we realize how connected we are to the Reformation? Those of us who are Baptists, we are very much Protestant. Our confessions and declarations are steeped in Reformation theology.

We are to make sure that we are continuing to preach the gospel recovered during the Reformation: the gospel of grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. Are we telling this old Story?

Let us remember the true gospel this Reformation Day.

Psalm-singing particuarly suited for African Americans

2009-10-29T21:10:00.000-07:00

Yesterday, I sang the middle portion of Psalm 22 during my private devotion. After my devotion ended, I realized how suited this psalm is for African Americans to sing. Most of the psalm is a lament in which David believes that the Lord has forsaken him during a dark period in his life. This psalm points to God's abandonment of his Son on the cross and the suffering the Lord endured at the hands of sinful men. The Spirit sung with clarity even denoting that Christ's hands and feet would be pierced.

Why do I believe this psalm is particularly suited for African Americans? First, when African Americans sing this psalm they sing with their Savior. There is a communion with the suffering of Christ in singing this psalm. Second, as a lament primarily it speaks to the historic existence of African Americans. Having endured slavery, legal segregation, and even now as African Americans face racism of all sorts we have warrant for singing laments.

The Church in general has moved away from singing laments. The assumption is that we must sing all joyful songs under the New Covenant. Wrong; everything in the Christian life is not joy even though we must count it all joy. There are times when we feel abandoned by God and everyone else. This is the time to take up Psalm 22; it's commanded even for New Covenant believers.

Historic African American Baptist Calvinism

2009-10-27T15:58:00.000-07:00

Yesterday, I began to do some serious work on a conference paper on Calvinism's influence on 18th and 19th century Af-Am Baptists. I read a letter from George Liele, who was a slave in VA and SC. He heard the gospel from a white New Light Baptist preacher, and the Lord opened his heart to repent from his sin and trust in Christ. He would become a slave preacher, and then his master manumitted him in order to pursue full-time ministry. Eventually, Liele would help to establish three independent Af-Am Baptist churches before fleeing the colonies in 1787 to settle in Jamaica. He is considered the father of American missions period. He is the first American Baptist to establish a church overseas.

In a letter he wrote to a white Baptist preacher in SC sometime after he settled in Jamaica, Liele mentioned that he believes in election among other biblical doctrines. He also believed in the final perserverance of the saints.

Here is a man born into slavery, fled the colonies as a loyalist to the British Crown, and founded the first Baptist church in Jamaica. He was a Calvinist. People have criticized Calvinism for being too heady and too cold. If this is so, how could this be attractive for a former slave? My point is that Calvinism makes sense of the Bible; it makes sense of the way of salvation, and the person and work of Christ. This is why a former slave was a Calvinist.

Law and Gospel Confusion

2009-10-26T19:36:00.000-07:00

Last Lord's Day I listened to a sermon by a National Baptist pastor with a few African American Calvinistic Baptists (all friends of mine). After the sermon, one of my friends made an astute and biblical ctiticism of the sermon. He said that the pastor never made a distinction between the Law and the Gospel. The pastor gave many imperatives in the course of the sermon assuming that everyone in his audience were Christians. (This is interesting because after the sermon he "opened the doors of the church"). Also during the course of the sermon the pastor never shared that only true Christians have the spiritual wherewithal to carry out these imperatives he issued based upon his reading of the biblical text. He never preached the gospel.

The gospel used to be at the heart of African American Baptist preaching, but since the rise of the Full Gospel Baptist movement within the National Baptist Convention especially, African American Baptist churches have lost the gospel largely. I remember something Luther once said, "You have to preach the gospel to the baptized." We all need the gospel. I need to and I want to hear the gospel every Lord's Day. I need to be reminded of my native inability to carry out the Law's demand; I need to be reminded that only through faith in Christ am I justified; and I need to know that only through and by the power of Christ's Spirit can I obey the Law in a feeble way.

Without hearing the gospel but only hearing the Law I would become presumptuous. Hearing the gospel without the Law, I would become profligate. I need the gospel and the Law to trust in Christ's person and work, and to live holy in the power of the Spirit.

