WHAT IS ORTHODOXY?

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

WHAT IS ORTHODOXY?

            A term that is often brought up in discussions of worship and theology is orthodox. Orthodoxy implies a sense of normality or a standard which is common across denominational or religious lines. The problem with understanding the term, however, is that most of us do not know what orthodoxy is. Largely, orthodoxy refers to a pattern of conformity to what is generally or traditionally accepted as right or true.[1] I think this definition explains orthodoxy in its broadest sense. Regarding the Christian faith, however, complications arise when determining what beliefs are orthodox. Certainly, there are primary issues of the Christian faith which believers of every tradition hold to. There are, nonetheless, beliefs that many Christians might suppose are orthodox but are, in fact, not. The more I realize the diversity of the church, the less orthodox elements I find, i.e. my eyes are being opened to the reality that exact beliefs on secondary issues vary. In that statement, I am, in no way, implying that orthodoxy does not exist, for it unequivocally does. Knowing that then, I suggest that orthodox beliefs are those which are related to primary issues. The problem therein lies in the disparate ideas of what constitutes a primary issue. To answer the question of what is implied by the term, orthodox, there are two crucial questions to answer. In this commentary, I will answer these questions.

What Are Primary Issues?

            First, it is vital to determine what constitutes a primary issue. If I may give a personal (and I believe accurate) personal constitution, primary issues are those theological issues which are vital to salvation, i.e. they are salvific in nature. I should clarify that most theological stances are secondary rather than primary. The implication then is that primary issues are few. These are essential beliefs of the Christian faith which are crucial to the church. An excellent summary of primary beliefs is stated in the entirety of the Apostles Creed. Even churches which do not utilize the Apostles Creed in worship practice hold to the beliefs found in its text. It is difficult for me to believe that someone who rejects Jesus Christ as God is a Christian since Jesus himself stated as much during his earthly ministry; this then would be considered a primary issue. If there is any ambiguity at all on an issue, even by the slightest amount, it is probably not a primary issue. Understand, however, that explicitness is not subjective; there are objective measures to determine primary issues. An issue is not primary merely because one person or tradition considers it to be so, for if there are other Christian traditions who rightly believe otherwise and possess a biblical backing, it is likely not a primary issue. How explicitly is the issue stated in Scripture? Did Christ rise from the dead? The answer should be a resounding yes; it is clear in the Bible with no ambiguity, and it is essential to believe for salvation. Salvific issues, of which there are far fewer than non-salvific issues, are primary and, thus, orthodox.

What Are Secondary Issues?

            If primary issues are salvific in nature, secondary issues are not, i.e. there is room for disagreement in the body of Christ. The term, secondary, should not imply a lack of importance, for even secondary issues are crucial because of their place in Scripture, but rather secondary issues are more ambiguous and include subjectivity. There is a fine line here because we should not suppose that secondary issues are not important or that they are overly important. Issues such as immersion baptism, speaking in tongues, female pastors, or transubstantiation are not salvific. A range of views may be held on these issues. It is important for God’s people to know and understand these issues but to do so with an open heart and mind and even to disagree in a loving manner. The church is diverse so those issues which we may not understand until we are with Christ should be considered secondary and not orthodox.

            An issue we find ourselves dealing with often is elevating secondary issues to the level of primary; we must be careful not to do this. Ask yourself the question, “Is this issue essential for salvation?” Most of the time, we will find that it is not, which forces the issue into the category of secondary. Important as it may be, we should not quickly label someone a heretic because of a mere disagreement on a secondary issue, which is done far too often. I’ll be as bold as to say that although I strongly disagree with a gospel which promotes wealth, if those who hold to that particular view confess Jesus as Lord and hold to primary beliefs, they should be considered orthodox.

This is also not to say, however, that one cannot be aboundingly incorrect about secondary issues. Wrongness on secondary issues does not equal damnation though. Correction might need to occur; yet, we should also examine how we approach correction and realize that disagreement is acceptable. Those beliefs and issues which contain natural room for disagreement and are non-salvific are secondary and, thus, not orthodox.

How Is Orthodoxy Defined from Primary Issues?

