There is a sin, so destructive that it rips apart families, destroys friendships and decimates entire covenant communities. There is a sin, so reprehensible, that God associates it with the worst sorts of wickedness. There is a sin, so heinous, that God gives only the most epistemologically self-conscious reprobates over to it. There is a sin so pervasive that it is gleefully practiced in every evangelical congregation in America. That horrible, filthy, and monstrous sin is being sticking your nose where it does not belong.

Now, of all the great temptations afflicting the modern evangelical church, heresies, faithlessness, idolatry, false worship, being a busybody SEEMS as if it is a minor kind of sin. After all, everyone does it, including pastors and elders (and most notoriously, pastors’ and elders’ wives). Yet, unlawfully meddling in other people’s affairs is in fact condemned with the harshest sort of language in Scripture.

Consider for example Peter’s statement in 1 Peter 4:15 where he says, "by no means let any of you suffer as a murderer or thief or evildoer or a troublesome meddler." Do you not find it interesting that in a list of sins which include murder, theft and general "evil doing," Peter tacks on "troublesome meddler?" In other words, he is equating a person who unlawfully involves himself in some one else’s affairs with the most extreme forms wickedness! The context of the 1 Peter passage is suffering; the list above are all reasons NOT to suffer. In the very next passage, Peter says that if someone does have to suffer, let him suffer "as a Christian." Did you get that? If you suffer for being a murderer, thief, evildoer or troublesome meddler, in effect, you are NOT a Christian!

In 2 Timothy 3:3, when warning of coming apostasy, Paul says, "For men will be lovers of self, lovers of money, boastful, arrogant, revilers, disobedient to parents, ungrateful, unholy, unloving, irreconcilable, malicious gossips, without self control, brutal, haters of good, treacherous, reckless, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, holding to a form of godliness although they have denied its power; avoid such men as these. For among them are those who enter into households and captivate weak women…" Please notice that in this horrendous list of terrible sins, sins that are a sign of the worst sorts of moral apostasy, Paul includes malicious gossips and warns of men who unlawfully enter households to take advantage of weak women.

Finally, look at what Paul says about the consistently reprobate in Romans 1:29; "being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil, full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips." Again, we have a divinely inspired Apostle creating a ghastly list of horrendous sins as representing the epitome of "all unrighteousness" and "wickedness." And at the end, he says "they are gossips." God says through the Apostle Paul that gossips are equated with every other pernicious evil.

And of course there are other passages that deal with the same problem; Proverbs 20:19, Titus 2:3, 2 Corinthians 12:20, and 2 Thessalonians 3:11, etc. all of which state that unlawfully meddling in someone else’s business is a sign of wickedness, godlessness and an unregenerate heart. Clearly, Christians need to rethink the "peccadillo" of gossip and meddling; apparently, God thinks these sins are far more serious, far more deadly and far worse than does the average believer.

Now some may object that I am including gossip with being a busybody; and it is true that they are in fact distinct. However, both stem from the same basic problem; an ungodly desire to usurp dominion over another person’s life; in other words they are distinct symptoms of the same disease. "Meddling" is directly attempting to influence or control a person; literally "prying into another’s affairs." It is involving one’s self in matters that are literally, "none of your business." Yet, gossip is also unlawfully being involved in another person’s affairs by sharing negative information to people who are not a part of the problem or a part of the solution. God forbids it, not just because it is hurtful to another, but because it is none of the gossip’s business, he has no lawful right to talk about "the problem" and he has no right to involve other people in it either.

Meddling and Original Sin

Some may wonder what the difference is between LAWFUL involvement in another’s life and being a "busybody" unlawfully "meddling." To answer that question requires us to take a step back for a moment and discuss the nature of sin itself. All sins are violations of God’s Moral Law; this is basic Christian theology. However, what many Christians have not considered is the fundamental sin that gives rise to every other sin; the sin of Adam in the Garden. When Adam ate from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, he was not just breaking some legalistic rule God had set up; instead, he wanted to be AS God, knowing good and evil for himself. Thus, the first sin was idolatry; an attempt to usurp the privilege of God and to BE God, determining good and evil based on his own criteria.

Original sin was not just stealing a piece of fruit from a tree; nor breaking an arbitrary rule but committing a revolutionary act whereby Adam wanted to become a god in his own right. Adam committed a huge sin, blaspheming the nature of God by trying to take to himself the attributes of God. And every human sin, in some way or another, can be traced back to this sinful orientation inherited from Adam. Every time a man sins, he does so because he wants what HE wants, rather than what God wants. Sinful men want to call evil "good" and good "evil;" just look at our modern culture embracing fornication, adultery and sodomy and persecuting those who refuse to accept these "alternative" lifestyles. All the great kings and emperors of history attempted unlawful dominion over others to glorify their own names; remember when God had to put Nebuchadnezzar in his place for self-exaltation?

Each and every one of the Ten Commandments are prohibitions of sinful desires to be as God; to worship as one pleases rather than as God wills, to rebel against lawful authority that God has established, to take the life, wife, property or reputation of others because WE want what WE want, when we want it. Never mind for a moment the pragmatic arguments for the superiority of the Moral Law as a social and legal code (and of course it certainly IS a superior way to live); God in the Ten Commandments shows how our sinful orientation opposes His will because we want to BE God.

Now, when Christ through His Spirit enters a sinful heart and breathes new life into it, giving a man the ability to understand and receive the gospel, that basic, sinful orientation is changed. Rather than being enemies of God seeking to dethrone Him and replace His authority with our own, now we become "sons of God" and want to live in humble submission to Him. However, the process of working out that salvation in fear and trembling takes a lifetime; in fact, though we do not have time to discuss this here I would argue that it takes multiple generations for sanctification to work itself out in every aspect of a culture. Here though we need only note that though our basic orientation is changed, every one of us needs to learn HOW to bring every area of life into submission to King Jesus.

And that is where the problem comes in; for though our heart has been changed, often our thinking, priorities and values have not yet been sanctified. And therefore, even though forgiven and restored to a proper relationship with God, many of us will struggle with this old sinful desire to be as God, determining good and evil based on our own subjective standards.

And one way that many of us will struggle is the temptation to take unlawful dominion over others. This is the basic motivation of the gossip, busybody or meddler. They are not satisfied with living their own lives or dealing with their own problems, but they want to involve themselves with the lives of others, criticizing, judging, condemning, finding fault, etc. Now, maybe there is some psychological problem here that adds "fuel to the fire" in that some of us learn how to get the heat off ourselves by lighting other people on fire. I have certainly met a lot of people during the past thirty-three years of being a Christian who were so busy "taking the splinter" out of other people’s eyes that they never seemed to notice the huge logs sticking out of their own!

Whatever the reason, spiritual or psychological, a lot of Christians seem to get upset, angry, bitter, frustrated or depressed because they are unlawfully concerned with what is happening in other people’s lives. If the object of their meddling will not submit to their unlawful attempt at dominion, they will then use gossip and slander to ruin the person’s reputation with others. Oh, all this is often couched in the most "spiritual" of terms because the meddler "really" has the best interests of the other person at heart. Thus they may want to "share a prayer request" for "poor brother So and So."  But at heart, they want the other person to SUBMIT to them; and they can be quite vicious if they do not get their way.

Lawful vs. Unlawful Involvement

Now, someone is bound to ask here that as Christians, bound together by the Holy Spirit into one spiritual temple, are we not supposed to be involved in each other’s lives? Well, the short answer is "yes and no" or better yet, "what do you mean by ‘involved?" There are many exhortations, encouragements and commands for Christians to love each other, stand by each other, speak the truth in love for one another and even to correct, rebuke and admonish one another (e.g., Col 3:16). So clearly, if a brother is in sin, then we have a moral responsibility for his own spiritual welfare, to speak to him (to HIM, privately, not anyone else Matt 18:15ff) seeking to win him from his folly.

However, believe it or not, the problem we are discussing is not confronting sin, but rather that a busybody applies his own subjective values, priorities or beliefs to another. There are many things in Scripture that are left to personal discretion and no one is to judge another one way or the other. For example, in Romans 14, the Apostle Paul specifically addresses a first century problem that threatened to cause schism between Jewish and Gentile Christians; whether or not it was proper to eat meat sacrificed to idols. The Jews held a very sincere belief that it was WRONG; the Gentiles knew that some pagan priest muttering a prayer to some non-existent god didn’t change the fact that meat was just meat! Paul actually sides theologically with the Gentiles but he does not rebuke the Jews for their sincere but mistaken belief. Instead, he told the Gentiles to stop feeling so smug and superior and not to use their liberty in Christ to cause their Jewish brothers to do something that went against their conscience.

Today of course, this particular controversy is irrelevant; at least I have not heard of anyone having a "crises of conscience" over whether some pagan had prayed over his sirloin before he threw it on the grill. But the principle remains; there are many issues that God has left to individual conscience and we are free to make decisions in these areas; decisions that NO ONE here on earth has the right to judge or criticize.

But the busybody will have none of that. He will judge another, cast doubts on the person’s maturity, integrity, and character just because that person does something that does not meet the meddler’s approval. The meddler may be upset because the other person watches TV programs he does not find "edifying", or read something other than super-spiritual theology. He may allow his children to play sports (or may not allow his kids to play sports). He may not maintain his house the way the meddler thinks it should be maintained (either being too finicky or too lax). In other words, the busybody wants to force others to live the way that HE thinks is good, wise and proper.

The fact that occasionally (in my experience, rarely) the busybody may actually be RIGHT does not justify his meddling. Sure, if the other guy had your brains, your talent, and your life experience, he just might dress, act and work, JUST LIKE YOU! But you know, he is not you - he is the person God providentially created. And if the Lord did not declare something to be a part of His Moral Law, then no one has the right to tell other people how to live their lives.

Hence, there is often a tremendous sense of arrogance amongst meddlers; even the most super-spiritual, "kindly" ones. They do not seem to understand or appreciate that people are DIFFERENT, with different backgrounds, basic abilities and life experiences. Not everyone can do what you can do; not everyone is always going to be as smart as you are, as talented, as motivated, as diligent or as disciplined because they are DIFFERENT! And since only God can read the hidden recesses of the human heart, only HE can judge whether a person has been faithfully discharging his responsibilities before God. Sometimes I wonder if the meddlers, even the best intentioned ones, understand that other people may not achieve their level of "success" in life for a number of legitimate reasons that exist solely in God’s providence. Sometimes, I am amazed at how blind some meddlers can be to their own short-comings as parents, Christians and friends (the worst sort of busybodies seem oblivious to their own sins; but that’s going back to splinters and logs again).

The Lawful Limits of Authority

God as the sovereign King of Creation delegates authority to certain spheres; family, church and state. Tyranny occurs whenever one sphere attempts to unlawfully involve itself in the legitimate activities of another sphere. The family does not run the church; and the church is supposed to teach, but not run the family. The State has a duty to act as an avenger of evil but may not dictate to the church or the family. Of course in this wicked, modern world, the State has unlawfully attempted to tyrannize both the church and the family; but most of us Reformed Christians have been speaking out against that for years.

What we have not been so good at declaring is that the same sphere sovereignty works within our communities and our relationships. One man may no more lawfully involve himself in the household affairs of another, than one State can dictate terms to a neighboring State; or one church dictate how another church may worship.

