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.
Friday, December 26, 2008
Wednesday, December 24, 2008
Baptist Bah Humbug
Would you believe that at one time in this country Baptists rejected the celebration of Christmas? This was the case during the Colonial period of American history into the 19th century. This was startling news for me when I read it because I grew up celebrating Christmas as a Baptist and attending worship service every Christmas Day.
Since Baptists emerged from the Puritan wing of the English Reformation, Baptists saw no biblical warrant for the celebration of holy days in NT. The only holy day Baptists observed was the Christian Sabbath, or the Lord's Day, which is the first day of the week.
What I observe now is that Christmas Day has more importance than all 52 Lord's Days put together. Just notice: Christmas Day is when no one works other than police officers, fire fighters, etc. What about the Lord's Day? Restaurants are in full swing, retail stores, grocery stores, etc. Business owners refuse to keep a Sabbath unless it's Thanksgiving or Christmas. What about Christians and their view of the Lord's Day? Very few Christians keep the Sabbath holy. Some argue that the fourth commandment has no bearing on New Covenant piety while others argue that all days are alike. Except Christmas.
Things are reversed from what Baptists used to practice. Baptists have historically held to a high view of the Lord's Day Sabbath, and rejected celebration of holy days. In the 1689 London Confession, Chapter 22 teaches that since the resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ the first day of week is the Sabbath. There is no mention the observance of any other day, but the Lord's Day. No Christian Calendar. No holy days.
This was the fundamental position of the Westminster divines when they crafted the Directory for the Public Worship of God. Regarding holy days, they wrote: "There is no day commanded in scripture to be kept holy under the gospel but the Lord's day, which is the Christian Sabbath." They go on to state, "Festival days, vulgarly called Holy-Days, having no warrant in the word of God, are not to be continued." Some argue that Reformed Puritans reacted to the retaining of the Church Calendar in the English Church, and this colored their rejection of holy days including Christmas. This is a response according to the word of God, not merely a gut reaction.
This was the prevailing practice among Baptists until the mid to late 19th century when observance of Christmas crept in the churches, which is about the same time that Americans began to observe Christmas in larger numbers. Baptist observance was more cultural than according to biblical conviction. This is unfortunate since Baptists have a strong tradition in Sola Scriptura and applying it rightly to worship matters.
If there is no biblical warrant to observe Christmas, why is this a general practice in our Baptist churches? Besides the point made in the previous paragraph, there is more to be said on this matter.
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.
Monday, December 22, 2008
Baptists and Holy Days
For the vast majority of the Christian world and non-Christian world, people are gearing up for the big day on 25 December. This is, of course, Christmas Day; it is the birth of Christ. This day and this season was my absolute favorite time of the year. I dreamt of toys, feasting, conviviality, etc. I believed in Santa Clause, and I believed that 25 December was the actual birthday of Jesus Christ. Maybe you know where I'm going with this. Before I get into the real reason for this entry, allow me to share my story.
As a child, I was a baptized member of the Roman Catholic Church. Officially, I was a Roman Catholic until I was six. Then I became a Baptist. My mother was still Catholic, and I went to Catholic school. At school, we would light the Advent wreath every day beginning after the first Sunday of December. We sang, "O Come, O Come, Emmanuel" every day. It was very pious. I was a Christmas traditionalist.
While we did this in Catholic school, our Baptist church did other things. There was no Advent wreath, and our church never observed Advent, per se. We did put on a big Christmas play the Friday before Christmas. One year, I was the lead shepherd with a speaking part. My brother played Joseph during the same production. It was fun, fun, fun.
I loved helping put up the family Christmas tree, and making sure the wreath hung outside on the door. Of course, by Christmas Eve I was ready to burst. As a young child, I went to bed early anticipating Santa's arrival. One year I really believed I heard his sleigh park on our roof. On Christmas morning, I would wake up while it was still dark---maybe six o'clock. I would run to the tree and find all of the toys I wanted---racing car set, electric football set, etc. After this, it would be feasting with the family.
If the 25th of December was my absolute favorite day, the 26th was probably the most non-descript day of the year. I had my toys, and I would go to my friends' houses to play with their new toys. It just wasn't the same. Santa was back at the North Pole, and I wouldn't see him again until next year. Nevertheless, the Advent season would last until January 6, which is the feast of the Epiphany. That's when the tree would come down. I insisted that the decorations had to remain through January 6; I was a traditionalist.
