SCRIPTURE AND HISTORICAL INTERPRETATION ON CONGREGATIONAL PARTICIPARTION

 Audio for the following may be found here. You may also listen to podcast episodes here.

Scripture and Historical Interpretation on Congregational Participation

Of the necessary adjustments attributed to the Reformation, congregational participation is perhaps one of the most all-encompassing and lasting. In a Western society which discouraged participation in corporate worship, Reformers gave hope to believers by implementing the vernacular language, music accessible to the common person, and a biblical canon in the language of the people. Congregants were given the resources to participate in worship and did so with potency. Centuries of expansion, however, brought the church to where it is now regarding worship: a place of consumer-driven and self-centered worship practice. Perhaps subconscious and unintended, the elaboration of what the Reformers intended with congregational participation has caused a morphing in perspective. Shifting back to the original goal of congregational participation is not impossible but requires two primary proposals. This post will examine two primary differences between today’s worship practices and the Reformation’s concept of congregational participation. Furthermore, two essential proposals will be presented to inhibit the continuation of these two detrimental realities of modern Christian worship.

Today’s Consumer Mentality

            Observations might easily lead to the conclusion that modern Protestant worship has taken the appearance of consumerism, i.e. the average congregant seeks his or her preference when it comes to worship of the living God. The Reformation’s impact on worship participation would likely be considered positive by most Christians. Perhaps, however, the exaggeration of the concept of participatory worship has created a greater chasm between solidly biblical worship and the consumerist mentality. Many local churches today offer what might described as a concert rather than a corporate worship experience. Even the music utilized in congregational worship now includes melodies that are more difficult to sing than prior to the Reformation.[1] Such practices are indicative of churches which offer entertainment to consumers rather than a fellowship of believers who worship God.

            While congregational singing became the standard during the Reformation era (Mac, 2020, p. 15) because of Martin Luther’s (1483-1546 AD) drastic influence, it is unlikely that Luther himself could foresee what would become of Protestant worship in the centuries to follow. Luther championed accessibility for all believers. For Luther, because God the Father is accessible to his people through Christ the Son, Christian living and worship should be as well. Lutherans worshiped and prayed corporately in the vernacular language, i.e. German, heard sermons in the same, and sang hymns in their native tongues. Such was vital to the Christian worship experience for Luther. In fact, Luther succeeded in publishing a German Bible so that his parishioners could understand and interpret the text on their own.

            Nevertheless, the centrality of congregational participation developed in the church over the centuries to take the modern form of consumerism it holds today. Around the globe, commercial practices by megachurches, e.g. Hillsong Church have impacted nearly all facets of Western Christian life. Christian worship in most Western churches today tends to emphasize a conversational and therapeutic approach to worship (Gerardo, 2017, p. 377). The ending result has been, although perhaps not purposely, detrimental to the church. Worship exists for the glory of God alone; thus, the consumer mentality which pervades the modern church has created a rift in doxological Christian worship.

“Luther's liturgical reform was guided by the principle that if the Scriptures did not expressly reject a particular practice, the church was free to keep it. Consequently, Lutheran worship retained much of the ceremonial practice of Catholic worship” (White, 2013); yet, congregational participation became central to Reformed worship and persists today. The Reformers all shared the common belief that Christian worship is participatory in nature. The goal of participatory congregational worship, however, was not to form an industry and offer consumers the best option that matches their own desires. Since worship subsists to give glory to God, believers should have little to no consideration of their own desires but rather of what God desires and how his people worship him. The consumer mentality developed over the centuries perhaps began with good intentions. What has evolved, nonetheless, is a culture of professing Christians who seem to approach worship as an element of self-gratification. Certainly, reform needed to occur in congregational participation. One would be right, however, to question whether such a concept has produced biblical worship or merely a manmade device aimed at pleasing people.

            Congregational participation in corporate worship was a drastic reality of the Reformation. Vastly disparate from the previous centuries, the Reformers’ view of an approachable God through Jesus Christ influenced the way they worshiped. Such philosophy exists today but perhaps with an even greater vigor. Not only do modern believers participate in worship, the abundance of offerings for worshipers has seemingly created a consumer mentality among professing Christians. While intended for good, congregational participation should still have in mind the glory of God through Jesus Christ rather than the appeasement of human desires.

Today’s Self-Centered Mentality

             Jesus says, “But the hour is coming, and is now here, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for the Father is seeking such people to worship him” (John 4:23).[2] Based on Jesus’ words here, what are commonly referred to as seeker-sensitive churches should conceivably reexamine their approach to worship, for (at least in the context of worship), God is the one who seeks rather than people. An astonishing realization regarding Christian worship, however, is that the act involves the community of God’s people.[3] God’s people are primarily a unified body rather than a combination of individuals. “Paul’s ‘organic’ conception of the Church is significant to understanding both its covenantal and sacramental nature. What is most important to both understandings, however, is the identification of the Church as the body of Christ. The Church derives its identity from identification with Christ himself” (Peay, 2001, p. 93). Christ died for his singular bride, which the plurality of all believers form. Christian worship then is employed corporately and is designed to form the body of Christ.

Maria Cornou writes, “Worship is formative; it not only expresses but forges the community’s belief. Worship practices are informed and shaped by doctrine, and simultaneously they embody and express particular theological beliefs and model ethical praxis” (Cornou, 2019, pp. 166-167). In an embellished effort to rid themselves of Catholic practice, Protestant churches in the centuries following the Reformation moved beyond the practices of the Reformers by inflating individualism to greater significance than community. “It is generally recognized that the Enlightenment and the scientific revolution of the seventeenth century constituted a watershed in the religious sensibilities of Christians in the West” (Davis, 2008, p. 326). Humanist thought permeated Reformation-era culture even in the church resulting in centuries of development around individualism. What has perhaps been lost due to the Reformation’s impact is horizontal worship, i.e. the corporate body worshipping God. Biblical worship and indeed the Christian faith itself have always revolved around God’s covenant with a people rather than mere individuals. While the Reformers, therefore, saw the great need for congregational participation in Christian worship, the idea has grown to a greater degree than perhaps intended.

