In discussions of the Christian calendar’s benefits, the vivacity of its Jewish roots should not be missed.

Despite centuries of the celebration of the Lord’s Supper and Baptism in Christianity, the problem faced is that the origins of these rites are generally unknown, or at best, it is believed to be a new function in Christian worship that began with Jesus. For this reason, this study focuses on discovering the origins of the Lord’s Supper and Baptism in their original Jewish context as acts of worship.[1]

Sacramental theology assuredly includes a commitment to ancient practice and correct understanding. Nonetheless, the church calendar is but a tool, which allows God’s people to live in the realities set forth by the Lord himself.

Such experience subsists of the basis of union—both union with and in Christ and union between the people of God. The Lord’s Table is often referred to as Communion, but the sacrament is also union. Additionally, the sacraments display union perhaps more than any other aspect of Christian life, for more than a public display, the sacraments are an experience of eternal reality.

Union in and with the divine is a privilege and right that belong solely to the redeemed church of God.[1] Such benefit may not be experienced as reality if the sacraments’ mystical foundation is not understood. The sacraments, therefore, must be more than historic rituals but rather ever-present experiences among God’s people. Union in and with the divine is a mystical participation and an eternal reality.

Baptism’s Biblical and historical foundations are replete and necessary to understand a fitting employment of the sacrament. Similar to the Lord’s Table, Baptism should be employed publicly, as it represents to the people of God one’s election. Though performed as an individual, Baptism also indicates incorporation into a communal body—the church. Thus, the sacrament of Baptism should be executed before the entirety of the local church.

This chapter explores the Biblical, theological, and historical foundations of Baptism as well as presents implications of one who chooses to follow Christ in obedience through the sacrament. Moreover, an examination of the means and mode will be offered for clarification on what is Biblical and right. Although this book is presented from a (certainly) reformed viewpoint, one must be mindful of the grace that is necessary between believers of varying traditions. Therefore, the possibility of other interpretations surely subsists among the people of God, and charity should be shown between all people of the Christian faith.

As a mystical sacrament, the Lord’s Table holds unique and manifold implications for the people of God and perhaps more than the sacrament of Baptism. The church must undergo the Table with the realization of its subject—namely Christ. Moreover, the Son is not the only party at work during the Table, for as with the Gospel, the Table includes Trinitarian work and a triune experience. The Eucharist is, thus, not only remembrance and observation but experience and participation in the life of Christ. In such a manner, the church participates not only in a sacrament but in a reality that transcends the mere eating of bread and drinking of wine. The Table, therefore, is an inimitable and mystical act of worship for the people of God in which the Lord himself invites his people to commune with him and involves himself in the life of his bride.

587 BC was a disastrous time for the people of Jerusalem and Judah. More than a century earlier the northern tribes of Israel were conquered and carried away by the Assyrians. Now the Babylonians laid waste the southern territories and a seventy-year exile uprooted the nation. Shameful idolatry had caused the undoing of the people. Innumerable warnings incited only an unresponsive disdainfulness; the prophets were considered fools (Hos 9:7). God, who never threatens in vain, allowed the axe to fall (Isa 1:7).^[1]

Isaiah 1:10-18 begins the Prophet’s message, and while seemingly hopeless, a reminder of the Lord’s mercy is assuredly present, for in amazing love, God never abandons his people, though they falter.

The waning people of God hear the words of the Lord through the Prophet Isaiah who calls them to return—return to the Lord and return to worship. In a similar manner, the message subsists today and transcends generations, as the people of God are not called to mere sacrifices but to purity of heart, for without such a condition, God’s people may not rightfully worship and, therefore, may not worship in sincerity. There are three essentials which must be observed from the text.

Paul teaches that the gifts and callings of God are without repentance or irrevocable (Rom 11:29). Nonetheless, human nature holds a propensity to forget or even neglect such truth, especially when one’s call from the Lord goes unseen. Christians should take care in approaching tasks to which God has called them, for his plans are higher than the plans of humankind and his ways are unsearchable (Isa 55:8-9). The narrative in the final third of Genesis presents an often unseen and (assuredly) misunderstood focus, for the primary character, Joseph, does not hold the most important role. The aim here is for believers to perceive and understand their own task and calling as 1) for the glory of God alone rather than self and 2) meaningful despite the possibility of being unseen, rewarded, or praised.

To properly comprehend Genesis 45, background of the book to such a point must be conveyed. Mindful of the fact that Joseph seemingly satiates the final fourteen chapters of the book of Genesis (chapters 37-50), a reader could straightforwardly miss the point of the story, which is precisely what occurs when believers make feeble attempts to turn the Bible into compartmentalized individual stories with the aim of moralistic therapeutic deism. One, for example, might interpret the story of Daniel refusing to eat anything but fruits and vegetables as a comprehensive approach to diet rather than a purpose for a specific time and a specific people and then proceed to imitate Daniel’s diet with a belief that it is the only appropriate diet for the people of God when such a viewpoint would be a gross misinterpretation. In the book of Genesis, Joseph takes considerable space because he is a tool to preserve the chosen seed, which ultimately would be Jesus.

The Apostle Paul referred to Adam as a type of the one to come (Rom 5:14). The doctrine of original sin infers that through Adam, the human race has been infected with the disease of sin; we are, therefore, sinners by nature. Just as humankind is dead in sin through Adam, so also are we, the church, made alive through Jesus Christ. Adam then was a type of what was to come, but the abundantly apparent truth is that Jesus is better than original sin. The gospel centers around Christ and his fulfillment of the law and of the covenant God made with his people. From the beginning of the Bible, God told the serpent, “I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heal” (Gen 3:15). This tells of the miraculous virgin birth that was to come, for Jesus had to be born of the Holy Spirit so as not to be conceived in sin. From the beginning of time, a promised seed was established to save God’s people in the covenant, and while Satan continued to try to thwart the line of seed, God continued it. Cain killed Abel, but the covenant continued because then Seth was born. Then in Genesis 5, there is a genealogy of ten generations from Seth to Noah so that the promised seed is preserved. Seth and Noah are both promised seeds but not the ultimate promised seed; they would preserve the promised seed that is to come. Noah has three sons (Shem, Ham, and Japheth), and while the world is judged in a flood, they preserved the seed. Shem then preserves the seed later through Zerah who has a son named Abraham, the next link in the seed of promise. The problem, however, is that Abraham’s wife, Sarah, is beyond childbearing years so Abraham tries to manipulate the situation by having a child with his servant and Ishmael is born. However, Ishmael is not the promised seed and eventually Isaac is born and then Jacob and Esau. Esau, the older, would seem to be the promised seed, but it is, in fact, Jacob, the younger. Jacob then has twelve sons. We might think Jacob’s son, Joseph, is the promised seed, but the promised seed is Judah; Joseph merely preserves the seed. From Judah’s line eventually comes Jesse who bears a great son named David who is again a promised seed but not the ultimate promised seed. The covenant is then renewed with David in that his lineage will sit on the throne forever. Even David’s son, Solomon, is not the promised seed, but eventually through David’s line, the ultimate Savior of the world was born of a virgin to save his people in the covenant.[1]

Thus, Joseph is merely a tool for the Lord to use in preserving the life of Judah, for without Joseph’s high position in the land of Egypt, his brothers might have perished in famine. Christians should understand that God’s plans involve the entirety of his people and there is no job or calling too small or insignificant for him. The primary character of the story (at least in relation to the covenant of the Lord)—the protagonist if you will—then is Judah, for Judah preserves the promised seed in Jesus Christ. Therefore, after nine chapters of focusing on Joseph, the account is brought to chapter 45 of Genesis.

Lamentations 3:19-26 highlights the characteristics of a Godly form of lament so while complaining for the sake of complaining and with a focus on self is wrong, a lament rooted in a desire for justice and with a focus on the Lord’s goodness is not only allowed but right. Here, a model of prayer (and indeed Christian worship) is expended by a man on behalf of God’s people.