"But wait," I can hear someone objecting, "In the church we are supposed to be a body, interdependent and needing each other. We even take solemn vows of membership that require us to help one another!" Yes, all that is true; but it still does not give anyone the right to dictate how someone else lives his life unless there is sin. Meddlers jump in and want to tell other people how to raise their children, treat their wives, use their finances, determine their calling, etc. You think I am being extreme? I know specific ministries full of dedicated, motivated Christians who are CONVINCED that they know what color your house should be painted, what model and make of car you should drive and even the proper, "spiritual" color of socks you should wear!

In the same way, I have met numerous people over the years who want to dictate the kinds of decisions others should make. I have received many phone calls from meddlers who are concerned about someone making a decision of which they disapprove. Furthermore, they want me to use the authority inherent in the Session, to make these others change their minds. The issues can be as diverse as which college another person’s child should attend, or what kind of major he should have, or whether or not a particular young man or woman is a suitable mate. I have had busybodies calling me asking me to tell certain other people that they need to change jobs or even careers, sell their homes, and yes, even "So and So needs to get his lawn in order!"

And each time one of these calls comes in, I have to patiently explain to the caller that really, it is none of their business. Now, this has to be done gently and tactfully, but with firmness. There may be a fine line between legitimate concern over the welfare of a brother or sister in Christ and unlawful meddling; but the line does exist and those who tread over it are showing something unsavory about their own spiritual character.

Now granted, brothers and sisters in Christ may lawfully discuss their problems, challenges, and difficulties in life requesting and receiving advice and counsel. Solomon is clear that only a fool refuses to seek wisdom and counsel from his brothers. However, in this case, the other party INVITES their brother’s input. Furthermore, while a godly man will ASK advice from others, he is simply not required to TAKE that advice, no matter how "wise" we think our counsel may be. He is NOT a "fool" simply because he does not follow our advice; perhaps we did not really understand the situation, or properly apply the relevant Biblical principles. How arrogant to think that WE have the "right" answer?

Gossips, Busybodies and Personal Responsibility

In the average church, meddlers can usually be discerned because they are gossips; they love to criticize the way that other people live their lives. They may or may not actually TALK to the people involved; but every facet of another person’s life is open to their criticism, objection and judgment. Furthermore, almost NEVER are their "observations" based on the objective standards of the Moral Law; instead, these people had the audacity to simply do things differently than the meddlers.

Take for example domestic duties; a godly man will seek to bring manage his own household well, having his children under control with a wife who respects and submits to his leadership. OK, fair enough, these are ideals that presumably all of us are committed to emulating. However, the meddler will often criticize other households, equally committed to these SAME ideals, but who simply work them out in different ways. No, the way another family does things may not be YOUR way; but is it necessarily wrong? I have learned over the years that some of the people for whom I had the greatest reserve in the way they raised their children, ended up with godly kids DESPITE my misgiving. Some couples have the kind of relationship I would find personally intolerable, but you know, it seems to work for them! In some cases, my assessment might have been right; sometimes it may have been wrong. Either way, unless there was sin involved, it was and is NONE OF MY BUSINESS. Yet meddlers are perfectly willing to see themselves as having everything together and therefore qualified to point the finger at anyone and everyone who dares do things differently. As a pastor, and visiting these people and seeing just how they DO manage their own households, I often have to bite my tongue from expressing some serious concerns of my own.

There is a difference between someone coming to a brother in Christ and asking counsel and advice; something that ought to be a common part of Christian fellowship. Hopefully, God will gift the average church with wise men and women who have learned how to apply Biblical principles in their own life and experience and they can pass that wisdom on. However, unless there is a violation of the Moral Law, advice is just that; advice. It has no authority to compel another’s actions; each of us, ultimately stands before God responsible and accountable for how we lived our lives, the decisions we made, and why we made them. Advice can be helpful and accepted, or a person may decide that it is NOT helpful, and therefore lawfully rejected.

Granted, over the years I have met a number of Christians who did not seem to know how to use their liberty in Christ wisely and productively for the Kingdom. Some in fact, had a "slave" mentality where in one sense, they really would have been better off with someone else making their decisions for them. But self-government is the most basic form of sanctification; the ONLY people who are given specific responsibility for others, outside of the family, are elders who "watch over souls" (Hebs 13:17). But even the Session of a local church has authority ONLY to preach and teach the truth and discipline according to the Moral Law. No Pastor, elder, Presbytery or General Assembly has the authority to bind people’s consciences where God has granted liberty, or require things of men that God has left to conscience.

Think about this, God thinks SO highly of family authority that godly women are not allowed even to ask questions of their own elders! That’s right, if a woman wants to understand something said in church, she must ask her OWN husband (1 Cor 14:34-36)! God protects the legitimate authority of the family even from the very people He established to "watch over our souls." So if God Himself did not give even His Church the lawful authority to interfere with the bonds of family sovereignity, He certainly does not grant it to meddlers and busybodies.

Conclusion

Meddlers are a boil on the body of Christ causing conflicts, divisions and destroying relationships because of their criticism and gossip. Despite all their rhetoric about their concern for the welfare of others, in reality, the fundamental motivation is the same that brought death and destruction into Creation.; wanting to be as God determining good and evil for themselves, and others. Christians need to learn to stay out of the affairs of others UNLESS there is some clear violation of the Moral Law; and even then, they need to stop gossiping and actually follow Matthew 18:15 to resolve the problem.

Right now, Christian piety is at an all time low since the darkest age of medieval superstition. While the Christian church is growing exponentially across the world, our actual spirituality is being destroyed by counterfeit experiences, comfortable conformism or intellectual irrelevance. I may be wrong, but I believe that God has NOT given us more dominion in the world, because we have not yet learned how to properly exercise godly dominion in the spheres of life already entrusted to us. We either take too little or two much; either way, we are not yet ready for broader dominion in the world.

Jesus said that we would be known as His disciples if we had love for one another; and that love has always been the very foundation of true Christian victory in the world. Certainly one aspect of that love requires us to respect the limits that God Himself placed on every human institution. Meddlers and busybodies are arrogant and prideful, the very antithesis of Christian self-sacrificial love. They are in YOUR church, talking to YOUR friends, and probably even to YOUR elders. And every time they open their mouths, they spread poison, dissent, and division.

Obviously, the first step is learning to shut our own mouths and to stop talking about others. Genuine Christian concern for another means going to THEM and standing along side being willing to help, if God gives grace. There is almost NEVER any reason to share ANY negative information to ANYONE about another person’s problems, trials or difficulties. Just learning to guard our own lips could revolutionize the fellowship of the average church, literally over night.

However, that will not solve the problem of the meddlers. They can only be stopped if the rest of us REFUSE to listen to them. Meddlers are bullies, who have gotten away with their tyranny because they intimidate other people. However, one of the most basic ways of dealing with a bully is simply to stand up to them and show that YOU won’t back down. In the same way, all it would take to stop the meddlers in their tracks is a few hardy souls saying "No, that is gossip; that is certainly none of my business and it is none of yours!" If enough Christians just had the moral courage to take a stand on this one issue, I believe we would see one of the greatest revivals in history. The gossips, slanderers, meddlers and busybodies would get upset, angry, embittered but eventually fed up and leave. If they were truly believers (just unsanctified in this area) then they would repent, and be changed. If in fact they were wolves masquerading as sheep, then the constant correction of the godly would drive them out of the fold.

When the meddlers leave, the whole spirit of the church changes; problems that once seemed insurmountable are laughed off with a recognition that we all sin, we all fall short, and we all need forgiveness. Bitterness, envy and jealousy fade away as the fires burn out, with no one constantly fueling them. Factions, divisions and schisms disappear. People begin to open up and become vulnerable with one another because they no longer fear that any sign of weakness or imperfection will become ammunition for the gossips. Christians actually start confessing their sins to one another in humility; and kindness, gentleness and true Biblical love becomes the norm. And all it takes is for the righteous simply to refuse to listen to sin!

The early Puritans and Presbyterians advocated exclusive psalmody with no instrumental accompaniment. As the Reformed church entered the 17^th and 18^th centuries, “man-made” hymns were introduced, especially in the revivalist era of the 19^th century. By the latter end of the 20^th century, Christian music had become a multi-million dollar industry, and “contemporary” styles now dominate most evangelical worship. However, if we want to truly honor God in worship, we are going to have to spend some time looking at our roots; how do we know that what we do is what God wants?

Singing as an Element of True, Spiritual Worship

Singing is a divine requirement: the Scriptures both command and give us divinely approved examples of God’s people singing to His glory and majesty (Col 3:16, Eph 5:18 etc). Both archeologically and Biblically music goes as far back as we can trace civilization, (Gen 4:21, ISBE, pg 582ff). The Israelites sang to God as a form of praise and worship (Ex 15:20-21, 1 Samuel 10:5, etc) well before David, who of course is most closely associated with liturgical singing. David  composed the majority of the Psalms and instituted formal Levitical choirs in the tabernacle worship (1 Chron 15:16-24, 16:1-7, 1 Chron 25:1-7, etc). After the exile, Ezra recruited 200 singers for the rebuilt temple (Ezra 8:18-20). From what we can glean from archeology, music was not restricted to formal temple worship but practiced by the synagogues, which sang various Psalms and hymns as a part of their regular services.

The New Testament contains many instances of early Christian hymns: e.g., Richard C. Leonard, Ph.D., notes that  Jesus and his disciples sang a hymn after the Last Supper (Matt. 26:30; Mark 14:26); possibly the “Great Hallel” (Psalms 113-118) of the Passover tradition. Paul and Silas were singing hymns in prison at Philippi when an earthquake occurred (Acts 16:25). Paul urges the Christians of Ephesus and Colossae to give thanks to God in “psalms and hymns and spiritual songs” (Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16). Furthemore, Dr Leonard notes that Luke quotes several hymns in the beginning chapters of his Gospel; in addition to the Gloria in Excelsis mentioned above, he includes the Magnificat or Song of Mary (1:46-55), the Benedictus or Song of Zechariah (1:67-79) and the Nunc Dimittis or Song of Simeon (2:29-32). Although spoken in the story of Jesus’ birth, we know from church history that the early church very quickly sung these words in worship. Paul quotes what may have been another song, “Awake, O sleeper,” in Eph. 5:14. Other passages in Paul’s letters appear to be early Christian hymns (c.f., Phil 2:6-11, Col 1:15-20 and 1 Tim 3:16). The Hosanna hymn of the crowds at Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem (Mark 11:9, based on Psa. 118:26) became part of the historic Christian celebration of the Lord’s Supper.

Thus, singing was assumed as a natural part of Christian worship even before there was explicit command to do so (Col 3:16). Paul even mentions in passing that in the church of Corinth, “Everyone has a psalm” (1 Cor. 14:26).[1]

The music of the first century world, however, differed from modern concepts. Too often, when discussing music in worship, many of us make unwarranted assumptions because we think we KNOW what “singing” is and therefore sometimes read back into the Biblical text concepts that are simply not present. We then reason from these flawed premises and create unnecessary controversies, erroneous conclusions or internally inconsistent theologies.

