March Debrief

Well, blog-wise, March was a very good month. Most of the time I had enough posts written and scheduled for a week by Wednesday the week before, which is a good feeling. It's nice to keep up so well. During the last week I started to trail a little in that, though; I think I scheduled the last two posts by last Tuesday, but I still managed. So all in all, it was a good month. Hopefully I can keep it up in the future.

Interestingly, I found myself with a lot more to write about outside of the catechism series. This doesn't mean I neglected it; I'm trying to write at least one post about the catechism a week, if not more. But I thought of other things to write about as well, which I really enjoy because it's much easier to write posts when I don't have to do intensive study while writing; the text just flows out a lot better. But I want to keep up the series and not lose interest, so I'm thinking of trying to focus on it more this month.

Personally, I have a massive life update: I got hired for a new job last week! I start in the middle of this month. It'll be a new location, new schedule, and new line of work for me. I'm not entirely sure how this will impact my blog output yet though; I've managed to get into somewhat of a decent rhythm with my current schedule, which has enabled me to keep a regular level of blog writing. I may have to change the days or frequency of my updates; we'll just have to see how it works out.

So, here comes April!

The Perfect Surrender

When Creator became creation
When Jesus came to earth
He humbled Himself in servant’s form
And naked human birth
Born to a girl and a carpenter
Crying and helpless He came
And that’s how He began the perfect surrender

When Jesus prayed to the Father
Facing the coming disgrace
He pleaded to God for another plan
As sweat and blood fell from His face
Submitted Himself to the Father
He said, “Thy will be done”
He gave Himself up to God in perfect surrender

When Jesus hung on the cross
When His blood spilled on the ground
He bore the sins of many
As mockers and revilers abound
He finally cried out, “It is finished”
And gave up His spirit to God
And that was how He fulfilled the perfect surrender

When Jesus came and died
And rose that triumphant morn
He shamed the powers of sin and death
And demons felt His scorn
The barrier broke on the day He died
The curtain between God and man
Now we are reconciled through His perfect surrender

I thought about writing a big Easter post, but then I thought of this song of mine. The lyrics are appropriate for Easter, no?

I wrote this song a while ago when looking for words for a title. While skimming through Mere Christianity, I came across the phrase "the perfect surrender." From there, the lyrics pretty much flowed out. The idea was to tell the story of Jesus' surrender and death and proclaim what he accomplished: redemption for his people. It doesn't mention how his life provided the perfect righteous he would give to us, but you can't do everything in one song, I suppose.

Here's an old, imperfect, acoustic demo version. I haven't gotten around to producing a better one yet.

Just Two Things About Our Music Need Fixing

The way I see it, there are two things that we need to fix about most Contemporary Christian Music (CCM) that comes out these days: the lyrics and the music.

The reason we need to fix the lyrics is obvious. Lyrics communicate exactly what idea the artist is trying to get across. The problem here is that most of the lyrics that one hears in CCM are overly simplistic, repetitive, vague, self-centered, and irreverent of the God the artist claims to be worshiping. The most important thing, says the CCM industry, isn't worship, or even God; it's "encouragement" and being "uplifting." Not that there's anything wrong with being uplifting or encouraging, but that should not be the ultimate point of Christian music.

I'm not saying that the lyrics have to be overly technical, using words like "propitiation" and "penal substitutionary atonement" to be good. But they should be truthful, Scripture-inspired, and God-centered. They don't even need to be direct quotes of Scripture, but they at least should communicate real Gospel truth. In my opinion, a vast majority of what passes for Christian music these days speaks very little about the Gospel, or has very little to actually do with the God of the Bible. So, yes, we need to fix the lyrics.

I would also say, however, that we need to fix the music as well. I got into a short discussion one time about what genres of music are more inherently worshipful. My friend said that what matters most is the heart of the worshiper, not the style of music. I agree with that. But after giving it some thought, I think the music still matters a lot.