The Apostle Paul employs the term, slave, in several of his New Testament letters, and it is implicit that Christians should understand not only the cost of serving Christ but also the matchless benefit. The shift from non-believer to believer is a change in the form of slavery—from slavery under the law to slavery in Christ (i.e., there is not an option that does not include a type of slavery). Paul, in his letter to the churches of Galatia, details life in the natural state as sinners and the disparate newfound life in Christ, which, although slavery, is slavery with Christ as the new owner and with his people as children and heirs to the promises of God. In Galatians 3:23-4:7, Paul offers an argument for the type of slavery that is life-changing and life-giving, for while the law’s temporal nature contains no salvific ability, faith in Christ affords permanent salvation for the people of God that nothing in addition to or apart from Jesus Christ could give.

With the term dispensationalism coined by Phillip Mauro,[3] the construction of dispensationalism holds a variety of supports, not the least of which is its view on the literal interpretation of Scripture. Here I will provide an analysis of the overarching concepts within dispensationalism including interpretation of Scripture, the distinction between Israel and the church, and typical dispensational divisions. Moreover, this paper will offer a survey of notable dispensationalists in church history. Finally, this paper will give a theological critique of dispensationalism and dissent from the perspective of a covenant theology. Although dispensationalism has seemingly diminished in recent decades,[4] it is still a prominent part of eschatological theology among Western (and primarily American) evangelicals. Thus, the theological arguments offered by dispensationalists must be considered by all (American) Christians, for surely such arguments will be encountered.

The biblical qualifications of a pastor are primarily found in Paul’s letters to both Timothy and Titus. Moreover, the specific responsibilities of a pastor are found and modeled throughout the scriptures with Jesus being the ultimate example of a good leader, as a pastor should strive to be. With special attention given to the ministry of the word and counseling, the pastor holds a myriad of obligations as a part of his calling that should not be taken for granted. By examining first the qualifications and second the responsibilities (with exceptional consideration given to expository preaching and counseling) of a pastor, one’s understanding of the immense position a pastor holds should be enhanced.

As it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.” What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God's part? By no means! For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills. You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory—even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles (Rom 9:13-24)?

Worship is a right but only in Christ. In other words, God’s people, by nature, do not deserve the opportunity to approach the Lord in worship, but in Christ, the church may do so.

As worship is a dialogue, the church must take great care in ensuring active and right participation in the conversation that occurs between God and the church.  The dialogue persists in a communal and personal manner, through which the dialogue is also realized by God’s people. The sacred dialogue that is worship should be prioritized and ameliorated by the church as God’s people seek to attain right doxology.

Christ mediates the practice of worship in his ever-present work. Jesus mediates before the Father in that he exists as the arbitrator between his people and the Father so that what the Father receives is transformed through Jesus as a pleasing offering. Without such transformation, God’s people could only offer filthy rags to God. In Christ, however, what is offered to triune God is good and right.

Additionally, Jesus works with the Holy Spirit to radically transform the lives of his people. Jesus’ sending of the Holy Spirit is meant to testify to his own works and glory as God. Further, Jesus’ work testifies to the glory of the Father so that God’s work in the lives of his people is trinitarian in nature. Through the Holy Spirit, God’s people rightly worship God as what they offer to him is transfigured into the righteousness of Christ and the Father receives it as a blessing to him.

Believers should realize the great need all people have for the mercy of God, which is abundant in Jesus Christ. Mercy is the greatest need any person has. In worship, God’s people exercise the copious grace given by God through Jesus and return a pleasing offering to him. Christ, therefore, mediates not only a new a better covenant but pleasing worship as the body of Christ exhibits God’s glory.

Content includes the material of the Christian worship gathering and the mode in which it is exercised. At a fundamental level, the content of worship is the story of God. The gospel must be proclaimed in Christian worship and not only echoed back to God but told between believers so as not to neglect the horizontal aspect of worship (not only vertical).

Moreover, the purpose of worship (broadly speaking) is the glory of God so all occurrences within the worship gathering should serve such a purpose. Filler material, often disguised as spiritual activities (e.g. prayer, speaking and teaching theological truths about congregational songs, etc.), should be erased from worship gatherings as they do not serve an intentional purpose.[2]

Content and purpose are nonnegotiable. Style is the only negotiable element of the three discussed here but only to an extent. Style is negotiable insofar as context and culture allows it to be. Leaders of worship should make every effort to ensure the enhancement and conductivity of God’s people to worship. If style impacts the ability of the local church to worship, stylistic elements should be reconsidered. Style is not about leaders’ (or congregants’) preferences. Style is merely a tool to worship God.

When content, purpose, and style are intentionally contemplated, the church’s worship is built upon a stable foundation. This chapter will examine all three elements with the aim of deliberate planning for leaders of worship.

The sacraments of Baptism and the Eucharist shall be examined here with special attention given to their theological implications. The meaning of Baptism’s application will be considered, and a theological trajectory through three Puritans who offer succinct and precise theologies of the Lord’s Supper will be surveyed—namely Thomas Watson (c. 1620-1686 AD), John Owen 1616-1683 AD), and Edward Reynolds (1599-1676 AD).

Authentic worship is a continuous outpouring of all that we are and can ever hope to become in light of the saving work of Christ. It reaches into every quarter of our living, informing all of our actions and safeguarding them within the arena of Spirit, truth and sacrificial living. Without this understanding, all of our work, however magnificent it might be in its own right, is misdirected.[1]

Therefore, the arts in worship include a critical piece that is seemingly absent from other art created in the world—faith. Without faith, art created for the purpose of worship does not hold a foundation and, further, misses the point for which God created art.

This chapter will define art as it relates to Christian worship, answer the question of skill and its necessity, and respond to a broad question about art in worship and its theological foundations.

Since God is not bound by time and space, he is infinitely worthy. For him to be bound by anyone or anything would be for him to not be God. God, however, transcends time and space. In fact, he governs the two. Moreover, God has created time and space and uses it as a part of his story. Thus, time and space are crucial elements to Christian worship. While human understanding of anything is finite, believers should trust God no matter their circumstances because he not only knows and understands everything, he also presides over all situations and all outcomes. Christians should take comfort in this truth and give God glory within the time and space that he has created.

Baptism is a call to die, for in God’s Kingdom, the one that loses his life finds it (Matt 16:25) (i.e. God’s economy is inverted from the world’s and, in fact, does not make sense to the world—it is foolishness) (1 Cor 1:18). A proper survey of the Old Testament roots of Baptism should grant a better understanding of its meaning, significance, and why it is so crucial to living in obedience in the Christian life.

1)      The historic creeds, derived from Scripture, present a survey of the gospel,

2)      creeds point to a deeper biblical reality and serve as springboards into the mysteries of the faith, and

3)      creeds are historically tested and tried, leaving little room for error.

Since the early church, believers have met weekly on Sunday largely due to the Resurrection occurring on the first day of the week. Moreover, the canon of Scripture has been completed and has been held as authoritative throughout church history. The worship gathering now centers around the word of God, for the biblical text is not only as if God said it but rather because he said it. Modern worship can and should take its example from the early church, as the Apostles set the example for believers in the centuries that would follow. One of the greatest differences between Old Testament worship and New Testament worship, however, is that the church is called to be the church rather than merely attend church. Jesus fulfilled the law, which allows God’s people to boldly approach him in worship.

Worship in the New Testament creates an improved situation for the people of God in both practice and spiritual reality. Worship is a reflection of what occurs in the hearts of God’s people and an overflow of that spiritual reality. These elements will be examined in considering worship of the New Testament.

