Sacred Music

Perhaps like me, you rarely hear the two words "sacred music" much anymore.  There isn't a category for the Grammy awards called "sacred music."  I'm quite sure that almost no one knows what sacred music is.  If I asked you to define "sacred music," what would you say?  Does your church use sacred music?  What makes it sacred?

"Sacred" itself is a term that is very seldom used.  I never hear it.  I think most churches would hope that they were not sacred, because it sounds like something that would turn people off, and hurt church growth.  Churches do not want to be sacred, but accessible and tolerant.  Sacred seems exclusive and boring and dusty, even proud.  

On the other hand, if I asked church members if they believed in "sacred music," they would say, "yes," but they wouldn't know what it was.  They think it is sacred because it is being used in the church, just because it is church music.  That alone makes it sacred.  Or that it came from a Christian music publisher, to be used by churches and religious organizations.  To these same people, the words are what make the music sacred.  If it has Christian words, it is sacred music.  What I'm saying is that even of those who would support sacred music, they don't know what it is.

You may have heard the question, "Is nothing sacred anymore?"  The pop performer, Meat Loaf, has a song, Is Nothing Sacred Anymore?  I wouldn't have known that if I had not googled that question, wondering what would come up. That should tip you off to the confusion.  The irony here is a person named Meat Loaf singing about nothing being sacred, in case you didn't know.  The concept of "sacred" isn't sacred.  The very definition of sacred has been profaned when no one blinks at Meat Loaf.  

In the song, Meat Loaf sings about "love."  He sings about love in a profane way, in a way that love itself is no longer sacred.  Love is redefined and sentimentalized to something that isn't even love.  In other words, when Meat Loaf sings about it, love isn't sacred anymore.   Love is a biblical word.  It shows up in our culture, because it started in God's Word.  A sacred understanding of love is a biblical view of love, but I digress.

You will not find the English terminology "sacred music" used until the seventeenth century, and then not much in printed literature.  It increases in the eighteenth century, but not much, and you read its usage in 1798 in a book entitled, Melody, the Soul of Music (p. 48):

Even sacred music is not exempted; particularly when accompanied with instruments.  Frivolous and airy passages sometimes mingle with such strains as should never deviate from the solemnity which suitable ideas of the Being to whom they are addressed ought always inspire.  Even in Hallelujahs and expressions of devout gladness, we should, in the language of Scripture, "join trembling with out mirth."  Owing to inattention in this respect, some pieces of sacred music, intended for that kind of expression, seem better calculated to promote convivial hilarity.

This reminded me of something Thomas Ross posted here awhile back on this very subject, entitled Reverence and Solemnity:  Essential Aspects of Biblical Worship.  These characteristics distinguished sacred music from other music.  We read from George Horne (1784), The Antiquity, Use and Excellence of Church Music (p. 11):

For there is no doubt but that the heart may be weaned from everything base and mean, and elevated to every thing that is excellent and praiseworthy, by sacred music.  The evil spirit may still be dispossessed, and the good spirit invited and obtained, by the harp of the son of Jesse.

Sacred music must be music, of course, but most of all, it must be sacred.  A sermon in 1719, entitled The Holiness of Christian Churches, by Thomas Mangey, gives a good understanding of "sacred":

Whatsoever is dedicated to God, is by that solemn Act of Dedication, made so entirely his, that the Application of it to civil Uses, tho' jointly with Sacred, is one Degree of Sacrilege.

They thought that something that was sacred was just sacred.  This is also the understanding in the Baptist New Hampshire Confession of Faith (1833):

That the first day of the week is the Lord's-Day, . . . and is to be kept sacred to religious purposes, by abstaining from all secular labor and [sinful] recreations; by the devout observance of all means of grace, both private and public; and by preparation for rest which remaineth for the people of God.

If something is kept sacred, it is kept "holy."  As "sacred" relates to God, the music, if it is sacred, should be characterized by those perfections of God's attributes.  The music should be scriptural in every way and according to the qualities that accord with God.  To understand sacred, it helps to understand the antonym, which is common or profane.

Sacred music should not be in character like the world's music.  There is still sacred music.  People don't like it.  It's all that God accepts, but it's not what churches want to use for worship, because people have a different taste of music.  The people have become common and profane and they offer what they like to God.  He doesn't accept it, but it tells you about the people.

God wants a distinction between what is common or profane and what is holy or sacred.  The sacred should conform to God -- His character, His nature, His Person.  I repeat:  that music does exist and can be used.  Churches have stopped using it because the people don't like it.  In not using it, they are saying that they don't like God.  This is idolatry.  How?

When someone gives God what he likes, but God doesn't like it, he is worshiping himself.   When someone offers something to God that God doesn't accept, He is worshiping something of a different nature than God, so it is a different God.  Worshiping the wrong way leads to worshiping the wrong god.  Either way though, God isn't worshiped.

Donald Trump Can't Make America Great Again

People may have noticed the theme of Donald Trump's presidential campaign, "Make America Great Again."

You may also have noticed that he says it a lot.  The theme resonates.  He chose a good theme.  I don't know the theme of anyone else's campaign.  Do you?

Donald Trump says that he will make America great again.  I think his chief argument is that he built a great company, that the leadership of America is incompetent, but he is competent, so he is qualified to make America great.