Disagreement with the ritualistic practices of Roman Catholic worship during prior to the Reformation infused Reformed thought. The notion was that congregational participation would protrude sincerity among believers in their worship practice. John Witvliet writes:

Historian Edward Muir describes the Protestant Reformation as a movement from medieval Catholic concern for ritual to Protestant concern for sincerity… John Martin describes the emergence of Protestantism as both a reflection and cause of a radically new Renaissance conception of selfhood – a “new emphasis on self as subject” – which reflects a “characteristically modern concern: to state that someone is sincere or not sincere, to see particular utterances and works of art and literature as essential expressions of individual selves, above all, to desire to connect speech with feeling” (Witvliet, 2011, p. 292).

What began with good intention, to bring the church to a place of right and sincere worship, however, has become a present-day display of humanism’s influence on Christianity. Stalwartly linked to today’s consumer mentality, today’s self-centered mentality is also an overemphasis of Christian individualism.

            God’s covenant work is among a unified body rather than mere individuals, i.e. each individual Christian, although possessing unique gifts and a personal relationship with God, is part of a larger picture: namely the body of Christ and his redeeming work within her. Christ, the ultimate example of humility, took on the form of a human and gave his life for those whom he loves (Phil 2:1-11). The Reformation’s shift toward congregational participation in worship was surely necessary; yet, an exaggeration of something good is what developed over the course of the subsequent centuries. Protestant churches today still employ congregational participation but also seem to focus on individuals rather than the body of Christ in existence for the glory of God. The Reformation has assuredly impacted Christian worship and achieved many positive goals. Today’s mentality, nonetheless, seems immensely different from Reformed Protestant thought.

Beneficial Modifications

            To cease the exaggeration of congregational participation to the point of both consumer and self-centered mentality, two respectable proposals would assist: 1) cling to liturgical practices while simultaneously allowing for congregational participation and 2) approach worship as up-reach rather than out-reach.

Liturgy

Adherence to a liturgy should not imply strict legalism and loyalty to the practice but rather to the God for whom it is designed to declare. “At its best, liturgy enables a worshipping community to proclaim and celebrate God’s reconciling love made known in Christ and transforms that community to be the body of Christ in the world” (Meyers, 2004, p. 106). Christian worship should be a vivid display of the body of Christ rather than a hodgepodge of individuals who seek their own indulgences.

            The Reformation brought several necessary changes to the church including congregational participation in worship. Due largely to Scripture, the music, and the prayers being employed in the vernacular language, believers were able to faithfully worship God with their own personal understanding. The goal in doing so, however, was likely not to elevate the individual over the body (of Christ) but instead to give individuals a role within the body; liturgy aids in that purpose. With liturgy employed, God’s people share common languages, emphases, and understandings. Rather than preachers acting as celebrities to whom his congregants listen, a liturgy ensures those who lead in worship remain faithful to the themes and scriptures and the biblical text from which they are derived. Rather than merely observing church leaders employ worship practices, Luther and other Reformers rightly contended that the entire congregation should participate. To correct the course toward self-centeredness and consumerism, clarification on the corporate nature of the church through liturgy could have been supported in a stronger manner. Where the Catholic Church retained a strict and legalistic adherence to ritual, centuries of congregational participation developed into today’s common individualistic approach to worship. A tie to liturgy, however, would likely at least curtail that development, forcing believers not only to understand the corporate nature of the church but also to realize that worship does not exist for the affections of humankind but for the glory of God.

            Moreover, the Reformation saw the centrality of Scripture in Christian worship. While not a negative aspect, the centrality of Scripture has seemingly developed into what could be considered a show of teachers in the pulpit, i.e. pastors and gifted communicators have become idolized because of their teaching ability. Such a perspective easily engrains in people that Scripture is the most important part of the worship service when the reality is that all elements of Christian worship, e.g. music, ordinances, etc. work together to form a whole with no one element being more essential than another. Liturgy grants an intentional method for churches to practice Christian worship in a way that does not glorify any aspect of the worship service above the God it is designed to honor.

            There seems to be a middle area on the spectrum between strict legalism and the severing thereof to the point of enhanced individualism. The connection to liturgy would likely cause local churches to examine their practices and consider their trajectories. The Reformers certainly offered necessary changes to the church; yet, their developments over the centuries have seemingly given today’s church a tainted appearance. Reclaiming liturgy for the glory and worship of God in a corporate sense would surely enhance local churches’ worship practices and diminish the impact of individualism.

Up-Reach

            A second proposed modification would be to approach worship as up-reach rather than out-reach. Today’s local churches tend to place emphasis on utilizing worship to evangelize. Worship, however, exists for God and his people. In fact, one who is not a Christian has no ability to worship God, for he or she is not in the Spirit. Certainly, the church is given the task of preaching the gospel to the world (Matt 28:19-20); yet, worship, i.e. glorifying God is the primary task of the church. All other tasks stem from the overarching goal of worship.

            If the church would prioritize worship and approach it as act solely devoted to declaring the Lord, the temptation to craft consumer-driven worship practices would likely be diminished or eliminated. The Reformation created a way for God’s people to worship sincerely; centuries of development, however, caused a self-centered and consumer-driven approach to worship. For God’s people to realize worship that exists solely for his own glory, the act should be approached not as a method of out-reach but only as an act which brings triune God pleasure.

            Such a proposal requires a shift in theological teaching from church leaders. The language used in speaking of worship should shift as well as the actions implemented in local church worship. If church leaders would begin to communicate in a way that references worship as up-reach rather than out-reach, congregants would begin to shift their own thoughts and perspectives. Consumer-driven and self-centered worship then would be severed, thus moving the church to the Reformers’ original desire for congregational participation: a body of believers gathered for God’s purposes irrespective of their own preferences.

The Bittersweet Reality of the Reformation’s Impact on Congregational Participation

            Few would argue against the benefits the Reformation had on congregational participation. God’s people were given an opportunity and a mode of worshiping the living God together. Martin Luther himself, however, appreciated liturgy and utilized it in his local church contexts. It is apparent then that his goal was not permanent riddance of liturgy but rather for the people of God to also participate (along with church leaders) in the liturgy. Centuries of congregational participation’s development provided the way for unintended consequences to manifest in today’s worship practices. Consumer-driven and self-centered worship practices have arisen in the church and are evident in many of today’s contexts. This paper has offered two primary proposals for curtailing the continuation of such detriments: liturgy and a focus on up-reach rather than out-reach. Of the vast good that the Reformation brought in the way of congregational participation, the bittersweet reality also includes the negative consequences, which surely exists in the church today. There exists no impossibility of shifting back to the purity of the Reformers’ desire; yet, the church as a whole and her leaders must be intentional about doing so.