One more thing to note about that sermon: it really isn't in accord with Baptist preaching according to the New Hampshire Declaration of Faith, Article XII. I've summarized above the gist of this article. Here it is verbatim:

12. Of the Harmony of the Law and the Gospel
We believe that the Law of God is the eternal and unchangeable rule of his moral government;62 that it is holy, just, and good;63 and that the inability which the Scriptures ascribe to fallen men to fulfill its precepts arises entirely from their love of sin;64 to deliver them from which, and to restore them through a Mediator to unfeigned obedience to the holy Law, is one great end of the Gospel, and of the means of grace connected with the establishment of the visible Church.65

Pastors must keep this emphasis every Lord's Day in their preaching.

Silly and Sad

2009-09-13T19:59:00.000-07:00

This evening I heard something out of the mouth of a well-known African American Baptist pastor (actually, he's a bishop!). He said that Eve did not eat a fruit, but a thought! Immediately, I laughed in ridicule. It was (and is) a ridiculous statement. As I thought about the statement, I saw all of the people sitting under this ministry. This is the sad part. The stuff this man preaches is supposed to be profound, cutting edge knowlegde, but it misinterprets and misapplies the Holy Word of God. What are these folk learning? How are they living?

Let us pray that God will raise up more and more men in the ministry to teach the truth rightly divided.

The Simplicity of Gospel Worship

2009-09-06T20:00:00.000-07:00

In recent Lord's Day afternoons, I've spent some of my time listening and watching live worship services on the Internet. I watch one particular church, which is a progressive-like African American Baptist church in a large metropolitan area. I am struck by the lack of simplicity in the worship services. There is a plethora of things that take place in the two hour worship services. There are long announcements and recognitions of people, singing by a choir, singing by a Praise Team, Invitation to Discipleship besides prayer and preaching. Sometimes there is a handbell choir, and Praise dancers. Such a church has left the simple order of New Testament worship to something different.

Now, I've written blogs about the elements of worship so I will refrain from re-stating what I've already stated. This area is an area where African American Baptists primarily have neglected the simplicity of Spirit-revealed and apostolic sanctioned worship.

Why do African American Baptists do what they do in worship? I don't know. Why don't they turn to the Holy Scriptures to regulate their corporate worship? Blindness, ignorance, and neglect. In general, the average Evangelical has no thought that the Scriptures should regulate our worship. If African American Baptists used the Scriptures to regulate worship, things would be simple and terribly different. Yet it would be to God's glory! What are the elements of simple NT worship: prayers, praise (psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs rendered by the congregation), reading of the Word of God, preaching, and the sacraments. Simple, yet transcendant.

Getting back to the Moorings

2009-09-05T18:01:00.000-07:00

This is convention season for National Baptists. The three major National Baptist conventions will meet this month. When I think of these conventions, I think of the major reason why the National Baptist Convention, USA, Inc. came into existence. According to history, foreign missions, specifically African missions was the primary reason for the formation of the convention in 1895. The NBC USA, the NBC-A, and the NMBC all claim 1880 as their founding year. This is because in 1880 the Baptist Foreign Mission Convention organized. This convention was an attempt by African American Baptist primarily in the Southeast to consolidate their effort in sending missionaries to Africa.

Now the conventions are involved in all sorts of things, but foreign missions is relatively weak. Let us pray for God to raise more men and women to enter the mission field, especially in Africa. Though Christianity is experiencing tremendous growth in Africa, the type of Christianity is more Charismatic and even heterodox. Africa needs a true Evangelical witness. May African American Baptists help to provide this through the conventions.

What is Deformed about African American Baptist Worship

2009-08-30T11:07:00.000-07:00

Today is a beautiful Lord's Day where I am. It is a crisp 64 degrees! I cannot help but to write a bit regarding a large problem in Evangelicalism, and in African American Baptist circles. Worship is largely irreverent. Listen to what the inspired writer who wrote to the Hebrews wrote to Jewish Christians in the Roman world:
"Wherefore we receiving a kingdom which cannot be moved, let us have grace, whereby we may serve God acceptably with reverence and godly fear: for our God is a consuming fire (12:28-29)." Bible students know that the writer refers back to Exodus 19 and also Deuteronomy 4:24, which is the portion of Holy Scripture the writer quotes. What does this mean? The same God that spoke with such power to Israel at Sinai comes among his people as they gather every Lord's Day. God is awesome striking real, honest godly fear among his people; he is no trifling God, but full of glory, majesty, and power.