If someone could make America great, he should know what made America great in the first place.  I don't know about you, but when I think of the words, "Make America Great Again," I think of the following words:

I sought for the greatness and genius of America in her commodious harbors and her ample rivers—and it was not there … in her fertile fields and boundless forests—and it was not there … in her rich mines and her vast world commerce—and it was not there … in her democratic Congress and her matchless Constitution—and it was not there. Not until I went into the churches of America and heard her pulpits flame with righteousness did I understand the secret of her genius and power. America is great because she is good, and if America ever ceases to be good, America will cease to be great.

These words are attributed to Alexis de Tocqueville, but if you go to the translation of de Tocqueville's work, Democracy in America, you won't find them there.  Many politicians have quoted those words, attributing them to de Tocqueville, but I've never been able to find who said them.  I don't know of anyone who knows.  I don' t think they appeared from thin air, but I have zero record of where they originated.  If de Tocqueville did say them, they would be a useful quote right there, but we don't know who originated these words, so let's go somewhere else for a quote to explain the greatness of America.

Benjamin Franklin in a letter to the Abbes Chalut and Arnoux on April 17, 1787 wrote "that only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters."  In his farewell address to the nation, George Washington wrote:

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice ? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.

The Declaration of Independence starts with the following:

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. 

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.

You see the language, "laws of nature," "Nature's God," and "endowed by their Creator."  When Loyalist writings began to appear in New York newspapers, nineteen-year-old Alexander Hamilton, still a student at King's College, responded on February 23, 1775 with a pamphlet defending the colonists' right of revolution, entitled, The Farmer Refuted, in which he wrote:

The sacred rights of mankind are not to be rummaged for among old parchments or musty records. They are written, as with a sunbeam, in the whole volume of human nature, by the Hand of Divinity itself, and can never be erased or obscured by mortal power.

You could take the United States Constitution, set it up as the governing document of many other nations, and they would not become a great nation.  This is the problem with so-called "nation building."  You can't bring "democracy" to Iraq and expect the United States soon after.  The people of the country must acknowledge the Creator and the natural rights He has endowed and illuminated.

If the United States won't recognize God, the one and true God of the Bible, which is only the God of biblical Christianity, it won't be great again.  Neither building a wall on the Southern border to stop illegal entrance, destroying ISIS, nor impeding China and Mexico from ripping us off will make America great again.  From his mouth alone, well known for how much and how wide it opens, I'm sure that Donald Trump does not know God, so he himself is part of the problem.  If Donald Trump cared about God, he could start by repudiating his own sin and that which he continues to encourage through his acquiescence.

The United States will be much closer to the solution if its churches would acknowledge God and function according to His Word.  America will never be great if its churches will not be great.  Its churches will not be great if their leaders will not be great.  As long as the churches and their leaders won't be great, America has no possibility of being great even if Donald Trump wants it to be.

The Resolutions of Jonathan Edwards

Have you ever read the resolutions of Jonathan Edwards?  Have you ever resolved to follow them yourself?  Edwards reportedly wrote the first portion of these resolutions when he was only 19 years old.  Do you think that contributed to his godly life?  Perhaps you ought to make these resolutions yourself in this new year.

“Being sensible that I am unable to do anything without God’s help, I do humbly entreat Him by His grace to enable me to keep these resolutions, so far as they are agreeable to His will, for Christ’s sake.”

Remember to read over these Resolutions once a week.

1. Resolved, that I will do whatsoever I think to be most to God’s glory, and my own good, profit and pleasure, in the whole of my duration, without any consideration of the time, whether now, or never so many myriad’s of ages hence. Resolved to do whatever I think to be my duty and most for the good and advantage of mankind in general. Resolved to do this, whatever difficulties I meet with, how many and how great soever.

2. Resolved, to be continually endeavoring to find out some new invention and contrivance to promote the aforementioned things.

3. Resolved, if ever I shall fall and grow dull, so as to neglect to keep any part of these Resolutions, to repent of all I can remember, when I come to myself again.

4. Resolved, never to do any manner of thing, whether in soul or body, less or more, but what tends to the glory of God; nor be, nor suffer it, if I can avoid it.

5. Resolved, never to lose one moment of time; but improve it the most profitable way I possibly can.

6. Resolved, to live with all my might, while I do live.

7. Resolved, never to do anything, which I should be afraid to do, if it were the last hour of my life.

8. Resolved, to act, in all respects, both speaking and doing, as if nobody had been so vile as I, and as if I had committed the same sins, or had the same infirmities or failings as others; and that I will let the knowledge of their failings promote nothing but shame in myself, and prove only an occasion of my confessing my own sins and misery to God.

9. Resolved, to think much on all occasions of my own dying, and of the common circumstances which attend death.

10. Resolved, when I feel pain, to think of the pains of martyrdom, and of hell.

11. Resolved, when I think of any theorem in divinity to be solved, immediately to do what I can towards solving it, if circumstances don’t hinder.

12. Resolved, if I take delight in it as a gratification of pride, or vanity, or on any such account, immediately to throw it by.

13. Resolved, to be endeavoring to find out fit objects of charity and liberality.

14. Resolved, never to do anything out of revenge.

15. Resolved, never to suffer the least motions of anger to irrational beings.

16. Resolved, never to speak evil of anyone, so that it shall tend to his dishonor, more or less, upon no account except for some real good.

17. Resolved, that I will live so as I shall wish I had done when I come to die.

18. Resolved, to live so at all times, as I think is best in my devout frames, and when I have clearest notions of things of the gospel, and another world.

