Sermons on Worship

If you attended our worship service you would notice that we do things different from most contemporary evangelical churches. Our services are more liturgical with responses, confession of sin on our knees, singing of psalms, weekly communion, the Lord's prayer, and the Apostles' Creed. I am often asked why we do what we do. So this past Lord's Day I preached the first part of a two part series entitled Why We Worship the Way We Do. This past week I covered the basic structure of the Lord's Service. Next week I will dig into some of the details.

For those who have visited our church and would like to know, on a basic level, why our worship looks the way it does I encourage you to listen to these. You can download the sermon at the link above. If you have not visited with us and are unfamiliar with liturgical worship, I would recommend you look at our order of service before listening to the sermons.

Peter Leithart on Fasting

Here is a copy of Peter Leithart's blog post on fasting. He properly places the reason for fasting not on hating the body or material things, but rather on loving creation enough to fast so others can have more. It is a good and proper corrective to much of the gnostic philosophy pushed by Christians who promote fasting.

"For many throughout church history, fasting is bound up with hostility to matter and the body. We refrain from bodily pleasures of food and drink to train our souls in disembodied life.

That’s not biblical. The biblical fast, as Isaiah 58 puts it, is to share food with the hungry and clothing with the naked. The true fast gives good things away to those who don’t have them.

Biblical fasting, then, assumes the goodness of material things, and the propriety of pleasure. After all, if good and drink and clothing are evil, why would we want to share them? Isaiah’s fast assumes that creation is so good that we want everyone to have a piece of it."

God Loves Our Works

"Our doctrine, therefore, is that the good works of believers are always devoid of a spotless purity which can stand the inspection of God; nay that when they are tried by the strict rule of justice, they are, to certain extent impure. But, when once God has graciously adopted believers, he not only accepts and loves their persons, but their works also, and condescends to honor them with a reward." (John Calvin, The Necessity of Reforming the Church, p. 64)

Roman Catholicism: Scripture and Tradition

In Roman Catholicism there has been a development of the idea of tradition and what tradition means. The issue of tradition and what authority tradition has is the greatest issue in discussions with Roman Catholics. No RC argues that all they believe is found in the Bible. It doesn't have to be. Tradition is equal in authority with the Scriptures. This has not always been the case in RC thought, but it is certainly the case today. The argument is that the Divine Revelation was first given to the Apostles who then gave bishops "their own position of teaching authority. Indeed, "the apostolic preaching, which is expressed in a special way in the inspired books, was to be preserved in a continuous line of succession until the end of time." (RCC, p 25) Bishops are not apostles, but their authoritative teachings carry the same weight as the Apostles. Here are some quotes from the Roman Catholic Catechism that follow this discussion of apostolic succession:

"Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture then are bound closely together and communicate one with the other. For both of them, flowing out from the same divine well-spring, come together in some fashion to form one thing and move towards the same goal." (RCC, p. 26) Note that both of them have the same source.

"As a result the Church, to whom transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted [By the way I agree with this. PJ], does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence." (RCC, p. 26)

"It is clear therefore that, in the supreme wise arrangement of God, sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture, and the Magisterium of the Church are so connected and associated that one of them cannot stand without the others. Working together, each in its own way, under the action of the Holy Spirit, they all contribute effectively to the slavation of souls." (RCC, p. 29)

The problem, of course, is not tradition. We all have a tradition. To not listen to how the Holy Spirit has spoken to the Church through centuries is foolish. Most of American Protestant churches despise their rich heritage. Protestants should take their traditions more seriously. But all traditions, no matter whether ancient or new, must be held up to the light of Scripture. It is the only final, infallible authority.

A second problem with this perspective is that the RC's themselves do not have one great tradition passed down from the early days. Reading these quotes one would think that there is some clean line of teaching plainly visible from the early church. A quick study of church history shatters this image. The history of the Church is messy. At one time there were 23 popes in 60 years. At another point there were three popes at one time. Over the last two millenia there have been contradictions, lies, and deceit mixed with holiness, wisdom, and deep theological study. To argue for a tradition that does not exist is hard indeed.

Finally, the reformers argued that Rome had left the traditions of the Church. This was one of their chief arguments. The arguements of the reformers rested primarily on the Scriptures, but their knowledge of what the Church taught was extensive. All one has to do is look at Augustine in the index of Calvin's Institutes. They often declared that it was the RC's who had abandoned apostolic teaching and what the early church fathers taught.

