Menu

Your Questions

Heavenly Reward: Can rewards believers have earned be cancelled because of sin?

, ,

Question: Based on Scripture, can bad works or lack of good works cancel out already-earned rewards in heaven?

Answer: The verse you refer to is likely: “Look to yourselves, that we do not lose those things we worked for, but that we may receive a full reward” (II Jn. 1:8).

Let’s take a moment to put this verse in context. John calls himself “the elder” (vs. 1), as he does in Third John 1:1. That may refer to his age–the elder one, or (more likely, I think) to his ministry as a pastor. He was clearly so well known in the early church that readers knew who it was who was writing to them.

John addresses his letter to “the elect [chosen] lady and her children.” There, we have a question, and commentators from ancient times have been unsure of the answer. Is he writing to a literal family, a woman and her children? Or is it a way of referring to a local church congregation? I’m not sure.

It’s possible that John is writing to a local church, and purposely disguising which church it is, in case the letter were to fall into the wrong hands. These were days of persecution (Rev. 1:9). If a local church is in view, “the children of your elect sister greet you” (vs. 13) would be a greeting from John’s home church, traditionally believed to be in Ephesus.

If this is literally an older woman, with grown children–ones with whom John has laboured in ministry, in past days (vs. 8), we know several things about her. Some of her children are believers, others seem not to be (vs. 4), and her sister likewise seems to have grown children, from whom John conveys a greeting to their aunt and cousins (vs. 13).

If the addressee is an actual mother and her children, this is the only epistle written to a woman. Whoever the recipients of the letter are, John has great affection for them, and they are well known in the broader Christian community (vs. 1).

The verse in question is about “rewards,” so let me speak briefly to that, first of all.

As to the believer’s rewards, they include the presentation of “crowns” (actually laurel wreaths of gold), for three particular areas–each including a couple of sub-categories. There are Scriptures for each, but I won’t take the time to list them here.

  1. The Saint’s Crowns are awarded for practical sanctification (holy living–for saying “no” to our Self and self-will, and “yes” to God).
  2. The Servant’s Crowns will be awarded for service for Christ–to the unsaved, and to believers.
  3. The Sufferer’s Crowns will be awarded for steadfastness in trials–for patient faith in suffering in general, and for endurance in persecution.

Now, what about Second John 1:8? There is some question in the manuscript evidence whether the first and third “we” (NKJV) should maybe be “you.” Then, it would read, “Look to yourselves, that you do not lose those things we worked for, but that you may receive a full reward”

Most of the modern Bible versions seem to have followed the latter reading, but in either case it doesn’t change to overall sense. For John to include himself (“we”) in a possible loss of rewards would certainly show great humility.

John is warning about false teachers (vs. 7), and exhorting the recipients of the letter to remain faithful to the truth they have received. Otherwise, not only they themselves are in danger, but also those to whom they have ministered, those they have won to Christ and nurtured in the faith. The work they have done could suffer a setback, if they do not oppose those who teach error and are trying to win new followers in their community.

Further, if they were to fail at this point, they could miss out on the full reward that could have been theirs. This does not mean a loss of salvation, which depends on the work of Christ, not our own. Nor does it mean, I believe, that rewards already earned will be cancelled. (This answer also applies to Revelation 3:11, “Hold fast what you have, that no one may take your crown.”)

What God has given us is reserved and kept safe in heaven for us, as though these things were locked away in a heavenly safety deposit box (I Pet. 1:4). Neither we nor any other person can take that from us. Rewards I’ve already earned are placed in that safe place, and will not pop out of there every time I sin! That would make them very arbitrary and insecure indeed since, speaking for myself, I am daily far less that I ought to be.

But there are two ways in which these verses can be understood.

  1. That John, in both texts is writing about rewards we have the potential of earning. If we falter in our spiritual lives, it could be that rewards we might have won will be lost to us.
  2. There are rewards we are in the process of earning. Ones that are not ours yet, but we’ve come some way in earning them. These might be diminished if we do not continue on the right path. Notice that John wants his readers to receive a “full reward”–“that you may be rewarded fully” (NIV). This suggests the possibility of a partial or diminished reward.

Consider another passage, First Corinthians 3:13-14. “Each one’s work will become clear; for the Day [of Christ’s return, cf. Rev. 22:12] will declare [or reveal] it, because it will be revealed by fire; and the fire will test each one’s work, of what sort it is. If anyone’s work which he has built on it endures [i.e. is not burned away as waste, vs. 15], he will [definitely] receive a reward.”

This, of course has nothing to do with the fires of hell, or with a loss of personal salvation. It is strictly about the rewarding of Christians. The fire imagery takes us to the fires used by refiners of precious metals to burn away dross. The things we have done will be assessed at the judgment seat of Christ. Those unworthy of any reward will be passed over, but there is nothing there about rewards for worthy actions be cancelled because of sin.

Head of Home: Is the husband the head of the home?

,

Question: Head of home? What does it mean for a wife to submit to her husband? Is submit and obey the same?

Answer: Yes, submit and obey mean much the same thing. If there’s a difference, submitting is perhaps the inner attitude, and obeying is the action that flows from it. Ephesians 5:22 says, “Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord [as you would submit to the Lord].” That means a wife is to put herself under the headship of her husband. God has designed that the husband be the spiritual leader in the home.

Question: Head of home? Is the wife to do whatever her husband tells her to do, as long as it is not against God? And does the husband have the right to discipline the wife? I have been told this was okay.

Answer: First, we need to deal with the phrase, “as long as it is not against God.” The decisions we make in life fall into several categories.

  1. First, there are those things that are clearly spelled out and forbidden in the Word of God. We know that stealing is wrong, and lying, because the Bible says so.
  2. Then, there are some things that we can be pretty sure are wrong, even though the Bible doesn’t refer to them directly. Cigarettes aren’t mentioned in God’s Word, but we know that smoking would be dangerous to our health, and as believers we also know that our bodies are God’s temple, and we should treat it with care (I Cor. 6:19-20).
  3. Finally, there’s the whole area of day-to-day decisions that are basically neutral in themselves. In these, God’s will isn’t always easy to know for certain. Should I agree to teach a Sunday School class? Should I attend such-and-such a college? Should we have the pastor and his wife over for supper on Sunday? Maybe. Or maybe not.

But here’s an important key to remember. What is God’s will in every situation? What is it that is always God’s will–even in those neutral and non-moral issues? It’s that we “be conformed to the image of His Son” (Rom. 8:29). That we become more and more like Jesus, in other words. And He will work for our good in all things (vs. 28), to see that done.

Some of life’s choices will have to do with moral issues. But most of the decisions we make probably fall into this last category. There are principles in the Bible that we can apply, but no direct commands for them. And the Lord is willing to work with whatever decision we make, either way, to mould us into the likeness of His Son.