19. Resolved, never to do anything, which I should be afraid to do, if I expected it would not be above an hour, before I should hear the last trump.

20. Resolved, to maintain the strictest temperance in eating and drinking.

21. Resolved, never to do anything, which if I should see in another, I should count a just occasion to despise him for, or to think any way the more meanly of him.

22. Resolved, to endeavor to obtain for myself as much happiness, in the other world, as I possibly can, with all the power; might, vigor, and vehemence, yea violence, I am capable of, or can bring myself to exert, in any way that can be thought of.

23. Resolved, frequently to take some deliberate action, which seems most unlikely to be done, for the glory of God, and trace it back to the original intention, designs and ends of it; and if I find it not to be for God’s glory, to repute it as a breach of the 4th Resolution.

24. Resolved, whenever I do any conspicuously evil action, to trace it back, till I come to the original cause; and then both carefully endeavor to do so no more, and to fight and pray with all my might against the original of it.

25. Resolved, to examine carefully, and constantly, what that one thing in me is, which causes me in the least to doubt of the love of God; and to direct all my forces against it.

26. Resolved, to cast away such things, as I find do abate my assurance.

27. Resolved, never willfully to omit anything, except the omission be for the glory of God; and frequently to examine my omissions.

28. Resolved, to study the Scriptures so steadily, constantly and frequently, as that I may find, and plainly perceive myself to grow in the knowledge of the same.

29. Resolved, never to count that a prayer, nor to let that pass as a prayer, nor that as a petition of a prayer, which is so made, that I cannot hope that God will answer it; nor that as a confession, which I cannot hope God will accept.

30. Resolved, to strive to my utmost every week to be brought higher in religion, and to a higher exercise of grace, than I was the week before.

31. Resolved, never to say anything at all against anybody, but when it is perfectly agreeable to the highest degree of Christian honor, and of love to mankind, agreeable to the lowest humility, and sense of my own faults and failings, and agreeable to the golden rule; often, when I have said anything against anyone, to bring it to, and try it strictly by the test of this Resolution.

32. Resolved, to be strictly and firmly faithful to my trust, that that in Prov. 20:6, “A faithful man who can find?” may not be partly fulfilled in me.

33. Resolved, always to do what I can towards making, maintaining, establishing and preserving peace, when it can be without over-balancing detriment in other respects.

34. Resolved, in narration’s never to speak anything but the pure and simple verity.

35. Resolved, whenever I so much question whether I have done my duty, as that my quiet and calm is thereby disturbed, to set it down, and also how the question was resolved.

36. Resolved, never to speak evil of any, except I have some particular good call for it.

37. Resolved, to inquire every night, as I am going to bed, wherein I have been negligent, what sin I have committed, and wherein I have denied myself: also at the end of every week, month and year.

38. Resolved, never to speak anything that is ridiculous, sportive, or matter of laughter on the Lord’s day. Sabbath evening,

39. Resolved, never to do anything that I so much question the lawfulness of, as that I intend, at the same time, to consider and examine afterwards, whether it be lawful or no; except I as much question the lawfulness of the omission.

40. Resolved, to inquire every night, before I go to bed, whether I have acted in the best way I possibly could, with respect to eating and drinking.

41. Resolved, to ask myself at the end of every day, week, month and year, wherein I could possibly in any respect have done better.

42. Resolved, frequently to renew the dedication of myself to God, which was made at my baptism; which I solemnly renewed, when I was received into the communion of the church; and which I have solemnly re-made this . . . day. [Believer's baptism is indeed a dedication to God, and by it one joins the church; I trust Edwards, in heaven, now knows paedobaptism is not Scriptural.]

43. Resolved, never henceforward, till I die, to act as if I were any way my own, but entirely and altogether God’s, agreeable to what is to be found in [the other resolutions.]

44- Resolved, that no other end but religion, shall have any influence at all on any of my actions; and that no action shall be, in the least circumstance, any otherwise than the religious end will carry it.

45. Resolved, never to allow any pleasure or grief, joy or sorrow, nor any affection at all, nor any degree of affection, nor any circumstance relating to it, but what helps religion.

46. Resolved, never to allow the least measure of any fretting uneasiness at my father or mother. Resolved to suffer no effects of it, so much as in the least alteration of speech, or motion of my eve: and to be especially careful of it, with respect to any of our family.

47. Resolved, to endeavor to my utmost to deny whatever is not most agreeable to a good, and universally sweet and benevolent, quiet, peace able, contented, easy, compassionate, generous, humble, meek, modest, submissive, obliging, diligent and industrious, charitable, even, patient, moderate, forgiving, sincere temper; and to do at all times what such a temper would lead me to. Examine strictly every week, whether I have done so.

48. Resolved, constantly, with the utmost niceness and diligence, and the strictest scrutiny, to be looking into the state of my soul, that I may know whether I have truly an interest in Christ or no; that when I come to die, I may not have any negligence respecting this to repent of.

49. Resolved, that this never shall be, if I can help it.

50. Resolved, I will act so as I think I shall judge would have been best, and most prudent, when I come into the future world.