The worship I witness among African American Baptist lack this fear and sense of awe and reverence for the most part. The singing that takes places in these churches have little reverence; is it solemn to dance and move and shake? Preaching that winks at sin, and jokes about sin---is this demonstrating reverence and godly fear? Yes, I know that joy is part of our worship; but it is tempered by reverence.

Let these churches take this passage from Hebrews and apply it correctly.

Assessment of National Baptist preaching

2009-08-17T18:57:00.000-07:00

This is a post to ask for some help and insight. It has been over six years since I've been a member of a traditional Missionary Baptist church. I left that particular church only after a few months of joining because it was a faulty church without good pastoral leadership and good, solid gospel preaching. Before this church, I spent just short of ten years at a National Baptist church where I served as an associate minister, Sunday school teacher, Youth worker, and chairman of the Young Adult Ministry. I loved that church, but becoming a Calvinist paved my way out of the door.

After I became a Calvinist, my whole perspective changed regarding the Church, especially preaching. I realized that my pastor preached little of the gospel. He was no whooper; he tried to "tune up" at the end. He failed to give biblical texts their justice. At the end, I was disappointed and grieved over this.

I often wonder what did I think preaching was before becoming Reformed? I enjoyed good explanation of the text, but I especially enjoyed the "gravy!" For most of my ministerial life, that was my style. I was (still am)an expository preacher, but I could tune up and whoop. After embracing the Reformed faith as an African American Baptist, I stopped tuning and whooping. I focused much more on exposition and then clear applications. One sister said my preaching had become "lectures." I still possessed the passion for the word of God; in fact, I had more passion, but I left out the relish African American Baptists associate with preaching.

Since being a Reformed Baptist, I've heard some great preaching. Cultural aspects aside, most National Baptist pastors come nowhere near the substance and richness of preaching I heard in Reformed Baptist circles. There are a couple of African American Reformed Baptist pastors here in the US; I am a part of three African American men who fill pulpits. We all preach expositional with pointed applications, but with passion.

I pray that National Baptist pastors focus more on the text and applications and less on style; this is not to say that they should come from without the African American Baptist tradition. This tradition at its best elevates eloquence, wonderful tonality of voice with clear textual exposition and stirring applications.

Oh, let us return to strong, clear gospel preaching without the taglines of "purpose" and "destiny."

How'd I get to be so Conservative?

2009-07-23T23:53:00.000-07:00

Let me preface what I am about to write with this obvious point: I am a sinner whom God has (and still) showered mercy upon. I approach the topic of my theological conservativism without an attitude of high-mindedness, but from one of firm conviction based on the word of God.

I am conservative based on two streams: first, my upbringing in church has been toward the conservative side. In both churches I was a member of while growing up, my pastors preached a simple gospel and were men who stood in the truth. Second, embracing the Reformed tradition has influenced me greatly. Being a "Reformed Baptist" has caused me to take the whole of Scripture seriously. For example, I've written extensively on the issue of biblical worship. I've attempted to leave behind my cultural strings as it comes to shaping the elements of worship. I have found that NT worship is simple: praise (I believe in psalm-singing exclusively with maybe some "bible songs"), prayer, preaching, and the sacraments. We can argue whether or not alms-giving was part of the NT elements of worship. Nevertheless, the elements are few and simple. They come to us from the revealed word of God---all of it. All of these elements are contained in OT worship in both Tabernacle/Temple and in Synagogue.

One thing that glares off of the pages of Scripture in OT as it pertains to the "how" and "what" of worship is that God's OT people were prohibited from innovation or bringing in elements of worship from the nations surrounding them. These are moral laws, not ceremonial. What does this mean for African American Baptists? We must destroy the "images" of some of our African-based worship practices. (Maybe I may get some naysayers on this point since I wonder if there is anyone out there reading).