References

Banks, John C. (2006/2007). Black Church Music: An Essay on the “Other” Worship Experience of Black Mainline Protestants. Journal of Religious Though, Vol. 59/60 (No. 1/2), 161-164.

Cornou, Maria Eugenia (2019). Formative Worship ‘at the End of the World’: The Worship Practices of Methodists, Baptists, and Plymouth Brethren in the Emergence of Protestantism in Argentina, 1867-1930. Studies in World Christianity, Vol. 25 (No. 2), 166-186.

Davis, John Jefferson (2008). Real Presence, the Ontology of Worship, and the Renewal of Evangelical Doxological Imagination. Evangelical Review of Theology, Vol. 32 (No. 4), 323-345.

Loewe, Andreas J. (2013). Why Do Lutherans Sing? Lutherans, Music, and the Gospel in the First Century of the Reformation. Church History, Vol. 28 (No. 1), 69-89.

Mac, Lynn (2020). [Course syllabus for MRS 411 The Reformation]. MRS 411 The Reformation, Nations University.

Marti, Gerardo (2017). The Global Phenomenon of Hillsong Church: An Initial Assessment. Sociology of Religion, Vol. 78 (No. 4), 377-386.

Meyers, Ruth A. (2004). The Promise and Perils of Liturgical Change. Anglican Theological Review, Vol. 86 (No. 1), 103-114.

Peay, Steven A. (2001). ‘The Gospel Made Visible’: Toward Renewing Sacramental Worship in the Congregational Tradition. International Congregational Journal (No. 1), 87-98.

White, James F. (2013). Protestant Worship of the Reformation Era. Twenty Centuries of Christian Worship (Robert E. Webber, Ed.).

Witvliet, John D. (2011). ‘Planting and Harvesting’ Godly Sincerity: Pastoral Wisdom in the Practice of Public Worship. Evangelical Quarterly, Vol. 87 (No. 4), 291-309.

Wootton, Janet, H. (2011). The Wilderness and Christian Song. International Congregational Journal, Vol. 10 (No. 1), 75-90.

---

[1] The Reformers desired to simplify congregational music in the name of accessibility to the common congregant.

[2] All biblical references are taken from the English Standard Version (ESV) of the Bible unless otherwise noted.

[3] This is not to suggest that private worship does not exist.

JUDGING THE IMPACT OF THE REFORMATION

Audio for the following may be found here. You may also listen to podcast episodes here.

Judging the Impact of the Reformation

Future generations tend to possess greater insight into the impact of significant movements throughout history. With the advantage of seeing the events in hindsight, such movements may be analyzed and considered based on their both benefits and drawbacks. The Protestant Reformation is such a movement which may be considered with the advantage of future knowledge. To properly judge the impact of the Reformation, one must consider both positive and negative impacts, of which there certainly subsist both. Three primary areas of impact that should be considered are 1) the Reformation’s impact on congregational worship participation, 2) division in the church, and 3) exaggerated reform beyond what was necessary at the time. The positive and negative impacts of the Reformation aid in rightly judging its impact on the church both during its era and in the centuries to come.

Congregational Worship Participation

            An apparent impact of the Protestant Reformation is that which it has had on congregational worship. Prior to the Reformation, worship participation through singing was not only discouraged but not allowed in the church. The Reformation, however, brought positive changes to Christian worship by encouraging congregational participation through singing (Mac, 2020, p. 15), prayer, and the public reading of Scripture. “Emphasis on vernacular language opened the Bible and theology to the common man” (Mac, 2020, p. 30). While the Holy Scripture was set in vernacular languages prior to the Reformation, the publication of the Luther Bible in 1534[1] enjoyed the most popularity among Christians. Martin Luther (1483-1546 AD) employed action on what was seemingly a tipping point in church history; rather than claiming sole responsibility for reform in the church, Luther aided in the spread of Reformation thought and action.

            Congregational participation became vital to Christian worship during the Reformation. While Catholics have loosened their own regulations on congregational participation today, the concept grew during the Reformation.

The establishment of an enduring choral tradition is one of the hallmarks of the Lutheran Reformation. One of the key motivators for the development of such a distinctive devotional tradition that placed music and singing at the center of its worship and teaching was undoubtedly the personal affinity Martin Luther had for music (Loewe, 2013, p. 69).

Luther, a hymn-writer himself, wrote texts and composed tunes designed for congregational participation in the vernacular language, i.e. German for himself and his congregants. In fact, Luther’s excommunication from the Catholic Church likely gave him greater opportunity to employ such congregational participation among his future congregants.

            The goal of Christian worship among Protestants during the Reformation was active participation with a focus on the teaching of Scripture. For the Reformers, right Christian worship implied a return to the centrality of Scripture (Mac, 2020, p. 29). Luther’s goal was not a chasm within the church but a reform of what was practiced and a return to the purity of Christian faith. In fact, the division occurring during the Reformation saddened Martin Luther. Nonetheless, with the Reformation already in motion, it was too late to correct its course. Thus, reform came from the Protestants rather than the Catholics. The teaching of the Bible, i.e. the sermon became the central focus of Christian worship, whereas Catholic worship took on a more sacramental nature. In fact, the Lutheran model only kept two of the sacraments instead of the seven employed by Catholics: Communion and Baptism (Maag, 2017). Even the Lutheran Mass itself did not utilize all five parts of the Ordinary but only the Kyrie and the Gloria. J.S. Bach’s (1685-1750 AD) famed B-Minor Mass is significant in that the composer includes all five parts of the Mass Ordinary, although he was Lutheran himself. In such changes, it is evident that the Reformation gave rise to the centrality of Scripture and a move away from strict legalism and formality in Christian worship.

            The Reformation saw necessary shifts in Christian worship in the way of congregational participation. Where worship participation was previously reserved for the elite, educated, and only church leaders, the Reformation’s impact on Christian worship has been significant. Even now congregational participation seems to be typical and was eventually adopted by Catholics. Although no longer distinctly Protestant, the Bible taught in the vernacular language, songs sung by the congregation in the vernacular language, and congregational participation is a drastic impact of the Reformation and one that Luther (among other Reformers) saw to be necessary.