51. Resolved, that I will act so, in every respect, as I think I shall wish I had done, if I should at last be damned. [This resolution, which arises out of Edwards' Calvinistic thinking that regeneration preceeds faith and that an unsaved person can seek God his whole life, seek to repent and believe every day, and never be given the gift of regeneration in God's arbitrary sovereign decision, is highly problematic and unbiblical.  Let's rejoice in the other convicting and edifying resolutions, and put this one down to the fact that the godly Edwards was still a sinner, as we are.]

52. I frequently hear persons in old age say how they would live, if they were to live their lives over again: Resolved, that I will live just so as I can think I shall wish I had done, supposing I live to old age.

53. Resolved, to improve every opportunity, when I am in the best and happiest frame of mind, to cast and venture my soul on the Lord Jesus Christ, to trust and confide in him, and consecrate myself wholly to him; that from this I may have assurance of my safety, knowing that I confide in my Redeemer.

54. Whenever I hear anything spoken in conversation of any person, if I think it would be praiseworthy in me, Resolved to endeavor to imitate it.

55. Resolved, to endeavor to my utmost to act as I can think I should do, if I had already seen the happiness of heaven, and hell torments.

56. Resolved, never to give over, nor in the least to slacken my fight with my corruptions, however unsuccessful I may be.

57. Resolved, when I fear misfortunes and adversities, to examine whether I have done my duty, and resolve to do it; and let it be just as providence orders it, I will as far as I can, be concerned about nothing but my duty and my sin.

58. Resolved, not only to refrain from an air of dislike, fretfulness, and anger in conversation, but to exhibit an air of love, cheerfulness and benignity.

59. Resolved, when I am most conscious of provocations to ill nature and anger, that I will strive most to feel and act good-naturedly; yea, at such times, to manifest good nature, though I think that in other respects it would be disadvantageous, and so as would be imprudent at other times.

60. Resolved, whenever my feelings begin to appear in the least out of order, when I am conscious of the least uneasiness within, or the least irregularity without, I will then subject myself to the strictest examination.

61. Resolved, that I will not give way to that listlessness which I find unbends and relaxes my mind from being fully and fixedly set on religion, whatever excuse I may have for it-that what my listlessness inclines me to do, is best to be done, etc,

62. Resolved, never to do anything but duty; and then according to Eph. 6:6-8, do it willingly and cheerfully as unto the Lord, and not to man; “knowing that whatever good thing any man doth, the same shall he receive of the Lord.”

63. On the supposition, that there never was to be but one individual in the world, at any one time, who was properly a complete Christian, in all respects of a right stamp, having Christianity always shining in its true luster, and appearing excellent and lovely, from whatever part and under whatever character viewed: Resolved, to act just as I would do, if I strove with all my might to be that one, who should live in my time.

64. Resolved, when I find those “groanings which cannot be uttered” (Rom. 8:26), of which the Apostle speaks, and those “breakings of soul for the longing it hath,” of which the Psalmist speaks, Psalm 119:20, that I will promote them to the utmost of my power, and that I will not be weary of earnestly endeavoring to vent my desires, nor of the repetitions of such earnestness.

65. Resolved, very much to exercise myself in this all my life long, viz. with the greatest openness I am capable of, to declare my ways to God, and lay open my soul to him: all my sins, temptations, difficulties, sorrows, fears, hopes, desires, and every thing, and every circumstance; according to Dr. Manton’s 27th Sermon on Psalm 119.

66. Resolved, that I will endeavor always to keep a benign aspect, and air of acting and speaking in all places, and in all companies, except it should so happen that duty requires otherwise.

67. Resolved, after afflictions, to inquire, what I am the better for them, what good I have got by them, and what I might have got by them.

68. Resolved, to confess frankly to myself all that which I find in myself, either infirmity or sin; and, if it be what concerns religion, also to confess the whole case to God, and implore needed help.

69. Resolved, always to do that, which I shall wish I had done when I see others do it.

70. Let there be something of benevolence, in all that I speak.

TDR

Fundamental Stupidity

Anyone who thinks straight knows that the United States of America has reached a point of a very fundamental stupidity.  It is difficult to watch and hard to know how to react to it.  Before I get a big lecture, I know I still have salvation and joy and that everything is going to be alright in the end.  I know God is in charge like He was in Babylon when Daniel was in captivity there.  I know that.  The lectures themselves are a symptom of the stupidity.  This isn't Babylon.  Yet.  I know God will still be in charge when America becomes Babylon.

You don't hear much sense from anyone in power or who could have power in the country, but when you do, you want to acknowledge it.  I realize that Donald Trump could be lying to everyone.  I've got to establish my bonafides in recognizing Trump might be taking people for a ride.  I read just today that Donald Trump said the following in People magazine in 1998:

If I were to run, I'd run as a Republican. They're the dumbest group of voters in the country. They believe anything on Fox News. I could lie and they'd still eat it up. I bet my numbers would be terrific.

It was a meme that started appearing in October 2015 as Trump was rising in the polls of the Republican primary race for President.  Is it true?  Did he say that?  Snopes, which is no friend to conservatives, said that it isn't true.  The fact that 48.5 million people have shared the Snopes article indicates how many times people have repeated this lie.  People need to check out their sources better.  That was entirely made up in order to smear Trump.  You can find enough real stuff that Trump has said if you wanted to smear him as a conservative.  But why even bring in the name Trump at this juncture in a discussion about fundamental stupidity?  Trump has gained traction as a candidate for pointing out the obvious.  This is no accident.  Dismissing that is a part of the fundamental stupidity.