So, now: In matters about which God’s Word isn’t specific, does the husband, the head of the home, have the right to insist on his wife doing things his way? No, I don’t think so. Or, let me qualify that a little: not necessarily. It would certainly be arrogant and foolish for either partner to assume that he or she is always right!

Suppose the family needs a new car, and the husband wants a brand new one that will cost about $30,000. But his wife is looking at their need for other things, and at the bills piling up, and she has seen a $10,000 used car that’s been well cared for, and would suit their family well.

There’s a disagreement there–and while we can find principles in the Bible that might help with a decision, there’s certainly no Bible verse about buying cars. So, how is a decision to be reached in a mature and God-honouring way?

  1. They both need to pray about it. Not just one quick “Lord give us wisdom” prayer, but perhaps prayer over several days or longer. (Asking God for wisdom is certainly part of that, James 1:5.)
  2. There needs to be a discussion of the pros and cons by the two of them. Exactly why does each think the course they favour is the best one? Are there some areas of agreement? Or areas where they’re willing to compromise?
  3. Whatever the case, there ought to be humility and gentleness in the discussion, and a respect shown for the other person.
  4. Maybe friends and family can be asked for advice–though sometimes this creates more conflict if it’s not done carefully. And others may not want to take sides in what seems to have the potential of becoming a heated family debate.
  5. It may be possible to suggest a third option. A creative alternative or a compromise that better meets the views of both.
  6. Maybe there’s a need to wait awhile–to wait for God to give them both more light. Perhaps, with further thought, one partner or the other will change his or her opinion somewhat. Or a new option will surface.
  7. Either partner should be very hesitant to create a division over a non-biblical issue. Life is short, and there are lots of things more important. Harmony at home, respect, affection and kindness toward one another are far more important than getting one’s way in one decision.

Even though the husband is head of home, decisions need to be made in a collaborative way. And, no, the husband has no right to discipline or punish his wife for disobeying him. Even when what she’s done is clearly forbidden in God’s Word, he must be careful about that.

For one thing, he’s too close to the situation, and may be blind to his own faults relative to the issue. What if he is part of the cause? In the words of Scottish poet Robert Burns:

     O wad some Pow’r the giftie gie us
     To see oursels as others see us!
     It wad frae mony a blunder free us,
     And foolish notion.

The process for dealing with that kind of situation is spelled out in Matthew 18:15-17. Perhaps the husband can show his wife from the Scriptures where she is in the wrong (if it is a moral issue), and she’ll be willing to change.

But if that doesn’t happen, her husband needs to involve one or two godly and mature Christians. They will be able to look at the situation in a balanced way. Maybe the husband is partly to blame, and he needs to face his own failings and deal with them.

In a marriage, you have only two people involved, which means that every disagreement will result in an evenly split vote. Somebody has to break the tie, and, in one sense, the husband has that responsibility.

However, he would be very unwise to simply put his foot down and do things his way, if he senses his wife feels strongly the other way. (I’m not talking here about things that are morally right or wrong, but more neutral things where the best path is harder to find.)

When Peter counsels pastors, he tells them not to act like “lords over those entrusted to you” (I Pet. 5:3). The Amplified Bible has: “Not domineering [as arrogant, dictatorial, and overbearing persons] over those in your charge, but being examples (patterns and models of Christian living).” That’s good advice for husbands too.

Part of the fruit of the Spirit is gentleness (Gal. 5:22-23). As in the local church, so in the home, “With all lowliness and gentleness, with longsuffering [patience], bearing with one another in love, [we ought to be] endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace” (Eph. 4:2-3).

Gospel Songs: What is a gospel song, and how does it work?

,

Questions: What is a gospel song? Who is converted to Christ by it? What factors contribute to its impact?

Answer: Thank you for your excellent questions. Here are a few thoughts on the subject that I hope will be helpful to you.

1) What Is a Gospel Song?

First, as to the definition of a gospel song: the word “gospel” is used in the New Testament nearly a hundred times. Its basic meaning is good news–referring to the good news that there is eternal salvation through faith in Christ. As Paul writes: “I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes” (Rom. 1:16).

In another place, the apostle speaks of the content of the gospel message. At the heart of it, how has Christ provided that salvation? “I declare to you the gospel….that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures” (I Cor. 15:1-4).

So, if we are speaking of gospel songs, they will be ones that are centred on the Lord Jesus Christ and what He has done for us. But the category includes more than that. These songs speak, not only of how to become a Christian, but also how to live as the Christians we become, through faith.

In the latter vein they include subjects such as prayer, the study of God’s Word, witnessing, dealing with temptation, the importance of Christian fellowship, showing the love of Christ to others, a joyful anticipation of the Lord’s return, and so on.

It’s helpful to distinguish between hymns and gospel songs. Though we often use the word “hymns” to cover both, there is a difference. I believe this may be a difference recognized in Colossians 3:16, where the Bible mentions not only the Old Testament psalms, but also hymns and spiritual songs.

    ¤ Hymns are more often directed to God, in praise and prayer (for example, How Great Thou Art, Great Is Thy Faithfulness, or Fairest Lord Jesus).

    ¤ Gospel songs (perhaps the “spiritual songs” of Colossians) are directed more to other people, and deal with teaching and testimony (for example, What a Friend We Have in Jesus, Jesus Loves Me, or Stand Up for Jesus). (Note: some songs include both of these dimensions, so the difference isn’t always clear-cut.)

2) Who Is Converted to Christ by It?

As to your second question, it’s not songs that convert people, though they can be an instrument in God’s hands for this. The Spirit of God is the One who brings conviction of sin (Jn. 16:8) and teaches sinners about the Saviour (Jn. 16:12). The new birth is an inner work of the Holy Spirit (Jn. 1:12-13; 3:3).

The preaching of the gospel message(or the singing if ut–which, in a way is preaching set to music) is the means God has chosen to point people to Christ (Rom. 10:14-15; I Cor. 1:21). But this is only effective as the Spirit of God works through these things. It is His power that transforms lives.

This point having been made, there are some practical points to consider.

3) What Factors Contribute to Its Impact?

A) For a sermon or a song to be the means of changing lives, it has to deliver a message that is biblical, a message that conveys the truths of God’s Word, and does so in a clear and understandable way. There’s a verse in the Old Testament, dealing with the teaching of the Law of Israel, that says it nicely.

“They read distinctly from the book, in the Law of God; and they gave the sense, and helped them to understand the reading” (Neh. 8:8). That’s exactly what we need to be doing with New Testament truth–in this case truth delivered through our songs. And let me add a couple of other verses.