Further Division in the Church

            A seemingly negative impact of the Reformation is the vast division caused. Even for Luther, when he returned to Wittenberg from Wartburg Castle, “he found the reform had moved more quickly and radically than desired or could be sustained” (Mac, 2020, p. 24). Luther’s goal, when he posted his 95 Theses to the church door in Wittenberg (1517 AD), was not to divide the church but rather to unify her by reform, i.e. return to the basics of Christian faith. “The most important distinction for Luther’s political thought was between the lower and the higher capacities of man (nature and reason) on the one hand and grace and revelation on the other” (Mac, 2020, p. 24). Perhaps, Luther lived during a time when enough people were ready for change that his qualms with Rome began an unexpected movement throughout Europe. In an unfortunate sense, however, the church as known at the time, became perhaps further divided than ever before.

            Certainly, reform was necessary in certain areas. For example, the disallowance of priestly marriage was challenged by Luther, as he eventually married as a Protestant. In this area, Luther’s impact continued through future generations. Of John Calvin’s (1509-1564 AD) marital covenant, John Witte Jr. writes:

Building on a generation of Protestant reforms before him, Calvin constructed a comprehensive new theology and law that made marital formation and dissolution, children’s nurture and welfare, family cohesion and support, and sexual sin and crime essential concerns for both church and state. He drew the Consistory and Council of Geneva into a creative new alliance to guide and govern the reformation of the domestic sphere (Witte, 2018, p. 282).

One might question, however, whether the necessity for reform was more important than the necessity of unity. Church history reveals that from the point of the Protestant Reformation, the church has continually divided into more sects with finer distinctions than their predecessors. Secondary issues have become primary issues in many cases and have seemed to cause further division in the body of Christ. Believers should consider the benefits of the Reformation but also the costs and if they were worth the outcome.

            Reformers challenged a plurality of thoughts exuded by the Roman Catholic Church during the Reformation, many of them giving their lives for doing so; yet, the desired reforms were necessary. Perhaps, the cost of reform (namely division in the church), however, could have been avoided. One may only speculate if another solution could have been employed rather than total separation from the Catholic Church. In fact, what occurred because of the Reformation does not seem to represent the New Testament and 1^st-century church. With all the positive impacts of the Reformation, the further division in the body of Christ, which the movement brought, is among the least desired outcomes.

Exaggerated Reform beyond What Was Necessary

            Martin Luther understood the necessity of church reform, which is why he challenged the Catholic Church with not only the posting of his 95 Theses but also his teachings and sermons. When he discovered the drastic consequence the movement had in Wittenberg and across Europe, however, he grew discouraged, for what seemed to be overreach was not what he desired. “Reformation in Switzerland emphasized elements other than those championed by Luther. Far from being monolithic, the Protestant Reformation spawned many offshoots” (Mac, 2020, p. 9). In what would seem to be greater division and separation not only from the Catholic Church but also from other Protestant groups, finer miniscule differences caused more splits.

John Calvin came from a legal background and stressed the sovereignty of God. He became a formidable force in the Reformation, molding Reformed theology. Zwingli advanced a view of the Lord's supper that is reflected in New Testament language. The Anabaptists rediscovered immersion of adults as the proper design of baptism. The Anglicans favored many Catholic practices without the hierarchy. The Protestant states varied in their attitudes toward monasteries, but there was general agreement among the Protestants that monastic life was a mistaken form of Christian life (Mac, 2020, p. 9).

Although he held his own theological beliefs on secondary issues, Luther’s opinions favored a basic return to the fundamental doctrines of Christianity. Such was his purpose in proposing reform. What occurred, however, was an unstoppable movement of believers who reformed even secondary doctrines and extrabiblical thought. In fact, “the Protestant Reformation has been cited by scholars of European history as contributing to the rise of nationalism, individualism, capitalism, and secularism” (Trepanier, 2010, p. 206). Luther’s reformed arguments emphasize fundamental Christian doctrine rather than the futility of secondary and extrabiblical issues.

Where most of Europe saw drastic responses to reform, English Reformers took a more subtle approach. “The early English Reformers were Catholic in their tastes, or at least eclectic…” (Rex, 1999, p. 39). The impact of the Reformation, therefore, was largely dependent on geographical location. It could be suggested that what occurred in the English Reformation is perhaps closer to what Luther desired in Wittenberg and the surrounding areas of Europe. In non-English-speaking areas:

what began as a “protest” became an advocacy for a new understanding of religious authority and Christian practice. The impact of the Reformation continues to be felt. Its tenets of faith ring loud and clear, even in a world that has gone through many revolutions of thought since the 16^th century (Mac, 2020, p. 9).

            Reformers surely desired changes in church doctrine and practice, none more than the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther. Nonetheless, from Luther’s teachings, writings, and actions, the exaggeration of reform saddened him, as his desire was for greater unity rather than division. Even Protestants held their differences in doctrinal issues. For example, while all Protestants opposed the Catholic Church, teaching salvation by faith alone, Calvin extended the doctrine to include that of predestination, which certainly caused further rifts in the church, even among Protestants. Anabaptists’ belief on immersion further separated the body of Christ by creating yet another group of Protestants. What was a good intention of the Reformation then, namely reform of fundamental issues, became exaggerated to the point of causing what seems to be further disunity. Considering the impact of the Reformation in this regard, it is right, therefore, to weigh the benefits against the detriments.

Overarching Judgment of the Reformation’s Impact

            The impact of the Reformation may be seen from both positive and negative perspectives depending on the topic considered. It is right, understanding centuries of knowledge post-Reformation, to judge the overarching impact of the movement, its strengths and weaknesses, and whether or not another solution would have been better. Certainly, one’s personal background influences his or her thought of the Reformation’s impact. Even Luther himself experienced questions regarding what occurred because of his 95 Theses. The three primary areas discussed here offer a compact and precise standard by which to judge the impact of the Reformation. The development’s sway on congregational worship, church unity (or lack thereof), and the level of reform should be deliberated when making a judgment. As with many historical events, one may point to both positives and negative results. The sum of all impacts, however, affords one the opportunity to make a right judgment on the outcomes of the Reformation and whether it was overall advantageous or damaging to the body of Christ.