How are we to apply passages such as Deut 7:5-6 and Jeremiah 19:4-5? These passage relate directly to idolatry in worshipping in the ways of other nations. The Jeremiah passage gets to the heart of what Reformed theologians call the "regulative principle of worship:" "And they have built the high places of Baal, to burn their sons with fire for burnt offerings unto Baal, which I commanded not, nor spake it, neither came it unto my mind)." Some argue well it's not idolatry if God has not commanded against it. Wrong. This passage smacks against it.

African American Christians please take these particular verses to heart with prayer: the dancings, shoutings, and other demonstrative practices outside of biblically-revealed elements of worship are idolatrous. Let us be careful.

May God help us all.

How did you cherish your gift today?

2009-06-07T20:49:00.000-07:00

Today, for the next ten minutes, is the Sabbath, or the Lord's Day. It is gift from God to his people, yes; but it is a Sabbath for all. Did you cherish this wonderful, gracious, loving expression of God's gift to all of humanity? Did you sanctify it from the other six days? Did you hear the word of God preached? Did you worship the Triune God in spirit and truth today? Did you respect other's Sabbath today by refraining from shopping, going to restaurants, etc.?

I pray that you had a blessed Sabbath!

Communion with Christ in Singing the Psalms

2009-05-24T22:13:00.001-07:00

I had no thought of writing an entry to my blog now the early morning after the Lord's Day. Yet I was having a private psalm-singing service before reading the Scriptures and praying. I was struck as I sang aloud from Psalm 39 that I was in actual communion with Christ as I sang these words: "Yes, I was dumb; I opened not my mouth, Because this work was done at Thy command." This is verse 9 of Psalm 39. With clarity, I sang with Christ regarding his sufferings and his trial before Pilate. In John 19:10, it reads: "Then saith Pilate unto him, Speakest thou not unto me? knowest thou not that I have power to crucify thee, and have power to release thee?" Of course, this verse fulfills Isaiah's prophecy in chapter 53 that speaks of the Servant of the Lord become like a lamb dumb to the slaughter.

Jesus did say after his resurrection that the Psalms speak of him. They do. Psalm-singing offers the Christian a marvelous opportunity to praise our God and the Christ in manifold ways. Throughout the Psalms, we can praise Christ for his incarnation (Psalm 8), his suffering on the cross (Psalm 22), his resurrection (Psalm 16), his prophetic office (Psalm 78), his High Priesthood (Psalm 110), and his kingship (Psalm 2). What can a man whoever so godly compose better than the Holy Spirit?

Not only do African American Baptists need to incorporate psalm-singing in the public worship, but also in private and family worship. We can truly magnify the Christ by singing the inspired songs that spoke about him.

Baptists and Prelacy

2009-05-22T09:02:00.000-07:00

Every since the early to mid 1990s I've scoffed at African American Baptist pastors assuming the title of "bishop" with real jurisdictional powers. The case in point is the Full Gospel Baptist Fellowship, with a college of bishops including its only presiding bishop, Paul S. Morton, Sr. I remember being in my former church in Lansing, Michigan and some of the members talking about how "Baptists don't have bishops." Do they? Yes, and no.

Confessionaly, and most importantly, biblically, every Baptist church has at least one bishop. Note what the New Hampshire Declaration (confessed on paper by African American Baptists in general) states about church officers: the "only Scriptural officers are bishops, or pastors and deacons." Let's get one thing straight: there is an "or" in that statement, which indicates that the terms are interchangeable. Bishops are pastors, and pastors and bishops. We can also include the biblical term of elder in this equation. All refer to the same office. We come to this conclusion by reading 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1. The 1689 London Confession states that the officers of a church are "bishops (otherwise called elders) and deacons." It confesses the same as the New Hampshire. So yes, there are bishops in Baptist churches. In my church, we had three; but now only two.