Conservatives have become useful idiots by undermining certain Trump points of sensibility.  They attack common sense to put down Trump.  In so doing, they support fundamental stupidity.  Trump wants to eliminate illegal immigration.  He early on made a point about Mexico sending rapists and other criminals across the border, which has been found to be true again and again, but the fundamentally stupid media reported and continues to report that Trump said that Mexicans were rapists and criminals.  That is typical of the media.  Then you had Republicans using the media lies to oppose Trump.  Trump has done what a smart person would do.  He has ignored the charge.  It is, however, the kind of thing that works with fundamental stupidity, that is, just tell a lie that dupes idiots.

At this point, someone might say I'm fundamentally stupid for supporting Trump.  That is a fundamental stupidity, because I'm supporting what Trump said.  Guess what?  That's different.  Slow down here everyone.  Stop for a moment.  T.h.a.t.'.s.  D.i.f.f.e.r.e.n.t.  We have to slow way down for fundamental stupidity.  It's different to support things Trump says than to support Trump.  Are you getting that, people who have regurgitated the media lies?  We get it.  You are against Trump.  But who else says what Trump says?  Let me give you a recent example.

I had some ideas of what I might want to write, and I didn't want to write something with the name Trump in it and start all over again, which says that fundamental stupidity does work very often.   Under pressure, I was thinking about writing about something else, maybe even continuing the theme of my last two posts.  However, I watched Trump give his press conference on his plane.  Much of the line of questioning in the 18 minutes was about Trump's taking away of the Constitutional rights of Muslims.  Trump is good answering these types of questions.  I don't know how much of it is natural and how much of it is trained or practiced.  What he does is stay on point and his point is, "They have to turn people in."  People want to talk about the rights people are taking away, and Trump doesn't bite.  He says, "They have to turn people in."

Many Moslems (who knows what percentage?) do not turn people in when they know they are planning the terrorist acts.  Trump focuses on that point.  That makes sense.  That is not fundamental stupidity.  Trump takes a moment of sensibility.  Fundamental stupidity ignores that common sense.  This was the same reason he talked about killing relatives, by the way, like Reagan did when he bombed the Gaddafi compound in Libya in 1986.  That's what Americans once did, that is, retaliated for the killing of their people.  Now we present deaths like they are a traffic fatality, just another way to die like the flu.  They will keep killing us if we don't bring any threat to their evil.  I want to obey my duty to hate Trump, but I can't hate these sensible things he says, that no one else will say.  They are too afraid of offending fundamental stupidity.

I know that the fundamental stupidity in the United States starts with denial of God as Creator and then goes down from there.  That should be a stopping point, one that is supported by evangelicals when they push for old earth creationism in the form of the day age theory, theistic evolution, and progressive creationism.  When you remove God as Creator or compromise to allow for those who deny God's creation, you sabotage sensibility and start down the path of fundamental stupidity.  You get every stupid idea proceeding from that initial stupidity, that is, that all of what we see out there came about by chance.  It affects everything when you are wishy-washy and not solid on God as Creator.

Unbelievers will keep denying God, so I could just spend all my time on the gospel.  I could bring up nothing else.  If I do talk about anything else, someone might claim I diminish the importance of the gospel.  The rest of my life I just preach the gospel and bring up no other subject even if it is fundamental stupidity.  I know the gospel is the cure.  I know that.

Since evolution or Darwinism buttresses all fundamental stupidity, I could just park there and never leave.  Since the gospel is the solution, I could live there without ever moving.  I could ignore illegal immigration, racial discrimination in the form of affirmative action, opposition to a second amendment right to self and home protection, the robbery of progressive taxation, the corruption of our government, and the lack of law enforcement.  I could.  I won't.  I'll keep bring up these issues at the same time I oppose evolution and preach the gospel everywhere and to everyone.  I think it is fundamental stupidity not to do that.

Essential and Non-Essential Critique

Criticism can help.  Some doesn't help at all -- for instance, name-calling, like the scoffers do of 2 Peter 3:3.  A few weeks ago I wrote again on the essential and non-essential doctrine, and it was linked at an online forum, whose owner, Aaron Blumer, wrote a short critique.  I'm happy he wrote it, because it sheds light on the subject.  Here's what he wrote:

Essential for what? 

I'm sure he means well, but the reasoning is messed up... and putting all truth on the same level of certainty and importance is far more damaging than even incorrectly discerning how truths relate to one another. 

Note... 

That everything is not equally clear in the Bible is indicated in the book itself (e.g. 2 Pet. 3:16) 

The revelation God has given us includes evidence of priorities. Since it relates ideas to one another, and encourages us to use reason to relate ideas to one another, what truths are essential and nonessential to other truths is part of what God has revealed. 

It is impossible for everything to be essential for everything else. This should be self evident. You could be stranded on a desert Island with only fragments of Genesis and John and still be able to discover the gospel and come to faith in Christ. 

"Essential" is a synonym for "necessary" and it can never stand alone as a concept. The question the term always begs is "essential for what?" The fact that Mary who sat at Jesus feet in Luke 10 is the same Mary who poured perfume on Jesus' feet in John 12:3 is essential for something or it would not be revealed. But you could definitely get your Marys mixed up and still fully understand and live the gospel. 

Since violations of commandments in the Law of Moses have penalties of varying severity, yes, I have to accept that they do "rank commandments in heaven." (See also Matt. 23:23, in which Jesus clearly indicates that some matters are weightier than others... and that failing to see these differences is a serious error.)