“To the law and to the testimony [the Word of God, in other words]! If they do not speak according to this word, it is because there is no light in them” (Isa. 8:20). “For if the trumpet makes an uncertain sound, who will prepare himself for battle?” (I Cor. 14:8).

I realize these verses are being lifted out of their context, but they present principles that are universal. Our hymns and gospel songs should be biblical, and present the truth plainly.

B) The tunes used should be singable, and appropriate to the words. Unfamiliar tunes can be taught, over time, but it’s a great help when the tune is skillfully constructed and appealing.

However, a tune dealing with praising God or rejoicing in His blessings may not be appropriate for a song about the agonies Christ suffered on Calvary. Like the frame of a picture, the tune should enhance the words, not distract from them.

C) I find it appalling that some churches use loud rock music styles to try to convey God’s truth. If the music style is currently associated with immoral rock concerts, and other worldly things, it has no place in the house of God.

“What is highly esteemed among men is [very often] an abomination to God” (Lk. 16:15; cf. Deut. 12:3-4, 29-32; II Cor. 6:14-18). The music of God’s house should be a sacred music, dedicated to Him, not a copy of what entertains unsaved, worldly people.

D) Our hymns and gospel songs should be used, not just sung. That is, they should be intentionally and purposefully employed. If there’s a hymn sung just before the message, let’s not just pick any song we happen to like. What is it intended for? Is it one that effectively introduces the message of God’s Word?

For example, this Sunday I’m preaching on Jesus’ miracle of the feeding of the five thousand (Jn. 6:1-15). My emphasis is on serving the Lord, and just before the message we’ll sing Have I Done My Best for Jesus? Afterward, the closing song is Make Me a Blessing.

In my view, when possible, many (or all) of the songs used in a church service should reflect the theme of the Bible message, and do some teaching on their own. In the 19th century, gospel songs were often called “Sunday School songs,” because they were used to amplify lessons being taught there. That’s what they should do.

E) And one last thought. Pastors and service/song leaders often meet for prayer before the service. Do they ever pray specifically for the songs that will be sung, with a recognition of the message to be conveyed by them? (Personally, I expect this is rare.) If the hymns and gospel songs are chosen thoughtfully, and prayerfully, we need to ask the Lord to bless them.

The Gift of Healing and Faith

,

Question: What is the difference between receiving healing through the gift of healing and through faith?

Answer: Thanks for the question, “AJ.” I’ll try to give you an answer based on my understanding of the Word of God. When you ask about the difference, I assume you’re not talking about the difference in the result. Healing is healing, however it comes. But I think you’re asking about the difference in the means.

When the Lord Jesus was on earth, healing power resided in Him (the gift of healing, if you like). In fact, He healed “all” who came to Him (Matt. 4:23; 8:16). This complete mastery over every disease, over demons and death was an authenticating sign that His claims about Himself and His overall teaching were true (Acts 2:22). As Nicodemus rightly put it, “No one can do these signs that You do unless God is with him” (Jn. 3:2).

Then, when the Lord Jesus ascended back into heaven, the apostles were given the task of building the church and continuing to preach God’s message. To show that they had the same authority Christ had, they were given the ability to work various kinds of miracles (called “the signs of an apostle,” II Cor 12:12). And when the demonized and diseased came to them, “they were all healed” (Acts 5:16, italics mine). Even the dead were raised, just as they had been through Christ (e.g. Acts 9:36-41).

These miraculous powers possessed by the apostles (including the gift of healing) authenticated them and their message, showing that they spoke with the authority of the risen, glorified Christ (Heb. 2:3-4). But once the inspired Word of God was given, the authenticating gifts were no longer needed. We have God’s complete written message now. We can only believe it or reject it. No one has “the signs of an apostle” today. The apostles laid the foundation (Eph. 2:20) and passed on. Therefore it is my understanding that no one has the gift of healing today–that is, the God-given ability residing in them to heal all who come to them.

I realize there are some who claim this gift in modern times. But at best it is a feeble imitation of what Christ and the apostles had. Carefully authenticated instances of miraculous healing are rare, and these healers certainly do not attempt to heal everyone. They’re very selective. Further, there is much fakery and deception used by a number to impress the gullible.

Now, does God still heal today? Certainly. And He does so in three basic ways.

  1. God has built into the human body remarkable restorative powers to heal itself. In many cases, individuals recover from illness by natural processes. This innate ability is a gift of God, one for which we praise Him.
  2. Medical science continues to make amazing advances. Many diseases are healed by powerful medicines or intricate surgery. This too is a gift of God for which we thank and praise Him.
  3. God does heal from time to time by supernatural means. Such miracles are not the common thing; they are relatively rare. And they do not come through individuals having the biblical gift of healing, but by God’s mercy, in answer to believing prayer.

When an individual believer is sick, and the sickness does not respond to the first two methods described, James urges him or her to call for the elders to pray for healing (Jas. 5:14-15). (Notice, he does not say they should call for someone who has the gift of healing.) Even so, I believe this instruction may refer to a specific situation, not to any and all illness. (See my article on the subject, Healing in Scripture.)

More generally, it is quite acceptable for any Christian to pray for healing for himself or others who are sick, and trust God to answer according to His own will and wisdom. In the same context as the above, James says we are to “pray for one another” saying that “the effectual, fervent prayer of a righteous man [or person–man or woman] avails much [it’s very powerful]” (vs. 16).

Sometimes God will answer such prayers by natural or medical means, and occasionally by supernatural means. But this does not involve the gift of healing. It is an individualized demonstration of God’s mercy in response to faith. Nor can we demand that God heal in every case, without fail. However, “this is the confidence that we have in Him, that if we ask anything according to His will, He hears us” (I Jn. 5:14).

We also have the confidence that in heaven there will be no more sickness, pain or death (Rev. 21:4). Meanwhile, we can trust the love and wisdom of God to glorify Himself in our lives, either through our deliverance from sickness, or by giving us the grace to endure it.

Much confusion exists on this issue. I hope those few thoughts are a help.

Fundamentalist or Liberal: What do such terms mean?

, ,

Question: What is a ‘fundamentalist’, a ‘moderate’, a ‘liberal’? Doesn’t Revelation 3:14-22 warn against ‘moderation’?

Answer: Thanks for the question. It’s not an easy one to answer because the terms you mention are used in different ways. In the words of Humpty Dumpty, in Lewis Carroll’s Through the Looking Glass, “Words mean whatever I want them to mean.” The term “fundamentalist” is like that.