There is the "no" answer. No, Baptists do not believe in bishops in the sense of prelacy. This is a little big word because most Christians aren't familiar with it. However, I received an email from Mt. Ararat Baptist Church announcing an upcoming conference hosted by an association this church is a member of. As I read this advertisement, I noticed that the association has a "presiding prelate." By definition, a prelate is a high-ranking church official. It assumes an episcopal government since only higher-ranking officials can bestow such on another. Can this occur in a Baptist church? No. Why not? Each Baptist church is independent. There can be no prelacy in independent and autonomous churches.

What we have here is what Jesus condemned: men going after the higher seats at gatherings. It sounds good to have the title of "bishop," or even "apostle." All of this type of posturing is unbiblical, and un-Baptist. For a reformation to occur within African American Baptist ranks we must pray that God will raise up men who seek the true office of a bishop in the spirit of 1 Timothy 3, Titus 1, and 1 Peter 5. Until then, we will continue to see men and women calling themselves into prelactic offices to the detriment of Christ's church.

Have a Blessed Lord's Day

2009-05-17T04:49:00.000-07:00

We as Baptists, especially National Baptists, have weakened the holiness and sanctity of the Lord's Day-Sabbath. Dispensationalist teaching, antinomianism, and minimalism have all anchored themselves in African American Baptist churches. Dispensationalism teaches against the New Covenant relevance of the 4th commandment, antinomianism teaches we are no longer under Law as a template of our sanctification, and minimalism teaches that keeping the Sabbath holy is inconsequential to salvation; therefore, it is only an option (a lesser one at that).

Oh, how our forebears differ. African American Baptists in days past kept this day holy. They wrote about it, they preached about it, and the sang about it. Also the confessed it. Check out the Articles of Faith, article XV; it is a clear declaration of faith regarding what a Baptist should believe about this day.

Often times, when this subject is broached Christians get hung up on "do's and don't's." Christians should always remember that this is the Day that Christ emerged from the grave by the power of the Spirit to complete the work of redemption. Easter celebrations are foreign to the Scriptures, but the Lord's Day is not.

Have a blessed Lord's Day.

Interesting Story

2009-04-22T08:54:00.000-07:00

I'm getting serious about my next research project, which will be studying the development of hymnals among African American Baptists in the 20th century. While doing some casual research today on the internet, I ran across this interesting story. Please, give it a listen.

Here's the link: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4632964

Unthinking about the Sabbath

2009-03-27T11:01:00.000-07:00

I just read through a pretty good article on Sabbath-keeping that is informative, fresh, and provocative. Written by Pastor Terry Johnson, pastor of Independent Presbyterian Church in Savannah, Georgia, the article is irenic yet clearly biblical and well articulated. The thesis of the article is that Christians are to keep the fourth commandment, and he illustrates reasons why and how we are to keep it.

What draws my attention on a weekly basis is that so called bible-believing Christians have unthought the Sabbath right out of their Bibles. As I mentioned previously, Dispensational teaching has aided in this; but I cannot blame it all on Dispensationalism. The big problem is that for years, especially in Baptist circles, pastors have taught that there are non-essential elements of the faith. Yes, keeping the Fourth Commandment falls within the non-essential elements. Is this correct? I believe it is not.

It is essential to know that God has commanded his people and all of humanity to rest one day in seven. It is essential to know that God has commanded his people to gather together to worship him one day in seven. It is also important to know that Jesus Christ declared himself to be Lord of the Sabbath. Our sinful tendencies has robbed God of his glory and ourselves from blessings that come from observing the Sabbath.

Jesus said if you love me keep my commandments. He also said to teach disciples all things whatsoever I have commanded you. Jesus also said that he came to fulfill the Law, not abrogate it. We are left with no excuses under the New Covenant to neglect the Fourth Commandment.

Let us make a concerted effort to keep the Sabbath holy by attending all of the stated services of our local churches, by engaging in devotional exercises in our homes both privately and with the family, try keeping the television off, and try to read some good Christian literature. Do these, and anticipate greater blessings from God, who rested on the seventh day and sanctified it.

A Christian Sabbath

2009-03-24T09:03:00.000-07:00

I've been thinking about blogging on this issue for a few weeks now. I'm just about finished with other issues of worship. This issue, I believe, is very important when considering what is true worship.

