In this article, Joe explains how he was introduced to Psalm singing. He explains the benefits of Psalm singing and then direction on how to learn to sing Psalms. Finally he makes an observation about the use of hymns and psalms in the church.

You can check out Joe's blog, Mining Grace, HERE. I'm sure I will be drawing from other articles of his as well. He posts on a host of helpful and relevant topics (like his daily Bible reading considerations).

You can check out his article, Rediscovering the Psalms, HERE.

In conclusion of this post I'd like to share how I was introduced to Psalm singing.

In 1998 I moved to Grand Rapids, MI, to attend a Bible College. I recall sitting next to a guy Randall Pederson, who always had a Puritan book with him (and who later co-authored, Meet the Puritans, with Dr. Beeke). Starving for good preaching, since I attended a church that was going through a 10-part series on Y2K and Left Behind, I asked him where he worshipped. He was a member of the Heritage Netherlands Reformed Church. I decided to visit, and not only was I convicted by the preaching, but when it came time to worship in song, I noticed in their "hymnbook" that it was a Psalm - an imprecatory Psalm at that, Ps. 83! Not only was it a novel idea to me at the time to sing Scripture, but my heart swelled as we called upon the Lord to "smite Thy enemies today who in their pride combine!" And how fitting was this, for Dr. Beeke's text was Matt 16:18 "And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." The Psalms were relevant to the promise of Christ, and the Church was acknowledging Christ's power against His enemies even today. This was much more powerful, more fitting, more biblical than "Lord I Lift Your Name on High." And so my first experience was both a worship and a reflective experience.

The next week I visited another church through a mutual friend and here too they used the Psalms. This church was seeking to make a transition to exclusive psalmody which I had never heard of. There was a series preached on worship, by Rev. Ray Lanning (who is my minister today). He was explaining the Biblical doctrine of worship from 2 Kings 17. How God carried the Northern Kingdom into exhile mainly because they had introduced innovations to His prescribed worship for them. When the Assyrian king allowed other Gentiles to move into the Northern territory, God used lions to devour some of them. Wanting to know what manner of God this was they inquired of the Assyrian king, who sent the Jewish priests to go teach them how to worship their God. Well they of course taught them the wrong way, and so the writer sarcastically states that "these nations feared the LORD, and served their graven images, both their children, and their children's children: as did their fathers, so do they unto this day." Well of course this was the institution of Samaritan worship, which Jesus rebukes in John 4, when He says to the Samaritan woman at the well, "Ye worship ye know not what."

Rev. Lanning wrote an article as well on Psalm singing in the New Testament, drawing from the texts Eph 5:19, and Col 3:16. I then understood the context and content of these passages. Psalm singing was consistent in the New Testament with the ordinance in the Old Testament. My second experience was borth an educational  and enlightened experience.

I am thankful for the inspired Hymnbook that the Lord has given to His Church, and Lord willing this will be a theme I take on this week at Endeavoring Relevant Progress.

I wanted to watch this because I was a baby christian. Turns out this movie scared the hell out of me. If I was asked to be reborn from the message in the movie, I would rather kill myself. There was a scene where Pastor Becky Fischer welcome her group of campkids with a condemning message and the next day, put up powerpoint slides like "SIN" in uppercase Arial red font, and "THE PUNISHMENT FOR SIN IS DEATH". She said to the camera, "There is a font that is bloody and red... " She found that font and was so pleased with her "work"! Seriously, if anyone wants to know Jesus better, "Joseph Prince" would be the person to look up. Seeing the scenes in the movie was just like attending a service in America all over again, except the message was like glaring down at me. It's so horrid.

It was after many days that i heard from my pastor's video, "In many places, it seems like it is the purpose of the preacher to put as many people under condemnation or sin condemnation consciousness so that they cry, they wail before God, and they are really (feeling) condemned, and he (the preacher) feels good to affect people like that. He feels like, to help people be conscious of sin is to help them be conscious of God. Nothing could be further from the truth!"

