A Worship Perspective

A few articles back, I noted the benefit I receive when I consciously sit back and listen to what others have to say, and share it, than when I steadfastly seek to write about the things that I want to say. Such is the case today. Some very dear friends shared a quotation with me. Their son shared it with them, and his minister, who was quoting J.J.M. Roberts, shared it with him. Roberts’ quotation is found in “Worship and the Hebrew Bible: Essays in Honor of John T. Willis”, and specifically in a section entitled, “Contemporary Worship in Light of Isaiah’s Ancient Critique”. That’s a long-winded way of saying the quotation, contained in this article, is certainly not original with me.

Christendom, today, is in the midst of worship wars. Worship in the sense of our Lord’s Day assemblies. As congregations re-think and re-shape their worship “presentation”, in the hopes of alluring the “un-churched” into their assemblies, others resist any attempt to modify long standing practices. To compete in a world of short attention spans, and multi-media sensory attraction and overload, some church leaders are tempted to modernize their worship assemblies to draw crowds. Others believe such is compromise with secularism, or worse. Those that would attempt to be more contemporary would argue that they are not changing for the sake of change, but changing for the sake of relevancy. Whatever the spin from those who advocate change, it sounds an alarm of tampering, with scripture and truth, to those who resist. Thus, the battle lines, of the worship wars, are formed, and, sadly, many congregations are robbed of the peace and unity that is required for acceptable worship.

Those who resist the contemporary change will argue that God is the focus of worship, and resist any deviation from long standing practices, even though those practices are probably the result of changes in earlier generations. And, certainly, that doesn’t encompass all the changes being suggested, tried, and incorporated in today’s Lord’s Day assemblies.

On the other hand, those who advocate contemporary change claim that God is the focus of worship, and we should all be interested in making our worship more meaningful, even if change is required to do so.

So, both sides claim to want to please God, and both sides claim the other side is self-absorbed, and self-serving. Both parties would claim to not “get anything” out of a worship style practiced by the other camp. To one, the other is nothing more than entertainment and a production. To another, the other is dead, and ritualistic. Both arguments are based on the “activity” being the driver of meaningful worship. Both are wrong in their placement of the act(s) being the stimulant of true worship. My reading of Roberts’ statement crystallized the true stimulant to true worship.

Roberts stated, “Any practice, if it lasts long enough, can be cloaked in a theological justification, but there is a profound difference between a theology that shapes a congruent pattern of worship and a theology that simply adapts itself to patterns of worship forced on it willy-nilly by quite un-theological forces and concerns.”

“In Isaiah’s day, the human crowds were still present for worship; it was God who had opted out. The problem for religious leaders then was not how to get the people to come back to attending worship; it was how to get God to attend. It might be wise even in the present to look at worship from that perspective.”

“Perhaps we are spending far too much energy trying to figure out how to adapt worship so as to interest and attract a disinterested public. Perhaps we might better spend our time trying to please a potentially disinterested and increasingly irritated God.”

That is powerful! It not only rebukes those who would secularize worship, but those who would endure the time as robots. The point of Roberts’ statement, as I see it, is that God must be in attendance for true worship to occur. When He has “opted out”, it matters little whether we have maintained our past practices or introduced a new brand of worship. Regardless of one’s enthusiasm for the contemporary presentation, true worship does not exist when God is not in attendance. And, regardless of the practice of the time honored worship style, true worship is non-existent when God “opts out”.

I view Roberts’ statement as a strong rebuke to those who would intentionally secularize our assemblies to allure the un-churched, but I also view his statement as a warning to those who think that “staying the course” in activity is an indicator of God’s attendance.

The level of meaning in your worship, and my worship, is not contingent upon the human activity. That kind of thinking is shallow, and self-deceiving. Meaning, in worship, derives solely from the approval and attendance of God. And I suspect, if He is not approving, He is not attending. So, whether the human crowds are present, or not, God must be present. And if He is, we will know it, and our worship will be meaningful, to God and to us, as it is intended.

Another View of Miracles and 1Cor. 13

Let’s open our minds and Bibles. I know that miracles have ceased, and in this article will do my best to prove it logically. I will first CORRECTLY define a miracle. A miracle is anything that God does that man cannot do AND is instantaneous. Many people will be healed in our time, and doctors (who, by the way, don’t know everything) will not know why. The point still remains that the person will heal slowly and gradually, and may still have serious problems for the rest of there, potentially short, life. I will use 1Cor. 13 for my simple, yet effective argument on why miracles have ceased. Some people speak of the “perfect” in 1Cor. 13 being heaven and they seem to know for a FACT that it is not the complete canonized scriptures. Well, it is. Most people who want to hold on to miracles will say that the “perfect” is Jesus or heaven, so that the miracles they want to happen will stay with them. There is more than one problem with this, but there is only one that I will, and need, to use. If, hypothetically speaking, the word “perfect” was referring to heaven, then it’s pronoun (perfect) would, by the koine Greek rules, have to agree with whatever word to which it was making reference. In other words, if the word “perfect” was speaking of heaven it would have to be in the masculine gender, because heaven is always masculine. That’s not what it used though. For these people to be correct in their argument, then the word perfect would have to be “ho teleios” (masculine form) rather than what it does say: “to teleion” (neuter). There’s that. Then they say, “Well, if it (perfect) is the Bible then that means that Paul never had complete knowledge!” What’s so hard to believe about that? Jesus didn’t even know everything (Mr. 13:32)! In a sense though, we know “everything” as far as what we need. Peter said this in 2Pt. 1:3 when he said “all things”. So, when the Bible was complete, miracles had already ceased (one, because it IS implied that the apostles had to lay their hands on someone for them to receive the ability to do miracles, and then those people couldn’t pass the power on. Read Acts 8 sometime), and if they hadn’t ceased then, then they did when the Bible was finished because the things written in it are all that we need to believe. Notice that I never once said in this perfectly logical article that God has ceased to work. He still works in our lives, but in this day and age, He does not do it through the miraculous.