In so far as we understand the development of music, the ancient world did not use melody and harmony quite the same way we do today. Many of the musical techniques we take for granted were unknown in the ancient world. While the Greeks and Romans had developed sophisticated methods of sculpture, painting, mosaics and other arts, no one knows for sure how they played music or how they sang. The best “guess” of scholars is that the early church probably took their view of music and singing both from Hebrew and Greco-Roman cultural models. Dr. Leonard notes that it most likely had the following elements;

• Monophony, the use of an un-harmonized melodic line- although ornamentation and instrumental accompaniment could create a primitive form of harmony.
• Ornamentation, the use of enhancements suited to the skill of the performer.
• Rhythm- Semitic music does not use the regular beat of modern Western music but has a more complex pattern of time structuring.
• Improvisation, the practice of composing the music in the process of performing it using skills acquired through a long period of training.
• Antiphony-groups answer one another in statement and response; e.g., the Psalms (Psa. 24, 118) suggesting that the congregation, as well as trained musicians, were involved in the musical responses of the service.

The best understanding of HOW the early church (and the synagogue) actually sang is probably closest to what we call “Gregorian Chanting.” Though Gregorian chanting itself has evolved over the centuries, the FORM of music here is apparently a direct link to the kind of music both Jews and early Christians used in worship. Thus “singing” as required in both the Testaments and as practiced in the early church is completely different from what we do today; this point will become important later on in this study as we attempt to apply Biblical principles to contemporary concerns.

Instrumental Music in Worship

Instruments have a controversial history in Christianity; since the Hebrew Scriptures were the authority for teaching and practice (2 Tim. 3:16-17), one must assume that the first century church accepted the elements of worship as taught in the Old Testament. Without going too far afield, Reformed Christians should agree that unless an Old Testament precept is specifically over-turned by New Testament teaching (such as on the “ceremonial laws”), the underlying principles remain valid and binding according to their  general equity (cf. WCF 19:4). And while not wanting to debate with the “no instrumental” music brethren, the onus is on them to demonstrate FROM the New Testament where the many commands, precepts and principles of Old Testament instrumental music are over-turned. Often, the argument is offered that since we do not have in the New Testament positive commands TO use instruments in worship; therefore their use is forbidden. However, this argument is implicitly a Dispensational one and can therefore be rejected. The Scriptures of the early church was the Hebrew Bible as specifically modified by the Lord Jesus and His apostles; therefore, the better hermeneutic is to assume that EVERYTHING in the Old Testament remains valid UNLESS it is replaced or changed in the New.

The lack of positive commands to use instruments in the New Testament may be the result of nothing more than that instrumental music requires trained musicians; and the early church most commonly consisted of small households without the necessary resources and often under persecution. From what we know from archeology, the synagogue generally did not use instruments for a similar reason.

Furthermore, musical accompaniment in the sense we know today is a relatively LATE development in the history of music. Rather than helping the congregation to sing the melody (and fill out the music with harmony), instrumental music may well have served as a counter-point or interlude to the chanting; thus desirable but not strictly necessary. Think of this by analogy with a situation very common today; ideally, most churches want SOME form of musical accompaniment but if they have no one who can play the piano, they can still sing every Lord’s Day; the accompaniment is a blessing, but not a necessity.

Arguments from silence are always “suspect.” However, they do cut both ways; the “no instrumental” brethren argue from silence in pointing out that there is no positive command for having musical accompaniment. The “instruments are lawful” brethren argue that we have positive commands from the Old Testament that the New Testament does not specifically overturn. The “no instrument” brethren then can point to the early church not using instruments as evidence in their favor. The “instrumental” brethren can then point out that this could have been for pragmatic reasons rather than theological principle. We can go round and round on this issue; however, since most Christians today accept that SOME sort of instrumental accompaniment is lawful and appropriate, let us move on.

Dr. Leonard, notes that the early church mainly sung the Psalms in worship monophonically, i.e. “plain chant.” In the later Middle Ages additional voices were introduced, with such devices as counterpoint (a different simultaneous melody) or organum (a sustained tone over which others sang the melody).

By the time of the Reformation, there was a great revival of psalm singing by the entire congregation replacing the choral “performances” of a specialized, highly trained “elite” as had been common in the Roman church. However, to make it easier for the congregation to join in singing the psalms, the Reformers recast the Psalms into a metrical structure and introduced rhyme. Possibly, due to a reaction against the many unbiblical innovations of Romanism, they also rejected instrumentation. The goal was to produce psalms that could be sung without expert musical ability. However, this required altering the biblical text, destroying the Hebrew parallelism.

The Genevan Psalter (1542) became the standard in the Reformed churches of Holland, England and Scotland with many tunes still in use today (e.g., the “Old Hundredth,” or “Doxology”). Now notice how the Reformers, while decrying the use of instruments, changed the FORM of “singing” from the “primitive” Hebrew and Greek Church to bring it into conformity with 16^th century cultural values. Chanting was dropped (mostly because it was too difficult) and replaced by a form of “singing” that was unknown in the ancient world. One wonders by what authority, the Reformers discarded ONE musical style approved by divine example (the Lord Jesus did not sing as we do but “chanted”) and adopted a NEW musical style unknown until recent times. At the same time, they regarded instrumentation a “human innovation!”

The Anglican Church however developed its own slant on singing the psalms, the “Anglican chant;” a non-metrical form of singing where the first portion of a line is sung on a sustained pitch with harmonic support, with the final syllables resolving in a short series of chords. This had the advantage of preserving the Hebrew parallelism of the psalms, was similar stylistically to the older “chanting” of the church (sort of a “half-way” between ancient chanting and modern singing); but again, was suited more for trained choirs than for congregational singing. One only has to visit a traditional Anglican worship service and struggle to join in a psalm that does not follow modern music conventions to appreciate just how difficult this kind of singing is (however, for what it is worth, it is a most beautiful way to “sing”).

It was only in the 18^th century with Cowper, Watts and Charles Wesley (and others) that man-made hymns with full instrumental accompaniment became the norm in Protestant churches. Following the example of the earlier Reformers who rewrote the Psalms to make them easier to sing, the next generation took the logical step of trying to make “David sound like a Christian” and therefore started a trend of essentially rewriting the psalms to fit the theological sensibilities of both the poets and the congregations. The hymn writers therefore ignored or actually removed those aspects of the Psalms they found offensive such as the many imprecations. Thus, the Christian church now felt “liberated” from God’s inspired hymnbook and began to offer to God in song what appeared good in THEIR eyes.

Inadvertently, the Reformers had opened the door to modern, pietistic, saccharine and sometimes-irreverent hymnology, when they recast the Psalms into meter form, destroying the structure of the inspired words. The 19^th century, revivalist Victorian church then took the next step by putting “Christian” words to popular music with sentimentality ruling. The modern broad evangelical church now routinely adapts worship to the styles of modern music making some “worship” music indistinguishable from what one can hear on a “Top Forty” radio station.

The Psychology of Music Col 3:16, Eph 5:18-19

Though we have in the Old Testament specific commands to praise God with various instruments, He did not choose to record for us inspired melodies. Yet even those who insist in singing only the Psalms assume a melody of some sort; melodies that are the direct result of two-thousand years of musical innovation and development. I am not aware of any “exclusive psalmodists” who insist that Hebraic chanting is the only way to sing. However, if we allow that uninspired tunes are lawful, one could conclude that the musical STYLE (i.e., the melody, tempo, rhythm etc.) is unimportant and that the only emphasis in worship music must be on the content. The music to which we sing these words therefore would be a matter of personal or cultural taste. Hence, the heavy beat of hard-rock music would be inherently no less “godly” than the soft, lilting melodies of traditional hymns and psalms. Thus, the Reformed Christian could no more legitimately criticize the worship music of broad evangelicalism than he could criticize whether one wore a blue or a brown suit to church.

Most Reformed Christians would find this conclusion unacceptable. However, without divine example or specific instruction, how does one discriminate between music that glorifies God from that which does not? Many Christians are perfectly willing to make this discrimination, but the standard they are using is often their own personal tastes-something the Westminster Standards specifically forbids under the doctrine of the Liberty of Conscience. God simply does NOT allow us to bind other men’s consciences to rules that we establish based on our own personal preferences. The Reformers separated from the Roman Church for this reason and sacrificed much to purify the church from the “doctrines of men.” So is there an objective, Biblically based standard by which one can determine whether or not the music itself is to the glory of God? Granted one can avoid this question by simply singing the Psalter to 16^th century bar-room tunes and leave it at that. But if every area of life is to be brought to submission to Christ, surely we can lawfully take dominion over the music we use to worship the Living God?

We can perhaps find a solution to this by stepping back a few paces and examining the role, which music plays in our lives and thoughts. The Biblical reference to the origin of instruments in Genesis 4:21 strongly suggest that music was inherent in the human condition and manifested itself in human society within a few generations. Music by its very nature is emotive; communicating emotions more powerfully than any other medium; i.e., joy, despair, compassion, intimacy, as well as awe, worship, and praise. Consider this; though we have no explicit commands to “sing” until the Psalms, God’s Word assumes that music, both singing and instrumental accompaniment are a normal part of life and an acceptable form of worship (i.e., Miriam). The incidents in the Hebrew Scriptures show that music (especially instrumentation) is usually associated with the expression of some strong emotion; i.e., joy, thanksgiving, deliverance, funeral dirges, coronations, marriages, etc. Thus, music, even in the Scriptures, is closely associated with emotion

We can also illustrate this connection between music and emotion from modern culture; every modern film or television show is dependant upon the music to communicate the emotion of the narrative. Now clearly, this may be done appropriately or tastelessly; just consider those “heart-touching” long-distance commercials where the music subtly plays on your emotions creating feelings of nostalgia and loneliness and associates them with a certain long distance carrier. Otherwise, sane, responsible and intelligent people can find themselves tearing up just because the music in the background reaches us in a way that pure “reason” could never hope to do. It appears something inherent within the human condition that music affects our emotions on a biological level.

Many research studies have demonstrated how certain types of music have different psychological and emotional effect on its hearers. There appear to be SOME universal principles that apply to all music in all cultures; in other words, for music to have the desired emotive and psychological effects, it must follow basic, unchanging rules. Granted, within those “rules” there is a wide variety of “styles” that individuals may find either more or less palatable or desirable. For example, there is a considerable stylistic difference between classical European music of the 19^th century and modern Country Western or Rap-but that is also because the different styles generate DIFFERENT emotions; i.e., Rap is music about despair, anger, frustration; Country Western music communicates the trials and longings of the rural working class. But notice that when a Black “gangsta” or a Southern “Red Neck” goes to a movie, the underlying sound track is neither C & W nor Rap but fully instrumented, formally written, “classical” music. Each ethnic group might have its own personal tastes individualized for their social class but both are STILL motivated, influenced and emotionally affected by the more “classical” music.

Thus, individuals may have a “preferred” musical style that affects them powerfully and personally; i.e., the music we sang as children or teenagers, or was popular in our home can have very meaningful associations in our own lives; but these “personal” associations are distinct from the objective qualities of the music itself. As the techniques of music developed over the centuries, just as in every other technological advance, greater understanding of the underlying dynamics allowed us to harness the power of music more effectively for a desired end.