The New Testament does not disclose a single correct polity but, without being explicit, paints with a broad stroke in its support for elder-led leadership. For manifold reasons, direction by a body of elders affords multiple benefits for the local church. First, elder-led polity is a joint responsibility, which naturally yields greater accountability among leaders. Second, as an extension of the local church body, an elder-led model most accurately portrays the body of Christ. Third, the elder-led model is a tried-and-true method for local church leadership and has been employed since the early church. If God’s people desire to conform to the New Testament model, the elder-led model works best.

This paper will also oppose the most commonly employed model in Western culture: the congregationalist model by presenting two common issues that arise in congregationalism:

1) little accountability and

2) too much responsibility placed upon one person.

In the interaction between both models, the elder-led model will be met with staunch biblical and practical support.

In the Bible there is no more serious charge than that of idolatry. Idolatry called for the strictest punishment, elicited the most disdainful polemic, prompted the most extreme measures of avoidance and was regarded as the chief identifying characteristic of those who were the very antithesis of the people of God, namely the gentiles.[1]

In Scripture, idolators were commanded to be executed (Exod 32:25-29). The apparent conclusion then is that God takes idolatry seriously, for he is jealous of the worship of his people (Exod 34:14). Where anything or anyone else takes s greater level of attention than that of the triune God, he rightly demands that such a focus be severed.

For Christians to severe the root of idolatry in their lives, however, it should be understood what is meant by idolatry. This chapter, thus, is meant to define idolatry and includes a call to action. There subsist manifold definitions of idolatry. Suffice it to say that an idol is love of the world.[2] Therefore, severing the root of idolatry requires the believer to live within the new nature found in Christ in such a manner that love of the world is virtually nonexistent. To improve individual worship, a daily process of dying to self and living to new life in Christ must permeate Christian lives. It is a war and indeed a war against the flesh.

There are three aspects to understanding idolatry I would like to cover, which land close to the home of the human heart. Comprehending these truths of idolatry should aid in fighting it and severing its insidious root.

Paul’s words in Ephesians 6:1-4 are positioned around obedience and honor with an overarching theme of doing what is right. The rightness of such attitudes is what constitutes behavior (i.e. Christians obey and honor God because it is right irrespective of personal feelings or sentiments). Furthermore, the God-ordained family structure is dependent on parents and children doing what is right in a broad sense: namely submitting to God by submitting to one another. A key difference in parental submission and the submission of children, however, is that the role of a child includes obedience to his or her parents. Adults do not necessarily have such a charge in every context.[1] From the text, three truths may be gleaned concerning children.

1.      The motivation for obedience is the fact that it is right;

2.      honor is a primary commandment concerning children toward their parents; and

3.      authority brings up, not down.

Paul’s instructions are explicit: the husband is to love his wife as Christ loves the church. The implicit idea is that Christ gave all for his bride and left nothing in doing so: he gave his life. The husband’s leadership is imperative to any successful marriage. As such, the husband should carefully consider what it means to 1) submit to God and 2) lead his family through serving as Christ has modeled. Paul submits that marriage is a mystery, for the union portrays Christ and the church. The husband then should seek to imitate Christ in how he handles his marriage. In Ephesians 5:25-33, three conclusions may be drawn from the text that revolve around the husband’s role as a servant leader.

1.      Christ is the ultimate model for husbands;

2.      as the church is one with Christ, the wife is one with her husband; and

3.      the mystery of marriage is led by the husband.

These truths resonate in a godly marriage, which is precisely that for which husbands should strive.

This series will be divided into three parts: 1) focusing on wives, 2) focusing on husbands, and 3) focusing on children and families and centering around the text in Ephesians 5:21-6:4. The common thread through the entire text is submission (first to God and then to each other). God has initiated a design for marriage that reflects his character, and it is not to be ignored, for doing so begs for failure. God-honoring marriages and families should conform to the instructions presented in Scripture.

This portion of the series deals with wives. Although wives are addressed first in the text, most of Paul’s instructions are delivered to husbands. Any wives prone to offense by Paul’s address, therefore, should take comfort in the fact that his address to husbands soon follows. The charge to wives centers around submission. Submission, however, is not to be considered a negative term or inferior action, for it is necessary among all believers. For the wife, the responsibility in a marriage is to, yes, submit to the husband but first to God. Likewise, the wife’s submission to her husband presupposes the husband’s submission to God so that her best interest is considered. In the text considered today (Ephesians 5:21-24), three key essentials may be pulled from Paul’s words.

1.      Gospel-family dynamics are founded upon submission to Christ;

2.      the wife’s submission is subsequent to submission to Christ; and

3.      the wife is a representation of the church.

These three elements are crucial to understanding various roles in marriage and especially the role of the wife.

In this paper, I will argue for two legitimate reasons for divorce: 1) adultery and 2) abandonment. Additionally, both cases should not be considered mandates or excuses to get out of a marriage but should be approached carefully and through the lens of the gospel. A summary of the five primary views on divorce and remarriage will be presented, ensuing an analysis of the Bible’s teaching on marriage, divorce, and remarriage, which stems from the nature and essence of marriage itself: an earthly display of Christ and his bride, the church. The conclusion will then be supported that divorce is only allowed for two reasons and should not be sought with ease. Marriage is a picture of Christ and the church and should be held with such determination. Jesus offers his bride great mercy and grace. So also should spouses with each other.

Baptist teaching and worship practice often prides itself on the doctrine of grace alone. Often unrealized in Baptist teaching, however, is the fact that sacrament is also built upon grace alone. In fact, sacramental theology is founded upon the work of God rather than the work of humankind. The word, “sacrament,” is derived from the church’s union and participation with Christ. The church’s present union and participation with Christ necessitates a recovery of sacramental theology in Baptist worship practice. This paper defends the need for the recovery of sacramental theology in Baptist worship practice on a fourfold basis:

1)      an explanation of sacrament’s essence,

2)      the foundation of sacramental theology in church history,

3)      the awareness of God’s place as subject over object in worship, and

4)      the groundwork of grace alone upon which sacramental theology subsists.

            Several questions arise in the discussion of emotions in worship. Therefore, to facilitate the discussion of this topic, my aim is to answer four crucial questions.

1.      Should emotions play a role in Christian worship?

2.      What (or who) should be the source of emotions in worship?

3.      What other human elements should be present in Christian worship?

4.      How should churches balance emotions and other necessary elements in worship?

Answering such questions will offer guidance and balance in approaching the appropriate use of human emotion in Christian worship.

He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent. For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross (Col 1:15-20).

The preeminence of the Son here is clear and should be considered in such a manner that Christian worship teaches and reveals the preeminence of Christ. With that mentioned, there are four constraints that must guide how Christian worship is employed.

1.      The Ascension is important because it is biblical.

2.      The Ascension means that Jesus presently understands his people.

3.      The Ascension means that Jesus’ resurrection is absolute and inarguable.

4.      The Ascension means that God is now human.

Moreover, the key to Paul’s instructions is to take every thought captive to obey Christ. In other words, such an action is foundational to the battle waged against lofty (worldly) opinions. Without taking thoughts captive, it is impossible to defeat the enemy. The mind is a powerful tool and may either be utilized for good or for evil, which is why Paul says, in his letter to the Romans, that God’s people are transformed by the renewing of the mind (Rom 12:2). While the Bible teaches that the greatest commandment is to love God with the heart, soul, mind, and strength (Mark 12:30), the mind is crucial to obedience. If the heart is the seed or core of a person, the mind is the root; thus, how one cares for the mind impacts all other areas of life. What then does it mean to take one’s thoughts captive? I suggest three imperative:

1) fight for rule of the mind,

2) destroy the enemy’s attacks on the mind,

3) obey Christ.

All aspects then are rooted in the realization that worship is war; war is waged against the enemy when God’s people worship.