I wish he had interacted with my actual post, which exposed what Jesus said in John 8, or with the other exegesis I've done on the subject.  Not one person has yet done that.  Years ago, Phil Johnson promised he would and didn't.  I get why someone wouldn't.  Their teaching is totally debunked by scripture.  Nonetheless, I'm happy that Aaron did at least what he did.  Let's think about it together anyway.

To start, the essential and non-essential doctrine directly relates to justifying doctrinal and practical error for the sake of keeping together coalitions.  If men unify around essentials and separate only over essentials, they will have a bigger group, it's true.  That's what motivates the doctrine and it is what it is all about.  However, does the Bible teach that?  One should be asking if that is taught somewhere in scripture.  If someone does not start with that understanding, he is not going to get a correct evaluation of the essential and non-essential doctrine.  I want to take Aaron's critique one point at a time.

Aaron says my reasoning is "messed up," but he doesn't deal with what I wrote.  He doesn't point out anything in particular that I've written (except for one minor one that I will mention later), any quote, to show how it is "messed up" in its reasoning.  In so doing, he erects a straw man, which isn't uncommon.  Much of what he writes here is just a distraction, or what some people have termed, "a red herring."

By nature truth is certain.  It's the truth.  It is certain.  I'm not talking about what isn't true, but what is true, which is certain.  There is no such thing as a sort of certain truth.  You either are a disciple of Christ or you are not.  The idea that that are various levels of certainty to truth fits a postmodern view of the world.

Certainty and importance are not the same subject.  The Word of God is truth, so it is certain.  The word "important" doesn't occur in scripture, so "importance" as it applies to scripture must be defined.   What is someone saying when he says that one doctrine is more important than another?  Depending on how someone defines that, I could agree to it.  For instance, I would rather someone murder me in his heart than physically to murder me, so that I'm not breathing any more.  I still get to breathe when someone murders me in his heart.  The death penalty doesn't apply to mental murder, so that means mental murder isn't important, right?  Murdering in the heart is important to God.  It will condemn a person as much as physical murder will.

I have no problem discussing priorities.  Before I start talking about particular acts of obedience to someone, I might deal with his salvation.    Salvation is foundational, but is it more important than sanctification?  Aaron uses the word "damaging" and then doesn't explain it at all.  I see ranking of truths as more damaging than not ranking them.  If someone does all of them, because he believes they are all certain and they are all important, what damage has that done?  On the other hand, someone ranks "truths" as to certainty and importance, and then doesn't do the "unimportant and uncertain" ones.  Aaron is saying that the former is damaging and the latter is what?  Not damaging? The latter is what happens because of the essential and non essential doctrine.

Let's say that I agree with Aaron that not all parts of the Bible are equally clear, or as Peter wrote, some parts are harder to be understood.  Does that mean we are exempt from the parts harder to be understood?  That is the essence of the essential and non-essential doctrine.  If it's harder to be understood, some people get a pass.  Some things can't be understood, but that is not the Bible.  The Bible can be understood, just that some parts are harder than others.  Was Peter saying, "You're not responsible for those hard parts"?  Of course not.  Just the opposite.  He's saying that false teachers choose those texts in particular to attack in order to cause doubt about the second coming, because they think they can do more damage with passages harder to be understood.  The essential and non essential movement picks up where those false teachers left off: "You can doubt the second coming because the prophetic passages are harder to be understood."  Aaron seems to agree along with most evangelicals today.  Their essential and non essential doctrine says that same sex marriage is a non essential.

The desert island argument isn't Bible.  Would I want people to have John instead of Leviticus?  Sure.  So what?  That argument doesn't mean John is either more certain or more important than Leviticus.  For someone who isn't saved, I start with salvation passages in the Bible.  It's true.  Again, that doesn't make them more important or more certain.  All through John I see Jesus say that He does everything that the Father tells Him to do.  The people who follow Jesus will do the same.  When Jesus said, "continue in my word," was He saying, "Continue in my essentials," or "Continue in what is certain," or "Continue in what is important"?  No.  The essential and non-essential doctrine makes Jesus the Lord of the essentials, which He, the Lord, doesn't determine.  We do.  That is messed up reasoning.

You can still be saved if you don't properly label the correct Mary in the Gospels, or "mess your Mary's up."  What does that prove?  Does that prove that you can sprinkle infants?  I would agree that you can still be saved and not know exactly what happened to Jephthah's daughter.  That is not an argument for ranking doctrines.  It is not necessary to know Esther to be saved.  That doesn't say that Esther isn't certain or important.  All of this is a red herring or a strawman, because that's not the point of the essential and non-essential doctrine.  The messed up reasoning is the following:  since I don't separate over a mislabeling of Mary in the gospels, then I don't separate over mode of baptism or eschatology.  We have a basis for thinking that all of the Bible is certain and important  I've already long ago laid out many biblical arguments that have never been answered.

The only place Aaron touched on the article I wrote was in my side argument that in heaven they do not rank doctrines.  By saying that, I'm saying that in heaven they do everything that God said to do.  Aaron's argument against that is that they do rank doctrines in heaven because the Old Testament gave different severity of punishment to different crime.  Heaven still does everything God said and if someone in heaven decided to rank a doctrine as less important and didn't do it, he would be banished from heaven.  If we do the will of God on earth like they do in heaven, we will do all of it.