When I heard this, my thoughts went to Jesus Camp immediately. My pastor was describing the scene exactly as it was. To Non-Christians, the sobbing and wailing of church members may be puzzling or even terrifyingly abusive, but to Christians of that church, it was perfectly normal, and they were perfectly willing to undergo it. No wonder the string of non-Christian commentators on Flixster got so afraid and even called us (Christians) lunatics or similar.

In the movie, a young boy named Levi who had such an outstanding character and maturity and possibly his appearance stood out too (long-tailed hair), was called to guest-preach in one of the evenings of the kids camp. He preached Jesus! He preached Jesus as a protector...as a savior. The crowd cheered and clapped. I wonder if Becky Fischer saw the contrast in her audience's reactions.

I remembered a very disturbing scene when Becky Fischer took the camera crew into her office and showed them some plastic toys. "This is Adam, this is Eve," she pointed to 2 Barbie dolls, Ken and Barbie). She said the kids these days are very visual and impressionable, and that these Barbie dolls, naked and covered with some plastic green leaves were used to reenact the fall of mankind when "Ken" (as Adam) ate the forbidden fruit. Oh My God! How sad can that be! Instead of telling us how Jesus had saved the world with one death, she chooses to tell to her kids, over and over again, how the fall of Adam had cursed the whole world. Cursing especially the Christians. (Because now that they know...) More--she took out one of those stretchy rubber toys, this particular one shaped in a hand with a very long arm. She then flicked the rubber toy to a plastic brain mold sitting on a shelf nearby. She flicked a few times before it was successfully caught on the brain mold. She said, "See how dirty ideas stick to your brain like nasty stickies" and said this is for demonstrating to the kids that a dirty thought can persist in your mind very easily, so it should not be left to fester. I think this is just pure sick.

Watch Pastor Prince short clip:

[googlevideo=http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8971621632253779842]

New Creation Church, Singapore
Joseph Prince Ministries, International
Joseph Prince Ministries, Facebook
Joseph Prince Media, YouTube

"Do two walk together unless they have agreed to meet?" Amos 3:7

I am tired of people saying that we must reach across and shake hands for the sake of a better good. Yes, we should help those in need, especially those suffering from a horrific disease like HIV/AIDS. However, do we relax our hold on truth and righteousness to do so? I don't think so.

No amount of money or publicity for my Christian charity could cause me to partner with someone who is fully committed to continuing to allow the murder of millions of unborn babies and even go further in allowing partial birth abortion.

Agreeing to disagree may be ok on small "gnat" issues for the sake of unity in the Body of Christ but as a general rule, there is no unity between light and darkness. It saddens me to see such leaders in the Body of Christ turn their eyes away from the serious issue of abortion which has caused bloodguilt on our land and be swept away by the charisma of a Presidential Canidate and possible publicity by being connected with him.

Here’s a ChristianPost.com article:

  Prominent Christian leaders such as Rick Warren and T.D. Jakes were praised by Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) this weekend as role models of Christians who put their faith into action.

“The church is at once a very familiar and a very misunderstood topic... [This] misunderstanding results from the multiple usages of the term church” on one level and on “a more profound level – a lack of understanding of the basic nature of the church.”[1] Both the Old and New Testaments use words which when translated variously describe the church to be:

¨         Individuals or groups called together by God, for His purpose.[2]

¨         The location or structure where those who are called together actually meet.[3]

¨         Multiple, independent groups meeting in places such as a town or a region.[4]

¨         All of the individuals, throughout the whole world, including those living, dead, and yet to be born, who God has called to salvation through Christ Jesus.[5]

What is common to each of these ideas for the word church is the concept of “calling out for the purpose of gathering.”[6] While the root words in the Greek and Hebrew are general terms and do not specifically refer to religious gatherings, two things become clear in their Biblical use. It is God who is doing the calling and this calling is for His greater glory. While we certainly benefit from His calling, the implication and reality is that the church is not about me. The church is all about our Triune God, for “there is no church apart from the redemptive work of Christ and from the renewing operation of the Holy Spirit.”[7]

In the narrative of the first mega-church, God called Israel out of bondage in Egypt to meet with Him and worship Him at Mount Sinai. Today, God still calls people out of bondage and into the worshiping assembly of the church. As His called people, God gave Israel the mission to be an example and witness to other nations of His power and glory. He has called the church of today for the same purpose. We are still God’s chosen people, called together to worship the LORD and to be a witness of His saving power and glory to those around us.