What are we, as the church, called to do? We are called to take the message of the Gospel around the world. We are called to be God's ambassadors on the earth. In other words, we are called to represent him to others. We are to reflect the image of God to others so that they see his glory and turn to worship him. Now, think about that for a moment: we are called to reflect the image of the first and best of beings, as Keach's Catechism puts it. God, we agree, is the most greatest and most beautiful being in all the universe. So it seems, to me at least, to follow that the music we use to worship and represent him should be the greatest and most beautiful music we can possibly compose.

In contemporary Christian culture we hear a lot about "redeeming the culture," the idea that we should take things in our local culture and use them for God's glory. This includes the culture's music (along with brewing beer, but that's something else). One can hear this idea in the CCM industry, and the results are not always that good. It seems like what they do is take the same music that the culture listens to, subtract worldly lyrics, and add Christian lyrics. The result is that the songs are indistinguishable from the culture's songs, which is sort of the goal. It's either that or they decide that all that matters is the lyrics, so they write a few verses, throw in four chords and a three-note melody and hey! You have a song! Now let's sell it!

Neither is the right approach in my opinion.

When God created the world, he didn't just throw in a few trees, a lake, and a patch of grass and call it passable. He created a world so amazing that he called it "very good." He gave Adam and Eve a garden full of their choice of fruit, not just one tree that only produced enough to feed them one day at a time. God makes the most beautiful art ever, and he puts everything he has into it.

So it seems to me like, if we really want to redeem the culture, we shouldn't just take its music and Christianize it. We should take its music and make it a whole lot better. You want to write Christian rock music? Great. Take what you know about rock music and make it the best rock music that anyone has ever heard. Christian funk? Make it the best funk ever. And so on with blues, jazz, classical, pop, R&B, metal, and whatever else. If we're called to worship and represent the best of beings, shouldn't our music be the best of music? Shouldn't the church be producing music so great that the world takes a listen and thinks, "Wow, this is better than all that other stuff, this God must be real"?

Also, if God is the best of beings, doesn't he deserve our absolute best? Shouldn't we be producing the most beautiful music we can produce for him?

I should say that the point of all that I'm saying is not merely bringing in more numbers to the church. Of course our music should be used to evangelize, but that's not the only purpose of our music. It should be ultimately to worship and bring glory to God.

Of course, our music falls short of the beauty of God. It will always fall short. Everything we ever do for God will always fall short! But I fail to see why that's a reason we shouldn't still give it our all. Our music doesn't save us, but God deserves our all in all that we do. If you really believe that making the bare minimum of what might be considered a passable song is the best way to worship God, well, okay. But I heartily disagree with you. If that actually is the best song you can write, however, then great! It's still giving God your best. But I would encourage you to practice, practice, and practice and get better, because God always deserves better.

And before anyone asks, I don't know exactly what would constitute making music better or more beautiful. There are volumes of philosophy books out there dedicated to those questions. I just want to get people thinking.

Benjamin Keach's Catechism, Q10: Persons in the Godhead

Q. 10. How many persons are there in the Godhead?
A. There are three persons in the Godhead, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one God, the same in essence, equal in power and glory. (1 Cor. 8:6; John 10:30; John 14:9; Acts 5:3,4; Matt. 28:19; 2 Cor. 13:14)

Scripture Proofs

Yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist. (1 Cor. 8:6)

I and the Father are one. (John 10:30)

Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you so long, and you still do not know me, Philip? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?" (John 14:9)

But Peter said, “Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and to keep back for yourself part of the proceeds of the land? While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not at your disposal? Why is it that you have contrived this deed in your heart? You have not lied to man but to God.” (Acts 5:3, 4)

Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. (Matt 28:19)

The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all. (2 Cor. 13:14)

At the end of the last post, I asked the question of how both Jesus and the Father could be God if there is only one God. Well, we see in this question and answer that the dilemma is further complicated by a third person being in the mix: the Holy Spirit, who is apparently also God.