Foundationally this is the issue with Roman Catholics. When we want to discuss a problem we start with the Bible. We may use other sources to strengthen our position, but in the end it must proven from the Scriptures or simply be accepted as man made. For RCs it does not begin and end with Scriptures. For further study of this issue I cannot recommend too highly Keith Mathison's book The Shape of Sola Scriptura. He does a great job of showing how this doctrine has grown since the days of the early church fathers.

Let All Mortal Flesh Keep Silence

Here is one of my favorite Christmas Songs. I heard for the first time two years ago. It is from the Liturgy of St. James. And of course its impact is much greater when sung, as opposed to read.

Let all mortal flesh keep silence
And with fear and trembling stand
Ponder nothing earthly minded
For with blessing in His hand
Christ our God to earth descendeth
Our full homage to demand.

King of Kings yet born of Mary
As of old on earth He stood
Lord of Lords in human vesture
In the body and the blood
He will give to all the faithful
His own self for heav'nly food

Rank on rank the host of heaven
Spreads its vanguard on the way
As the Light of light descendeth
From the realms of endless day
That the powers of hell may vanish
As the Darkness clears away

At His feet the six winged seraph
Cherubim with sleepless eye
Veil their faces to the presence
As with ceaseless voice they cry
Alleluia, Alleluia
Alleluia, Lord Most High.

Roman Catholicism: What They Get Right

I was tempted to save this until the end of the series, but I thought it best to be as gracious as possible at the beginning. There are several areas where the Roman Catholic Church is better or has at least thought about things on a deeper level than the Protestants. I thought I would briefly mention these things. Protestants need to do a better job of learning from other traditions while still rejecting their errors. This is not an easy thing to do, but wisdom requires sifting the wheat from the chaff. In some places this is easier than others, but with Roman Catholicism we are dealing with a group that once held the Gospel in all its purity. So here are some things they do well.

1. They have thought more in depth about various ethical issues on a corporate level. In the RCC (Roman Catholic Catechism), there is an extensive exposition of the last six commandments, which are commonly called the second table of the Law. In this section, the RCC deals with things like suicide, abortion, homosexuality, incest, sale of arms by countries, scientific research, divorce, use of common goods among people in a nation, social justice, and use of media for communication. The point is not that Protestants haven't thought about these things, though it must be confessed that much of it has not been well thought out by Protestansts, but rather that Protestant denominations rarely speak with a unified voice on these matters. At least the Catholics have attempted to address these things publicly and corporately.

2. Adding to the previous point, the Catholics have taken a very strong stand against abortion and divorce. Compare this to many Protestants churches where divorce is tolerated and rarely preached against and where abortion is silently opposed, which is to say not opposed at all. In fact, numerous Protestants voted for the most bloodthirsty president in history. Now, I think some Catholics did as well, but they would have been going against their leaders, whereas many Protestants would have been following their leaders.

3. They have thought more about beauty in the Christian life. Protestants of the last 200 years or so have been terrible in the area of aesthetics. We write bad books (Left Behind), we paint bad paintings (Kincade), we make semi-good movies, and build churches that look like basketball coliseums. This is a place where Protestants need to repent and learn from others. We shame the Gospel by leading ugly lives and worshipping in ugly buildings. We need to get back to a mindset that builds beautiful things to God's glory. The Catholics can help us here.

4. Finally, they undestand that liturgy matters. They make numerous mistakes here, but at least it matters to them how their worship services are constructed. For many Protestants the shape of worship does not matter. Content does, which is, of course, very important. But Protestants have freqently ignored the way Scripture commands us to come to God in worship. In some ways it is easier to debate a Catholic on liturgy than a Protestant. At least a Catholic believes there is a right way to structure the service. Most Protestants are perfectly post-modern on this point. There is no right way, what really matters is the heart.

So here are a few areas we can learn from the Catholics. There are more than these and I may mention some of them as we move through this series

Roman Catholicism: Initial Thoughts

For several years now I have been involved on a small level in the controversy known as the "Federal Vision." I agree with most Federal Vision men on their theology and understanding of what the reformers taught, as well as changes that need to take place in reformed theology. Because of my association with these men, my views have frequently been labeled Roman Catholic. This caricature has been thrown around often enough that I felt I needed to learn what the Roman Catholics really taught. So over the last three years I have read the Roman Catholic Catechism (hereafter RCC) twice. Lest you think this is a minor feat, since you are only acquainted with the Westminster Confession or the Three Forms of Unity, the RCC is 688 pages long. I read the English version from 1994 that was officially approved by Pope John Paul in 1992. As far as I know this is the official document containing Roman Catholic doctrine. There has been a 2nd edition published in 1997, but it is essentially the same. Thus I am not guessing at what they believe, I am quoting what they believe. I am going to write some posts on what I read commenting as I go on the problems with various doctrines.