If then, music is about emotion, a way of expressing emotion and sharing that emotion with others and there are objective principles that facilitate one emotional response over another, therefore, there are objective standards by which we can evaluate that music as either appropriate or inappropriate for worship. Man’s chief end is to glorify God and enjoy Him forever; thus, the fundamental question becomes “does this music glorify God” as well as “does it facilitate the hearer to enjoy Him?”

Some people enjoy a certain “style” of music in worship BECAUSE it has those strong psychological associations mentioned earlier; but simply because a person “likes” that style does not necessarily make it appropriate or EFFECTIVE for worship. The living and true God is the majestic, holy, righteous Sovereign King over Heaven and Earth and therefore the music ought to generate “feelings” of awe, reverence, respect, for His nature, being, and purposes. As an example, think of the “national anthems” that countries choose to represent their national identity; the tunes are NOT happy, snappy, musical “fluff” but are written because they give the words a sense of dignity, majesty, and respect.

However, while reverence for God’s majesty, holiness and glory is fundamental, worship music should also engender feelings of our sorrow over our sins, joy in our redemption, and comfort in our afflictions. The inspired Psalms express ALL these emotions (and more) in the words; therefore, logically, the music used to convey the emotional content ought to fit with the “rational” content. Thus, there is a place for some music that lifts the “spirit” in celebration, thanksgiving and sheer exuberance of our salvation; remember, we are not only to “glorify” God but also to “enjoy” Him!

However, in the modern evangelical church, too often the emphasis is on what kind of music people LIKE, rather than what glorifies God. For example, some churches still maintain a “love affair” with those Victorian “revivalist” hymns with inappropriate music styles. A British friend from a very traditional, conservative English church once visited us and was SHOCKED to hear the congregation singing “carnival music!” (I was NOT the pastor). Other churches seem to “revel” in “liturgical” music that is essentially a “dirge.” Other churches sing contemporary “choruses” that both musically and lyrically, are little more sophisticated than “Father Abraham.” Some even “enjoy” hard “rock” music with a pounding beat, deafening volume and incomprehensible words.

In all the above, the fault is NOT so much the “style” of music so much as the underlying motivation; such “worship” music exists to make US “feel” what WE want to feel; regardless of whether that “feeling” is appropriate or not. In other words, Man again is worshipping God in ways that seem good to HIM, not necessarily, whether it truly honors God. Some Christians want to “rock” to the glory of God-never asking whether God wants this sort of “worship.” In other words, WE want to do what WE want to do and WE want God to be pleased with whatever WE decide to give Him.

As a counter-point, just consider the number of inspired imprecatory Psalms that deal with vengeance, God’s judgment, complaints against oppression, etc., and ask, “What modern hymn, choruses/songs even TOUCH on these issues?” Though these Psalms make up a large percentage of God’s inspired hymnbook, today the average evangelical church almost universally ignores these Biblical themes. Instead, in almost all modern churches, we sing songs about how passionately we love God, how great He makes us feel and how wonderful it is to be a Christian. We conveniently forget however that there is evil in the world that God will judge, adversity that He wants us to endure and justice He promises to provide. However, the songs we sing, and the music we sing them to, tends to focus on US, creating a warm, emotional feeling of complacency that God loves and accepts us just as we are-and therefore by implication we never have to do anything different.

General Biblical Principles of Music in Worship

As we have seen, the technology of music has evolved giving us today the ability to ENGENDER religious “feelings” through the proper application of the psychology of music. The technology of music however, requires trained, gifted musicians who can utilize the techniques to create the “kind” of emotional context that generates the desired “feelings.” Most Christian musicians in “worship ministries” capitalize on this technology, even if they are unable to articulate it. They know that a certain arrangement of songs, with a certain kind of accompaniment (or played in a certain key) will affect the congregation in a certain way. While there is nothing intrinsically unlawful with this process, unless men have their basic presuppositions right, then the fundamental problem of wanting to be as gods, determining good and evil based upon their own standards, will only pervert that technology.

Thus, we can conclude that the “feeling” aspect of worship created by the wise application of the technology of music is a GOOD thing (when used lawfully and appropriately) but not a NECESSARY thing;  in other words, God is not MORE pleased with a rich, sophisticated musical arrangement than he is with people singing the Psalms in plain chant. Think about this by way of analogy; if there are two Christians singing to God in their secret worship, and one is a classically trained vocalist and the other finds it difficult to sing in one key at a time, is God MORE pleased with the vocalist? Most of us would probably agree that God accepts equally the worship of both people (provided both offer the worship in spirit and truth).

We might well make a legitimate comparison here with church architecture: over the millennia, Medieval Christians built churches and cathedrals out of stone with incredible skill and beauty. The very architecture creates within the human psyche a sense of awe, reverence and respect; but is the worship offered in these “hallowed” places ANY MORE “true” or “spiritual” than the worship offered by sincere believers on a quiet hillside, or in a plain room? Of course not; but if we had the choice, most of us would prefer worshipping God in a beautiful sanctuary.

Beauty is a communicable attribute of God and therefore the pursuit of beauty whether in music, art or architecture - is a worthy goal within the context of the Dominion Mandate and the Great Commission. However, “beauty” is NEVER an end in and of itself, only something that reflects something of God. Again, by way of analogy; every man wants to marry a “beautiful” woman and every woman would prefer a “handsome” man; but the outward appearance is simply insignificant to the inner reality. Solomon put it this way; “as ring of gold in a pig’s snout so is a beautiful woman who lacks discretion.” The Apostles Paul and Peter also specifically address the issue of external beauty being preferred over internal character (cf. 1 Tim 2:1ff, 2 Ptr 3:1ff, etc.). However, would it not be desirable and lawful to have a mate who was both beautiful on the outside as well as the inside?

In this cursed world, often sin twists and distorts the hunger for external “beauty” as a means of self-aggrandizement, self-will, etc. However, “beauty” also generates a “feeling” in us that in and of itself is NOT, unlawful. Some sinful men value beauty in aesthetics, architecture, art, music, etc., because that is as close to the Divine as they will ever get. Christians, of course, argue that this search for “beauty” is horribly flawed if it does not lead to the true beauty of God; and subsequent humility before Him, repentance for sins, and submission to Christ.

Thus, a hunger for “beauty” in our worship may and can become a substitute for true, spiritual worship. Even the pagan Greeks understood this problem and told the story of Narcissus who fell in love with his own reflection. This fable is not just about vanity; but about the very real danger of falling in love with an image. In the same way, a desire for “beauty” and the feelings it engenders in us, can seduce us from reality; not unlike the false, counterfeit “joys” of inebriation. Mild intoxication gives a person a sense of euphoria, relieves stress and makes them feel “happy;” but the feelings are FALSE. When the alcohol wears off, the real world is still there and the person must face all the same problems and trials. Some men refuse to face this reality and retreat into a world cushioned by alcohol; we call them “drunks” or “alcoholics” because they can no longer function in the real world.

In contrast, according to Jesus, Biblical worship is always in “truth;” which means facing reality in humility before God, and trusting in His providence, promises and provisions for our well-being, sanctification and ultimate vindication before Him. And false worship, no matter how brilliantly it is managed, or “beautiful” in its style, is NOT acceptable to God no matter how “wonderful” it makes us feel at the time; the “feelings” generated by false worship are just as temporary and ephemeral as the euphoria one feels drinking alcohol or taking drugs.

Worship in Spirit and Truth

What then constitutes proper, Biblical worship in Spirit and Truth? God answers that in a familiar passage to most Christians; Micah 6:6-8. Here the prophet asks rhetorically what God wants from every man. After discounting offering God “mountains” of sacrifices, he responds by saying that we already know what God expects of us; “to do justice, to love kindness and to walk humbly with God.” While in context, this passage is not specifically dealing with the question of worship, it does illustrate that God is concerned about substance, not form. He wants us to obey Him (John 14:21) to bring our wills, our plans, priorities, values etc. into conformity with His, acknowledging our sins and faults, not excusing or justifying them.

The fundamental problem that most churches have in finding true, spiritual worship is not in the various music styles but rather that sinful men want to come into the presence of God WITHOUT doing that, which is necessary to be in His holy presence. Our real problem is that we are seeking a personal feeling rather than the Living and True God. We come before God with unrepentant sin, being angry, hateful, spiteful, arrogant, lustful, deceitful, self-righteous, cruel, unforgiving, unrelenting, gossiping and slandering our brother and then think that God somehow approves of us if the music and “worship” generates the desired emotional response.

However, like the drunk who insulates his brain from the real world by alcohol, we think everything is fine and dandy because our techniques of “worship” keep reality at an arm’s length. Some churches attract Christians with “worship” techniques that promise “feelings” of comfort and complacency. Other Christians want techniques of “worship” that provide them with ecstatic experiences. In both extremes, we are in danger of substituting our feelings ABOUT God for a true, spiritual relationship WITH God. And like the drunk, eventually, one day, our whole lives WILL inevitably collapse when reality finally breaks through our false perceptions; either now in this life when God providentially brings disease, disaster, calamity to destroy our false concepts; or in the resurrection when God will judge every man for his life and works.

Therefore, our goal in worship is NOT religious ritual or generating a religious “feeling;” regardless of whether it be the aesthetically pleasing liturgy of the “high” churches or the emotive power of the “low” ones. Instead, true, spiritual worship is about corporately coming into the presence of the Most Holy Majestic God of Heaven and Earth, giving Him the praise, honor and glory that belong to Him and Him alone. That worship then requires us to honestly face our sins and transgressions, acknowledging them before Him and then, by faith, receiving the forgiveness He has granted us in Christ. It then forces us to extend that same grace to one another; if God has forgiven us, then we must forgive one another; if God lives at peace with us, we must live in peace with one another. If God is kind and merciful to us, then we must live in kindness and mercy with one another. We can only love Him, if we love one another.

And as a result of being forgiven for our sins, and forgiving the sins of others, we can therefore rejoice in our redemption, and glory in His wondrous love even as we experience the warmth and compassion of the like-minded saints gathered with us. Every song that we sing, every verse of Scripture that we read, every prayer that is prayed and every word that is preached should lead us spiritually, intellectually, and emotionally to reverence for God and love to the brethren.

Conclusions and Applications

All of the principles we have examined should lead us to certain, practical applications in how we construct our worship services. For example, we can reasonably conclude that in singing, the WORDS are more important than the music; i.e., we have divinely inspired examples of the kinds of songs we should sing, but no divinely inspired examples of music. Worship lyrics therefore ought to follow the same pattern as the Psalms; i.e., praise for God’s character, nature and being, thanksgiving for His saving acts in history, confession and repentance of our sins, petitions for His providential care and salvation (body AND soul) as well as songs of vengeance against evil, injustice and His enemies. Jesus is the WORD of God, not the MUSIC of God

However, God has given us dominion over music as over every other area of life. We now have the opportunity to both better communicate our love for God, and engender the appropriate emotional responses in our worship of Him. The problem is that we can abuse and misuse this technology if we do not address the fundamental problem of men wanting to be as God, determining good and evil for themselves. Some Christians do not WANT to feel anything because in their sub-culture, they consider any overt display of emotion, “bad taste.” Other Christians WANT to feel ANYTHING because they live according to their feelings. Neither is a Biblical way to approach music; the Hebrews were a visceral, emotional people and the Psalms reflect those emotions. Coldness in demonstrating affection, love and hunger for God is no more acceptable in worship than is coldness in demonstrating affection for our spouses or our children.