There is one significant difference however between the church of the Old Testament and the church today. While Israel relied upon the ritual of the Law and the promise of a Messiah for salvation, the church today “may walk in the full light provided by Him who is the Son of God… and who on the day of Pentecost made good His promise to grant unto His church the Spirit of truth.”[8] Pentecost is the defining moment for the church. From that day onward the Holy Spirit has been poured out on each and every believer as an empowering presence of the living God, enabling us to be the church as never before. The church is the body of believers in Christ, called by God to gather for His glory, and empowered by the Holy Spirit to fulfill the mission He has called us to fulfill.

I think ahead and wonder, what will the church of 2020 be preaching and teaching? Will they cling to truth or will the watering down and domesticating of God continue? What theology will my children know and understand? It starts with what I teach them.

As I continue to work my way through 1 John I am repeatedly struck by the way John weaves together several themes, yet seems to keep a single idea in focus.  John writes to help the reader understand how we may know God – that we may know God.  Yet throughout the letter he calls us to holiness and love. 

At the same time I am working through 1 John, the leaders of our church are working through a process to discern the identity, mission, and vision for Walnut Hill Church.  Having gone through this process with other churches I realize that most of what we come up with will be attributes that are shared by many faithful churches, though there are also certainly things that are unique to us.  These unique items are those gifts and passions God has granted to this church – as he does to all churches. It is our God-given personality. 

In my mind these two things are converging: Our vision & mission, and John’s words to Christ’s church.  And thinking about them together reminded me about a brief work by Francis Schaeffer, The Mark of the Christian.  This work challenged my thinking a few years ago, and to some degree, I hope, it has shaped me personally, and therefore has shaped my ministry.

Schaeffer suggests that Christians have always looked for ways to distinguish themselves, by symbols and marks. However there is one mark that has persevered through all generations as the genuine mark of Christianity, and therefore the Church: Love.  Schaeffer points out that Christ ordained this to be an enduring and authoritative mark. He asserts that Christ has made this mark so reflective that the absence of it gives the world the right to judge that someone is not a Christian!  By extension then, the world would have the right to judge that a church is not truly Christian if Love is not pervasive.

Love for one another is pervasive at Walnut Hill.  What we are trying to discover, however, is how we might more openly express that love to the community, and world, around us.  Such expression is not absent, but we want to be more deliberate.

I’ve re-read The Mark of the Christian a couple times this week.  And now I’ve decided to publish it in a multi-part series over the next few weeks.  It is a work worth considering, and any attempt I make to summarize would be woefully inadequate.

First and perhaps foremost, I need the church because I am a dysfunctional sinner. Calvin wrote that the church is "the divine institution to assemble and minister to the elect in the earthly condition in which they are[5]." Yes, I have been saved by faith through the Grace of God, but the fact is, I still have tendencies to do sinful things (just ask my friends and family). We come to the church and live in the church as sinners in need of cleansing and continual healing. I need the church because it is a home to sinners like me; sinners welcomed by God to a common journey of healing and re-creation.[6]

Secondly, I need the church because it is through the church that God kick started my faith and keeps it running[7]. Without faith there is neither salvation nor Christian maturity, but in order to have faith, I need to hear the Word of God (Romans 10:17) [8]. The Word is the primary tool which God uses to build up my faith. Through the Sacraments, God draws me closer to Him[9] and allows me to experience His presence, and that is faith building, but it is in the preaching and teaching [10] of the Word that He encourages my faith.[11]

Finally, I need the church because it has the duty to nurture, care, and provide guidance for Christians much as a mother cares for her children. "For there is no other way to enter life unless this mother conceive us in her womb, give us birth, nourish us at her breast, and lastly unless she keep us under her care and guidance... [For] our weakness does not allow us to be dismissed from her school until we have been pupils all our lives[12]."

Thoughtful and constructive comments are encouraged.

[3] Ibid, p.1016. Italics mine.

[4] Can a Christian ever truly be stagnant? That's the word which came to mind as I was writing, but I question its use. Are not Christians either growing or regressing in their faith? Can we ever be simply stagnate?