1) Fundamentalism

In the late nineteenth century a tide of unbelief swept through seminaries and into the pulpits of the Western world. Higher criticism and Darwin’s evolutionary theories caused many to turn from the faith. Then, in 1909, two evangelical Christian laymen set aside a large sum of money to produce a set of volumes defending the basic doctrines of the Bible. Many different scholars contributed articles to be included, and over 300,000 copies were sent out free of charge to pastors, missionaries, Sunday School superintendents, and so on.

I have the books in my library, published now in four volumes. They are entitled The Fundamentals–a Testimony to the Truth. On the title page is a quotation from Isaiah 8:20, which says:

“To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.”

To the editors and the many authors, the word “fundamentals” simply meant getting back to the basic teachings of the Word of God, truths consistently believed and taught by conservative evangelicals. In that sense, I would consider myself a fundamentalist.

The fundamentals of Christian doctrine are things such as: the verbal inspiration and trustworthiness of the whole Bible (Jn. 17:17; II Tim. 3:16); the deity and virgin birth of Christ (Matt. 1:21-23); His death and bodily resurrection (I Cor. 15:3-4); salvation by grace through faith in Christ, apart from any human works or merit (Eph. 1:7; 2:8-9), and the visible, physical second coming of Christ (Jn. 14:3; Acts 1:10-11).

However, the word has had a lot of baggage attached to it in more recent years. For example, today, we hear on the news of Muslim fundamentalists, a phrase labelling violent Islamic extremists. To some, the word is almost seen as synonymous with “terrorists.” When those on the “religious right” in North America are called fundamentalists, it is often a negative term implying that they are mindless bigots and dangerous fanatics.

Labels tend to become stereotypes that pigeon-hole people we disagree with. And there are indeed Bible thumping “fighting fundamentalists” that espouse a narrow, judgmental brand of Christianity, but I part company with them. So do many of my friends who adhere to the fundamentals of the Christian faith. There are many who accept that label who are kind and loving people, sincerely trying to live holy lives and present the gospel of grace to a world that needs to hear it.

2) Liberalism

This is the polar opposite to fundamentalism (rightly understood). The theological liberal denies the verbal inspiration of the Bible. To him it is an ancient man-made book, full of myths and legends. While it contains some fine ethical teaching here and there, it must not be taken as literally true. The liberal denies the deity of Christ. To him or her Jesus was simply a good man and a wise teacher. His death was an example of self-sacrifice, but it doesn’t have eternal saving merit to those who believe on Him. Doubt is cast upon His supernatural miracles and His bodily resurrection too.

As to salvation, liberals claim all human beings have a “divine spark” in them. Salvation comes to whoever sincerely does his best. There’s no such thing as eternal hell, no real devil. We’re all children of God. Love unites us, doctrine can only divide, so we should avoid it. I once met a clergyman from a liberal denomination who said, “I don’t really know what I believe, and this is the only group I found that would accept me in that condition!”

3) Moderation

I’m not sure what you understand by the word “moderation”– and again, a precise definition can be difficult. Basically, it means the avoidance extremes. We can do that in some areas of conduct. For example, I write a great deal about sacred music. And I realize that some churches use only the traditional hymns of the church and condemn those who disagree, others use only contemporary music and mock the “old-fashioned” hymns. Still others seek to combine the best of the two. Is the latter a moderate position? Perhaps.

But whatever the case, it’s more difficult to be “moderate” when it comes to Bible doctrine. Either Christ is God the Son or He’s not. Either salvation is by grace or it’s not (Rom. 4:4-5). Of course, it’s possible to “major on minors,” to be dogmatic about some detail of doctrine on which good and godly people differ, and to refuse to fellowship with any who don’t cross the same “t’s” and dot the same “i’s” we do.

That doesn’t seem to me to be a Christlike attitude. We can be clear on what we believe, and still be gracious with those who differ. We may not want to join their church, but we can show them the love of Jesus. Someone once asked famed Bible teacher Harry Ironside what “denomination” he belonged to. He responded, “I belong to David’s church.” Curious, they asked what that was, and Dr. Ironside quoted Psalm 119:63, where the psalmist says to God, “I am a companion of all who fear You.” (Food for thought, there!)

These things being said, we are urged “to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 1:3), not water it down, or compromise it. And I tend to call myself a conservative evangelical, not a “moderate” evangelical. Moderation seems to suggest to me vagueness and unwarranted compromise.

You refer to the church at Laodicea (Rev. 3:14-22). I’m not sure I’d use the term moderate for them either. Their spiritual lukewarmness had led them to focus on how wealthy they were and become self-satisfied. In their eyes they had need of nothing (vs. 17). But in God’s sight they were spiritually bankrupt–not moderately, but completely so!

Does God Dance? Does the Lord dance over His people?

,

Question: In church Sunday we sang a song that said, “God dances over me.” It bothered me and I cannot find a Scripture reference to support it. Is this a correct use of Scripture for a song?

Answer: H-m-m… Thanks for the question. I think what you describe would bother me, too. And it’s not a song I would use personally. You don’t actually name the selection, but perhaps you’re referring to “Lord of the Dance,” written in 1963 by Sidney Carter. You can see more about him and his song on the Cyber Hymnal, here.

However, let me take the other side for just a moment.

When King David brought the ark of the covenant back to Jerusalem, he executed a vigorous and impromptu dance before the procession (II Sam. 6:12-14). His wife, Michal, criticized him for this–mainly, it seems, because she thought it was an undignified way for a king to act (vs. 20).

However, David declared his willingness to humble himself before his people (vs. 21-22). And the Lord seems to have honoured his sincerity and supported his position, as the Bible says Michal was barren for the rest of her life (vs. 23).

Several quick points about that incident.

  1. Michal refers to the king “uncovering” himself in public. But I don’t think we should infer from that that he was stark naked. He simply removed his kingly outer robe, so he could move more freely.
  2. This was not some kind of sexy, suggestive dance, such as is performed on immoral videos today. It was likely more of a Hebrew folk dance. Or, he simply leaped and twirled with giddy joy. (The way contestants and their families sometimes do on a quiz show, when they win a lot of money. Or the way some of us do when our football team wins.)
    Spontaneous expressions of joy and devotion–though they may fly in the face of the usual propriety and political correctness–are not necessarily frowned upon by the Lord, when they are sincere expressions of the heart (cf. Mk. 14:3-9).)
  3. Keep in mind that David is the forefather of the Lord Jesus, who would be called “the Son of David” (Matt. 1:1). His willingness to humble himself before his people is a touching foreshadowing of an infinitely greater humbling by the Saviour that was yet to come (Phil. 2:8).

So is there any reference to Almighty God dancing, in Scripture? No, not that I’m aware of. However, there is a reference to Him singing. Zephaniah 3:17 says, “The LORD your God in your midst, The Mighty One, will save; He will rejoice over you with gladness, He will quiet you with His love, He will rejoice over you with singing” (NKJV).