At the end of Hebrews 6, God says that different rules apply to what God says than what man says.  Man needs two or three witnesses to verify the truth.  Man needs oaths to verify his promises.  God cannot lie, so He doesn't need witnesses or oaths.  The punishments of the law were set up for sinful men, because men violate those laws:  eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth, life for a life.   Those punishments taught justice, equal retribution.  You couldn't take more or less for the crime committed.  That didn't mean that taking an eye wasn't serious or unimportant.  You still took an eye for an eye, but you couldn't take a life.  Not taking a life didn't mean that taking a tooth was unimportant or uncertain.

In Hebrews 2, the punishments under the law were sure, they were certain. That was an argument for not escaping the neglect of the salvation spoken by the Lord and those who heard Him.  If someone took a tooth in heaven, he wouldn't be in heaven any longer, because not one sin is allowed in heaven.  This is why in James 2:10, James says that one offense of the law, any point of law, is an offense of all the law -- all of it.  I'm saying that Aaron's reasoning is messed up.

Aaron says that Matthew 23:23 justifies the essential and non-essential doctrine, because Jesus said that the Pharisees did not obey the weightier matters of the law.  The word for "weighty" is barus, which has the understanding of "more difficult," that is, "heavier."  Something that is heavier is harder to do.  The Pharisees ranked God's laws.  This is a big irony here.  The Pharisees were guilty of ranking laws by those that were the most difficult for them to do and those that were the least difficult.  Tithing of little herbs was easy for them, and so they did that.  What was impossible for them, weighty, they didn't do.  A Pharisee couldn't keep all the law, so he ranked it and kept what he deemed important.

I call what the Pharisees did, "left wing legalism."  If you can't keep the law, then rank the law, so that you can keep it.  Reduce the law to that which you can keep, because the whole law is impossible to keep.  This is the legalism of the Pharisees, mimicked by the essential and non-essential doctrine of Aaron and others.

*************

There was one other comment, you can read, by William Dudding.  He calls me a Diotrephes (3 John) for my exposure of the essential and non-essential doctrine.  Is that messed up reasoning? What I'm saying is that Diotrephes cast people out of a particular church.  In other words, he skipped all three steps of Matthew 18 to kick someone out of a church.  Our church has never done that.  In every practice of church discipline, we have gone through three steps and the third step is the church, not one person, removing someone from the church.  In other words, I have never done what Diotrephes did.  Ever.

With that in mind, what is Dudding talking about?  What have I cast people out of?  It's hard to understand, but that is the nature of evangelicalism and fundamentalism.  They are so twisted and corrupted in their thinking, so unscriptural, that you can't even understand what they are talking about.  That passes for acceptable teaching for most of them.

Perhaps the SharperIron crowd just ignores Dudding or what he said stands as acceptable interpretation and application of 3 John.

*************

Let me give you an easy illustration to grasp the damage and danger of the essential and non-essential doctrine, why it is popular, and how it attacks the truth.  Someone breaks a small window in our house.  The police visit and tell me that they can't or won't do anything about it, because it isn't important enough.  If they had broken a big picture window, then that would get their attention, but the small window, they won't do anything about.  As a result, people do what they want and get away with it.  No one needs to point it out, because it isn't essential.

This is where our culture is.  Someone broke my car window and no one cared.  If they had murdered someone, that would get police attention.  Certain doctrines and practices have become meaningless with the essential and non-essential doctrine until now the churches have same-sex marriage on their hands.  This is what they have done.  They own this.

Christmas Carols That Lie

This article is now posted here.

TDR

Christmas: Christians Were Against It Before They Were For It Before They Were Against It

Let me give you a summary of Christmas, writing completely off the top of my head, which is bald. One, we can be pretty sure that Jesus wasn't born December 25th.  Two, there is no history of Christmas celebration until medieval times.  Three, Christmas originated with Roman Catholicism.  The pope essentially invented it to compete with, four, the revelry of pagan festivals revolving around Winter solstice.  He gave an alternative to offset what he considered the damage it did, would do, and had done.  Five, at the beginning actual Christians were against Christmas.  After the Reformation, when Protestants could take charge, they did away with it.  Six, the Plymouth colony did not observe Christmas.  Seven, early Congress continued to meet on Christmas, which was a bit of a protest against England, where Anglicanism was good with it.  Eight, Christmas grew in the United States, but it was influenced by secular notions like Santa Claus, sort of coming full circle to the revelry again.  Nine, Christmas became an American tradition.  Ten, Christmas is the only traditional observance of the birth of or the incarnation of Jesus Christ.  Eleven, evangelical churches in the United States see Christmas as a time to exalt the coming of Jesus to the earth, the most important event in world history.

As I grew up in a small town in the Midwest, I never heard that Christmas was pagan or Roman Catholic.  I never paralleled any of the Christmas traditions with that.  I never heard of anything against Christmas until I was already a pastor (there was no internet at the time).  The first I heard it was bad was when a couple who had moved from Pennsylvania and started attending our church told my wife and I they were against Christmas trees.  We didn't have a Christmas tree our second Christmas in California because we thought it would be a stumbling block to this couple.