[5] Institutes, p.1012, footnote 2.

[6] The idea of sinners being part of the church is a reality that the church must deal with. All sides of the emergent conversation are wrestling with this issue, but for me it is pretty cut and dry. Until I die and go to heaven, I'm going to have some sinful tendencies. Prayerfully, as I grow in my faith, my regenerated heart will over power some of those tendencies, but the battle will remain until I see Christ.

[7] Institutes, p. 1011. The full quote: which sounds rather arrogant to today's ears, says "that in our ignorance and sloth (to which [Calvin adds] fickleness of disposition) we need outward helps to beget and increase faith within us, and advance it to its goal." Ignorant, slothful, and fickle describes far too individuals in the church today; myself included.

[8] Ibid, p. 1017. Says Calvin, "God breathes faith into us only by the instrument of his gospel, as Paul points out the ‘faith comes from hearing' [Rom. 10:17]. Likewise, the power to save rests with God [Rom. 1:16]; but (as Paul again testifies) He displays and unfolds it in the preaching of the gospel."

[9] Ibid, p. 1012.

[10] Ibid, p1019. According to Calvin: "We must hold to what we have quoted from Paul - that the church is built up solely by outward preaching, and that [Christians] are held together by one bond only: that with common accord, through learning and advancement, they keep the church order established by God."

[11] Most of the time I was renouncing the church, I was listening to really good Christian preaching and teaching. Radio and television, and now the internet, are amazing media and I do not want to down play the role some preachers and teachers have through that media. I have a good friend who came to know Christ through a television program, so I know some tele-evangelism works. I believe that the seeds of her faith however were planted in the local church she sometimes attended as a youth. The Lord might have started the seed of faith growing through television, but He keeps it growing through the local body of believers she calls church. The point I want to emphasize here is that the hearing of the Word from radio and television is not what Calvin is talking about. Certainly Calvin knew nothing of these media and yes, they may help our spiritual growth, but I am convinced that it is hearing the Word in a local body of believers that Calvin is addressing. Writes Calvin, "We see how God, who could in a moment perfect his own, nevertheless desires them to grow up into [maturity] solely under the education of the church. We see the way set for it: the preaching of the heavenly doctrine has been enjoined upon the pastors." As we will see later in this series, the role of pastor is one that is properly exercised at the local level. I am convinced that one cannot truly be a pastor through the radio, television, or even the internet.

[12] Ibid, p. 1016.

Moral Man and Immoral Society

Reinhold Niebuhr

My notes:

I abstain from elaborating or further quoting to clarify the nature of the obstacles which confront a religious soul. They are all that takes a person away from God.

Image: Solar Navigator

The very fact that this story exists tells us all we need to know about the state of preachingin the Evangelical Church. (PS--I suspect it is a publicity stunt by the website mentioned in the article.) I wonder if their pledge includes provisions for preachers who have cheated in their preparations? You know what I mean: Like those pledges kids can sign that represent a 're-virginization' after they have already fornicated. Seriously, is there a re-integrity-ization for preachers? This is beyond pathetic. Seriously, this story is hilarious. What does it say about the rest of the preachers in the world who won't sign their pledge?

jerry

I suggest that if we limit the use of "church" to meaning those individuals - past, present, and future - who have an eternal relationship with Jesus Christ, and who thus constitute THE CHURCH (theologically, the invisible church), then we need new terms for BEING the (visible) church. As good post-modernists and emerging theologians let's deconstruct the language of church and define terms, even if they are long, overly simplistic, or invented, that say what we mean and are in keeping with Scripture.

For instance, might we not be better refering to "meeting places" rather than church (aka buildings, structures, tabernacles, etc). I often leave the house saying, "I'm going to church." What I really mean is that I am going to a certain building, at a certain location, where a local group of Christians routinely gather. My former "local gathering of believers" began meeting over 130 years ago in a field next to a certain tree. That was their meeting place, their church. Maybe yours is Starbucks, a home, a rented space in a warehouse, or a camp ground. Local gatherings of the church need not be limited to dedicated buildings (with or without steeples). It's easy to say, "I'm going to church," but I do not in fact go to church. I am part of the church wherever I am and I'm thinking, for clarity, we need to think and speek this way.