In my view, the latter refers to the day when Christ returns to set up His earthly kingdom, and Israel’s long centuries of suffering will finally be at an end (cf. vs. 14-15). At that time, Jehovah God will comfort His people Israel and rejoice.

As to the song you mention, it’s likely that the one who wrote it was trying to find some poetic way to convey the sheer delight of the Lord in His children. And Psalm 37:23 does say, “The steps of a good man are ordered by the LORD, And He delights [takes pleasure in] in his way.”

Whether that includes the Lord dancing or not, I’m not sure. But my personal objections to a song such as you mention are several.

  1. The imagery of God dancing over His people has no actual biblical support.
  2. There is too strong an association in our day with the sensuality of the wrong kind of dancing.
  3. Dancing is never mentioned in connection with the church of Jesus Christ. In fact, it may be significant that the only two mentions of dancing in the New Testament have a negative connotation (Matt. 11:17; 14:6).
  4. It tends to degrade and humanize the Lord of glory and does not show Him appropriate awe and reverence. (Cf. John’s awe-filled meeting with the glorified Christ, Rev. 1:10-18.)
  5. It will definitely be offensive to some people, and will thus hinder their true worship.

I know there will be others who will disagree with me. And perhaps in some congregations it would be acceptable. But I do think that in corporate worship we should try to avoid giving offence. Instead we should seek to use expressions of worship that all can enjoy.

I have a similar concern when it comes to excessively loud music, or music with a repetitious and intrusive beat, in the house of God. We need to try to keep our worship and praise free from worldly associations, firmly rooted in the Word of God, and accessible to as many as possible.

God’s standard–different in Old Testament and New?

,

Questions: How did the Old Testament people express their faith in the LORD? How are believers or Christians today supposed to express their faith in the LORD? Have the standards changed?

measure

Answer: Those are excellent questions. The short answer is that God’s moral standard is eternal. It doesn’t change, because it reflects the character of our changeless God. And as a general principle, faith is expressed to God–before the cross, and after–by obedience to His Word. As the Bible says, “By faith Abraham obeyed” (Heb. 11:8).

Contrast that with what is said of Israel, poised to go in and conquer the Land of Canaan at God’s command: “Likewise, when the LORD sent you from Kadesh Barnea, saying, ‘Go up and possess the land which I have given you,’ then you rebelled against the commandment of the LORD your God, and you did not believe Him nor obey His voice” (Deut. 9:23).

Take that link between faith and obedience as a basic starting point, and I think you’ll see an answer to your questions. Whatever the specifics revealed for a particular time, that was to be the response. If Adam and Eve had fully believed and trusted God, they would have obeyed His command not to eat of the forbidden fruit (Gen. 2:17).

As far as the practical details of what’s to be believed and obeyed, people can only act on what they know. By faith Noah believed God about the coming deluge, and so he obeyed the Lord’s command and built the ark (Heb. 11:7). But these early saints didn’t know about Christ, and what He would do on Calvary–or saw these things off in the future only very dimly.

At that stage of things we have God’s commands regarding animal sacrifices. We know that an animal cannot die for the sins of a man (Heb. 10:4). It took “the Man Christ Jesus” to do that. However, God accepted the sacrifices of the Old Testament, when they were offered in faith, recognizing them as foreshadowing what was still unknown.

“He [the offerer] shall put his hand on the head of the burnt offering, and it will be accepted on his behalf to make atonement for him” (Lev. 1:4). This physical action was a means of identification with the sacrifice. It said, “This is an innocent substitute, dying in my place.” And you can see that’s exactly what we testify to when we put our faith in the Saviour, the “Lamb of God” (Jn. 1:29). He is the final and full Innocent Substitute (I Cor. 15:3; Eph. 1:7; I Pet. 3:18).

God’s revelation was progressive. That is, more and more information was added as time went on. Not that the latter parts contradict what came earlier–certainly not in principle. But we now have God’s full written revelation, and that places a greater responsibility upon us than believers of an earlier time.

Part of that increased responsibility is due to the fact that Christ has come to earth as Man, revealing God to us in a way we can more fully understand (Jn. 1:14). And in the process God revealed the true standard for man in His Son. “God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, has in these last days spoken to us by His Son” (Heb. 1:2).

Notice how this makes for an infinitely higher standard. The Lord said to His followers, “A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another; as I have loved you, that you also love one another” (Jn. 13:34). It wasn’t a “new” commandment that they love one another. They had that in the Jewish Law (Lev. 19:18, 34). What was new was that “as I have loved you.” Christ-like love is the goal.

The standard of the New Testament is that, once we’ve put our faith in Christ for salvation, we continue to “grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ” (II Pet. 3:18). “Till we all come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ” (Eph. 4:13).

“We all, with unveiled face, beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as by the Spirit of the Lord” (II Cor. 3:18). This is where the fruit of the Spirit comes in (Gal. 5:22-23)–it’s a kind of summary of Christ-like character. By the ongoing work of the indwelling Holy Spirit, Christians are being “conformed to the image of His Son” (Rom. 8:29).

It is, of course, a standard that is impossible to reach in this life. None of us is able to claim perfection (I Jn. 1:8, 10). But it’s what we are to aim for. And there is a means of cleansing when we fall short (I Jn. 1:9; 2:1-2). Praise the Lord we have the prospect of being made “like Him” at the resurrection (Phil. 3:20-21; I Jn. 3:2), “and everyone who has this hope in Him purifies himself [day by day], just as He is pure” (I Jn. 3:3).

Christian Sin: What if a Christian Sins?

,

Question: If God has mercy on us and forgives us, why are there verses in the Bible that say we will be condemned if we commit a certain sin? Does it mean those who are not saved will be condemned? Or is it referring to everyone in general?

Answer: Thanks for the good questions. You don’t mention any specific examples of verses that apply, so let me treat the questions by dealing with some broader truths.

Your first question seems to contain a logical contradiction. If we are forgiven, how can we also be condemned for sins that have been forgiven?

Let’s back up a few steps, to lay a foundation. God is a God of righteousness, holiness and justice. “The Lord our God is holy [utterly separate and set apart from any sin or corruption]” (Ps. 99:9; I Jn. 1:5). And, as a holy God, He is “angry with the wicked every day” (Ps. 7:11).

Any failure to trust in and obey God is sin (Rom. 14:23; I Jn. 5:17). And all sin is bad, and deserving of eternal condemnation. “The wages of sin is death [eternal death, a separation from God forever]” (Rom. 6:23a; cf. Rev. 21:8). The unbeliever “shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him” (Jn. 3:36).