My family started going to church faithfully when I was three or four, and I never heard Christmas was bad.  We attended an independent Baptist church.  I never heard in school, in church, or from anyone that Christmas was bad.  My family moved to Watertown, Wisconsin and my dad went to Bible college and I started into a Christian school for the first time when I was 12 years of age.  For the next thirteen years in church, Christian school, Christian academy, Christian college, and Christian graduate school, no one told me Christmas was bad.  Nothing I read said it was wrong.  I didn't hear anything about it until this couple from Pennsylvania started attending our church.  As I think about how bad Christmas was, this was a very well kept secret that it was bad.

Since all of the above, I had never had anyone oppose Christmas to and with me in our church.  I had been asked about it a few times, because of something someone heard, but no one said we shouldn't celebrate it.  As Christmas came around, my biggest concern was not Christmas itself, but the secularization and commercialization of it.  It seemed like Christ was being taken out of Christmas. When I was young I heard that X-mas was a conspiracy, not knowing that the X was the first letter of "Christ" in the Greek alphabet, so it meant "Christ." It had never occurred to me that Christ wasn't in this season to begin with and that His being put into this season was a development.  I probably wrote three or four school Christmas programs exploring the theme of Christ being taken out of Christmas.

My only challenge recently against observing Christmas has come from a few outside of our church not from our area.  I have had to defend Christmas almost entirely in emails from people asking why we have anything to do with it.  I don't like being an offense to these people, but I'm not convinced that we can't take this traditional time of celebrating the incarnation of Christ and use it to extol the birth of Christ.  I have a long built up reservoir of Christmas good will with a lot of people to stamp out suddenly, and I don't have the conviction to do it.  I'm not ready to move for the armchair quarterbacks who want me to make life easier for them.

On the other hand, in our church is an elderly lady who is raising her grand daughter, who just started in the public school.  She went to the Christmas program there of her grand daughter and there wasn't one mention of Jesus or Christ in the entire program.  It was all about Santa and gifts and candy canes and Rudolph and Frosty and the like.  The state has removed Jesus as if it must to obey the Constitution.  It celebrates Christmas now.  The Congress goes home and doesn't keep working, but it can't mention Christ except in the word "Christmas," which most of you know is removed for Happy Holidays, whatever the "Holi" means.

I'm torn here.  I've got to defend Christmas and I've got to fight Christmas.  Both.  It seems like both of these actions, the defending and the fighting, place a lot of emphasis on Christmas.  Both of them are very serious about Christmas.  The secularists are very serious about keeping Jesus out and the pious are very serious about keeping Jesus out.  If I keep Jesus out, I'll please both of them, the former for their love for my love of tolerance and the latter for my anti-paganism and Roman Catholicism.  On the other hand, I'll displease all the people who see both positions as extreme.  Is it really that serious an issue?  My personal take is that secularization or commercialization is easily the biggest problem here.

If I regulate my worship by scripture, can I preach and sing about the birth of Christ?  Yes.  That's what our church does.  We do it a lot in December.

Hillsong: If Nothing Is Wrong, Then Nothing Is Wrong

Sometimes you can get your "church news" on ESPN.  We don't have cable television, so I read sports on the ESPN website, where I saw Justin Bieber was baptized in the bathtub of NBA center Tyson Chandler's apartment in New York City.  One of the hosts was wondering who the "guy on the right was," who happened to be the "pastor," Carl Lentz, who baptized Bieber, commenting that he looked like the "dirtbag version of David 'Menemun' (sp?)."  Just from sheer appearance, an unaware ESPN analyst sees Bieber's evangelical pastor as a "dirtbag."  Someone's judging something to look awry.  Is it possible that something is wrong, when nothing can be wrong?  The world seems to think so.

GQ magazine has done a feature on Lentz and Hillsong, his church in New York City, entitled, What Would Cool Jesus Do?  Christians often chalk up secular magazine critique to persecution, but GQ pretty much nails Hillsong.  It offers a savvy tongue-in-cheek analysis to this pop version of Christianity.  Can anything really be wrong with Hillsong though?  Evangelicals long ago stopped judging the specifics of the culture and relegated anyone who did so to legalism or adding to scripture or the gospel.

What I'm writing is that all evangelicals are responsible for what they see in Hillsong and should have zero room for criticism.  They own Hillsong, because they can't judge cultural issues any more. Therefore, all evangelicals, including the entire Southern Baptist Convention, own Hillsong and everything like it.

Evangelicals know something is wrong with Hillsong.  They know it.  They won't say exactly what it is though.  Some of the conservative evangelicals nibble around the edges without getting into any specifics.  I've read their minimal critiques in various of the usual places and they usually mock them for being hipsters and celebrities.  They don't offer any substantive critique.  They don't give anyone any reason above personal preference for not associating with or even supporting a Hillsong or the like.

John MacArthur at the Strange Fire conference said, "It's the music.  It's like getting drunk so you don't have to think about the issues of life.  If you shut down the music, turn on the lights, and try to sell that with just words, it's not going to work."  This is about the extent of the critique you get, but they still don't say what's wrong with it.  They won't, because "the music" is also what MacArthur and other conservative evangelicals also use in their churches.  They know something is wrong, but they aren't stopping what they know is wrong in their own ministry.

Imagine a classroom situation where young people are talking and jesting in a boisterous manner outside of class, but when they enter the classroom their demeanor and disposition changes to one of respect.  The latter is expected as a proper classroom attitude and approach.  Today in the public school system, a major reason a classroom is out of control is because the system has lost that ability to say certain behavior is wrong behavior.  This is where evangelicalism is today too and a major factor for its continued destruction.