First, let's recall that the Bible is emphatically clear that there is only one God. "Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one" (Deut. 6:4). No one doubts that Christianity is a monotheistic religion except those who gravely misunderstand this doctrine. However, the Bible is also clear that the Father is God (1 Cor. 8:6), Jesus is God (John 10:30), and the Holy Spirit is God (Acts 5:3, 4). Indeed, it also places the three in equal standing with one another (Matt. 28:19; 2 Cor 13:14). That seems to be a contradiction, doesn't it?

Well, if the Bible really is the Word of God, then it can't be. God is the God of truth. He cannot lie and he tells no lies. If he tells us there is one God, that settles it. If he also tells us that three people are God, that settles it, too.

But how on earth does that work? Let's look at the answer given: "There are three persons in the Godhead, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one God, the same in essence, equal in power and glory." All three of these people are one God. I've heard it explained like this: God is three in person and one in essence. He is not three in person and one in person, or three in essence and one in essence, for those would be contradictory. Rather, God has one essence and three persons who embody that essence. If that's hard to wrap your mind around, don't worry; it really, really is. We have no idea what that could possibly look like. How can three people be the same being at the same time? It's a mystery, but it's certainly not a contradiction.

I think one thing that sums this doctrine up very well is Chapter 2, paragraph 3 of the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith, which this catechism is based on:

In this divine and infinite Being there are three subsistences, the Father, the Word or Son, and Holy Spirit, of one substance, power, and eternity, each having the whole divine essence, yet the essence undivided: the Father is of none, neither begotten nor proceeding; the Son is eternally begotten of the Father; the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father and the Son; all infinite, without beginning, therefore but one God, who is not to be divided in nature and being, but distinguished by several peculiar relative properties and personal relations; which doctrine of the Trinity is the foundation of all our communion with God, and comfortable dependence on him.

Don't be boggled by the archaic language; it's not that hard to understand if you read it closely. "In this divine and infinite Being there are three subsistences (referring to the persons of the Trinity), the Father, the Word or Son, and Holy Spirit, of one substance, power, and eternity." In other words, each of these beings possess all the attributes of God we discussed a few weeks ago. Continuing from this, we must also remember that each of these beings have "the whole divine essence, yet the essence undivided," which means that each of these beings is fully God. They aren't each one-third of God, making one whole God together; each of them is fully and completely God. Someone - I don't remember who - once said that anything that can be stated about one person of the Trinity can be stated of the others. I wouldn't go quite that far; the Father didn't die on the Cross, for example. But when we say that Jesus is holy, or good, or loving, we can say the same about the Father and the Holy Spirit as well. Because they are all the same God, it's the same holiness, the same goodness, the same love.

It's important that we don't fall into the heresy of modalism; the heresy that teaches that God, who is one person only, manifests himself in three different ways at different times. The general belief, to my knowledge, is that God manifested himself as the Father in the Old Testament, Jesus during his earthly ministry, and now manifests himself as the Holy Spirit. Rather than being three distinct persons, God is one person who appears in three different ways. But that doesn't square with the Bible. Who exactly was Jesus praying to (Matt. 26:36-46; Mark 14:32-42; John 17)? What about John 1:1, which says, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God"? If modalism is true, there's no way the Word can be both God and with God at the same time; the verse may as well read, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was God." But it doesn't. And what about how Jesus says he will send the Helper (the Holy Spirit) in John 15:26 and 16:7? If Jesus simply became the Holy Spirit, he's not exactly sending the Spirit. And in 16:7 especially, Jesus says he is going away and will send the Helper. If modalism is true, he would be going away and then coming back, not going away and sending someone else. So modalism doesn't pass the test of Scripture, and must be avoided.

This is our God, the three-in-one: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, all of whom are fully God, all of whom are one in essence. May we worship our true, trinitarian God.

To read the full catechism, click here.

The Gospel Will Succeed

Some of you may recall me talking not too long ago about the end times.

Or not. I haven’t dedicated much blog space to eschatology, to be honest. But that doesn’t mean I don’t think about it once in a while.