References

Brooke, Sebastian (2004). Reformation Rhetoric: The Genealogye of Heresye. Reformation and Renaissance Review, Vol. 6 (No. 3), 374-393.

Lee, Trepanier (2010). The Protestant Revolution in Theology, Law, and Community. Political Science Reviewer, Vol. 39, 206-231.

Loewe, Andreas J. (2013). Why Do Lutherans Sing? Lutherans, Music, and the Gospel in the First Century of the Reformation. Church History, Vol. 28 (No. 1), 69-89.

Mac, Lynn (2020). [Course syllabus for MRS 411 The Reformation]. MRS 411 The Reformation, Nations University.

Maag, Karin (2017). The Reformation: What Did We Gain? What Did We Lose? Retrieved from https://www.thebanner.org/features/2017/09/the-reformation-what-did-we-gain-what-did-we-lose

Rex, Richard (1999). The Early Impact of Reformation Theology at Cambridge University, 1521-1547. Reformation and Renaissance Review: Journal of the Society for Reformation Studies, Issue 2, 38-71.

Searle, Joshua T. (2017). The Reformation in Ukraine and Russia and Its Relevance for Today. European Journal of Theology, Vol. 26 (No. 1), 55-64.

Steinmetz, David C. (2017). Things Old and New: Tradition and Innovation in Constructing Reformation Theology. Reformation and Renaissance Review, Vol. 19 (No. 1), 5-18.

Witte, John (2018). The Marital Covenant in John Calvin’s Geneva. Political Theology, Vol. 19 (No. 4), 282-299.

Wootton, Janet, H. (2011). The Wilderness and Christian Song. International Congregational Journal, Vol. 10 (No. 1), 75-90.

---

[1] The New Testament was published earlier in 1522.

THREE TRUTHS EXPOSED IN THE RECENT US ELECTION

 Audio for the following may be found here. You may also listen to podcast episodes here.

Three Truths Exposed in the Recent US Election

Today is the last Sunday after Pentecost or the last Sunday or Ordinary Time, also known as Christ the King Sunday. Next Sunday begins Advent. Today, however, is a day to recognize the authority of Christ over all dominion, i.e. all principalities and powers, human and otherwise. He is certainly the King whether people realize it or not; one day, however, all will recognize his kingship and bow to him. Believers should consider him King far above any king or ruler. In the United States, we just went through an important election. In considering Christ the King, the recent election has caused many to wonder if Christ truly is the King even in the lives of professing Christians. I believe the recent US election has exposed hard truths about American society with which we must grapple. For the scope here, I will point to three hard truths the recent US election has exposed in American society.

Idolatry

            First, idolatry has certainly been exposed through the recent US election, although such was likely seen by many even prior to the event. While many elections protrude hints of idolatry in American society, the most recent presidential election seemingly shed greater light on it than previous elections.[1] Leading up to that first Tuesday in November, the social media feeds, television commercials, and radio programming was inundated with ads paid for by campaigns attempting to criticize the opposite candidate. Often, these ads would not necessarily highlight the benefits of electing the advertising candidate but rather the negative aspects of the opposing person.

In my younger years, the Republican party seemed to hold a corner on the religious market in politics, i.e. it was assumed that Christians would vote for the Republican candidates.[2] In more recent years, however, both Democrats and Republicans (and often third parties) have claimed the Christian voting base. I would even suggest that the claim is equal across the aisle. What we have been given then is the assumption that a Christian should vote for one candidate or another on the sole basis of their party. In fact, it has become common for one party and supporters of one candidate to convey the idea that if the other is elected, society as we know it will meet its fate in a dire situation. Many of us even heard and read statements like, “How can you claim to be a Christian and vote for [insert candidate here]?” Such statements reveal the unwanted truth that most people in our society place their hope in someone or something other than God.

The seriousness of the first commandment should be considered by everyone who professes the name of Christ. Hope is not found in a politician no matter who they are. God is jealous (Exod 34:14) and demands consummate worship from his people and, in fact, all people (and will one day receive it from everyone). The fact that in the past two elections, people’s hopes and dreams appeared to be squashed completely because the candidate they did not like was elected reveals the idolatry that exists in our country even among those who claim to be followers of Christ. I do not intend to diminish the importance of having opinions and voting as American citizens; nonetheless, Americans have trusted in a false god: the god of politics and politicians. Elections have become a large game of competitive hockey in which one team boasts that they beat the other while the other practices for the next match by criticizing the opposing party for the next four years. Christians should be completely devoted to the worship of God, his glory, and the spread of his fame through the gospel. Whether people realize it or not, the recent US election has exposed many people’s idolatry in how they reacted to the outcome. Whether overjoyed or painfully despaired, one extreme or the other indicates people who falsely claim Christ as their God but truthfully idolize politicians and political parties.

Hypocrisy

            Secondly, the most recent US election has revealed the underlying truth of hypocrisy in the church. For the scope here, I submit three primary areas of hypocrisy in the church, which the recent US election has exposed: 1) hypocrisy on abortion, 2) hypocrisy on big government, and 3) hypocrisy on morality of candidates.

            I dare suggest that abortion is the single-most important issue facing our generation. The scope of this discussion is not abortion; it must, however, be mentioned. While many argue hypocrisy from the pro-life movement because they claim to be opposed to abortion yet neglect elements such as education, it should be realized that the other issues are not life issues but quality of life; one cannot have quality of life if life is not protected first. The hypocrisy on abortion, however, does not come from the left but from the right. Many claim to be pro-life and yet do little to nothing in the way of abolishing the heinous act. In fact, most Supreme Court justices when Roe vs. Wade was ruled were Republicans. Even now, it is common for politicians to claim a pro-life stance but fail to act on legislation that abolishes it. Many professing Christians hold to voting for a particular party because of their so-called pro-life stance when that party does nothing but regulate abortion rather than abolish it, which is why there exists a growing movement of abolitionists who separate themselves from the pro-life movement, which has become, in essence, an industry in itself. The recent election has exposed the hypocrisy of people who claim to be pro-life and yet continue to vote for candidates that have done and likely will do nothing on the issue of abortion.