For many, the day of worship is merely a circumstance of worship. Roman Catholics have opportunity to attend Mass every day; Evangelicals in recent years may attend a weekly service on a Wednesday, a Saturday, or a Sunday. Within Evangelical circles, especially, Sunday has some significance, but it's traditional.

I believed this. I grew up under Dispensational teaching that taught that the Fourth Commandment had no significance under the New Testament. Attending worship on Sunday was more of an obligation not based on a direct commandment from Jesus Christ. Regarding the sanctity of the day, attending one church service and Sunday school made it semi-holy. I played outside with my friends on Sundays, went to City Park with my family, and did all sorts of things. There was really no sanctification of the day in household based upon the Dispensational teaching.

This is not to say that non-Dispensationalist traditions observed the day any better. I knew no family that really treated Sunday as a holy day. The city I grew up in is primarily Roman Catholic. I knew that Catholics flocked to High Mass on Sundays, but I also knew that bingo was held on Sunday afternoons, and people did whatever they wanted to do.

It wasn't until I was converted that I began to think about how I observe Sunday, which I began to refer to as the "Lord's Day." I happened to read through the New Hampshire Declaration of Faith, which African American Baptist churches subscribe to that I found a very clear teaching on the "Christian Sabbath." Article XV begins by stating that the first day of the week is the "Lord's Day," or "Christian Sabbath." It further teaches that the Lord's Day should be "kept sacred for religious purposes." In the negative, no Christian is to work, and no Christian is to engaged in "sinful recreations." Judging from the proof texts, the writers thought of any type of leisure recreations based on Isaiah 58:13-14. In the positive, Christians are to observe public worship and private worship.

This is a clear Protestant Reformed position. What happened? Let's talk about it.

Where is the Protestant Spirit?

2009-03-22T19:00:00.001-07:00

I remember in college I had a friend, a fraternity brother even who was a life-long Baptist, but refused to be called Protestant. We were at a Roman Catholic university, and we had to place our religious affiliation on the application. I put down Protestant because I believed then as I do now that Baptists are part of the Protestant family. I've come across others through their writings that argue that Baptists are not Protestants because Baptists represent the true Church. This is the classic Landmark position. I am no Landmark. I consider myself first and foremost a Reformed Catholic Christian. What do I mean by this? I hold to the historic and orthodox expression of Reformed Christianity, which holds to supreme biblical authority in all matters of faith and practice. I'm Catholic in that I confess the teachings of the Ecumenical Creeds---the Apostle's Creed, the Nicean Creed, and the Athanasian Creed. As a Christian, of course, I have repented from sin and placed saving faith in Jesus Christ as the one who has paid the penalty for my sin and merited heaven for me.

Having stated all of this, why am I writing on this Lord's Day? I argue that Protestants including Baptists have forgotten the Protestant spirit. I see this in a number of ways. First, the gospel has lost ground in African American Baptist circles. The gospel of Jesus Christ crucified, dead, and buried has been replaced by the gospel of expecting the miraculous, and this-worldly success. This has a great impact on biblical holiness; there is little emphasis on it. Second, African American Baptist pastors are heavy into the Romish pomp and circumstance. Have you seen the way African American pastors are dressing? They look like priests and prelates rather than servants of God who preach the word of God. Third, the worship reflects human tradition rather than the commandments of God. In a Baptist churches, I've witnessed sensual, culture-driven, and emotional "worship" as well as elements from Rome such as lighting candles, processions, and the aformentioned vestment wearing. Lost is the simplicity of New Covenant worship seen on the pages of Holy Scripture.

We are losing the gospel, we have returned to Old Testament types and shadows, and we command how we shall worship. No wonder we've lost that Protestant spirit that stood against all of this in its best expression.

Conference Report

2009-03-09T08:29:00.000-07:00

This is about three weeks too late, but I decided to give my readers (the real remnant) a brief report on the Magnifying God Conference held at University Reformed Church in East Lansing, Michigan on Feb 25-26. It was a good time; I met other young Reformed folk some with national renown. There were Reformed folk, Presbyterian folk, and Baptist folk in good numbers.