If believers have gathered to worship, hear the Word, partake of the Sacraments, and be held accountable by other believers, then wherever they are has become a Christian meeting place. And, that place may be occupied by believers at any moment of the day, week, or year. Having a regular gathering place in which to worship, hear the Word, partake of the Sacraments, and be held accountable is important. We are told not to forsake meeting together with other believers, with other members of the church body, for good reason. A finger cut off from the hand is simply a paperweight (hyberbolic metaphor to be sure) and of limited use (been there, done that, been grafted back in). The meeting together of believers however is only part, perhaps a large part, of being the church. This is one area in which I see the emerging church "getting it right." They are not content with "going to church" on Sunday morning or maybe even a few nights during the week to "do church." They want to "BE the church" every moment of the day.

Where and when we as believers gather together is not as important as the traditionalists (and some emergents) believe. What is important, what counts is that we do gather together on a regular basis. How that looks, how that plays out in reality, still needs to be defined and discussed. I am not sure that you and I sitting in Wendy's constitutes a gathering of believers, or what might traditionally be called "having church." Yes, we are possibly being the church. Yes, we are possibly having Christian fellowship (not to be confused with Christians who are socializing together). Jesus says, "where two or more are gathered together, there I will be." Does that imply that where two or more are gathered together, there is a gathering of the church? I guess it does since we are part of the church, but the prejudices of my classical church upbringing say no, this is not a church meeting.

Your thoughts?

There's a St. Anselm Academy near where I work, but otherwise Anselm is just a name I vaguely remember from New Testament history. So, I'm not sure if the evaluation is correct or not. Guess I'll have to check out his theology. I do like being ranked with Calvin, Edwards, and Luther. Finney is probably okay, but I'm not sure if Moltmann is a good one to be likened to or not. Schleiermacher is a problem. My liberal presbytery will wonder why I don't think more like him and my evangelical friends will want to burn me at the stake for having any of his thoughts in my theology. Having beed raised in a fundamental Methodist Chruch, I do wonder how come I don't have any Wesleyan traits?

Glad to see I'm emergent/postmodern, especially since I see this group as the present future of the church. I understand the Wesleyan and Reformed strengths since I grew up in the Methodist Church and am now a Presbyterian studying reformed theology, but where in the world did the Roman Catholic and neo-orthodox come from? Ain't none of that is this mindset. At least I didn't think so. I must not of understood a question or three to get those ratings! I am glad to see my fundamentalist mindset is decreasing. Now, if I could just decide between Calvin and Wesley.

 Interesting quizzes, but not sure how accurate they really are.

For much of my life I sought acceptance from people, especially from parents and church leaders, and since pretense often brought that acceptance, I learned to pretend. At the same time I learned to keep quiet about the stresses and pains of life. I learned early and clearly that there are some things one did not talk about as a Christian (eg: sex, drugs, politics, psychological disorders, family problems).  While it is a stretch to say I was crazy, regardless of your definition of that term, I did have serious emotional and spiritual dysfunctions. I still do and sometimes the best treatment, the best road to healing I have found is the freedom to be open about them and to discuss them within the "healing community" of the church. This freedom was and is missing in most of the churches with which I have been affiliated. Their concept of healing is getting one saved and then making sure I followed their pretensious rules.

Having lived among the pretenders, and being "a great pretender" myself, I find the cry for authenticity among the emerging church to be emotionally and spiritually refreshing. Frankly, there were times when the pretense was pretty easy, but most of the time it took a lot of energy to pretend to be someone I wasn't. At times, the stress associated with pretending to be who I wasn't led to physical illness. (I guess it never dawned on me that the energy I was expending in pretending to look, sound, and act like a Christian could have been channeled into a life of authenticity, a life that was truly reflective of Christ.)