As the years wore on, I became more sober-minded regarding Christmas. No more toys; I no longer believed in the myth of Santa Clause. I still looked forward to Christmas, but it was more nostalgic. I listened to the music, I looked forward to being out of school, and seeing family members. I tried to focus on the coming of Jesus Christ. Attending church became important for me, and that became part of my new tradition.
Something began to change. My father said that Jesus wasn't born on Dec 25, and that Christmas was invented by the Roman Catholic Church. I looked in the Scriptures, and there is nothing in Matthew 1, or Luke 2 stating that this was Christmas. There is no month and day given to mark the birth of Jesus. I read some of the history of Christmas, and I found that my father, a pastor, was right. I was still confused because he continued to celebrate Christmas and have church. This was a contradiction. Why if we are Baptists, a people who believe that we need biblical warrant to support worship practices, celebrate Christmas?
This turned me against Christmas because I saw so many inconsistencies. The confession my old churches held to stated that the Holy Scriptures are the "supreme standard by which all human conduct, creeds, and opinions should be tried." Let's apply this to Christmas and the celebration of other Holy Days like Easter. Do we read in the Scriptures were the Church is to celebrate the birth of Christ as its own regular, annual day? The answer is no. In fact, the Scriptures teach against such. Paul commanded the Colossians and the Laodiceans, "Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ" (Col 2:16-17). This is a clear statement that under the New Covenant the Church is free from celebrating yearly feasts, or even a Church calendar. All of the biblical feasts of the OT: passover, pentecost, firstfruits, New Moon Sabbaths, Seventh Day Sabbaths were shadows, or types that Christ through his person and work fulfilled. To celebrate those would be tantamount to rejecting Christ's perfect work. What about New Covenant feats? What about them? Where are they? They are missing. Why? Because Christ has come and fulfilled all of the types.
Paul, again, makes it clear that there are no NT holy days: "Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years. I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed upon you labour in vain" (Gal 4:10-11). The days, months, etc. Paul refers to here in this verse are the OT feasts and times. The occasion of this letter was that Judaizers were teaching these Christians (Gentiles) that they had to be Jewish in order to be Christians. Paul here teaches that certain aspects of Judaism had been abrogated such as the observance of festivals and feasts. The Church looks to Christ as the one who fulfilled all of this, and it looks to him alone.
I'll quit here for today. I hope you understand this argument. There is more to follow.
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.
Saturday, December 6, 2008
Preach the Word
I have no idea how many pastoral anniversary services I have witnessed, but it has been quite a many. Most of the sermons have been from Paul's letter to Timothy, and his command to preach the word (2 Timothy 4:2). Rightly so, pastors have applied this command by Paul to the evangelist Timothy to the work of the local church pastor.
We who have been reared in traditional African American Baptist churches know that premium placed on preaching. Yet the premium has been placed on a certain style of preaching rather than the substance of preaching. As a kid and young man, I loved to hear a certain style of preaching---witty turns of phrases, humorous, and a good tune and a whoop. As a got older, I noticed that many pastors who used that style failed to preach a sermon with a sound argument and exegesis. What does it mean to preach the word?
I believe that in order for African American pastors to obey this command efficiently and effectively means that they need to preach expository sermons. The expository sermon takes its points from the biblical text. Every word is examined; every phrases is analyzed and contextualized. Applications are drawn straight from the text. In brief, every word of God is proclaimed. This is the type of preaching that glorifies God and edifies the saints.
For African American pastors to make the shift to preaching expository sermons will entail a culture shift. By this, I mean that pastors will preach longer sermons with more detail applied to explaining the text. It demands the attention of the listener, but the rewards are inexorable. The saints will actually learn the word of God with clear and pointed applications.
I have heard pastors who have three points to their sermons, and they deem themselves expository preachers. I have noticed that their points are actually applications, and not necessarily points of the passage of Scripture. Just yesterday I heard a sermon on-demand, and the sermon was called "An Open Letter to Mr. Obama." First, there is nothing in the Bible about Barack Obama; therefore, the sermon title had nothing to do with a biblical passage. The passage was from 1 Samuel 16, which narrates the initial anointing of David. The first point of the sermon was that the "anointing is more important than the appointing." The only thing remotely related about this point to the passage is that Samuel anointed David. In this passage David's anointing as the next king of Israel had everything to do with his appointment to the same.