John’s Gospel includes a farewell discourse by Jesus. John 14:15-31 is Jesus’ promise of the Holy Spirit who would serve as his ambassador. The Gospel of John already includes more explicit references about the deity of Jesus than the other Gospels; yet, Jesus’ discourse in these verses focuses significantly on the promised Holy Spirit. This post will offer an analysis of three overarching aspects found within Jesus’ discourse:

1)      trinitarian work in the love among the three members of the Godhead,

2)      the sealing work of the Holy Spirit, and

3)      the ambassadorial role of the Holy Spirit.

These three aspects protrude from the text in a profound manner to support the concept of the Holy Spirit which proceeds from both the Father and the Son.

John’s Gospel includes a farewell discourse by Jesus. John 14:15-31 is Jesus’ promise of the Holy Spirit who would serve as his ambassador. The Gospel of John already includes more explicit references about the deity of Jesus than the other Gospels; yet, Jesus’ discourse in these verses focuses significantly on the promised Holy Spirit. This post will offer an analysis of three overarching aspects found within Jesus’ discourse:

1)      trinitarian work in the love among the three members of the Godhead,

2)      the sealing work of the Holy Spirit, and

3)      the ambassadorial role of the Holy Spirit.

These three aspects protrude from the text in a profound manner to support the concept of the Holy Spirit which proceeds from both the Father and the Son.

The book of Lamentations is made up of five poems, each an expression of grief over the fall of Jerusalem. Like a eulogy at a funeral, these laments are intended to mourn a loss—in this case, the loss of a nation. The latter half of chapter 3 implies that the purpose behind the book’s graphic depictions of sorrow and suffering was to produce hope in the God whose compassion is “new every morning” (v. 23) and whose faithfulness is great even to a people who have been condemned for their own unfaithfulness. The author, while not identified in the book itself, may have been the prophet Jeremiah, who was said to have “uttered a lament for Josiah.” (2 Chron 35:25) Lamentations was probably written shortly after Jerusalem’s fall in 586 b.c. (ESV, 2016)

            Christians should understand the Islamic worldview through a threefold lens: 1) the Islamic doctrine of tawhid, 2) the Islamic view of sin and its remedy, and 3) the Islamic perspective on the person and nature of Jesus Christ. These three fundamental differences create an irreconcilable contrast between the two faiths. Nevertheless, with such an understanding, Christians may replace false assumptions about Islam with enlightenment and greater love for image-bearers in the Muslim faith.

            Culturally, the New Testament was written in a vastly different era and from an exceedingly different perspective than modern Western civilization. Often, Bible students are guilty of studying the New Testament in “much the same way as it would operate in our own society” (Malina, 2001, xi). Cultural perspectives are inevitable and, therefore, give every reader of the New Testament a hermeneutic, i.e. no uninterpreted extrabiblical text or commentary is possible to exist. The danger is that such interpretations are often the bedrock of shaping an entire people. Interpretation then should be as accurate and informed as possible.

            Discrepancies found in the New Testament are often boldly noted by critics; contrarily, those who only understand New Testament writings based on singular passages or verses run the risk of perpetuating and perhaps enhancing the arguments of those critics. The paradoxical issues of the New Testament may be reconciled, however, on the basis of its overarching thematic content and its continuity of such thematic material in content. In this essay, I will submit the basis for both the New Testament’s continuity and integration to conclude its persuasion by the resilience of the text.

            In the time Paul wrote his letter to the Romans, government was corrupt and even persecuted Christians. Paul, however, instructs believers to submit or be subject to the governing authorities. The Greek word for “be subject” is hupotasso, which literally means to place or rank under. The term implies an intentional effort. It is similar to what Paul commands believers in Philippians 2: to have the same mind as Christ Jesus, namely a mind of humility considering others better (Phil 2:5). These instructions do not mean that one certainly is less than another person but that Christians are to act as if that is the case, as Jesus did in his earthly ministry; no greater example of humility may be found except that of Christ Jesus. To be subject to the authorities then is to consider the governing bodies God ordained to be higher in rank.

            Understanding that being subject to the authorities is an explicit instruction given to God’s people, Romans 13 must be interpreted. Are Paul’s instructions part of a blanket command to blindly obey the governing authorities, or is the scope narrower? To answer this question, there are four primary elements to consider. I will examine these elements here and then determine the scope of Romans 13.

            The content of the church’s prayers is a crucial issue in worship. As worship not only tells the story of a covenant God but also participates in and does that story^[1] (which is vast and diverse in the church), so corporate prayer ought to reflect the diverse narrative that exists between God and his people. The Apostle Paul, writing as a mentor to young Timothy, spent time teaching how the church is to pray (1 Tim 2). Paul’s instructions to Timothy here center around the church’s prayers in unity. Paul often makes clear his concerns for unity in the church. In his letter to the Galatians, the Apostle suggests that all in the body of Christ are equal when he says, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Gal 3:28). Unity among God’s people plays a significant role in Paul’s instructions to Timothy here regarding prayer. External factors are of no concern in the body of Christ, for all are equal. Paul makes clear that God “desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of truth. For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men” (1 Tim 2:4-5). No one is excluded here. While the church is diverse, she is, nevertheless, a unified people through the mediator, Jesus Christ.

            Upon Jesus’ ascension, a task was given to the church: to go and teach all nations, baptizing them. To accomplish such a task, Christ gave the church five distinct types of ministers: apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers (Eph 4:11). Such offices should not be confused with spiritual gifts, as listed in 1 Corinthians 12 or Romans 12. All believers possess spiritual gifts; yet, only a few hold an office of the church. Holding an office is a privilege, not a right, and one which requires exceeding accountability and seriousness.

Of the five offices of the church, there subsist a variety of opinions and interpretations. For example, are these offices reserved only for men? The answer to that question will vary greatly depending on the hermeneutic of the one answering (and some more informed perhaps than others). Rather than outlining my own reasons for holding my view, suffice it to say that I believe these offices are not reserved only for men; yet, I am certainly able to see the perspective of one who believes so.

Another question asked by many believers is whether all five churches offices Paul lists continue to exist today, primarily the role of apostle and prophet. Some reference Paul’s letter to the Church at Corinth to argue that tongues and prophecy (often including apostleship) do not exist. “…but when the perfect comes, the partial will pass away” (1 Cor 13:10). Since Paul speaks of prophecy and tongues in this context, the assumption could be that such abilities existed only for an ordained interval of time and not any further. I believe that such a claim is a stretch and, yet, do not discount its credibility.

While different in function, the goal of all five offices of the church is the same: namely the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry and building the body of Christ (Eph 4:12). For the following, I will operate under the view that all five offices subsist today. How then should Christians understand the roles of apostle, prophet, evangelist, pastor, and teacher? My aim is to examine each office and how it should appear in current contexts.

            Christian worship has changed significantly over the years. Nevertheless, its vitality to Christian life has remained. In recent years (and decades), I contend that reverence in Christian worship has been lost. There are likely a number of contributing factors for this loss of reverence, which I believe stem from an overemphasis on consumerism, i.e. the church, to appeal to unbelievers, has created an atmosphere of worship, which takes a casual approach. I do not argue for legalism or for an impersonal relationship with God but rather for a realization of who God is and subsequently an appropriate response to him in worship. I intend here to discuss the dangers of Christian worship’s loss of reverence. In my observations, three primary results have occurred, which I will discuss not only as reality but also as a warning to the church so that the trend may be reversed.

I have heard it said that the church is the worst about shooting their own wounded while they are down. Perhaps, many believers have experienced this firsthand. In such cases, which are likely more common than people care to admit, the church reveals her flaws where a message of mercy is preached and yet its application ends there, i.e. the mercy of God is not exuded through the people of God but rather proclaimed as a mere verbal message. To be imitators of Jesus, however, believers should realize that Christ does not stop with mercy, for he also restores. Scripture is replete with the message of not only God’s mercy but also his restoration.

At the heart of God’s mercy is his restoration and conformity to the image of Christ. To model the love of Jesus then is to not stop with a mere message of mercy but continually offer mercy even when it is not deserved and we do not want to give it, for the purpose of one’s restoration. With Christ as our model, there are three imperatives to a continuation of mercy through restoration.