Another Giant Has Fallen

My heart is heavy today. We received word last night that brother Johnny Ramsey has passed away. Brother Ramsey was an outstanding preacher of the Word of God and a wonderful man. I vividly remember the first time it was my privilege to hear him preach. He preached God’s Word with passion, with a heart of love for those who listened, and with an unsurpassed knowledge of the Bible. The first sermon I heard him preach was an overview of the entire New Testament. He covered every book in the New Testament in one sermon! He gave interesting facts, such as how many chapters each book contained, information about the first recipients of each book, the theme of each book, key words, & key verses in each book. He must have quoted more than one hundred scriptures in that sermon. As a young preacher, I was spellbound when he preached. It was obvious that he had committed the Word of God to his heart and mind. Brother Ramsey had learned the Bible, he loved the Bible, and he lived the Bible.

Every time I had the privilege of hearing him preach after that first time it was the always the same. Whether it was that outstanding sermon on the book of Revelation, or the marvelous series on Jeremiah, the lessons he preached were always packed with scripture. And, as I said, it was not just his preaching. Through the years, I have been blessed with numerous occasions to spend time with this great man of God. He was always very kind to me as a younger preacher. He encouraged me to stay in the Word, he patiently answered my questions, he talked with me about the work of the church, and he was very kind to me every time we were together.

As I grow older and see more of the great preachers in our brotherhood pass away, there is sadness in my heart. I am happy for them that they are going to their reward (Revelation 14:13), but I am sad because of the void they leave in the church. We are in desperate need of others who will be committed to learning, loving, and living the Bible the way that these men have. We all need to be better students of the Word. If we are going to make an impact in this world, we must know the Word of God. It is vital for the future of the Church, that not only leaders in the church know the Word of God, it is extremely important that every Christian be filled with biblical knowledge.

We thank God for men like Johnny Ramsey. We pray that many other Christians will commit their lives to the study of the Word, just as brother Ramsey had done (2 Timothy 2:15). Our prayers will certainly be with sister Ramsey and her family during this difficult time. May God bless each of them with His love, comfort, and the knowledge that brother Ramsey lived the kind of life worthy of the crown of righteousness (2 Timothy 4:8).

Have Miracles Ceased?

Recently, I received a call asking for some Bible study assistance. The person on the other end of the connection asked,

“Where does the Bible say that miracles have ceased?”

I responded with, “I assume you’re talking about 1 Corinthians 13?”

“No, that’s not it.”

“Well”, I told her, “if you don’t use 1 Corinthians 13, you’re out of options.”

“That can’t be, she said, “I know I have heard many preachers and Bible class teachers say that scripture states that ‘miracles have ceased’, and cite a scripture reference for it, but I just can’t seem to find it”.

And she won’t. Neither will you or I. It ain’t there. And it is my belief, as I told her, that 1 Corinthians 13 doesn’t say it either. She had already looked at that passage, and agreed with me. I can find no NT writings that say miracles will cease upon the deaths of the apostles; or upon the deaths of those on whom they laid hands. It isn’t there. Some will argue the implication is there, but the statements are not.

1 Corinthians 13 makes reference to the inferior nature of miraculous gifts, as compared to the gift of love. Paul supports that view by saying that prophecies, tongues, and knowledge will all pass away, but not love. So, in context, scripture does teach that miracles will cease. Most people, when asking the question of the hour, are referencing scripture that teaches that miracles do not exist today, and want to support the claim with the girding of 1 Corinthians 13.

I think it necessary, at this point, to say that I know of no miracles that have been worked, through men, discounting prayer and the providence of God. Do I believe that God is working through men today to heal the lame, restore sight to the blind, raise the dead, discern someone’s innermost thoughts, etc.? No, I do not.

That is somewhat different than saying God cannot, or that scripture teaches that He will not, or has ceased doing things, for His children, that His children cannot do for themselves. And this is where this discussion often gets complicated.