A sample expository outline of this passage would be:
1. The Lord Summons Samuel to Anoint a New King (1 Sam 16:1-3)
2. The Lord Corrects Samuel's Assessment of the Anointed (4-7)
3. The Lord Chooses his Anointed (8-13)
Possible applications:
1. It is the Lord who directs the paths of his people
2. Often we mistake what the Lord will do, or we mistake the kind of people he chooses to do certain tasks. The Lord is compassionate upon whoever he chooses
3. The Lord is sovereign in his grace; he chooses whom he chooses, especially in the realm of salvation.
4. David's anointing anticaptes the coming of the Anointed One, Jesus Christ.
This is the type of preaching needed in African American Baptist churches. I pray for African American Baptist pastors to avail themselves to preaching expository sermons to glory of God, the edification of the saints, and the salvation of sinners.
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.
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
The Place of the Scriptures in Worship
So far during this year I have made a strong argument based on historic Baptist and Reformed confessions as well as Calvin's Necessity for Reforming the Church that all we do as Christians in the worship of God is to be done according to worship commandments or clear and approved examples from the Scriptures. With that stated, the Scriptures themselves are part of the worship of God.
Baptist worship is Reformed worship; this is the case I've also attempted to place forward. Since I believe this is the case, Terry L. Johnson, longtime pastor of Independent Presbyerian Church in Savannah Church, has written in a nice little book called Reformed Worship that in Christian worship we read the Bible, we preach the Bible, we pray the Bible, and we sing the Bible. Our worship should be saturated with the Holy Word of God.
There is a place for the straight reading of the Scriptures in worship. Paul wrote to Timothy that he must give place to reading in the worship (1 Timothy 4:13), which specified the OT writings. Also Paul knew and assumed that the letter he wrote to the Church at Colossae would be read into their hearing at their Lord's Day assemblies, and he commanded that the letter he wrote to the neighboring church at Laodicea be read in Colossae(see Colossians 4:16). What these passages demonstrate by command and approved practice is that both the OT and NT are to be read in Christian worship.
In the Westminster Directory Public of Worship (1645), there are directions regarding the public reading of the Scriptures on the Lord's Day. The writers urge that both OT and NT books be read one chapter of each at every meeting. Whereever the minister leaves off reading on one Lord's Day, the next chapter is read the following Lord's Day. The Bible should be read in succession. Along with the reading there should be comment on the passage for the hearers to gain an understanding.
It has been my experience in National Baptist churches that a small portion of the Word of God is read at every service. Usually the reading is a few verses; I've never heard a whole chapter of the Scriptures read unless it was a short to moderately length psalm. Though the Scriptures are read, both testaments are hardly read in one service and the readings are out of continuity from week to week.
We need to hear the voice of God in the assembly on the Lord's Day; therefore, let us read the Holy Word more---both testaments in succession each Lord's Day.
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.
Friday, October 31, 2008
Reflections on the Reformation
This may come as a surprise to many, but today is Reformation Day not Halloween. On this Reformation Day, I would like to offer some of my reflections on the issue of reformation in African American churches, which is the theme of this blog. For years, I thought the Reformation had nothing to do with me as an African American Missionary Baptist. I was quite comfortable in my little corner of the Christian world. I knew the Roman Catholic Church was wrong on much, but I never really believed that those who believed the gospel according to Rome were lost.
In college, I took a class on the Protestant Reformation and still never made a connection with what I professed to believe as a Christian and the foundation of that profession in Reformed Protestant theology. One could say that God had decided to leave my veil covering my eyes.
It was when the Lord removed the veil back in December of 1998 that I saw the connection between being Reformed Protestant and Baptist. The study of Baptist history made better sense to me, and of course I fell in love with the great doctrines of grace such as election, justification, and the preservation and perseverance of the saints.
I am an unashamed Calvinist, Protestant, and Reformed Christian. While I am still an African American Baptist, that label has taken on less significance the past few years. Even now, I am attempting to be more and more catholic in the Reformed sense. I believe that true catholicity begins and ends with the belief that the Holy Scriptures are the inspired, sufficient, inerrant, infallible authority in all things pertaining to the faith and obedience of the Church.