Thus, instruments, while a good thing, are not required; neither the synagogue nor the early church had musical accompaniment. However, the Temple worship did have musical instruments that required trained, professional musicians. A basic rule of thumb might be that NO music accompaniment is better than BAD musical accompaniment. However, if we CAN have accompaniment that enriches the music, then God certainly allows it as long as it is to His glory. Think of it this way; God is NOT particularly bothered by the quality of the clothing you wear to church on Sunday, but nevertheless, you still try to dress as well as you can to honor Him, right? If you are dressing up for church because you want to impress other people then you have a problem; but most of us would agree that certain kinds of meetings require a certain formality of dress. You would not go to a funeral in shorts and a tee shirt, right? It is the same with worship and music; if we can lawfully organize the sanctuary- paint it in aesthetically pleasing colors, give it good lighting and “comfortable” seats, than we can lawfully “dress up” our music; it is all a part of taking dominion to the glory of God.

Thus, let us begin by rethinking our approach to music, and self-consciously both choose and encourage the development of worthy music that will lead us into true, spiritual worship. Let us then sing with gusto, feeling and power; but let us sing songs that actually glorify God and not just because it gives us a certain feeling. Let us create music that is appropriate to the emotions that the words are trying to convey, but ensure that the words themselves are true to revelation of the Living God.

And let us consider HOW to use the dynamics of music positively to glorify God and worship Him in Spirit and Truth; to be in awe of His majesty and glory, to be humbled by our sin, to be encouraged in our faith and trust in Him, to call down His righteous vengeance on His enemies, etc.

Part of the problem in discussing true, spiritual worship is that often, we assume we already know what the words mean and then interpret the Biblical evidence in light of what we assume to be true. For example, in common (though not theological) usage, the word “worship” is understood by the average believer today to mean something like “The feelings of awe and reverence about God we get from the music.” Many times, I have heard sincere, dedicated believers make a clear distinction between “worship” and other elements of a Lord’s Day service such as “preaching” or “praying.”

Now, we do not want to be unkind towards those who do not think in precise theological categories; however, there is a danger here. If we misunderstand key Biblical terms, it can affect whether we are worshipping God “truly.” Since God desires true, worship (Jn 4:24), false worship, no matter how sincerely it may be offered, does not glorify Him. Therefore, if we make a mistake on defining what the word “worship” means, then logically, we will not give to God that which He rightfully requires.

Our English word “worship” translates a number of Hebrew and Greek terms, none of which means “the part of the service where we get to sing songs or listen to special music that make us feel close to God.” Both Testaments have words that mean something like, “bow down” or “prostrate” with the idea of “doing homage to” or “make obeisance” as well as “revere.” These terms certainly imply that a central part of “worship” requires acknowledging God’s nature, being, attributes, power, glory and majesty.

However, another set of words appears to mean something like “religious duty” or “pious actions” or even “to work.” Worship requires more than just creating an attitude, but actions as well. For example, in the Old Testament, God required specific rituals to be carried out by specific persons (the Levites). If someone neglected those rituals (i.e., “works”) or added their own, there could be serious consequences; e.g., the sons of Aaron discovered this the hard way when they offered “strange fire.” Saul lost his kingdom, at least partially because he offered a sacrifice that he was not authorized to perform. Later on Jeroboam tried to keep his people from travelling to Jerusalem for worship and so built his own alters in Samaria, losing his kingdom as a result. The entire nation of Israel, North and South were eventually judged because of false worship.

Now clearly, once the Lord Jesus came in the flesh, many of the rituals of Old Testament worship passed away; they were signs, shadows and types to point Israel to God’s Messiah. When He came, the shadows passed away. Therefore we no longer build alters, sacrifice animals or observe certain holy days as Israel did (c.f. Col 2:20-23). Yet, surely there are universal precepts that God gave to govern true worship; precepts that were present in the Old Testament and remain in the New - the question is, what are they?

To answer that vital question requires us to take a step back for a moment and consider the issue from a whole Bible perspective. In Genesis, Adam sinned and brought death and judgment into the world when he desired to be as God, knowing (determining) good and evil apart from God. The core issue here was whether God was God; and whether His Word was true. The Adversary claimed that God had lied, that He was jealous of His position and was deliberately keeping Adam ignorant and powerless. For Adam to become like God he had to reject God’s revelation and trust the Adversary’s. Adam then conducted an experiment; he would judge between God and the Enemy; he allowed his wife to eat from the fruit and when she did not die, he declared that God had lied and ate himself, hoping if not to replace Him at least become His equal.

Therefore original sin came from Man doubting God’s word, wanting to replace that word with his will. And the rest of the Biblical record can be summarized as an outworking of this fundamental rebellion; sinful men want to be gods determining good and evil for themselves. In antiquity, this meant suppressing the truth of God clearly visible in creation and worshipping false gods (Rms 1:18ff). In the modern world, it often means men creating worship that pleases them at the expense of God’s requirements.

Israel constantly fell into judgment because of syncretism; of mixing the true worship of God with pagan rituals and practices. After the destruction of the Ten Northern Tribes and the Babylonian Captivity, the Jews became technically correct in their worship but suffered from a lack of “spiritual” truth; they used the worship of God to justify and rationalize their own sin - with the most religious people of the day receiving the harshest criticisms of the Lord Jesus.

The early church was torn apart from various errors with first the “Christian Pharisees” attempting to force Old Testament ceremonial laws on Gentile converts. At the same time, false prophets arose and attempted to replace the apostolic truth of the gospel with heresies such as proto-Gnosticism, mysticism, Greek philosophy, etc. Though surviving all the heresies of the first three centuries, eventually the universal church allowed man-made religion to replace true, spiritual worship so that by the time of the Reformation, the gospel itself had been largely lost.

All evangelicals will agree that the Reformation was necessary to restore the gospel and purify the worship of God - to restore it to its Biblical foundations. Yet, few would also deny that objectively, Roman Catholic worship was the most aesthetically pleasing, and sophisticated liturgy ever developed. There is grandeur to formal liturgical worship, especially when practiced in gothic cathedrals that even die hard atheists can appreciate and enjoy. As one wit quipped, “Roman Catholicism is the greatest religion ever invented by man…”

The Reformers however saw that true worship of God had been lost in the splendor, the man-made rituals as well as the sub-Biblical doctrine of salvation by faith and works. They insisted that God must be worshipped only as He Himself desires. This was and is a logical necessity; if God insists that He is to be worshipped in truth, then there is such a thing as false worship, worship that He does not desire and finds repellant.

Which brings us right back to the Garden again; if original sin resulted from man rejecting the Word of God, then true worship must begin with accepting the primacy of that Word. We may not begin by offering Him worship that pleases us, thrills us, or motivates us but rather that which He has expressly revealed in His Word that He desires. This fundamental assumption is seldom considered in most modern, evangelical churches. While the details would take us too far afield for this brief analysis, ever since disestablishment, when there were no longer state supported denominations, churches have had to compete with each other for members. Thus churches in the 19^th century subtly morphed into businesses; those that were most successful in meeting customer demands grew, while those that did not, shrank.

Take for example the celebration of Christmas; up until the 19^th century Christmas was a religious holiday created by Roman Catholics, and retained by Lutherans and Episcopal churches - all of which were a tiny minority in American religious life. Congregationalists, Baptists and Presbyterians rejected the celebration of Christmas as a “Roman” holiday. However, many of these churches were shocked when their congregants began attending “other” churches on Christmas Eve and thus began their own celebration. It was either recognize Christmas or risk losing members - the theology followed the popular whim.

Now this is just one example; the entire evangelical church in the 19^th century moved away from their Reformation background, striving to appeal to a Christian population seeking new experiences. Today, if a local church does not offer what the congregation wants, some other church down the street will and as a result, pleasing men, rather than God has become the operational presupposition in most contemporary congregations.

However, true worship must be Word centered; if it is to please God any element must logically derive from God’s own expressed will in Scripture. Historically, this has been understood that God desires prayer, with thanksgiving, and the reading, preaching and singing of His Word (as well as the right administration of His sacraments). To lose any of those elements, or to replace them with something else, is to risk losing true worship to something man-centered and false. Does God want His people to “dance” in church or watch “drama?”  Certainly these actions are increasingly popular; but He commands neither and both are offered as substitutes for His explicit command to preach His Word. Modern people live in a fast paced world and have developed short attention spans; the average Christian will not read even great books, and has no patience for sermons longer than just a few minutes. Furthermore, he is unused to actually thinking about abstract concepts; so the pastor offers sermons full of warm, friendly anecdotes adorning platitudes that no one can reject - and if he does it well enough, he can fill the sanctuary or even a sports stadium.

But has he actually led the people of God into worship? Is this what God wants? Will the people of God actually come closer to Him, grieve over their sins, repent and grow in wisdom, holiness, kindness and love?

Let me suggest that true spiritual worship demands that we pray God’s Word, sing God’s Word, read God’s Word and preach God’s Word (See “Calvin on Powerful Preaching” http://christian-civilization.org/articles/calvin-and-powerful-preaching ). I personally have no problem with contemporary choruses as long as they are doctrinally sound; my one complaint is that too often, the most popular ones are about our feelings about God rather than about His nature, being and attributes. I was recently switching through the local radio station while waiting for my wife to finish up some shopping. I found a station playing a nice, romantic ballad that was actually quite sweet and sentimental - until I realized that this was a woman singing about Jesus! The words, the tune, the sentiment all sounded like some romantic interlude!

However, I do not blame the artist for her music, but her pastor and elders. While I know nothing about her, I can take an educated guess that her entire Christian education has been that her feelings are the center of life. Therefore, anything that makes her feel closer to Jesus is good regardless of how inappropriate or even blasphemous it may be. Without being Word centered, she simply has no defense; nor do the millions of people who listen to her music or attend similar churches.

The sermon today falls into the same category; in many “successful” evangelical churches the sermon is relegated to a “good but not necessary” element. Sermons are either watered down to those pious platitudes we mentioned earlier, or considered something that can be replaced by drama, dance or the youth group sharing about their latest adventures. Furthermore, without being unnecessarily caustic or cynical, the unstated purpose of many sermons is to make people feel good about themselves; that God loves them and accepts them right where they are, and that they never have to do anything other than what they have already determined to do anyway. You see, if a pastor preaches the truth, he risks offending those who do not want the truth, who do not want to change (see “Why Won’t People Change” at http://christian-civilization.org/articles/why-wont-people-change-2/). If enough people get offended, he risks losing members to churches that are more “loving” down the street - or even his job. Therefore there is subtle but constant pressure on the pastor to make people like him - and that means never saying anything that might make anyone feel uncomfortable; as one of my seminary professors said decades ago, “People don’t come to church to feel bad…”

Obviously this view is contrary to Scripture where the preaching of the Word is central (cf. 2 Tim 4:1-5). We are to let the “Word of Christ richly dwell” within us as we “teach and counsel…” (Col 3:16). The moral issue before all men is whether we will believe and obey God’s Word; and the minister’s PRIME duty is to deliver that Word (1 Tim 5:17); the reason why elders who teach and preach are considered worthy of a “double honor” is because they have been entrusted with delivering the very Word of God and woe to them if they get it wrong (c.f. James 3:1ff). Our experience of God will not save us; our emotions about God will not lead us into His presence. It is the WORD of God that created the heavens and the earth; it is the WORD of God that condemns sinners and it is the WORD of God that accomplishes our redemption and sanctification. If we neglect that Word, devalue it, or replace it with something else just to please men we risk bringing God’s own judgment on our heads (1 Cor 3:10-15).