            I have been in vocational ministry in various capacities for nineteen years and have seen ups and downs, good and bad, benefits, and struggles, and a variety of types of ministries and ministers. A common discussion that has arisen over the years is whether ministers should be paid full-time or part-time or even be paid at all. I have seen opinions from across the spectrum as well including those who believe that paying ministers is not biblical. While I disagree with such an assertion (1 Tim 5:17-18), I fully admit that each minister’s calling is unique. Context determines a great deal regarding wages; yet, there are benefits and consequences to both full-time vocational ministry and bi-vocational ministry.

I am less dogmatic about my Calvinistic beliefs than I used to be. Nonetheless, I am as devoted to the doctrines of grace as ever. Perhaps, the reason so many new Calvinists are annoyingly devout to such a doctrine is because it is wonderful news, not bad news. I used to be someone who saw Calvinism as bad news until I understood it. Certainly, it is a secondary issue, i.e. not necessary for salvation; yet, it is a crucial one for people to understand no matter on which side of the doctrine they stand. My purpose here is to walk through the five points of Calvinism[1] and discuss each one regarding what it is and what it is not.

            There seems to be an avoidance of any biblical topic which might be considered negative even when Scripture plainly discusses such a matter. One such topic I will discuss is the toiling aspect of the Christian faith, for indeed, Christianity is a faith with which to toil and one worthy of toiling. I think that our subconscious minds and even our hearts deceive us into thinking that Christianity is full of happiness and little toiling. As glamorous as it may seem, that is not biblical Christianity. Even spiritual giants such as Paul, Peter, and truly all the Apostles struggled in their faith at times. Paul speaks of toiling with the Christian faith in multiple letters. He writes, “For this I toil, struggling with all his energy that he powerfully works within me” (Col 1:29 ESV). Additionally, he says, “For to this end we toil and strive, because we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Savior of all people, especially of those who believe” (1 Tim 4:10 ESV). These two scriptures, in particular, speak to the truth and necessity of toiling in the Christian faith. I dare suggest that if one claims to be a follower of Christ but does not toil, struggle, or suffer, he or she should carefully examine their faith. Scripture essentially guarantees these for God’s people. How then should we toil with our faith? I will discuss three principles which I believe to be fundamental to one who toils well in the Christian faith.

            I considered presenting the following material around Martin Luther King (MLK) Day in January but chose instead to wait because I did not want to overshadow, to my listeners, the great social-justice work Dr. King accomplished. Today, however, I will discuss the false gospel which MLK preached citing specific examples and even questioning his personal salvation.[1] My issues with MLK surround his opposition to central tenets of the Christian faith, as is the case with many other solid Christian theologians and pastors who are familiar with his work. I openly admit that I am no scholar on the work of Dr. King; nor, have I exhaustively examined his work. I have, however, read and heard enough of his work and teachings to understand that he taught a false gospel, which is, in fact, the antithesis of the gospel of Jesus Christ aside from his stances on social-justice issues, particularly the wrongness of racism.

I suggest that MLK was wrong on the gospel in four chief areas: the authority of Scripture, the deity of Jesus Christ as the Son of God, the virgin birth, and the resurrection of Jesus. Given that these areas are indispensable to the Christian faith, I dare suggest that it is impossible to be a Christian without a fervent belief in these key orthodox doctrines. My intention here is not to defame Dr. King but surely to criticize the false gospel he preached[2] with the hope that Christians will know and understand his message compared to the message of Jesus Christ. As people discover the false gospel MLK preached examined next to what Jesus Christ preached, an abundantly apparent contrast becomes clear.

            Rachel Hollis has seemingly taken the Christian book world by storm and (somewhat) rightfully so. I recently read both of her books. Her talent, confidence, and intelligence are undeniable. Pastors who have not heard of Hollis or who do not think that she has made her way into their churches are sadly oblivious. Hollis certainly presents a strong message to readers. Her two books, Girl, Stop Apologizing and Girl, Wash Your Face have sold many copies and made millions of dollars. Any time someone has as much influence as Rachel Hollis on any Christian group (most commonly women in this case), pastors should, at the least, understand the message being submitted. I will make a bold statement in that Rachel Hollis’ message is not the gospel and is, in fact, antithetical to the gospel. While I do not know Hollis’ personal motivations or even consider her work to be evil in itself, a few items surrounding her work concern me. Thankfully, my thoughts parallel those of many other Christians who think about these issues so I am not the first to review her work in this way. For the remainder here, I will examine these items through the lens of the gospel and discuss how Rachel Hollis’ message contradicts the gospel message of Jesus Christ.

            Covenant theology is a common part of reformed thinking. The topic, however, can be convoluted and far-reaching. At the foundation, many might simply assume covenant theology to center around the various covenants of the Bible, e.g. the Abrahamic covenant, the Mosaic covenant, the Davidic covenant, or even the new covenant. Covenant theology, nonetheless, encompasses vastly more than the individual covenants manifested throughout history. In fact, reformed thought, as expressed by John Calvin, suggests that there are not multiple covenants but only one covenant of grace between God and his people, which is manifested through various instances in history and finalized and made permanent in the new covenant. This line of thought is clear when the Bible is viewed as a meta-narrative rather than individual stories useful for moral inspiration. The text of Scripture, rather, is the story of God and his people centered around Jesus Christ and a story into which we fit today, i.e. we, the church, have been grafted into Abraham’s blessing as God’s people; we are adopted children of God.

            A unique aspect to covenant theology is the distinction between the covenant of grace and the covenant of redemption. Many often do not think about or realize two distinct covenants; yet, there is evidence for both and distinctions between both. Lest there be confusion or false understanding, I will examine both the covenant of redemption and the covenant of grace regarding their similarities and distinctions.

            As a Christian and as a minister, I have found a common struggle with the functionality of the church regarding how to handle biblical truth, i.e. should the church handle God and his work as obligatory truth irrespective of how it makes us look to an onlooking world or merely as practical motivation for moral living? Questions like this arise, in my mind, from the disparate approaches we see in local churches. Where some churches seemingly treat God’s work and his word as merely motivational, others take his word quite literally and approach his work as active and effective. The most common way this plays out in local churches is by writing off those who have perhaps committed seemingly atrocious acts at some point in their life no matter how far in the past they may be. As unbiblical as it is, we tend to make excuses in feeble attempts to find their unworthiness or disqualification from service in any way. Surely, there are legitimate reasons for concern in some cases; yet, the church leans toward not allowing people to serve rather than grace. If we teach that service is one of the primary marks of a believer, how can we justify such a stance? There are also those who fall in the middle. Many of any of these approaches, however, seem to be unintentional.

Upon years of observation, personal experience, and pontificating, I submit that, if we are to be a people of genuine faith, God’s and his work should doubtlessly be obligatory truth rather than mere practical motivation. Said another way, the church must cease viewing grace and faith through the same grid as the world but rather should function in a vastly disparate manner. Our faith in God should cause us to live completely contrary lives to the world. Often, however, the opposite is true: the church seemingly takes a faithless approach and views God’s word and work merely as practical motivation rather than obligatory truth. While this approach is likely subconscious, I suggest four primary ways the church presently takes such an approach.

As we approach Ash Wednesday, my aim today is to discuss what the church might gain from observing the season of lent. Lent is not solely Catholic as many would assume, for there are many Protestant traditions who observe the season. It is also not insincere simply because it is tradition as others might assume. I have spoken often of the fact that sincerity has little to do with ritual or spontaneity. Sincerity, rather, is connected to the heart. Perhaps, this is to what Jesus refers when he says, “This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.” (Matt 15:8 ESV) This should surely highlight the corporate nature of spirituality; yet, it also points to a deeper matter than what is on the surface. Lent could certainly be surface-level for some people; for others, however, Lent could (and should for everyone in reality) be a sincere observance.