As to human beings (apart from the incarnate Son of God, who was “without sin,” Heb. 4:15) “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Rom. 3:23). “There is none righteous, no, not one” (vs. 10). And in that condition, all are justly condemned. From the very beginning, the Lord has pledged that He must and will punish sin (Gen. 2:17).

On the other hand, there is ample evidence, in the Bible, of God’s saving grace, His unmerited favour. No one is saved because he’s earned it or deserves it (Eph. 2:8-9). Instead God, in love, sent His Son to take sin’s punishment in our place. He “suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust” (I Pet. 3:18). “Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures” (I Cor. 15:3). He died for all the sins of all, for all time. His sacrifice fully satisfied God’s justice for the sins of “the whole world” (I Jn. 2:2; cf. Isa. 53:6).

But not all will be saved, only those who have personally claimed Christ’s payment for themselves by faith (Jn. 3:18; Acts 16:30-31). The offer of full forgiveness and cleansing is made to any who will put their faith in Christ as Saviour. All who trust in Him as their Saviour are forgiven, and given the gift of eternal life (Jn. 3:16). “The gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Rom. 6:23b). Those who trust in Christ become children of God (Jn. 1:12-13).

Now we get to the issue you raised, and the answer is there are two kinds of forgiveness, or two aspects of God’s forgiveness. They are what we might call judicial forgiveness, pertaining to sinners in the court of God (Heb. 9:27), and parental forgiveness, pertaining to saints in the household of God. Sin is still sin, but the saint (the Christian) has a completely different standing before God than the sinner (the unsaved).

The unsaved are in need of judicial forgiveness. They are destined to face God, the Judge, with sins on their record. Both because of their sinful, fallen nature, and because of the expression of that nature in acts of sins, they will be eternally lost. But when they trust in Christ they are delivered from all condemnation for sins past, present, and future (Col. 2:14).

The position of the children of God is quite different. The eternal condemnation for all our sins has been dealt with fully and forever at the cross. Our names are written in the Lamb’s book of life, and that makes all the difference (Rev. 20:15). There can be no condemnation for those who are in Christ (Jn. 5:24; Rom. 8:1), since His perfect righteousness has been credited to our account (II Cor. 5:21).

Christians do stumble into sin from time to time, but it has ceased to be the pattern of our lives. The Christian no longer faces God as a Judge, but as his heavenly Father. When we sin, Christ is our “Advocate with the Father” (I Jn. 2:1). We are to confess it before God and receive His complete forgiveness (I Jn. 1:9).

Nothing can ever separate the child of God from His love (Rom. 8:33-39). As children of God, we don’t lose our salvation when we sin. But fellowship with God is broken. There is a loss of joy, and of power in service, and certainly a loss of eternal rewards. But not a loss of sonship.

Even so, it is important to deal with sin in our lives. As Christians, we are indwelt be the Spirit of God (Rom. 8:25) and desire to please our heavenly Father, serving Him effectively (cf. Ps. 51:12-13).

Christians and Alcohol: Should a Christian drink Alcohol?

,

Question: Is it right for a Christian [in our day] to drink alcohol socially?

Answer: Good question. And I suspect that no matter how I answer it there will be many who disagree. My position will be too strong for some, and too weak for others. Even so, it’s an important issue, and I’ll share my own convictions on it.

My Own Experience

Years ago I counselled a young couple in preparation for their wedding. Both were Christians, and I urged them to make the day a clear testimony to their faith in Christ, and to their desire to build a Christian home. One issue that came up was the insistence of the young woman’s unsaved parents that alcohol be served at the reception. I pleaded with them not to go along, to take a stand that would honour the Lord. But they bowed to the pressure.

A few weeks afterward, the bride’s parents were both killed in an alcohol-related car accident. Would that have been prevented if the couple had made a different decision? Perhaps not, I don’t know. But thinking back to the testimony of the bride and groom, might have made a strong impression on others, and affected their lives for the good.

I know there are Christians, or professing Christians, who see nothing wrong with taking a little wine with dinner, and so on. Personally, I’ve never done so, and I’ve always encouraged total abstinence, for a number of reasons. But before I discuss those reasons, I need to make another point.

What Does the Bible Say?

In my view, concerning Christians and alcohol, it would be impossible to prove that the Bible absolutely forbids drinking any alcohol at all–though there are those who try. Many different Hebrew and Greek words are used in the Bible for beverages that were consumed. Whether they contained alcohol or not isn’t always clear. But I’ve found that those intent on proving that total abstinence is a biblical mandate tend to force a meaning on those key words that’s by no means definite.

In Deuteronomy chapter 14, the Law accommodated those coming to Jerusalem from a distance for feast days. Tithes and offerings were usually paid in such things as animals or grain. But if transporting these became too difficult, it was permissible to bring money, and buy what was needed on the spot (vs. 24-26). Vs. 26 is pertinent to our discussion. It says:

“You shall spend that money for whatever your heart desires: for oxen or sheep, for wine or similar drink, for whatever your heart desires; you shall eat there before the LORD your God, and you shall rejoice, you and your household.”

The Hebrew word for wine there is yayin, meaning that which is bubbling or foaming. The Hebrew word translated “similar drink” by the NKJV is shekar, most often translated “strong drink” by the KJV. (The NIV for vs. 26 has “wine or other fermented drink.”)

The difference between the two is that wine (yayin) was made from grapes, while the “shekar“–which seems to have been a kind of beer–was often made from grain. Note that these could be consumed before the Lord as part of an act of worship.

Both of these words are used elsewhere in contexts where it’s clear they contained alcohol. For example, the first time the terms appear they are used of the shameful conduct of Noah. The Bible says “he drank of the wine [yayin] and was drunk [shakar, a form of the word shekar]” (Gen. 9:21).

And when Hannah came to the temple to pray that God would give her a son, she became so emotional and animated that Eli, the high priest, assumed she must be drunk (I Sam. 1:14). But here is Hannah’s response:

“Hannah answered and said, ‘No, my lord, I am a woman of sorrowful spirit. I have drunk neither wine [yayin] nor intoxicating drink [shekar], but have poured out my soul before the LORD'” (vs. 15).

But even if we allow that it is difficult (or impossible) to prove that the Bible absolutely forbids the consumption of any form of alcoholic drink, drunkenness was definitely frowned upon, and beverages used were either non-alcoholic or greatly diluted to avoid intoxication.

“Wine is a mocker, strong drink is a brawler, and whoever is led astray [caused to go off course] by it is not wise” (Prov. 20:1). The Word of God counsels moderation and self-control, and abstinence from anything that would cause another person to stumble (I Cor. 8:8-13).

Time to Party?