            Another area of hypocrisy is found in the concept of big government. Republicans tend to claim a small government philosophy when they are essentially another side of the same coin. The reality is that debt has massively increased under the leadership of both parties, the deficit has increased, and government programs continue to rise to the point of controlling the American society. When enough people work for or gain their livelihood from some form of government, people will likely not vote themselves out of a job. For the Republican party to claim a small government mentality, two out of three of the biggest government decisions I have known in my lifetime have come from Republican leadership: the Patriot Act and legalizing civil forfeiture in the name of the war on drugs.[3] Those who pay attention realize that the Republican party is almost equally as big-government-minded as the Democrat party; yet, many professing Christians claim to vote for one party or the other because of their small-government philosophy.

            A third area of hypocrisy is the morality of candidates. Such hypocrisy is seen by all parties. In fact, both parties pointed to the opposing candidate as an immoral person while looking past the failures of their candidate. It has been said that Americans have had to vote for the lesser of two evils. The fact is that until Christ returns, people will always vote for the lesser of two evils. Moral failures are a part of human existence. If Christians desire to love like Christ, however, forgiveness is in order. It is also necessary to consider the failures of all candidates. Hypocrisy was revealed in the recent election not only by Christians pointing to the immortality of one candidate while looking past the other’s but also by failing to forgive as Christ forgives. May God gives us eyes like Christ, as we see people whom he loves and treat them as such. Everyone fails; how one responds to the failures of others, however, is telling about the spiritual condition of that person.

An Imperfect System

            A third item exposed through the recent US election is the imperfection of the electoral system. In suggesting this, I do not intend to diminish the greatness that is the United States, for the US system of government is far greater than others around the world. Anything apart from Christ and his kingdom, however, may only be imperfect no matter how good it is. Christians need to be okay with such a truth because until the church is with Christ after life on earth, his kingdom is seen only partially. The pitfalls of the US electoral system were revealed in the confusion after the election. Often, people have the idea that the United States Constitution is an infallible document. That title only belongs to holy Scripture. Even the documents of the United States’ founding fathers are replete with human errors. The system in which the US operates is good but imperfect, something with which believers must be okay, for God’s people should operate with the understanding that no matter how good something is, if it is of this world, it is temporary and may not be perfect, as only God’s kingdom is. The recent US election has shed light on this truth.

Christ is King, although Evidence in the American Church Suggests Otherwise

            If Christ is truly King of his people in the United States, believers must bear fruit that reveals such. The idolatry and hypocrisy of Christians (on all sides of the political aisle) suggest opposite of Christ the King. The recent US election has exposed these three truths highlighted here among others related to the American Christian subculture. Whether your candidate won or not, how you respond is telling of where lies your faith. Those who are exceedingly and disproportionately overjoyed and those who are equally in despair should examine that in which their hope lies. Such reactions are indicative of idolatry. God commands his people to worship and fear only him, for he alone is worthy of his people’s worship and fear. No matter a political situation, may Christians in the United States boldly declare that their hope is not in a political party, system, or candidate but only in Jesus Christ alone.

---

[1] I am willing to submit that such a revelation will only increase in the future.

[2] I do not suggest this to be right or wrong; I am merely making an observation.

[3] The other decision is the Affordable Care Act passed under democratic leadership and signed by President Obama.

LIVE PREPARED

1 Thessalonians 4:13-18 (ESV) 

The Coming of the Lord

¹³ But we do not want you to be uninformed, brothers, about those who are asleep, that you may not grieve as others do who have no hope. ¹⁴ For since we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so, through Jesus, God will bring with him those who have fallen asleep. ¹⁵ For this we declare to you by a word from the Lord, that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will not precede those who have fallen asleep. ¹⁶ For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the voice of an archangel, and with the sound of the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. ¹⁷ Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we will always be with the Lord. ¹⁸ Therefore encourage one another with these words.

            It seems that many today believe the imminent return of Christ to be a sort of mythological story designed to scare people. The return of Christ, however, is certain; make no mistake that when the Father gives the command, Jesus will return whether people are ready or not. The Apostle Paul writes of Christ’s Second Coming here and paints a portrait of what will occur in that moment. Prior to this portrait, however, Paul pleads with his hearers so that they do not find themselves “uninformed” (v. 13). We too must prepare ourselves for what will surely happen. We may not be alive to see the return of Christ (or we may); either way, our preparedness is vital. Believers should live life as if Christ will return at any moment (because he will). The point of Paul’s words here is not to scare people but to give believers the hope that awaits. Beyond the amazing hope we possess now, we also hold to a future hope of our Messiah’s return, for he will return for his people to share in his glory and radiance as his redeemed bride. May the people of God stand blameless before him and live life on this earth in constant preparation and readiness for his imminent return.

THE FRUIT OF CHRIST: CHANGE FROM THE ROOT

 

The Fruit of Christ: Change from the Root

You Must Be Born Again

3 Now there was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews. ² This man came to Jesus by night and said to him, “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher come from God, for no one can do these signs that you do unless God is with him.” ³ Jesus answered him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.”

            Jesus’ reply to Nicodemus here drives into the root of evidence for those who profess Christ: namely change, i.e. life-change originates at the core of a person as if to begin anew. I admit to be a failure in this regard often, as we all are because we are not yet perfected in our glorified bodies (Phil 1:6). The truth of faith’s evidence, nonetheless, is found in what is seen externally.[1] The concept of being born again was likely a startling remark to Nicodemus, as it would be to anyone including those of us in modern society had we never heard such a phrase. Nicodemus, in genuine concern, approaches Jesus as a teacher. To his (likely) shock, Jesus says that being born again is required for seeing the kingdom of God. Such a phrase is not literal in the physical sense but certainly in the spiritual sense. It is figurative physically, for no one may reenter a mother’s womb for rebirth; yet, spiritually (truly the real realm in which Christians operate), one must be born again in Christ, i.e. the depth of change from Jesus occurs at the root. One cannot see the kingdom of God with surface-level change; life-change must include a severing of everything that remains of the old life and a total restart of something new. Christ does not merely help people in their old way of life but rather makes them a completely new creation (2 Cor 5:17). Being born again encompasses riddance of everything old, e.g. thinking, ways of life, outlook, perspective, etc. Rebirth in Christ equates to total newness. The paradox in this thought is that while believers are not yet perfected, they are continuously being made new until the day of complete, i.e. newness is a process. Believer, take heart that Christ is working on you and making you new. You have been born again, the depth of change occurring at the root of who you are.