            Lent is the 40-day season leading to Easter. The season is considered 40 days if Sundays are not included. Lent then begins Ash Wednesday and ends the Saturday of the Paschal Triduum just before Easter Sunday. Shrove Tuesday (Fat Tuesday in Western culture) is often lumped in with Lent but is actually just before Lent begins.[1] Its beginnings are born of a 2^nd-century reflection during a 2-day fast leading to Easter; by the 3^rd-century, fasting was expanded through Holy Week; and by the 4^th-century, Rome developed a practice of a 3-week fast, which expanded throughout the empire and eventually became an observance of an entire season beginning the sixth Sunday before Easter.

            The biblical background is diverse including the 40-day flood, Moses on Mt. Sinai, the spies in Cana, the Israelites in the desert for 40 years, most apparently Jesus in the desert for 40 days, and even his walking the earth for 40 days after his resurrection. There exists a variety of themes during Lent which are vital to the Christian life, e.g. reflection, a refocusing of one’s relationship with God, dependence on God, a reminder of humanity’s mortality, and selflessness.

Knowing this information, I suggest that Lent is, in no way, a meaningless ritual, especially if one’s observances are sincere. If the observance of Lent is meaningless ritual, why then is the observance of Christmas or Easter not the same? Derived from this knowledge then, I have four predominant imperatives which we gain from observing Lent.

As we approach Ash Wednesday, my aim today is to discuss what the church might gain from observing the season of lent. Lent is not solely Catholic as many would assume, for there are many Protestant traditions who observe the season. It is also not insincere simply because it is tradition as others might assume. I have spoken often of the fact that sincerity has little to do with ritual or spontaneity. Sincerity, rather, is connected to the heart. Perhaps, this is to what Jesus refers when he says, “This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.” (Matt 15:8 ESV) This should surely highlight the corporate nature of spirituality; yet, it also points to a deeper matter than what is on the surface. Lent could certainly be surface-level for some people; for others, however, Lent could (and should for everyone in reality) be a sincere observance.

            Lent is the 40-day season leading to Easter. The season is considered 40 days if Sundays are not included. Lent then begins Ash Wednesday and ends the Saturday of the Paschal Triduum just before Easter Sunday. Shrove Tuesday (Fat Tuesday in Western culture) is often lumped in with Lent but is actually just before Lent begins.[1] Its beginnings are born of a 2^nd-century reflection during a 2-day fast leading to Easter; by the 3^rd-century, fasting was expanded through Holy Week; and by the 4^th-century, Rome developed a practice of a 3-week fast, which expanded throughout the empire and eventually became an observance of an entire season beginning the sixth Sunday before Easter.

            The biblical background is diverse including the 40-day flood, Moses on Mt. Sinai, the spies in Cana, the Israelites in the desert for 40 years, most apparently Jesus in the desert for 40 days, and even his walking the earth for 40 days after his resurrection. There exists a variety of themes during Lent which are vital to the Christian life, e.g. reflection, a refocusing of one’s relationship with God, dependence on God, a reminder of humanity’s mortality, and selflessness.

Knowing this information, I suggest that Lent is, in no way, a meaningless ritual, especially if one’s observances are sincere. If the observance of Lent is meaningless ritual, why then is the observance of Christmas or Easter not the same? Derived from this knowledge then, I have four predominant imperatives which we gain from observing Lent.

            In our current societal discourse in many facets, e.g. political, theological, cultural, etc., the church should be an agent of unity rather than disunity. Often, the opposite is true; yet, God calls us to primarily exemplify the unity of Christ among each other but also to love our neighbors as ourselves (Mark 12:31). Jesus’ command here is in the greater context of giving us what to what he refers as the two greatest commandments. The Greek word for neighbor here, plesion, simply means someone who is near and does not suggest a specific group of people such as other Christians, i.e. Jesus implies that everyone is our neighbor. Our love for others is derived from the greatest commandment: to love God above all else with all our heart, soul, mind, and strength (Mark 12:30), for when we love God above all else, our love for others increases because we begin to view others in the same light as God himself. How then are we to handle dissonant discussions of vital material among all people in our society? The church is given the responsibility to love everyone so we are not exempt from that command in any situation including tense dialogue. The question at work here is this: should all opinions be respected? I shall argue that all opinions should be respected in scope but limited in application, i.e. everyone is to be loved, heard, and even understood while absolute agreement is not necessary. Before continuing, it should be noted that everyone is different and, thus, possesses different opinions, which is okay and good. Without diversity, we would not need to have important discussions as we so often do. We should enter our dialogue with other believers and even non-believers realizing this fact. To properly engage in tense dialogue as Christians, I have three imperatives to bear in mind.

            Perhaps you are like me and have heard a phrase like the following at some point in your life and perhaps even recently: I know many non-believers (or non-Christians) who are more “Christian”[1] than most Christians. While I understand the sentiment behind such a statement, it is simply not true. Without negating the responsibility of all Christians to live morally upright lives, we should understand that everyone fails. If we did not fail, we would not need a savior; yet, we do so in that way, we are all hypocrites. What people usually mean, in a statement like this, is that there are some people who do not profess Christ as their Lord yet live lives seemingly more righteous than many people who do profess Christ as Lord. The problem in such a statement, however, is threefold under the umbrella of answering with a resounding no! I will discuss the most protruding three problems in that statement, all of which are derived from what the Bible says about humanity and about Jesus Christ.

            One of the most polarizing topics in Christian theology is that of election, foreknowledge, and predestination. Having wrestled with this important but difficult doctrine (the doctrine of sovereign grace) in my early twenties, I have made several conclusions on the matter; yet, I remain open to other perspectives. Nothing, however, has convinced me more than what Scripture says plainly and clearly. As much justifying as I did to prove a friend wrong about election, it proved futile except that it brought me to a place of acknowledgement and belief in election. After approximately six months of anger and not knowing how to handle the fact that the God whom I was taught growing up was not the God I was seeing in the Bible, I finally rested in and trusted the Lord that he is sovereign, I am responsible, and the two are compatible.

            One of the primary justifications I used during that time and, to this day, hear others use is a feeble explanation of foreknowledge. I could not deny that predestination and foreknowledge is biblical. It is there plainly; Scripture is also replete with the concept in both the Old the New Testament. What I did was misrepresent foreknowledge as many do today. I tried to give a definition of it that was not true because, in my mind (and in others’), it made sense. Part of the problem, however, is that we often look for what makes sense to us when we should merely trust what God has already said.

            The recent legislative actions in the state of New York recently have caused me to reflect quite a bit. I have always been a staunch opponent of abortion; the recent, legislation in New York, however, has provided a time and place for me to speak about the topic even more. We, as a society, have already committed the largest mass murder in history. Since Rove vs. Wade (1973), there have been over 61 million abortions.[1] Additionally, since 1980, there have been over 1.5 billion abortions worldwide.[2] History would suggest that the world followed suit to the United States after Roe vs. Wade. We then are the most murderous people who have ever walked this planet. I say “we” because it has been allowed as a society. Even for those of us who hate the murder of babies, we are a part of the people who have allowed it to happen. In Scripture, God condemns those who sacrifice children to Molech (Lev 20:2). In the same way, a day of reckoning is coming for all of us regarding abortion. The question will be asked of what we did about it. I, for one, do not want to be someone who did nothing. Thus, considering the recent New York legislation, I will respond to two groups: 1) advocates of abortion and 2) Christians.