We are told that when alcohol is served it can liven up a party. That folks become more jolly, conversation flows more easily, and there’s more fun and laughter. Perhaps so. See Uncle Fred prancing around the room with a lampshade for a hat, singing “Roll out the barrel,” then tripping over his own feet and landing in Grandpa’s lap. Loud guffaws and giddy giggles all ’round!

What brings laughter in inebriation may be considered silly nonsense and an embarrassment, in later times of sobriety. What is at work here is actually a loss of inhibitions. And not all inhibitions are pointless and purposeless! My wife and I have attended some great parties over the years, gatherings where alcohol wasn’t served. We all had a great time, and could remember it the next morning–without a hangover!

The Need for Sound Judgment

In Leviticus chapter 10 we read of two sons of Aaron who made a foolish choice in attending to their duties in the tabernacle (vs. 1). They ignited the incense in the holy place with “profane fire” (likely fire not taken from the altar of sacrifice, but brought from elsewhere). Their actions cost them their lives (vs. 2). And immediately afterward a prohibition was passed against those involved in the tabernacle drinking alcohol, “that you may distinguish between holy and unholy, between unclean and clean” (vs. 8-10).

Sound judgment requires clear thinking–thinking that can become muddled with drink. Consider of what happens when a drinker gets behind the wheel of a car. Tests have shown that even consuming small amounts of alcohol can affect the driver’s reaction time. A lot of accidents have been caused by those who say they haven’t had “much” to drink, or who assumed they could “hold their liquor.”

Living in a Different World

The differences between the ancient culture of Bible times and today are extreme. There were no highways full of speeding cars back then, for one thing! This is a significant point that must be taken into account. Things have definitely changed, and we need to adjust our standards accordingly.

The production of alcoholic beverages has become a multi-billion dollar business now. And it’s not a business I want to support by my purchase of their products! These companies spend incredible amounts of money on advertising. They show young, attractive, happy and sophisticated people imbibing. But the truth about the destructiveness of “booze” is often concealed.

Organizations such as AA (Alcoholics Anonymous) and MADD (Mothers Against Drunk Driving) deal with the devastating problems caused by drinking. Lives are ruined, and homes are broken apart by the insatiable craving for it. Alcohol is often a factor in auto accidents and in various crimes. Go to a rescue mission, as I have done, and see many there with sad stories of how drink has brought them down.

The harm caused by alcohol affects far more than the drinker. It takes its toll in broken relationships, injury to others, property damage, and more–costs not only borne by the consumers but costing all of society untold misery and billions of dollars every year.

A Danger of Addiction

Proverbs provides a sickening and graphic picture of the pitiful condition of a drunk and his addiction (Prov. 23:29-35). My own mother experienced this first hand. She became a Christian when she was a teen-ager, but she lived in a home with six brothers. Five of them were heavy drinkers, one was definitely an alcoholic. Living in that environment made her a strong advocate for total abstinence, and I’m not sorry I’ve followed her example.

Some seem to be able to drink and it never gets out of control. But others are hooked after just one drink. And the problem is it’s not easy to tell whether you’re one of the former or the latter! Since I don’t know about my own susceptibility, it’s something I want to stay completely away from. Why court such a destructive danger unnecessarily?

A Kingdom of Priests

I want to be a good testimony and a good example to others. With something as dangerous as alcohol, would my drinking–even if I didn’t think it was harmful for me–cause some weaker person to think it was okay for them, and thereby be ensnared? I would feel terrible about that! I see no valid reason to take such a great risk (cf. I Cor. 8:11-13).

Old Testament priests involved in ministry were commanded not to drink (Lev. 10:8-11), as were the kings of Israel (Prov. 31:4-5). In addition, one taking a special vow of dedication to God (a Nazirite) was told to “separate himself from wine [yayin] and similar drink [shekar]” (Num. 6:3).

There’s a New Testament parallel on this side of the cross. Compare this to Christians who are called to wholly dedicate themselves to the Lord (Rom. 12:1-2). We are declared to be both kings and priests, a kingdom of priests to God (I Pet. 2:5, 9; Rev. 1:5-6). Should the standard be any lower for us? I think not. Christians and alcohol don’t mix well!

Character Matters: The Messenger Is Not Unimportant

,

Character matters. In my last post entitled The “Total Message” of a Song, I explained how various elements work together to contribute to (or detract from) the message a music group or soloist in a church service delivers. I encourage you to read the article, as background for the following.

One day, I received a lengthy blog post challenging the validity of points made in this article. I certainly appreciated the time taken to comment on what I’d written. But it seemed to me that the writer (or writers, identified as “Moses” and “Molly”) sometimes misunderstood what I was saying, and that the basic argument was flawed. I’ll be quoting from their post, as I respond to them. (For brevity’s sake, I’ll refer to the writers as “MM.”)

MM: He [meaning me] argues that the words of the song alone are not enough. All good music must also have a fitting style (which he views mostly as hymns), a God-honoring presentation (not man focused), a good moral character for the performer (he attacks the Christmas pop CDs that have secular artists singing Christmas hymns), and a social context (which is basically an argument that Christian music must be different than secular music).

Several points there.

1) Are the words ever enough? Yes, in certain quite limited circumstances. “The word of God is living and powerful” (Heb. 4:12). And sometimes sinners are convicted and converted by the Holy Spirit, through reading the Word of God, without any direct human agency. That is why the Gideons organization puts Bibles in hotel rooms and hospitals. God can, and does, work through His powerful Word.

However, when a human messenger is introduced, whether he is preaching or singing the message of Scripture, that immediately introduces other pertinent factors, some of which have the potential to distort or discredit the message. Character matters. (Even thought sometimes, I’m sure, the Lord works in spite of us, rather than because of us. More of this in a moment.)

2) As to viewing all good music as hymns, or thinking hymns are the only good music, this is nonsense. I personally listen to, and enjoy, a wide spectrum of music, sacred and secular. But I do write specifically about hymns, my purpose being to discuss the music we use in our churches–particularly our traditional hymns and gospel songs. For the most part, I’m talking about what is found in the hymn book.

3) “Attacking” Christmas pop CD’s is a little strong. But it does bother me when someone I’ve heard profaning the Lord’s name on other occasions tries to sing His praises. As James puts it, “Out of the same mouth proceed blessing and cursing. My brethren, these things ought not to be so” (Jas. 3:10). What is known of the performer can affect the credibility of the message, for good or ill.

MM: It accidentally puts our wonderful and all-powerful God in a “man’s reputation of God” (aka, man’s “testimony”) sized box.

Well, there was nothing “accidental” about my article. Behind it were many hours of study, and years of interaction both with those who agree and those who disagree with me. As to putting God in “a man’s reputation of God…sized box,” if I understand this correctly, it relates to the main issue taken with my presentation, discussed further below.