To no surprise, I was one of maybe three or free African Americans in attendance. While no surprise, it is still a telling fact. I engaged one of the speakers on this issue, and talked with others about during the conference. The big question was: how do we get Reformed theology in the Black community? This is a legitimate question, and maybe it's the wrong question. I believe the gospel is slowing losing ground among African Americans, especially those who come from a Baptist heritage. There is a strange type of ecumenism taking place among African American Church circles---clear denominational distinctions have been replaced with a broad acceptance of Word of Faith teaching and worship. To combat this, Reformed theology is unnecesary. The gospel is necessary. Once the true gospel re-takes territory then Reformed theology will follow.

Meet the Puritans

2009-02-07T17:14:00.000-08:00

If I have written this before, please excuse me; but African American Baptists have a Puritan heritage. African American slaves and free men and women joined Baptist churches in large numbers during the First Great Awakening, which was a Reformed Puritan revival. African American Baptists believed the same doctrines as their white brethren, especially the necessity of the new birth if anyone is to be saved.

For the second week, I'm preparing a Sunday school lesson on the English Puritans and I'm struck at the penetrating preaching and the true conversions that the Spirit was pleased to work in the people's hearts during this time.

Where is that type of preaching today,especially among African American Baptists? How many church members are geniunely converted? From my view point, there are few giving evidence of true conversion.

Rather than being slaves to fads and human innovation, African American Baptists need to meet the Puritans and emulate them: their preaching, their worship, their home piety.

I pray for a Puritan-like revival in African American Baptist churches.

Calvin 500

2009-01-22T17:44:00.000-08:00

Friends,

There are plenty of Calvin events this year commemorating the 500th year of Calvin's birth. In my neck of the woods University Reformed Church in conjunction with Providence PCA is hosting a conference from Feb 20-21 on Calvin. Also Princeton Seminary has daily readings from the Institutes, which is quite profitable. I've begun to read the daily readings and I've been struck by the clarity and simplicity of Calvin's writing. I've read different sections of the Institutes, but reading the daily readings has been wonderful. If you are interested go to http://www.ptsem.edu, and find the Calvin link on the homepage.

It's Been a Year!

2009-01-04T19:27:00.000-08:00

I failed to write on Jan 1 to mark the one year anniversary of this blog. I was busy and tired; but I enjoyed a one day trip to New York City on New Year's Day. I was good to be back in my favorite city.

I want to take the opportunity to express my gratitude to all who have read this blog during the past year. I have been pleasantly surprised at how many are reading.

For the New Year, I pray that God will use this blog for his glory and for the reformation of Christ's Church among African Americans.

I pray that all of you have a blessed and prosperous New Year.

Baptist Inconsistencies

2008-12-26T08:32:00.000-08:00

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

2008-12-24T21:03:00.000-08:00

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

2008-12-22T06:56:00.000-08:00

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

2008-12-06T15:20:00.001-08:00

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

2008-11-11T15:40:00.000-08:00

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

2008-10-31T15:22:00.000-07:00

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

2008-10-23T18:32:00.001-07:00

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

2008-09-25T06:37:00.000-07:00

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

2008-08-24T22:25:00.000-07:00

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...

2008-07-29T16:26:00.000-07:00

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

2008-07-25T00:06:00.000-07:00

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

2008-07-24T11:19:00.000-07:00

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?

2008-07-22T20:38:00.000-07:00

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

2008-07-18T17:25:00.001-07:00

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?

2008-07-14T18:34:00.000-07:00

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?

2008-07-07T17:24:00.000-07:00

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?

2008-07-05T11:31:00.000-07:00

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

2008-06-13T11:22:00.000-07:00

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...

2008-06-11T09:44:00.000-07:00

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

2008-05-31T20:51:00.000-07:00

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

2008-05-28T14:13:00.000-07:00

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

2008-05-17T08:32:00.000-07:00

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

2008-03-29T15:31:00.000-07:00

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

2008-02-23T08:31:00.000-08:00

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?

2008-02-08T19:18:00.000-08:00

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

2008-01-23T16:20:00.000-08:00

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

2008-01-10T12:43:00.001-08:00

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

2008-01-01T12:23:00.000-08:00

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.