Truth be told, I don’t really know where I stand in terms of millennial position or interpretive philosophy when it comes to the book of Revelation. Most of the people I know personally who have actually told me their views believe in a future seven-year tribulation (with the rapture mixed in there somewhere) and a literal thousand-year kingdom before Jesus restores the world fully. That’s definitely the most popular view out there.

Amongst Reformed Christians, however, you find a whole lot of preterists, amillennialists, and postmillennialists. I’m not entirely sure why this is; probably something to do with covenant theology or something.

I’ve found the postmillennial position to be very interesting. It’s the view that, eventually (it doesn’t have to be right now, contrary to popular belief), the Church will succeed in spreading the Gospel to the point where the world will be, for the most part, Christian. I’m not fully convinced it’s the right view because I haven’t done enough research into it, but I find its language intriguing. They tout their view as the most optimistic view and criticize the other views as saying that they believe the Church and the Gospel will fail until Jesus comes to make it right.

Now, I fully agree that the Gospel will succeed, massively so. However, I take issue at this accusation that any Christian could believe the Church will fail because it’s simply not true. It’s another one of those great misrepresentations of views one doesn’t agree with. No Christian thinks the Gospel will fail. No one can possibly read and believe the Bible and come away thinking that the Gospel or the Church will fail.

What was it that God said about his Word? “My word . . . shall not return to me empty, but it shall accomplish that which I purpose, and shall succeed in the thing for which I sent it” (Isa. 55:11). God’s Word shall succeed in the thing for which he sent it. Not only that, but Jesus sent out his apostles to “make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Matt. 28:19). I don’t know about you, but I hardly think that Jesus would send his Church on a mission that they would surely fail to accomplish.

Paul also demonstrates that the preaching of the Word of God is how people come to faith. “How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? And how are they to preach unless they are sent? . . . So faith comes from hearing, and hearing from the word of Christ” (Rom. 10:14, 15, 17). So God has told us exactly how to reach people: preach. Preaching is how God sends out his Word, and remember that his Word will not return to him empty.

Jesus also added to the Great Commission, “I am with you always, to the end of the age” (Matt 29:20). In other words, God himself is on this mission with us. The Holy Spirit dwells in us to enable us to accomplish the mission. So if anyone ever says the Church will fail in her mission, they must also say that God screwed up somehow, or even failed to equip his Church properly despite the fact that he gave us his fully-sufficient Word (2 Tim. 3:16-17).

I believe all of that. And yet I’m not a postmillennialist.

To this the postmillennialist might argue that I’m refusing to accept the implications of any position that is not postmillennialism. However, I would object that, no matter what view you hold, you must believe that each and every person whom God has elected will be saved, and that is God’s victory.

The problem with the postmillennial criticism of other views, it seems, is that it ultimately comes down to numbers. If more people die than are saved, it’s viewed as a failure. But that’s not true at all. The truth is, if God had decided to destroy all of humanity for his rebellion, it would still be God’s victory. If that were the case, it would mean that all God’s mockers got their comeuppance and justice was done. God wins.

But instead, God chose to save some. But we must remember that Jesus himself said, “For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few” (Matt. 7:13, 14)? It seems to me like God doesn’t really care about numbers that much. It seems like, in the end, most people throughout history will have gone down into destruction. That doesn’t mean the Gospel will fail. It means that the people whom God elected to be saved will be saved, and the people who spit in God’s face will be punished. God wins.

Now, I’m not discounting the postmillennial position. Like I said, I haven’t done a whole lot of research into it or amillennialism, and I intend to do so at some point. I just find this criticism to be invalid. It’s a misrepresentation and misunderstanding of other views. That doesn’t mean we must see all views as equally valid; they contradict each other, so only one can be true (or perhaps none of them are true and we’ve all got it wrong). But at least have a proper understanding of the opposing viewpoints before you criticize them. That way you can at least make valid arguments.