Applications:

First, if the Word of God is primary to worshipping Him in truth (Jn 17:17), we need to carefully reconsider our hymnology. For the sake of brevity we will side-step the issue of exclusive psalmody here; but can there be any “truer” way to sing to His glory than by singing His inspired word? Therefore, the church needs to rediscover the Psalms as God’s own hymnbook both as the source of what we sing and how we sing it as well as a guide for how we pray. The Psalms were intended to be a model, an example of how God wants His people to sing and pray to Him (one of the Hebrew words for “prayer” means “a song of praise”). God delights in the praises of His people; and we NEED to praise Him if nothing else to remind ourselves constantly of His goodness, power, majesty, glory and sovereignty. Therefore, let us all go back to the Psalms on a regular basis and study them for what God wants.

Secondly, we need to recreate a culture within the church that sees the pastor’s teaching ministry to be the central focus of worship - and give him the time and encouragement to study the Scriptures and learn how to apply them practically. God instituted teachers in the church for a reason (Eph 4:11ff) and to neglect that gift is to weaken the entire body of Christ. Granted, many Christians today have been starved spiritually so long, that like anorexics, they have lost their appetite for good, solid food (Hebs 5:11-14). But you do not help a starving man by refusing to feed him; you just have to break the food down for him into edible bites.

Pastors therefore need to see that they have no more important function than to study the Scriptures and teach them accurately to those entrusted to their care; as a “shepherd” he must feed the flock - that is his job and if he does not do it, then it will not be done. He has to love them, encourage them, and lead them; but he must also feed them regularly. I have been amazed over the years by the number of pastors who do NO study and regard preaching as ancillary to their “real” ministry - whatever that is. Some borrow their sermons from “Pastors’ Annuals” which provide messages for every meeting during the year.

God wrote His Word through men, and entrusted other men to interpret and teach that Word. Hence, I suspect that there is a personal transformation process that every good pastor undergoes as he studies and preaches. A sermon might be theologically accurate, or rhetorically pleasant, but unless the man has personally wrestled with the text, had his own sins confronted, considered how THIS word applies to THAT situation in his life, family, friends and fellow believers, he simply has nothing of significance to say.

What kind of father would entertain his starving children instead of giving them the food they need for life? And let there be no mistake, God’s Word is life. Preaching is more than just an academic or intellectual exercise but is food for the soul. God is pleased to take His preached Word and use it spiritually to transform us at the very depths of our being. He delights when His people, reject the false counsel of the Adversary, and receive His Word, rejoice in His truth and then APPLY it to their own lives. There can be no true worship without the Word; the Word prayed, sung, read and preached. All the vain things that men create to replace God’s elements only lead us to a dry and dusty land, without the water of life or the green grass of hope. His Word is true, and those who would worship Him must love and obey that word…

“I solemnly charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus who is to judge the living and dead and by His appearing and His kingdom: preach the word, be ready in season and out of season, reprove, rebuke, exhort with great patience and instruction. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine but wanting to have their ears tickled they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires and will turn away their ears from the truth and will turn aside to myths. But you, be sober in all things, endure hardship, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry.” 2 Tim 4:1-5

Yet as dangerous as these well defined heresies may be, there are also those who CLAIM to be utterly orthodox in their theology but reveal the same underlying motivation; at heart they are autonomous men who advocate bizarre and strange doctrines. These people then cause schisms, factions and divisions in otherwise sound churches as they spread their own peculiar slant on Scripture. As we will see, this is nothing new, Paul warned Timothy about such people, “For among them are those who enter into households and captivate weak women weighed down with sins, led on by various impulses, always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. And just as Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so these men also oppose the truth, men of depraved mind, rejected as regards the faith…” (2 Tim 3:6-8).

Normally, I do not pay such people much mind - unless they show up in our church, where we usually just politely show them the door (Titus 3:10). With the advent of the Internet and email, anyone can put up a web site and advocate all sorts of nonsense - there are simply too many of them to waste precious time refuting every self-proclaimed prophet. My approach has always been to teach the people under my care true doctrine as well as how to properly interpret Scripture which effectively inoculates them from most of the heretical “viruses” out there.

However, occasionally, a new “virus” will spring up that demands immediate attention. This recently occurred when a document came across my desk that had been causing some problems in another church. I am not even sure who the particular author is - and I know nothing of his background or character - I am not even sure if his report of what a particular ministry teaches is actually true. However, this man has taken it upon himself to disseminate serious false teaching disturbing the peace and purity of others and therefore, a rebuttal is in order.

The document I have before me is entitled “Bible Topics -End of the Church Age?” and its main thesis is that “God maybe (SIC) finished utilizing the local churches in order to save His people.” He then asserts that the “Family Radio organization has been teaching in the last few years.” I do not know anything about the “Family Radio organization” and for the purposes of this paper did not even conduct a Google search. Hence I do not know what they may or may not believe or what they may or may not be teaching or even if this person (only identified as “Darryl”) is accurately representing their views. However he did send his little missive to some people who in turn asked me to read and respond.

Now, in cases where someone is not a professional teacher, theologian or author, simple charity demands that we treat him with a certain degree of kindness and mercy. We all err, and there is a reason why Reformed churches in particular, have the highest educational requirements for ordination of any group of Christians. We believe that God must be worshipped in Spirit and Truth (John 4:24); untruth, no matter how piously or sincerely held, does not glorify God. Therefore we require our pastors to demonstrate the ability to study and interpret the Scriptures faithfully and accurately. Even then, we “professionals” sometimes make mistakes; we do not always parse a particular verb precisely enough, miss the literary context of a text or fail to appreciate how a historical or archeological factors could affect the meaning of a term. Sometimes despite all our effort and education, we just make mistakes. However, Reformed pastors have “peer review” in that our preaching and writing are always subject to criticism from our brother ruling elders in the local session as well as our fellow teaching elders at Presbytery.

So when a layman without rigorous, advanced education writes a paper such as the one I am about to critique, he should be give him a little grace - after all even the Apostle Peter thought some of what Paul wrote could be difficult to understand (2 Peter 3:16). Furthermore, the Scriptures were given to ALL of God’s people, not just the clergy and it is their right to study the Bible and share what they find with one another (Colossians 3:16). However, at the same time, we all must keep James warning in mind, “Let not many of you become teachers my brethren knowing that as such we will incur a stricter judgment…” (James 3:1). With the right of individual interpretation also comes a great responsibility; if we disseminate error, confuse others, or lead them astray by our “teaching” then we will be held accountable. This first level of accountability is personal confrontation; when others tell us that we are in error and call us to repent (Matthew 18:15ff, Galatians 6:1ff). The ultimate level of accountability occurs when each of stands before a holy and righteous God at the Great White Throne. Personally speaking, I would rather be rebuked NOW than to face God on that day - and we have a divine responsibility to be as “iron sharpening iron” for one another (Proverbs 27:17)

And sadly, I am afraid that I must call “Darryl” to repent; his paper advocates false doctrine and seriously misinterprets the Scriptures. He makes elementary mistakes in basic exegesis, ignoring context, commits rational fallacies (such as assuming what needs to be proven) and shows a woeful lack of understanding of the most basic facts of church history. Now if he had taken his paper to his elders and asked them to guide him to a better understanding of the Scriptures, I would not be writing this. Such an action would have demonstrated a man under authority, in submission to those specifically entrusted with his spiritual wellbeing - thus showing that he was teachable. But apparently, instead he sent his little piece out to other people, trying to convince them of his errors. Hence, whether he realizes it or not, he has demonstrated the fundamental quality of a real heretic; autonomy.

As I wrote in my chapters for the Chalcedon book on “Orthodoxy,” a heretic is not just someone with “bad doctrine” but rather someone who refuses to repent when his “bad doctrine” is confronted. Like the fool of Proverbs, the heretic is someone who insists that he is right, that he will not receive correction or rebuke and hates any one who dares to disagree with him. Now, I am not saying that “Darryl” falls into this category yet - but it is not a good sign that when he comes up with a very controversial position, his first impulse is to spread it around; NOT subject it to the scrutiny of those especially entrusted with the care of souls (Hebrews 13:17).

And make no mistake here; his statement that “God may be finished utilizing the local churches” IS if nothing else a controversial statement. The basic principle of any argument is that strong claims demand strong evidence. When someone pits himself against the collective wisdom of two thousand years of church history he had better have extremely strong evidence to support it. Does “Darryl” have such evidence? Well, let us see…

First, he claims that “God has truly left the churches” and then points out the beliefs and practices of the Charismatic movement as his proof. However, in doing so he commits a basic logical fallacy - overgeneralization (or “hasty conclusion”); the Charismatic church is NOT the entire Christian church! This ought to be so obvious that it does not even need to be mentioned but he seems to miss the logic here, so let me spell it out. Simply because one group may believe erroneous things does not mean that ALL groups believe erroneous things - this is what is called in formal logic a “non-sequitor” or something that “does not logically follow.” I wonder if “Darryl” has grown up in a Charismatic church, or only read Charismatic books or fellowshipped mostly with Charismatic Christians until fairly recently. Regardless, he appears to be oblivious to the millions of OTHER Christians who reject Charismatic theology and practice. Now granted, right now the Charismatic church is the fastest growing group in the world, but they are far from the entirety of Christendom. So “Darryl” shows, right from the start that regardless of his sincerity, he is uniformed about the nature of the very church he is criticizing; and therefore, his entire analysis can not be taken seriously.

Now, being ignorant is not a crime; we all have our limitations BUT simple humility demands that when we engage others about areas outside our expertise, we ought to be careful in what we say; “But let every one be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger…” (James 1:19). For example, most of us, if we found ourselves having a conversation with, say, a group of engineers talking about engineering, would understand perhaps one word in ten - and consequently do a lot of smiling and nodding (while waiting for a chance to move the conversation to an area where we could contribute something meaningful). However, how foolish would we be if we insisted that our views on “metallurgical structural stresses” should be heard and taken seriously? OK, if everyone else was equally ignorant of basic mechanical or civil engineering then, our opinion would be just as valid as the next person’s; just so long as we did not pretend that we could actually design a car or build a bridge. But that is just what “Darryl” is doing; though he lacks knowledge of the most basic facts of history, exegesis and theology, he insists that HIS interpretation of various Scriptures is the TRUE interpretation; and trying to convince others to follow his lead.