If I can help African American Baptists see and embrace this, by the help of God, we can see real reformation in this generation. I pray God that he will effect bonifide reformation among African Americans. We (African American Baptists) are content with emotionally-driven and culturally-driven church. There is no room for a true catholicity, which Luther and Calvin among others envisioned during the 16th century. Calvin and others of the Reformed wing of the reformation believed in uniformity of worship since worship is biblically-based. It is quite amazing how uniform Reformed worship was even into the 20th century. As I have written before, reforming worship is imperative for African American Baptists. I believe real and authentic reformation begins in the realm of worship.
How do we apply Paul's words in Galatians: "For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus." What African Americans have done is make ethnicity matter when Paul said that these ethnic markers have lost their significance in Christ. If we are to be welcoming to all ethnic groups in the Church of Christ, it means that our worship should never emphasize ethnic particularities. Christians are one through one Holy Spirit, who inspired the prophets and apostles to teach us how to worship God and Christ and to teach us the elements of worship.
Someone may argue that there was uniformity in Reformed worship because the Reformers and their followers were European. Take another look at this: there were vast differences among European ethnicities then as there are now. If we base our argument on this then we belittle real ethnic differences that led to wars and nationalistic rivalries. Reformation in worship was based on a right application of the doctrine of sola scriptura. If these men like Calvin and Knox were true Christians and their understanding of worship truly biblically, can we toss them and their teaching aside because they lived in the 16th century and were Europeans? If so, we would be guilty of ethnic chauvinism and favoritism, which the Scriptures condemn.
I believe there was uniformity in New Covenant worship. Take a look at what Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 11 and 14. The churches outside of Judea consisted of Gentiles and Jews. Some Gentiles had come straight out of idolatry such as those at Thessalonica, but they conformed to the worship pattern taught them by the apostle Paul. Why are we so stubborn? Believe you me, I know the history of racism perpetrated by professing Christians in this country. The Spirit of God conquers such, and he calls us to conform to the Word of God alone even in the worship of God.
These are my thoughts on this Reformation Day 2008.
Soli Deo Gloria!
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!
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Instruments in Worship
For the average National Baptist, such a topic seems to be irrelevant. All National Baptist churches are going to have at least one instrument, an organ (better if the organ is a Hammond organ), and the majority of churches will have a diversity of instruments: organ, piano, keyboard, drums, lead guitar, and a bass guitar. The more instruments the better.
About a month or two ago while reading a history of Black Baptists in Alabama, I read that black Baptists there during the latter half of the 19th century worshiped without the aid of musical instruments. These folk may not have had a biblical reason why they practiced this. Probably there were few black folk in Baptist churches immediately following Emancipation who could play a piano. A Capella singing was probably practical. I mention this to make a larger point: it is not a necessity to have musical instruments in the song worship of Christian churches.
Another historical point I would like to make is that instruments in worship is an innovation among Protestant churches since the late 19th century. Methodists, Baptists, and Presbyterians all worshiped without the aid of musical instruments the balance of their histories as distinct Christian communions. J. L. Dagg, a Baptist theologian of the 19th century, stated this regarding instrumental music: "Instrumental music formed a part of the temple worship; but it is nowhere commanded in the New Testament; and it is less adapted to the more spiritual service of the present dispensation." Dagg's assertion is significant because it establishes the framework of the argument against the use of musical instruments in NT worship: first, musical instruments were part of Temple worship, which has been superseded (with the exception of psalm-singing); and second, there is no command to use musical instruments in NT, or a clear example of their use in worship. I agree.
Why I am placing forward such an argument in this day and age? First, I believe it is biblical. We are to obey our Lord who speaks through the Holy Scriptures. Second, I believe the plethora of instrumentation in National Baptist churches takes away from true worship in spirit and truth. Musical instruments create undue emotionalism in worship, which is as much intelligent as it is with the heart. Does not Paul implore us to making melody in our hearts anyway? See Ephesians 5:19.
In National Baptist churches, music drives worship. If it sounds good, it must good for worship. Who determines the sound? Nashville? Detroit? Chicago? I hate to state this but the sound coming out of National Baptist churches is unholy, for the most part. It scintillates; it titillates; it makes the body move, but it fails to capture something of the holiness of God and the reverence that is supposed to mark his worship.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