---

[1] This is not to say that external works are what saves someone or that one who does not reveal external works is not saved, although the latter is indicative of a heart not changed by Christ.

SALVATION THROUGH JESUS THE DIVINE

Audio for the following may be found here. You may also listen to podcast episodes here.

Salvation through Jesus the Divine

A fundamental belief of the Christian faith is the exceeding and incomprehensible love of God in Jesus Christ. The Gospels detail the life and ministry of Christ on earth and are replete with instances which convey the matchless love and care of Jesus. One such account is found in Luke’s Gospel (Luke 7:36-50). The account details an experience at dinner with a Pharisee (Simon) in which Jesus declares forgiveness upon a woman who was apparently known by all as a wretched sinner. Underneath the surface, however, the story also reveals Jesus’ love for all including the Pharisee who invited him to dinner. In this account, the truth is borne that whether respected or despised, Jesus loves and offers forgiveness to everyone equally, for everyone is equally in need of his mercy. Unpacking the Luke’s account is certainly beneficial in clarifying the gospel truth and understanding the questions that may arise from the text. Three primary imperatives are offered from these verses that stem from the overarching truth of Jesus’ great love for everyone.

Jesus’ Concern Is for Everyone (vv. 36-38)

            In the text here, the Son of God is invited to dinner by a Pharisee. Jesus’ heated encounters with the Pharisees throughout the Gospel accounts could spawn the question of why he was invited and why he accepted the invitation. The text does not suggest either reason; yet, it is clear that, perhaps contrary to popular opinion, Jesus’ concern is not only for the despised and hurting in the world but also for the (seemingly) respected and dignified. A Pharisee would certainly fit such a description. Jesus does not neglect his ministry to every person with whom he interacts but embraces any opportunity to love everyone.

            Jesus’ act of reclining at the table is apparently significant to Luke. Luke, a physician by trade, finds the (likely cultural) practice of reclining at the table significant. While the text does not suggest why Jesus reclines at the table during dinner, it could be that the practice is normal in that culture. Jesus’ action then is indicative of his desire to love and be found with all in need of him, i.e. everyone. Said another way, Jesus accepts the invitation to the Pharisee’s house for dinner and engages in culturally appropriate practices and, in essence, reveals his love for everyone, not only those who are hurting, broken, and needy.

            The Pharisees were known as perhaps the most religiously devout Jews in the New Testament world. In fact, a position as a Pharisee was likely a coveted position. While the New Testament often seems to portray Pharisees in a negative light, a Pharisee was a man who was respected among his peers and in society in general, not necessarily because of his character but because of his status as a Pharisee. Jesus often has harsh words for Pharisees and rebukes them (Matt 23:16-17 among other references). If the entirety of the New Testament is not considered, one might easily conclude that Jesus exuded disdain and hatred toward the Pharisees; nonetheless, the account here in Luke exposes a God who cares not only for those who are despised and rejected in the world but also those who are among the most respected and dignified. External factors are not connected to Jesus’ love for humanity; Luke’s account here supports that fact.

            Furthermore, the story here in Luke describes Jesus’ concern for the woman. The author is careful to point out the sinfulness of the woman (v. 37). Luke’s claim is significant in that the New Testament and even Jesus himself continuously remind readers that all are sinful. One might wonder, therefore, why the woman’s sinfulness is highlighted in the passage. While the text does not specify why the woman’s sinfulness is drawn from everyone else in the story, it could be that her sinfulness is unique in that she is known in the community as exceptional in her sin, e.g. a prostitute perhaps. Luke’s point, however, is not the degree of sin the woman has committed but the fact that the is known as a sinner and despised and rejected because of that status.

            Jesus, nevertheless, shows greatest love and compassion for the woman. In the midst of a respected Pharisee (and likely his dignified company), Jesus reveals great care and concern. Jesus’ love for both the woman and the Pharisee remind the reader that the Son of God’s love for people is not connected to any external factors. Whether rich or poor, despised or rejected, or one of great or little sin, Jesus loves his people equally.

            Luke’s narrative in this passage, offers readers a glimpse into the magnificent love of God. God’s love truly cannot be described to its fullest by human words. Jesus’ actions in the story, however, grant the twofold truth that Jesus’ love is offered to everyone no matter the external factors and that everyone is equally in need of his mercy. The Pharisee, whether he realizes it or not, is equally as separated from God as the sinful woman and in need of the grace of God. Jesus shows his love for the Pharisee in having dinner with him and for the woman in his forgiving actions toward her. Therefore, whether respected or despised, Jesus loves and offers forgiveness to everyone equally, for everyone is equally in need of his mercy.

Great Forgiveness Demands Great Love (vv. 39-47)

            The author describes the sinful woman’s actions, which seem to be derived from her brokenness, humility, and realization of her own sin. The woman might have intended to anoint Jesus’ head but began to sob out of a sober realization of her sin and, thus, began to wipe her own tears from Jesus’ feet with her hair. Her understanding of her own sin precedes the forgiving act of Jesus.

            Additionally, Jesus unfalteringly connects forgiveness and love. “Therefore, I tell you, her sins, which are many, are forgiven—for she loved much. But he who is forgiven little, loves little” (v. 47), says Jesus. In essence, one’s love for God is dependent upon his or her reception of forgiveness from God. Luke’s details of the sinful woman are significant in revealing someone who is repentant and, therefore, forgiven.

            The woman’s actions offended the Pharisee who says, “If this man were a prophet, he would have known who and what sort of woman this is…” (v. 39). What Simon the Pharisee offers here is an untrue belief, for Jesus, in his divinity, certainly knows who the woman is and everything about her and, in fact, has in mind to forgive her (as revealed later in the text). This portion of the text is ironic because while Simon’s statement reference Jesus’ lack of knowledge, as Luke mentions, the Pharisee utters this statement to himself and Jesus responds indicating his own perception of Simon’s thoughts; Jesus, therefore, certainly knows not only who the woman is but also the thoughts of Simon himself. Luke’s Gospel then stresses Simon’s claim as untrue next to that of what Jesus says and does.