Does that sound harsh? Well, he seems completely unfamiliar with the most basic principles of Biblical hermeneutics. For example, he quotes Revelation 22:18-19 as “proof” that Charismatics are “not listening to Scripture” when they allow prophecies, signs and wonders, speaking in tongues, etc. For what it is worth I actually agree with “Darryl” that such phenomena are false; but his proof text does not say what he assumes it says. The quote, in context, is a warning about adding or taking away from the prophecies of the book of Revelation NOT about the Bible in general. This is Interpretation 101; the meaning of any portion of Scripture is what the original author intended the original audience to understand by what he wrote. Revelation 22:18-19 says “I testify to every one who hears the words of the prophecy of this book.” Who is the “I”? Clearly, the “I” is John (see 1:4, 22:8, 22:20, etc.). What are the “words of the prophecy of this book?” Clearly, the “book” is the revelation to which John has just been testifying. John is NOT making a statement about the Bible because at the time he was writing, the Bible was still in the process of being completed!

Thus, “Darryl” is accusing people of violating the Scriptures by CREATING a meaning that the Scriptures themselves do not allow! Now who is “adding to the prophecies of this book?” This is a recurring problem with “Darryl’s” paper; he quotes various verses but ignores the context making them mean something different than what they actually do. Most of us are familiar with this technique of “Bible Study;” it is what the Jehovah’s Witnesses are famous for doing. They take a verse here, put it with a verse there, then ignore the context, history and culture, making the Bible say the complete opposite of what it actually says. We will examine more of these examples later but at this point let us just note that not only does “Darryl” not appreciate the breadth of the Christian church (hence committing the logical fallacy of “hasty conclusion”) but as well, does not seem to understand how to interpret Scripture in context.

His next noteworthy statement is when he asks “Have you noticed that churches do not listen to only the Bible anymore (SIC)?” Now we have a new problem; “Darryl” seems to be completely ignorant of Church history. Let me counter his question with one of my own, “Was there ever a time when the entire Christian church listened to just the Bible?” In other words, “Was there EVER a time when the church was ‘pure,’ without error, apostates or heretics in her midst?” Do you see the problem? He assumes that because he sees contemporary examples of errors, heresies, bad doctrines, apostasy, etc., that somehow, this is something new. In reality, from the very beginning, the Lord Jesus TOLD us that we would always have heretics in our midst. The whole point of the parable of the “wheat and the tares” (Matthew 13:25ff) was that right along side the “wheat” there were those who LOOKED like wheat, but were actually weeds. Even one of His own, chosen Disciples turned out to be a traitor. From the time of Pentecost, there have been those within the covenant community who were “false sons” who advocated false doctrines - in other words, the church has always had those in her midst that did not listen to the Bible or teach it accurately.

Anyone reading the letters in the New Testament and paying any attention to the historical situation that made them necessary quickly recognizes that heresies, apostasy, schisms, etc., have always been a part of the visible Christian church. In the book of Acts, Paul and Barnabus had to refute the “Christian Pharisees” who wanted Gentile converts to be circumcised and keep the Jewish Ceremonial Laws as a condition for salvation (Acts 15:1ff). Paul in Galatians had to rebuke Peter for bowing to their influence (Galatians 2:11ff). The Church in Corinth was full of theological and doctrinal errors (as well as ethical ones) that Paul had to rebuke and correct. The church in Philippi was torn apart by personality problems (e.g., Phil 2:1ff, 3:1ff, etc.) All of the Pastoral letters warn of those who attempt to split the church and lead the faithful astray. Paul specifically had to excommunicate Hymenaeus and Alexander for teaching that the Lord had already returned (1 Timothy 1:20). John deals with some form of the proto-Gnostic heresy in his letters and in the Revelation, specifically rebukes so called “Christian” churches who adopted the heresies of the Nicolations and “Jezebel” (e.g., Revelation 2:1ff) as well as warning of Diotrophes who was leading people in his church astray (3 John 9ff). Jude’s whole letter warns that “certain persons have crept in unnoticed… who turn the grace of our God into licentiousness…” (Jude 4).

Then, in the second century and beyond the church was infected with Gnosticism, Arianism, Modalism, Nestorianism, Pelagianism, etc. After all these errors were refuted and rejected, the Church (by adopting aspects of Greek philosophy and Eastern Mysticism) eventually devolved into Romanism, which lasted almost a thousand years until the Great Reformation. And even coming out of the Reformation, Arminianism immediately arose from within the Reformed community spreading out to influence every branch of the church. In the 19^th century, the Church was afflicted with Revivalism, Deism, Unitarianism, Transcendentalism, Liberalism, etc. In the 20^th century, the evangelical church was then hit with Feminism and now, some branches are even accepting sodomy as an “alternative lifestyle.”

But ALWAYS, despite errors, heresies, schisms and factions, there have been those who acknowledge Jesus Christ as Lord and hold His Word to be His infallible, inerrant standard. Granted, we may sometimes disagree with each other about what that infallible, inerrant Word means - but we continue to “listen” to the Scriptures, even as the heretics ridicule, reject and vilify them.

But “Darryl” does not seem to know that there have always been apostates, heretics and “false sons” within the visible covenant community. Why should the errors he sees today be considered any more horrendous than the ones mentioned in the New Testament? In other words, His view of history is just too small.

The specific examples he gives of serious errors (Arminianism, health, wealth and prosperity “gospel,” female pastors, unqualified men ordained as elders) are ones that I and literally MILLIONS of other Christians would whole-heartedly agree with as being dangerous departures from the truth (some of his examples however are fallacious and need to be proved, not just assumed - e.g., whether there is such a thing as lawful divorce and remarriage). However, if millions of Christians and at least tens of thousands of pastors AGREE with him that certain practices are wrong, sinful, and erroneous, how can he then say that the “church” no longer “listens” to the Bible? Yes, there are SOME churches that no longer listen to the Bible; my own presbytery has its origins in separating from just such an apostate church - but again, simply because SOME churches do not “listen” does not mean that ALL churches do not listen - that basic logical fallacy again.

“Darryl” then asks his next question about Christians compromising morals and having ungodly habits. While one might disagree with his specific examples of what constitutes immoral or ungodly behavior here, again, in the main, I agree with the basic principle. Much of contemporary Christianity has succumbed to what is known as “acculturation” wherein our distinctive beliefs, values and ethics have largely been lost as we have assumed the beliefs, values and ethics of a post-Christian culture. Our Christian Civilization web-site has scores of articles and essays dealing with just this very issue. And yes, Christians acting like the “world” (meaning the “present system or pattern of things that stands in opposition to God and His lawful rule” see Vines, Vol. 4., pg. 233) has serious consequences; sin must be confronted, rejected and repented of if we want to see His providential blessing and avoid His judgment in time (e.g., Romans 1:18ff).

However, the failure of Christians to live consistently with their confession that Jesus is Lord does not add anything to “Darryl’s” case that God is somehow removing His presence from His church. All Christians act inconsistently with their faith, “If we say we have no sin we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us…” (1 John 1:8). There has NEVER been a time in history when all Christians acted consistently with their confession that Jesus is Lord - we all sin, we all fall short of the glory of God (Romans 3:1ff). I argued in my doctoral dissertation that from the time of the New England Puritans (1630) to at least the Second Great Awakening (1810), American Christians, as a whole, were probably MORE consistent with that confession than any other group of believers in history - but that is still less than 200 years and even THEN, they made some fundamental mistakes in application due to their presupposition of Pietism.

Nevertheless, despite our failures, inconsistencies and sometimes even downright rebellion, over the course of the last two thousand years of church history, God has been pleased to bless and prosper His people. Why should “Darryl” or anyone else look at the little snippet of time that represents his own limited life and conclude that today’s Christians are somehow spiritually inferior (or superior) to those that came before? For anyone with ANY knowledge of church history, knows that there have been times of great revival and times of great darkness - which one we are in today will be for later generations of Christians to analyze. While I have my own opinions on that score, for “Darryl” to conclude that the current apostasies, heresies and moral failings of many Christians somehow means that God has “truly left the churches” shows a terrible ignorance of history when in fact there have been far darker times in the past.

Just as an aside here but again, pointing out that “Darryl” is out of his depth, one of the “moral failings” he points out is Christians celebrating “pagan traditions” such as “Halloween,” or “Christmas with Santa Claus” and Easter with the “Bunny.” Of course, we Reformed Christians could point out HIS apostasy and accommodation to pagan traditions by celebrating Christmas and Easter at all! The 17^th century English and Scottish Reformers were practically unanimous that such “popish” celebrations were unlawful and blasphemous under the Regulative Principle of Worship! While I am not advocating here the traditional Reformed view of such “holy days” I do want to point out that again, “Darryl” just does not know what he is talking about since there is still existent a whole branch of the Christian Church that CONDEMNS his “apostasy” in following a Roman Catholic tradition! Again, his time scale is too small; he condemns modern churches for including Santa Claus in their Christmas celebrations while seemingly being ignorant that ALL Protestant churches (apart from Lutheran and Anglican) refused to even recognize Christmas until the late 19thy century!

He then makes the statement, “God even commands us to come out of the churches when we see these abominations in churches worldwide.” First, he offers no evidence where God says that his particular lists of “grievous errors” are in fact THE signs of apostasy and the need for separation. Maybe they are, maybe they are not; but I would remind him that Christians are not to bind the consciences of others where God has not spoken (e.g., Romans 14:13ff). Therefore, at least he must PROVE that God says that his particular examples are in fact sins that demand separation - again, he assumes what needs to be proved. I might offer a different list of grievous sins that demonstrate God is no longer present with a person and therefore we all should “separate” from him - such as not being a member in good standing of a local Bible believing church!

Secondly, while I agree with Darryl that there ARE sins committed by churches that are so grievous that one must separate from them, I think he needs to go back and read Paul’s two letters to the Church in Corinth. Heresy, apostasy, fornication, incest, prostitution, factions and schisms were ALL present in the church at Corinth; but Paul never denies them the status of a true church just because there was sin in her midst (1 Corinthians 1:2-4). Paul does not call the Christians to LEAVE the church - he calls them to change their actions, repent of their pride and arrogance, in other words, get their act together and act like Christians! And therefore “Darryl’s” basic thesis is contrary to God’s own divinely inspired example - “Darryl” is putting HIS opinion of what Christians should do above God’s own infallible, inerrant Word. “Darryl” is thus doing the very thing he criticizes the church of doing - he is not “listening” to Scripture.

“Darryl” reveals his underlying motivation for all the above when he comes right out and says that “the Lord Jesus is coming very soon in judgment, even in our day.” This is really the bulk of his paper and to answer this assumption would take literally, volumes. He offers some verses from 1 Thessalonians 5, Matthew 24 and Luke 21, 2 Thessalonians 2ff, all as “proof” that the Bible says Jesus is coming soon. He even goes so far as to say that “true believers will know when Jesus Christ will come again…”

That one statement alone marks him off as significantly out of accord with the Scriptures and the historic Christian faith. When the Disciples asked the Lord Jesus about His promised return, just before His ascension, He replied, “It is not for you to know the times and epochs which the Father has fixed by His own authority” (Acts 1:7). This was a restatement of what He had already told them in Matthew 24:36, “But of that day and hour, no one knows, not even the angels in Heaven nor the Son but the Father alone.” In the past two thousand years of church history, many heretics and apostates have claimed to know when the Lord Jesus would return, and they have all been wrong. Jesus warned us about that as well, “And many false prophets will arise and mislead many (Matthew 24:11).” And they have been doing so most recently since the 1840’s when the Millerites predicted that Jesus would return on a specific date - and people left their jobs, homes and businesses to sit on their rooftops awaiting the rapture. The Jehovah’s Witnesses have made predicting the Lord’s Return the cornerstone of their religion and just blithely ignore every time they set a date and get it wrong. The Dispensationalists have been predicting an imminent rapture since the 1880’s and some ministries, authors and churches have made fortunes this way.