My experience as a pretender is probably why one of the anti-emerging church posters mentioned in my previous post really pissed me off. The topic of this poster is authenticity and the caption reads, "I'm tired of having to pretend I'm not crazy." I find this critism of the emerging church offensive and belittling to me and all those who have suffered through the spiritual abuses of the pretending church. It is offensive and abusive to all those who are seeking a place where they can be open and honest with themselves and others. The church is not about just getting people saved and teaching them to act certain ways. The church is to be a place of caring and healing for all people regardless of their language, looks, or behavior.

I know the young women in this poster. Well, not her actually, but many like her. They shun the church and find it offensive because within all too many churches they cannot be themselves. Their dysfunctions and craziness are unwelcome. Their looks and their language are found to be "unacceptable for church." They are looked down on, belittled, and accused of being crazy by so called "followers of Christ." Yet they are the very people with whom Jesus often ate meals.

Thank God that the emerging church, and yes, some very traditional churches as well, are seeking to take the pretense out of the church. Thank God that the emerging church is welcoming into their communities those who for years have been driven away from churches. You know, maybe the poster isn't so offensive after all. It does say what I feel some Sunday mornings as I look around at my fellow pretenders. Maybe the poster isn't really belittling me and the emerging church. In fact, I think the poster just might encourage me to be more authentic. One thing I am sure of however, the poster does condemn the church for its past and present abusive practices of pretense. I'm not sure that is what the anti-emergents intended, but that is what I'm hearing.

 for thought: Pretense = Lies = Sin. Will the church confess its sin and repent?

Recently, I stumbled onto two sites with some excellent posters which claim to illustrate the emergent conversation. What is sadly clear from the fundamentalist's (anti-emerging church) posters is their failure to hear what the emerging conversation is really saying. They are either not listening clearly, unwilling to listen, or have intentially chosen to hear incorrectly the hermaneutics of their brothers and sisters in Christ. While I had a good laugh from some of the anti-emerging church  posters, I have to say that from an exegtical and hermaneutical study of Scripture I much prefer the emerging church posters. They challenge me to rethink and evaluate my faith in ways that 50 years of sound fundamental, evangelical teaching has not.  NO, they do NOT make me want to change my doctrinal statement. They DO however challenge me to write a praxis statement about how my faith needs to be lived out in the postmodern world of today. That is something the evangelical, fundamentalists have never challenged me to think about, let alone put into practice.

The emerging church folks do NOT have it all Scripturally correct. Neither do my friends in the conservative, fundamental camp. One group however seems much more willing to admit it. In doctrine, I remain a conservation, evangelical, fundamental Christian. The basic doctrinal truths of the Church, like our Triune God do not change. What changes is how we practice our faith. Frankly, I think the emerging church is on to something for today and the future. I for one, can do without the spiritually abusive praxis of the past that is being championed by my fundamental anti-emerging church brethern.

Helaas met zo'n gedrevenheid en rechtlijnigheid dat hij zijn rol van interviewer soms overboord gooit: in onderstaand fragment met TV-predikant Ted Haggard vliegen de verwijten van domheid en arrogantie over en weer. De Britse wetenschapper laat zich helemaal tergen en opjutten als zijn getrainde tegenstander glimlachend zijn Waarheid verkondigt en hem als een schooljongen de mantel uitveegt (zie minuut 3 en minuut 6):

Mijn idool Richard haalt nu waarschijnlijk méér dan voldoening uit het verhaal van ene Mike Jones, die vorige week aan de media vertelde dat hij drie jaar lang betaalde seks had met diezelfde Haggard (cfr. CNN en VRT):

Als predikant moeten toegeven dat je seks hebt met mannen... problematisch. Helemaal pijnlijk wordt het, als je een reputatie hebt opgebouwd als eersteklas homohater... en helemaal schizofreen als blijkt dat hij zijn eigen situatie als voorbeeld gebruikte in zijn donderpreken, zie dit grapje van hem uit de documentaire Jesus Camp (waarover ik ook eerder postte):

Zou Sasha Baron Cohen méér succes gehad dan zijn landgenoot Richard Dawkins als hij (of liever zijn alter ego Bruno) Ted Haggard op de sofa had gehad?

(ja, sorry voor nog maar eens een post over mijn stokpaardjes, maar als je met één bericht drie vroegere postings kunt oprakelen, dan laat je die kans toch niet liggen :-) ? )