Before beginning the posts it seemed wise to declare my perspective on the Roman Catholic Church.

1. From 1517-1845 or so the dominate position of the reformed world was that Roman Catholic baptism was valid. This means there was enough of the true Church within Rome for her baptisms to be accepted by Protestants. This changed as a baptistic worldview came to the forefront in the late 1800s and on into the 20th century. I still consider a RC baptism valid, that means I still consider the Roman Catholics a church.

2. However, there are many problems in the Roman Catholic Church and these problems are not minor side issues. Christ, the Gospel, and the Scriptures are obscured and marred by various traditions that are not in the Scriptures or worse contradict the Scriptures. I will be looking primarily at these errors in hopes of teaching those who read this and clarifying my own thoughts on some Roman Catholic doctrines. In my opinion several of the doctrines, in particular the doctrine of Mary, put the validity of Rome as a true communion on thin ice.

3. Finally, these posts are not meant to gloss over the heaps of errors currently buzzing around in Protestant Churches. We have so many planks in our eyes that it is hard for us to see clearly what is wrong with the Roman Catholic Church. I just finished reading John Calvin's The Necessity of Reforming the Church. What struck me about the book was how many of the problems in the Roman Catholic Church of the 1500s are now found in the Protestant churches in the 21st Century. They are dressed in different clothing, but take off the garb and underneath we look a lot like Rome prior to the Reformation. How different is the marketing of the Gospel in contemporary churches from what Rome was doing to fund St. Peter's Basilica? Rome obscured the true meaning of the Supper behind superstitions. We obscure it by infrequent celebration and often not even on Sunday morning. Rome had her priests and Pope. We have our celebrity pastors who sell millions of books and invite presidential candidates to debate at their churches. To quote Douglas Wilson, "Making all necessary adjustments for the changes in time and place, the modern evangelical Church, eyes fat as grease, bastion of born againism, is fully as corrupt as the Church prior to the Reformation." (A Primer on Worship and Reformation, p. 9)

Singing the Psalms

Douglas Wilson has written many books that I have gained wisdom from. Perhaps his best is this book on how to train our boys. I never read this to my boys. The oldest is nine and he will get into it soon. But I have read this book at least five times. It challenges me regularly on what it means to follow after Christ and exhibit masculine piety.

Here is one of my favorite quotes from the book:

"The fact that the church has largely abandoned the singing of psalms means that the church has abandoned a songbook that is thoroughly masculine in its lyrics. The writer of most of the psalms was a warrior, and he knew how to fight the Lord's enemies in song. With regard to the music of our psalms and hymns, we must return to a world of vigorous singing, vibrant anthems, more songs where the tenor carries the melody, open fifths, and glory. Our problem is not that such songs do not exist; our problem is that we have forgotten them. And in forgetting them, we are forgetting our boys. Men need to model such singing for their sons." (p. 100)

This past Sunday I attended a contemporary evangelical church. It had all the bells and whistles that people are supposed to want today. What was my reaction? Boredom. The music put me sleep. (One of my sons even said he had a hard time staying awake.) It all sounded the same. The words were trite and vacant, with little biblical content. There is no magic bullet for a church like this. But a good start would be to obey the Bible by singing the psalms. (Colossians 3:16)

I was not raised on the psalms. They are new to me, but nothing has increased my love for worship like learning to sing psalms that are played and sung with enthusiasm, joy, and vigor. In family worship, we regularly learn new psalms. We still sing hymns, but the psalms form the core of our praise. For too long this neglected weapon has sat on the shelf, like a relic of the past. It is time to dust off the psalms and once again sing the war songs of the Prince of Peace.

Is Christmas Pagan?

About this time of year numerous Christians become anxious about celebrating Christmas. Is Christmas Christian? Is Christmas Roman Catholic? Isn't Christmas a leftover from the pagan nature rituals of the ancient world? Jeff Meyers has done a lot of work on trying to sort out what is true and what is not about the Christmas season, as well as for the whole Church year. He recently posted several links to brief articles he has written answering some common objections to celebrating Christmas. Here are the articles. I encourage you to read the ones that interest you the most. One will not agree with everything that is said, but Meyers will get you thinking about things you haven't considered before.