Anyone else remember the early 70’s predictions about the “imminent” war in Israel where a 200 million man army led by the Anti-Christ would invade Israel? Anyone else remember when the Jupiter Effect or the Comet Kahoutec was supposed to herald the coming of Jesus? Anyone else remember the best seller “88 Reasons Why the Rapture Will Happen in 88″ and its even better selling sequel “89 Reasons Why the Rapture Will Happen in 89?” People keep insisting that THEY know when the Lord Jesus will return despite the clear, unambiguous fact that He said that NO ONE would or could know. Yet gullible Christians just keep buying the books and sending their support checks to ministries that teach otherwise. Now, how seriously can we take a man’s claim to “listen” to Scripture when he repeatedly ignores it?

Now let me be honest; I would personally love it if the Lord Jesus would return today, or tomorrow or next week. I just do not think there is anything in the Bible that teaches that any one can know such a thing. Furthermore, as I have written before, the view that WE must be living in the “Last Days” is incredibly arrogant - just because things have been going down hill for US does not mean that the world is ending. God is doing a powerful work right now, in the world - Christianity is GROWING at an annual 8% rate - meaning that if the current trend continues (which we do not know if it will) the entire world could be Christianized before the end of this century! Marxism is a fading nightmare, Islam is on life-support powered by Western nations buying their oil, the Feminists, Sodomites and Liberals have DESTROYED their own future through birth control, perversion and abortion. While we have seen a great loss of Christian civilization over the past 200 years, we just might be on the cusp of one of the greatest revivals of religion in history! Now I am not saying for a moment that this is what WILL happen, only that it COULD and that there is NOTHING in Scripture that denies such a possibility.

But what about all those verses “Darryl” mentioned? Well, it is back to Interpretation 101 - a common problem that many Christians have is that they naively assume such texts were intended for THEM when in reality, they were written to a specific group, facing specific problems that needed specific encouragement. So “Darryl” (and others holding his view) please answer me this, why would Paul offer the hope of the return of Christ as an encouragement to the Thessalonians, or Timothy, or whoever when WE know that He would not be returning for at least another two thousand years? Did you get that? All those verses were written to them about THEIR situation to help them through the problems THEY were facing - yet those churches are now long dead and buried. Why would Paul warn them about “end times” that they would never live to see?

Furthermore, Paul’s point in 1 Thessalonians 5:4 is NOT to say that the Thessalonians (or anyone else) will know when the Lord will return but that it will not overtake them as a “thief in the night” BECAUSE they “walk in the light.” That is the whole point; men in darkness are not prepared when Jesus DOES return - but if you live humbly and wisely before Him, confess your sins, love the brethren, and live each day obediently then you do not have to worry - regardless of when He comes YOU are prepared. It simply does NOT say that somehow, some Christians will KNOW when He will return.

“Darryl” also cites Matthew 24:1ff. I have written an entire paper about this trying to do justice to the entire text (see “Why I Believe We are NOT Living in the Last Days at www.christian-civilization.org); it is a difficult passage. Let me summarize that paper by stating that all the things listed by the Lord Jesus in Matthew 24 LITERALLY came to pass in 70 AD when the Romans sacked Jerusalem and destroyed the Temple (for the context, see Matthew 23:36ff wherein Jesus specifically is addressing the timing of the destruction of the Temple). I appreciate that “Darryl” and a great number of Christians assume that Matthew 24 is about the Second Coming but I fear that thesis cannot be sustained; Matthew 24 was future prophecy when it was written but it is FULFILLED prophecy to us today - and because THAT is a controversial statement for many Christians I wrote the paper mentioned above.

“Darryl” also quotes 2 Thessalonians 2ff about a great apostasy occurring before the Lord returns. Again for a detailed treatment of this passage, please see my paper on “the last days.” However, what about THIS time in history makes our contemporary heresies a “greater” falling away than OTHER dark periods of history? Is “Darryl” at all familiar with the state of the church before the Reformation where sodomy, fornication, infanticide, illegitimacy, sorcery, heresy was all too common? Seems to me for all the problems (and there are many and they are serious) that the modern church has, there are many other periods of history when things were just as bad - or WORSE - than they are today.

In a related vein, there have been many candidates for the position of “Anti-Christ;” Nero, Domitian, Julian, Attila, the Vikings, the Mongols, the Turks, the Pope, Napoleon, Hitler, Stalin, Henry Kissinger - well the list goes on. And each and every candidate had its proponents who used the same type of exegesis to “prove” their case and explain why earlier “candidates” couldn’t possibly fit the bill. But all these individuals shared something in common; they appeared at times when the church was threatened with extinction - yet, she survived only to see another generation try to find another candidate.

“Darryl” then quotes from the book of Daniel to prove that those living at the end of time will have more knowledge and understanding of the Bible. Well there are a couple of problems with this; first, as has been seen, “Darryl” and those who share his views actually have LESS knowledge of the Bible - not more. They do not seem to know church history, they do not follow basic principles of interpretation, they take things out of context, they assume what needs to be proven, etc.

But secondly, and more importantly, they quote from books that the greatest theological minds in history have admitted to be difficult to understand and interpret. For example, I could argue that the prophecy of Daniel 12:4ff was fulfilled when the canon of the New Testament was completed! After all, the Old Testament gave us shadows, types and pictures of Christ and His great redemption - now that Jesus has come in the flesh we have the fulfillment! So from Daniel’s perspective, the people of his time did not understand all that he was writing because Jesus had not yet come - but WE understand those things more clearly.

I could even argue that many of the more obscure issues in Daniel that some “prophecy experts” love to speculate about actually took place not too long after his death; i.e., the rise of Alexander the Great, the division of his Empire under his four generals, the persecution of Israel under Antiochus, etc. In other words, knowledge in HIS day, when Israel was captive in Babylon was “shut up” but they were then revealed as history unfolded and NOW, today, we can see the wonderful providence of God. In fact, Daniel’s predictions about the future of Israel, especially her persecution under Antiochus were SO detailed that liberal scholars insist that it must have been written AFTER the fact! But nowhere does the prophetic word to Daniel require us to see that WE are living in the Last Days or that somehow, we have a better grasp of Scripture than say Augustine, Calvin, Luther, Knox, Hodge, Warfield, Machen, etc.

“Darryl” then states that “God said He will give up the churches to Satan…” Here he is just wrong; it a serious thing to say “Thus sayeth the Lord” when He has not spoken -that’s called “false prophecy.” If “Darryl” wishes the modern church would pay more attention to the Old Testament, he also ought to remember that the penalty for being a false prophet is DEATH! He quotes Revelation 17:17 which simply does not say what he says it says. God NEVER says that He will give up His church to Satan and therefore again, “Darryl” is actually doing what he is accusing the church of doing, refusing to listen to God. Now, most scholars will admit that the book of Revelation is difficult to interpret and we do not have time or space to go into all the various paradigms that are used to approach this book. But “Darryl” again seems oblivious to the complexities involved, he asserts, without evidence that when the Lord says “kingdoms” that He means “churches.” I have just one request; prove it!

The word “kingdoms,” if you look at any standard concordance or lexicon, means “kingdoms” not “churches.” Interpreting the word “kingdoms” to mean “churches” is just utter nonsense; if “kingdoms” can be made to mean “churches” then language has no meaning. I am reminded of Lewis Carroll’s “Alice in Wonderland” where Humpty Dumpty makes words mean whatever he wants them to mean. This is NOT how God revealed His will. In short, “Darryl” is not interpreting Scripture, but creating his own meaning and imposing it on Scripture - again, he is the one not “listening” to Scripture.

Secondly in this regard, “Darryl” says that “Babylon” (from Rev 18:1ff) should be understood as the “church inhabited by demons.” Well, again, this has to be proven, not assumed. Let me remind “Darryl” that if in two thousand years of church history NO ONE EVER agreed with your interpretation on an issue, who is more likely to be right, some modern radio jockey or the greatest theologians in history? There have been many candidates for “Babylon” (the most common are probably - off the top of my head - the Roman Catholic Church, the Liberal Apostate Church and First Century Judaism that rejected Jesus as the Messiah, etc.) but I am unaware of any reputable Christian scholar every teaching that it refers to the church, as a whole. The reasons for these particular candidates would require a massive exegetical and historical analysis and deal with complex hermeneutical issues that the average believer is just not interested in pursuing.

However, regardless of who precisely “Babylon” might be, the angel does command men to “come out from her…” (vs. 4). And guess what; Christians have been departing and are departing from apostate churches, throughout history. The first century church LEFT the Jewish synagogues. The early church “came out from” Gnostic, Arian and other heretical sects. The “Great Schism” saw half of the Christian Church separate from the tyranny of Rome in the Tenth Century. The Reformation saw half of Christendom depart from the errors of Roman Catholicism. Later on, Baptists and Congregationalists departed from what they considered the “errors” of Anglican and Presbyterian Churches. In the 19^th and 20^th centuries, millions of American Christians left Baptist, Presbyterian, Methodist, Congregational, Episcopal and other churches that accepted Higher Criticism and denied the Deity of Christ. Right now, the PCUSA is losing hundreds of congregations as evangelicals depart from their theological liberalism and humanist ethics. And Episcopalians across the world are separating from the Anglican Church because they ordain sodomites and women.

Yes there are apostate churches and yes, faithful Christians after fighting to preserve their churches will either win the battles or leave - but they do not become autonomous individuals. Instead, as all true Christians will do, they band together with other like minded believers to either find or form new churches more faithful to the Word.

Conclusion

Since I do not know “Darryl,” I cannot speak to his character. He might well be a sincere brother who is just in over his head - been there, done that, bought the t-shirt. If so, like the wise man of Proverbs, he will welcome correction and grow accordingly (Galatians 6:1ff, Matthew 18:15ff). As we mentioned earlier, what really distinguishes a brother in error from a factious, schismatic heretic that needs to be rejected (Titus 3:10) is how he receives correction; the wise man loves it, the heretic hates it.

Regardless of “Darryl” the man, the position that he has presented in his paper is exegetical, historical and doctrinal nonsense - I am truly sorry, I just do not know a kinder way to say that. There are some ideas that are just too incredible to give credence to. In this case, the assertion that God is no longer concerned about His church and has removed His presence and blessing from her as a whole is based on the worst sorts of “proof-texting” and ignorance of the most basic principles of interpretation. If in fact a radio or television ministry is advocating such a “doctrine” one must ask how finances figure into it. After all, if all true Christians should leave the institutional church, to whom should they tithe? Nevertheless, “Darryl’s” position cannot be logically or theologically maintained and NO reputable Bible scholar - regardless of whatever other theological axes they have to grind, has or would agree with it.

However, for all that, “Darryl” does have a point; there IS great apostasy today - there ARE many Christians who live inconsistently with their confession, the church IS often weak and accommodated to the world. However, the solution is not to run from the institutional church, but rather seek out churches tha