The few weeks prior to Christmas are often spent celebrating the birth of Christ. The birth of Christ is vital to remember and right to celebrate. Nonetheless, the Advent, e.g. his second and first comings, are often neglected. I often lament the neglect of Advent during the month of December. More than a personal matter, I believe it is a matter of remembering and living within the reality of the life of Christ and the story of God and his people. Why then should Christians observe Advent, which is certainly not synonymous with Christmas? I should suggest that an overarching reason for observance of Advent is Christians’ empathy with Israel in expectation and waiting. The church is surely able to relate to Israel because we too are in waiting and possess eager expectation, not of his first coming but his second. In fact, Advent focuses more on Christ’s second coming than his first. Certainly, we should remember the expectation of Israel awaiting the Messiah; yet, we too await the second coming of Messiah, which is a certainty. The heart of Advent then is not only expecting but also waiting. As Israel long awaited and expected the coming of Jesus, we too await and expect him to return as well as other aspects of Christ’s work and character which are crucial. I would like to submit three primary imperatives for which we wait and expect.

Mike Breen recently posted a blog centering around why the missional movement will fail. I was shocked upon first reading these words; yet, the author makes the point that radical disciple-making is the church’s call above going. Breen says:

We took 30 days and examined the Twitter conversations happening. We discovered there are between 100-150 times as many people talking about mission as there are discipleship (to be clear, that’s a 100:1). We are a group of people addicted to and obsessed with the work of the Kingdom, with little to no idea how to be with the King.[1]

In the Great Commission (Matt 28:19-20), Jesus commands his followers to go; the imperative, however, comes after the word, go, when he subsequently commands his people to make disciples, i.e. the purpose of going and indeed the end means of missions is to glorify God by forming people who love and obey him. Thus, the imperative is often wrongly placed on going rather than disciple-making. Furthermore, the Greek context of the Great Commission implies not merely going to make disciples but rather to make disciples as you are going, i.e. going is not a separate event but is rather what we do in our daily rhythms of life. Making disciples then should be part of our daily walk. I submit that we have missed the point of the Great Commission because we have missed the point of a disciple and the Christian life altogether. There are two glaring aspects of our call that we have missed.

God exists as triune: three persons yet one God. We often speak of the Trinity in mere passing terms; God, however, has revealed himself in Scripture and in his work through threefold persons: the Father, the Son, and the Spirit. Sadly, the most neglected and misunderstood person of the godhead is the Holy Spirit including in charismatic contexts where the Holy Spirit might seemingly be given an overemphasis. The neglect of the Holy Spirit has caused false teaching while the misunderstanding of the Holy Spirit has fostered improper thoughts of his work and personhood, e.g. the Holy Spirit is not an it or a force but is rather a he and a person who works and speaks. The Holy Spirit is effectively the forgotten God. Even such a statement likely perplexes some people, as some believers might forget that he is God, co-equal and co-eternal with both the Father and the Son. I intend to discuss both the neglect and the work of the Holy Spirit so that we might develop and have a correct understanding of him and worship him rightly. Three thoughts I have are devoted to this topic of the Holy Spirit.

            Selfishness has crept its way into the church over the years and has become detrimental to the point that Western culture has adopted a false gospel: a gospel that makes humankind the center and the point rather than God. I remember a conversation with a friend years ago in which I suggested that God is primarily about his own glory. My friend responded by saying that makes God sound as if he is stuck on himself. My response was, “He is! Who else would he stuck on? You, me, or someone lesser?” God is the point of the gospel; the gospel is not even about humankind at all but solely about God’s glory. Even the story of redemption among his people points to his own glory and pleasure.

            Our selfishness is manifested in many ways. A common prayer among many believers, for example, is for God to glorify himself by working through us, i.e. we desire him to work through us more than we desire him to work so that he is glorified. What if he decided to answer our prayer in that regard but to do so through someone else other than us? John Piper has written a book entitled God Is the Gospel. The truth is that we should desire God to work despite us rather than through us. Consider the story of Joseph. Fourteen chapters of Genesis are devoted to this story. It is a story with which many are familiar and a story that teaches valuable lessons; yet, it has become a story that effectively promotes therapeutic moralistic deism in which we gain insights from the text and believe that if we make the right decisions living a decent life, we will be blessed as Joseph was. What is fascinating about the story of Joseph, however, is that while Joseph takes up the most space and is the main character,[1] he is not the point, for that role belongs to Judah. In fact, the reason God placed Joseph in a place of authority through his trials and circumstances was to eventually preserve the life of Judah who likely would have died without the help of his brother. Though Judah is not mentioned as often as Joseph, it was through his line that the Messiah would come. The role for Judah, although seemingly small, was the most important role. For many of us, we would not be okay with that. We pray for God to move but desire him to move so that we receive at least a little recognition. We spend our time ministering and claiming a desire solely for God’s glory as a mask that hides our selfishness.

            It is vital that we realize God is the point of the gospel, not us. When we realize how God-centered the gospel is and when our perspective changes, other things in our lives also change. I would like to suggest four aspects that change in our lives when our perspective on the gospel changes.

            Let us separate the good of political and societal individuality from the negative impacts of individuality in the church. While God has made us and loved us as individuals, 1) we are part of a larger body, and 2) we should not seek our own desires but first and foremost the desires of God and then the desires of others. The self-seeking attitude to which I refer is largely responsible for a negation of congregational participation in worship. Rather than seeking what one can do for the church, often, people seek what the church can do for them, which has contributed to churches craving entertainment.

            Worship, in its nature, is participatory since the corporate body is involved. Rather than seeking entertainment and self-satisfaction (except in Christ), we should strive to participate in the worship of God. It is not as though we have anything of worth to give God; yet, he gladly accepts our offerings of worship and works in us to conform us to his image. I intend to provide three foundations for congregational participation here: a biblical foundation, a theological foundation, and a historical foundation. My aim is that God’s people realize the importance of participation found in the fact that the local church offers worship to God, not just the leaders.

            The ethos of the modern church, particularly in western society, seemingly involves a catering to the culture for a plurality of underlying reasons. The strong belief in the use of vernacular language stemming from the Reformation era has drastically changed in its purpose. Where Reformers desired for communities of God’s people to possess the ability to worship in their own language and, thus, experience a greater effect in life-change, the tendency of modern churches’ use of vernacular language appears to be founded upon the desires of people (lost or saved) rather than the worship of God.

            I will discuss vernacular jargon, specifically lingo, and its contribution to the ethos of worship in modern society. Worship leaders often see themselves as indirect theologians and theological teachers when instead the view should foster teaching in a direct manner, i.e. worship leaders should be intentional and purposeful with the lingo they choose to use. Lingo teaches ideas, concepts, and even theologies whether realized or not. One can certainly say, “Well, they know what I mean.” I would, however, respond with, “Do they?” When worship leaders use terms such as stage and setlist, many people’s minds automatically create an association with worship. Since a worship leader’s context is the local church (not a concert setting), jargon such as stage and setlist is naturally associated with worship, although it should not be, which is why leaders should be careful to be intentional, pointed, and clear with the lingo used. Every single word used in the context of corporate worship (quite literally) has an either intended or unintended implication.

            I suggest here that lingo has become one of the most neglected aspects of corporate worship. Even Reformation era theologians, in their desire to cultivate communities of worship through understandable language,[1] had, at the center, a desire to worship God rather than to cater to societal norms. Lingo then is more than meets the ear. In fact, what is heard is surface level; what is experienced and internalized both mentally and emotionally is at the root of the issue. Lingo should not be neglected. We should not shift back to language which is difficult to understand; yet, those who lead the church in worship should take seriously their call to cultivate worshipers of God, not merely congregants who understand theological concepts, albeit in an inaccurate frame. Lingo, therefore, should not be neglected, negated, or de-emphasized but rather intentional.

One of the seemingly most despised moments during a weekly worship gathering is the greeting time. I have personally observed the woes of many who are opposed to greeting one another during corporate worship and, in fact, used to be one of those people. Yet, my heart and mind began to change on the issue when I realized the underpinning on which such an act is built, namely the kiss of peace.