MM: God doesn’t need the “Total Message”…God is not dependent on the vehicle He chooses to convey His truth. He is bigger than the broken instruments He uses to proclaim His praises. When any man or woman, moral in the eyes of man or not, stands before a congregation to sing, he or she is a broken vessel to communicate God’s truth….In the Old Testament God even used a donkey (an unrepentant animal I am sure) to give Baalam truth! God can even use pop musicians with sinful lifestyles to teach His truth. He is that big.

This seems to be the central core of the writers’ disagreement with me. But there is a vast difference between saying that an all-powerful God can, if He chooses, make use of unrepentant and unregenerate human beings (and even donkeys), and saying that the spiritual condition of the messenger, therefore, doesn’t matter.

God made use of wicked Pharaoh (Rom. 9:17), but He also punished and destroyed him. Just because God is powerful enough to use the wrath men to bring praise to Himself (Ps. 76:10), does not mean that He winks at the rebellion and unbelief of sinners. It is also true that “the wrath of man does not produce the righteousness of God” (Jas. 1:20).

As to God not being dependent on man, there is an important sense in which that assertion is incorrect. A sovereign God has chosen to work through human instruments. “For since in the wisdom of God the world by its wisdom did not know God, God was pleased to save those who believe by the foolishness of preaching” (I Cor. 1:21, NET Bible). “How shall they [the unsaved] call on Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher?” (Rom. 10:14).

MM: While he [Paul] was sitting in prison, some people were going out and preaching the Gospel “from envy and rivalry” (Phil. 1:15, ESV). These men were not preaching the truth out of love–they were trying to afflict Paul! And yet, despite the poor motivation, Paul wrote in Philippians 1:18 that that didn’t matter. Instead he rejoiced that “in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is proclaimed, and in that [Paul] rejoice[s].”

This is the passage some quote to make the argument that it doesn’t matter what the messenger is like, as long as the message is biblical. But we need to examine Paul’s comments carefully, and consider what else he has to say on the subject. Proof-texting with one isolated verse is a dangerous thing.

The NIV’s paraphrase of Paul’s words in vs. 18 is most unfortunate. Paul didn’t simply shrug at the carnality of these preachers and say, “But what does it matter?” The NKJV is better with a more literal, “What then?” meaning, what is the result? The result was that Christ was preached. And in that fact, specifically, Paul could rejoice.

Though he was gracious and forgiving regarding attempts to hurt him personally, the apostle would hardly say that it didn’t matter that those in Christian ministry were acting in “envy and strife” (vs. 15)! How do we know this? We know it because:

  1. He condemned those in the Corinthian church who were exhibiting these very qualities (I Cor. 3:1-3).
  2. He was concerned that conduct unbecoming the gospel would cause the teachings of Scripture, and even the person of God Himself, to be blasphemed (Rom. 2:21-24; I Tim. 6:1; Tit. 2:4-5). Character matters.
  3. He told the Thessalonian Christians: “This is the will of God, your sanctification…that each of you should know how to possess his own vessel [body] in sanctification and honour, not in passion of lust, like the Gentiles who do not know God….For God did not call us to uncleanness, but in holiness” (I Thess. 4:3-5, 7).
  4. He stated that those in Christian ministry should be: “blameless,” and “of good behaviour,” having “a good testimony,” “reverent, not double tongued [not sending mixed messages],” “holding the mystery of the faith with a good conscience,” and so on (I Tim. 3:1-13; Tit. 1:5-9).
  5. He exhorted Timothy to “be an example to the believers in word, [and] in conduct” (I Tim. 4:12, italics mine), saying, “Keep yourself pure” (I Tim. 5:22). He urged Timothy, as a “man of God,” to “pursue righteousness, godliness, faith, love, patience, gentleness,” and serve “without spot, blameless until our Lord Jesus Christ’s appearing” (I Tim. 6:11, 14). He wanted him to be “a vessel for honour, sanctified and useful for the Master, prepared [ready] for every good work” (II Tim. 2:21).
  6. He likewise admonished Titus, “Speak the things which are proper for sound doctrine…in all things showing yourself to be a pattern of good works; in doctrine showing integrity, reverence, incorruptibility, sound speech that cannot be condemned, that one who is an opponent may be ashamed, having nothing evil to say of you” (Tit. 2:1, 7-8).
  7. And this emphasis was not new. As a Hebrew scholar, Paul would know that these admonitions were in harmony with what the Old Testament demanded of the Levitical priests (Exod. 19:22; Lev. 21:6; Isa. 52:11; Mal. 2:4-9; 3:3). Given that, on this side of the cross, all Christians are describes as “a holy priesthood” (I Pet. 2:5), the standard is surely not lower for us.

For your interest, here is John Calvin’s comment on Paul’s words in Philippians 1:18:

“We ought, therefore, to rejoice if God accomplishes anything that is good by means of wicked persons; but they ought not on that account to be either placed by us in the ministry, or looked upon as Christ’s lawful ministers.”

Years ago, I worked in a commercial advertising firm with a man who, in my parents’ day, had been a popular evangelist. However, he frankly told me that he didn’t believe a word of what he was preaching back then. That it was all a show. But in the midst of it all (whether he believed it or not) he presented truths from God’s Word. So, were any saved through his sermons? Yes, I know a man who was, who later became a pastor. But that does not make the evangelist’s unbelief and hypocrisy either unimportant or benign.

As to church music, the factors I discuss in the article do affect the message that is delivered. And if we insist that it is okay to send mixed signals, and disregard personal holiness, because God is sovereign and powerful and He’ll overrule, we are violating Scripture, dishonouring the Lord, and weakening our ministry.

There is also a sense in which this attitude “tempts” God, challenging Him to prove Himself, over and over, by overriding our folly. It is as though we’ve decided we can walk across a busy highway, without regard to the traffic, because God is powerful enough to protect us. (The devil tempted the Lord Jesus in this way. But He responded, quoting Deuteronomy 6:16), “It is written again, ‘You shall not tempt the Lord your God'” (Matt. 4:5-7; cf. I Cor. 10:9).

When Isaiah was given a vision of God, in all His glory, he cried, “Woe is me, for I am undone [ruined]! Because I am a man of unclean lips” (Isa. 6:6). The NET Bible paraphrases it, “My lips are contaminated by sin.” It was only after a seraph symbolically cleansed his lips with a burning coal that the prophet was able to respond to God’s commission to take His message to the people (vs. 6-8). Being a messenger of God’s holy Word requires a holy messenger. That God works, in grace, with we who are less than perfect does not change that.

Bottom Line: I stand by the article about the “Total Message” of a song. It reminds us of issues very important to each servant of God, whether a musician or a speaker, or a writer. Character matters.

Load More