Lest Jesus’ words be distorted to mean that some people are forgiven more than others, the context of the account presents the reader with both Jesus’ love for the woman and for the Pharisee. Thus, Jesus’ words are likely a reminder that everyone is equally deserving of punishment but forgiven much.[1] Jesus proceeds to give a parable. The purpose of the parable is evidently to emphasize his point to Simon, those present with him in that setting, and the readers of the account. Simon answers correctly in his knowledge that the one (in the parable) who was forgiven more also loved more. The sinful woman interacting with Jesus in Luke’s account is obviously represented by one who has been forgiven much. According to Jesus’ words, the quantity of one’s love for God is suggestive of his or her realization of the depth of forgiveness granted. The sinful woman’s state of being forgiven is preceded by her repentant heart and actions which reveal such repentance. Jesus then offers her incredible forgiveness, which offends the Pharisee so Christ proceeds to offer a parable and allow his hearers to see the correct perspective.

The woman’s actions reveal that great forgiveness demands great love; Jesus, however, clarifies this truth in the parable he tells. While the woman holds a reputation as a wicked sinner, she is forgiven to the same degree and, therefore, grateful. Whether Simon realizes it or not, he is also equally in need of God’s mercy. Jesus, in making his point known to his hearers, concurrently offers the same level of forgiveness to all who would receive him. A derivative of Jesus’ forgiveness and indeed the fruit thereof is one’s love toward the Lord manifested in obedience to him (John 14:15). Jesus here offers bountiful forgiveness to the sinful woman and also to the Pharisee, both of whom are in desperate need of it.

Salvation Is by Faith Alone (v. 50)

            Luke’s account of the sinful woman might initially seem to suggest that the woman’s actions save her. Nonetheless, it is surely her faith that saves, which Jesus reveals (v. 50), i.e. the woman’s actions should be considered a derivative of her faith. The truth portrayed from the text then is that salvation is by faith alone. One of the basic tenets of the Christian faith and indeed a foundational cry of the Reformation, faith alone, stands as that through which salvation is granted to all believers.

Being careful not to disconnect the effect of works, it should be clear that while works themselves do not save the woman, her actions are conceived by her faith. Luke’s text seems to follow a reverse-linear trajectory moving from action to salvation to faith (when the sequence of events is reversed in reality).[2] The effect of her faith, therefore, is salvation to which she responds with action, i.e. the woman is grateful and expresses such gratitude by her act of anointing Christ. The woman loves much because she is forgiven much (v. 47); her faith, however, is that through which salvation comes from Christ alone.

      Luke’s account additionally clearly alludes to Jesus’ divinity by declaring the woman’s sins forgiven. Even those present at dinner ponder who Jesus is. Luke writes, “…‘Who is this, who even forgives sins?’” (v. 49) Jesus does not neglect declaring his divinity throughout the Gospels. This account is one such instance where he places himself as a co-equal with God the Father by forgiving sin. Declaring the woman’s sins forgiven is a miraculous act but one that apparently caught the attention of many people including the author of Luke’s Gospel. It is significant enough an instance that Luke desires to include it in his perspective but also that those present at dinner began to speak amongst themselves. The power to forgive may only come from God himself, for it is a divine act, which no human may replicate. Jesus authoritatively forgives the woman of her sin and, in doing so, divulges the fact that he is co-equal with God the Father and is, in fact, God himself.

      The gospel truth that salvation is by faith alone is revealed in Luke’s text here but, furthermore, points to the one in whom faith must be placed: namely Jesus Christ. The sinful woman, repentant of sin and with complete faith in Jesus, acts in response to who Jesus is. While Jesus’ verbal declaration of forgiveness appears later in the text and after the woman’s act of faith, it should not be forgotten that Jesus says one who loves little has been forgiven little (v. 47). In the same verse, however, Jesus says that the woman’s sins are forgiven “…for she loved much….” One might assume then that the woman was forgiven because of her great love shown toward Christ contradicting the truth of the passage that faith alone saves. Thus, to properly interpret Jesus’ statement (in verse 47), the reverse-linear context of the passage should be considered. As the passage moves from action to salvation to faith when faith is first, then salvation, then action. This portion of verse 47 then should be considered in the same manner, for the woman’s act of love is in response to what she has been forgiven. In fact, the English translation of the Bible seems to separate “for she loved much” from the rest of the statement perhaps to highlight the sequence of events in recognition that she was first forgiven.

As the sinful woman was forgiven much, believers should place themselves as the characters in the story. Truly, both the woman and the Pharisee are equally in need of Christ. While their sins are different and perhaps even viewed differently among their peers, they are, nonetheless, separated from God because of their own evil hearts. The encouraging truth revealed in Luke’s passage here is that salvation is by faith alone in God the Son, Jesus Christ. The woman understands such truth and acts accordingly because she has been forgiven greatly.

Exceeding Love beyond all Comprehension

            Luke’s passage exudes Jesus’ love for all people, whether respected or despised, and, furthermore, offers the fruit of great forgiveness: namely great love. One who has been forgiven much will, in effect, love much. Such forgiveness, however, comes only by faith. One is not forgiven apart from faith; only through faith in Christ are believers the recipients of exceeding forgiveness from God. Further, Jesus’ acceptance of Simon’s invitation to dinner reminds readers that, perhaps contrary to popular opinion, Jesus loves even the respected and dignified. The common thought might be that Jesus loves the despised, rejected, and reputably sinful more than the opposite; nevertheless, Jesus’ love extends beyond the realm of human understanding and is irrespective of external factors. Jesus, in fact, loves everyone equally regardless of what one has or has not done. Luke’s account provides insight into the depths of Jesus’ love for all people and reminds readers that whether respected or despised, Jesus loves and offers forgiveness to everyone equally, for everyone is equally in need of his mercy.

---

[1] This is not to suggest that individual human sins cannot vary in degree (Paul, for example, references himself as the chief of sinners in 1 Tim 1:15) and consequence but rather that all sin separates humanity from God equally.

[2] In the text, the woman first, in realization of her sin, takes a repentant position and humbly anoints Jesus while weeping and wiping his feet with her hair; she is then forgiven by the Lord; finally, Jesus declares that her faith has saved her.