To me, a Bible miracle was God (Acts 2:22) demonstrating His existence, power and authority, through a human, and doing something that humans could not do without God. Of course, there were times when God intervened without human accompaniment. But, Bible miracles, in cases involving humans, were usually immediate, usually complete, fairly obvious to all, and beyond the realm of trickery and slight of hand. At least those that were written about generally fall into that description. How is that different than God answering my prayer to heal my loved one? If God answers that prayer as I have prayed, it certainly supports His existence; it is certainly a demonstration of His power; it is certainly a demonstration of His authority over the creation, and the laws of nature He established; and if medical science has done “all they know to do”, then God, by healing my loved one, has done something that a human could not do for himself?

If that is not so, why do we pray? Of course, God can intervene on behalf of someone who does not pray. My interest here is with those who do pray for God’s intervention, and yet may believe that He has ceased intervening.

If you associate God’s answers to prayers as His “providence” (which means God provided), and don’t like the word “miracle”, so be it. Just don’t say that God doesn’t do things in the lives of some that they cannot do for themselves.

To the point, though, of this article, we must look at the wording in 1 Corinthians 13. What does it say? Verse 10 says “… but when the perfect comes, the partial will be done away.” The sticking point on this verse is the phrase “when the perfect comes”. Paul has already stated that “we know in part and we prophesy in part” (at the time of his writing), referring to the “partial”. But what is “the perfect”? Some have argued it is the complete revelation of God’s Word, the complete compilation of the canonized scriptures.

Is that really what Paul was referring to?

If so, then upon the coming of the perfect, we would all know completely, and prophesy completely, as Paul states in verse 12. If the reference of the “perfect” is to the canonized scriptures, then Paul never knew completely or prophesied completely, even though he had a direct learning experience from the Lord.

Secondly, and most compelling, is that “the perfect”, in context, refers to our arriving in heaven. Completeness will be ours in heaven. We will not speak like a child, reason like a child, or think like a child (that is, immaturely or incompletely). But rather, we will speak, think, and reason maturely and completely. Paul adds, “then I will know fully as I have been fully known”.

In heaven, there will be no need for the gift of tongues, whether they be foreign languages or heavenly languages; there will be no need for the gift of prophesy; and there will be no need for the gift of knowledge. Only love will endure our transition to eternity. And that is why it is superior to all the gifts of the Spirit described in Paul’s writings, including faith and hope. And that is why, in my mind, the context requires the “perfect” to be interpreted as heaven.

So, fellowship lines don’t have to be drawn if you disagree, and those who do agree aren’t necessarily “pentecostal” for having this view. I believe my view is consistent with the context of the passage, 1 Corinthians, chapters 11 through 14.

The Lord’s Name in Vain

I suspect that if one hundred, or one hundred thousand, people were interviewed, and asked what is meant by “taking the Lord’s name in vain”, the response, from more than ninety percent, would be incorrect, or incomplete. Based on personal experience, it would have to be that high.

What do you think it means? Without reading any further, I would suspect that most of you would include language that references God, or Jesus, in a trite or meaningless way. And, that should be included in any definition of “taking His name in vain”. When people utter the name of God in a curse, or as space filler, it would certainly meet anyone’s definition of “vain”.

I remember a time, several years ago, when I asked a co-worker, who said “GD and JHC” (or some derivation thereof) constantly if he would refrain from doing so, particularly in my presence. He asked me why, and I asked him if he realized he was taking the Lord’s name in vain. He was Catholic, and thus familiar with the concept, and his reply stunned me. He said, “I’m not taking His name in vain, I don’t mean ANYTHING by it”. So, I asked him to define “vain”, and he said, “malicious or harmful”. When told that “vain” meant “meaningless”, he disagreed and went for a dictionary. His intent to not mean “ANYTHING” by his use of God’s name is precisely a “vain” usage of something very meaningful.

I remember a small boy visiting my house, and referring to me as Mister and sir, all the while calling out God’s name as if he were ordering a sandwich. I suspect he learned both habits at home.

It is a serious matter to take the Lord’s name in vain. Yet, the misuse of our tongues, in our language, is secondary to something else.

I have heard ministers say, during wedding ceremonies, that the “groom to be” is paying his bride the ultimate compliment, by giving her his name. She is taking his name as an act of honor for her husband. She is leaving behind her old identity and taking on a new identity, or at least that’s God’s stated intent in Genesis 2. When we become members of the body of Christ, and submit to him as the head of the body, aren’t we doing the same?

When we put on Christ, aren’t we taking his name? When we describe ourselves as a Christian, whose name is it that we bear?

In Acts 15, James reinforces Peter’s current claim, and the claim of the prophets of old, that God had taken from among the Gentiles, “a people for His name”. Paul, the missionary to the Gentiles, rebukes his fellow Jews, in Romans 2; and quoting Isaiah, says “the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you”. And Peter encourages his readers to keep their “behavior excellent among the Gentiles, so that in the thing in which they slander you as evildoers, they may because of your good deeds, as they observe them, glorify God.” As you can see, vain behaviors are being addressed in these passages.

Our language is an integral part of our behavior. It is paramount in the making and breaking of reputations and influence. But it is only part of our behavior. Never interpret “taking the Lord’s name in vain” as just a tongue problem. It is a heart problem, and it is a behavior problem.