Paul instructs believers to greet one another with a holy kiss (Rom 16:16). The significance is not found in the act of kissing itself but rather in the adjective which proceeds it: holy. Built upon the truth that God’s people are holy and set apart, the weekly greeting should be viewed not as a regrettable act but as a sacred act. More than a mere greeting, the act is sacred because the people of God are sacred and called to holiness. When one’s attitude shifts from greeting with a kiss to greeting with a holy kiss, the act becomes not merely a kind gesture but an act of worship. To discuss how to approach the kiss of peace in a modern context, I suggest five imperatives of which believers should be mindful.

Recent personal discussions and observations of Eucharistic practices have made it abundantly clear to me that the vitality of the Lord’s Supper must be recovered in the church. I believe most local churches’ view of the Lord’s Table has veered so far off course that a track toward recovery is necessary. Not only do Pew and Barna statistics reveal a lack of deep spirituality in the church, but my own (and others’) personal observations have led me to this conclusion. Communion is not an option for the believer, i.e. it is a command and a crucial command at that; yet, many local churches seem to diminish the importance of the ordinance. Thus, those who hear my call right now, let us faithfully begin to recover the vitality and fundamental importance of the Lord’s Table in our local churches, for recovering can only happen in local churches.

            My personal conviction of the importance of the Lord’s Table has greatly increased over the past four years. Before beginning a process of recovery, we must understand why the vitality must be recovered. I would like to discuss the vitality of the Lord’s Table in a succinct and concise manner. I have four thoughts I would like to expound upon to argue for the vitality of the Lord’s Table and its recovery.

            A few years ago, a prominent church in the United States came under controversy for beginning their weekly worship gathering with a secular song. The scrutiny was not as much because the song was secular but because of its questionable lyrics, which include, “Baby, you turn me on.” Like many of you, growing up, it became clear to me that secular music should be used in the context of corporate worship. I have laxed on that stance since then; yet, I still draw the line at God’s glory. We should always remember that all we do is to be for the glory of God. With that said, it is certainly possible to glorify God and listen to or perform secular music. I would, however, like to focus on the music we utilize in our corporate worship gatherings.

            Is it okay to use secular music in corporate worship? The underpinning question (I think) is this: for whose glory is worship designed? Throughout church history, there has existed a fine line between the use of secular and solely sacred elements in music, e.g. secular tunes were often parodied and set in corporate worship contexts in the Reformation and post-Reformation eras. In fact, many hymns in our various denominational hymnals employ tunes that were once considered secular. Many congregants likely do not know that now because the tunes have been familiarized in sacred worship for so long. The church shares a rich history of employing secular mediums in worship. Recently I recorded an entire podcast on art in worship and discussed the fact that there is no sacred and secular divide except what humanity has created, i.e. God created music and art for his glory so any artform that does not glorify him has been distorted.

            How then do we, as worship leaders, approach the use of secular music in corporate worship? Is it okay? Is it not okay? I would like to answer these questions as best as possible by discussing three unique aspects to this conversation. Thinking through these three imperatives will help us determine what is okay to use in corporate worship.

1)     it is a metaphor;

2)     from a human perspective, God’s love is reckless because it does not make sense;

3)     the song does not speak of God himself but rather his love;

4)     and many more.

I do not intend to delve into discussion of this song itself or the use of the word, reckless, but I would like to discuss the broader topic of language in worship music. I would like to examine the pros and cons of modern vs. traditional and metaphorical vs. literal language. I do not mean to sway one way or another but merely to have us think about these issues as it relates to the message of the gospel as well as the context we minister in, which is disparate across the spectrum. To sum, I will discuss how to approach language in worship music, which, by the way, is nothing to be taken lightly.

1)     it is a metaphor;

2)     from a human perspective, God’s love is reckless because it does not make sense;

3)     the song does not speak of God himself but rather his love;

4)     and many more.

I do not intend to delve into discussion of this song itself or the use of the word, reckless, but I would like to discuss the broader topic of language in worship music. I would like to examine the pros and cons of modern vs. traditional and metaphorical vs. literal language. I do not mean to sway one way or another but merely to have us think about these issues as it relates to the message of the gospel as well as the context we minister in, which is disparate across the spectrum. To sum, I will discuss how to approach language in worship music, which, by the way, is nothing to be taken lightly.

1)     it is a metaphor;

2)     from a human perspective, God’s love is reckless because it does not make sense;

3)     the song does not speak of God himself but rather his love;

4)     and many more.

I do not intend to delve into discussion of this song itself or the use of the word, reckless, but I would like to discuss the broader topic of language in worship music. I would like to examine the pros and cons of modern vs. traditional and metaphorical vs. literal language. I do not mean to sway one way or another but merely to have us think about these issues as it relates to the message of the gospel as well as the context we minister in, which is disparate across the spectrum. To sum, I will discuss how to approach language in worship music, which, by the way, is nothing to be taken lightly.

1)     it is a metaphor;

2)     from a human perspective, God’s love is reckless because it does not make sense;

3)     the song does not speak of God himself but rather his love;

4)     and many more.

I do not intend to delve into discussion of this song itself or the use of the word, reckless, but I would like to discuss the broader topic of language in worship music. I would like to examine the pros and cons of modern vs. traditional and metaphorical vs. literal language. I do not mean to sway one way or another but merely to have us think about these issues as it relates to the message of the gospel as well as the context we minister in, which is disparate across the spectrum. To sum, I will discuss how to approach language in worship music, which, by the way, is nothing to be taken lightly.

1)     it is a metaphor;

2)     from a human perspective, God’s love is reckless because it does not make sense;

3)     the song does not speak of God himself but rather his love;

4)     and many more.

I do not intend to delve into discussion of this song itself or the use of the word, reckless, but I would like to discuss the broader topic of language in worship music. I would like to examine the pros and cons of modern vs. traditional and metaphorical vs. literal language. I do not mean to sway one way or another but merely to have us think about these issues as it relates to the message of the gospel as well as the context we minister in, which is disparate across the spectrum. To sum, I will discuss how to approach language in worship music, which, by the way, is nothing to be taken lightly.

1)     it is a metaphor;

2)     from a human perspective, God’s love is reckless because it does not make sense;

3)     the song does not speak of God himself but rather his love;

4)     and many more.

I do not intend to delve into discussion of this song itself or the use of the word, reckless, but I would like to discuss the broader topic of language in worship music. I would like to examine the pros and cons of modern vs. traditional and metaphorical vs. literal language. I do not mean to sway one way or another but merely to have us think about these issues as it relates to the message of the gospel as well as the context we minister in, which is disparate across the spectrum. To sum, I will discuss how to approach language in worship music, which, by the way, is nothing to be taken lightly.

1)     it is a metaphor;

2)     from a human perspective, God’s love is reckless because it does not make sense;

3)     the song does not speak of God himself but rather his love;

4)     and many more.

I do not intend to delve into discussion of this song itself or the use of the word, reckless, but I would like to discuss the broader topic of language in worship music. I would like to examine the pros and cons of modern vs. traditional and metaphorical vs. literal language. I do not mean to sway one way or another but merely to have us think about these issues as it relates to the message of the gospel as well as the context we minister in, which is disparate across the spectrum. To sum, I will discuss how to approach language in worship music, which, by the way, is nothing to be taken lightly.

1)     it is a metaphor;

2)     from a human perspective, God’s love is reckless because it does not make sense;

3)     the song does not speak of God himself but rather his love;

4)     and many more.

I do not intend to delve into discussion of this song itself or the use of the word, reckless, but I would like to discuss the broader topic of language in worship music. I would like to examine the pros and cons of modern vs. traditional and metaphorical vs. literal language. I do not mean to sway one way or another but merely to have us think about these issues as it relates to the message of the gospel as well as the context we minister in, which is disparate across the spectrum. To sum, I will discuss how to approach language in worship music, which, by the way, is nothing to be taken lightly.

1)     it is a metaphor;

2)     from a human perspective, God’s love is reckless because it does not make sense;