            How then should we define orthodoxy? By stating that primary issues are salvific, I am saying that they are also orthodox, i.e. orthodoxy is common and right belief on primary issues. Beyond that, theological issues are complicated and diverse. We should understand that what we often think of as orthodoxy may not be orthodoxy at all. Even on secondary issues, there might be common general stances, but the fact that an issue is secondary presupposes there is likely not an orthodox belief. For secondary issues then, we should not presume that commonality is synonymous with orthodoxy; for primary issues though, it absolutely is. Beyond cohesion, we must realize that orthodoxy deals with necessity, i.e. essential beliefs of the church are orthodox in nature. While it may be true that churches are more commonly turning away from historic and truly orthodox teachings, there are still most professing believers and churches who hold to essential truth. Despite disparate approaches to secondary issues, people of God are unified in orthodox teachings. We, therefore, should cling to our common faith in Christ and never waver from what is truly orthodox.

---

[1] “Orthodoxy,” Google definition search, accessed October 12, 2017, https://www.google.com/search?q=orthodox+meaning&ie=&oe

CONFESSIONS: BENEFITS AND PITFALLS

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

CONFESSIONS: BENEFITS AND PITFALLS

            The Apostle Paul tells us that we are to confess with the mouth and believe in the heart to be saved (Rom 10:9). Though many would associate confession with a plea for forgiveness, the term has broader meaning. A confession is a statement of belief; it is, therefore, the resulting act of belief. Confession then clarifies what a person or a group of people believe and cling to. Public and formal confessions of faith have been common in Christianity for centuries including in the early church. I come from a Protestant tradition, which exposes a range of confessions and particular beliefs about confessions. The specific denomination I am a part of largely discourages the use of formal confessions in corporate worship; that is not to say they do not exist in Baptist life because they certainly do. In fact, among the first and most vital confessions of faith in the modern church is the First London Baptist Confession of 1644, which was later clarified and revised in 1689. Largely in an attempt to exercise the Bible alone as the sole authority for belief, modern Baptists have attempted to remove themselves from confessions; yet, my denomination of Southern Baptists have what is referred to as the Baptist Faith and Message. What is that document but a confession, a creed, or a statement of beliefs?

            What are the both benefits and pitfalls of confessions? I am going to discuss these matters so that we might be able to rightly put formal confessions in their place by keeping the good and ridding ourselves of the bad thoughts and perhaps practices that come along with confessions.

Benefits

            First, I would like to discuss benefits. Confessions (I believe) come with both benefits and pitfalls). What are the good elements of confessions? I have a few thoughts regarding this.

Confessions Summarize

            First, confessions summarize belief, e.g. the Apostles Creed (4^th C.) could be considered sort of like a Cliffs Notes of the Bible, especially in a day and society when the vast majority of people were uneducated and illiterate. Confessions summarize essential doctrines and beliefs for a group of people. Far be it from an unsubstantiated source, a good confession clarifies the truths of Scripture so that a people might resort to it and know and realize their primary beliefs. When one verbally states a confession, he or she is stating what they believe in a clear and organized fashion. In this manner then, confessions benefit God’s people by way of summarizing essential beliefs.

Confessions Clarify

            Confessions also clarify. Confessions are usually worded carefully by a plurality of scholars and clergymen who have grappled with the concepts and doctrines in the confession, i.e. it is not sloppily pieced together randomly by a single unskilled person. There are surely times when confessions need to be clarified more, e.g. the Second London Baptist Confession (1689 A.D.) clarified some items the First London Baptist Confession (1644 A.D.) did not. Christians should understand that there are difficult aspects of the faith which are hard-pressed to explain and clarify. Confessions help us in that way. By the employment of confessions, we can rightly know and explain what otherwise might be confusing truths and doctrines of our faith.

Confessions Preach

            Thirdly, confessions preach, i.e. they (should) proclaim the truth of Scripture. When God’s people state a good confession, the body of Christ preaches the truth of the Bible. That is, of course, assuming that the confession is derived from the text of Scripture. (I believe the most common and important confessions are.) Stating a formal confession or statement of beliefs then preaches the gospel message. The word of God does not return void so if a confession proclaims the word of God, the gospel message is proclaimed. This is a marvelous benefit of confessions.

Confessions Unify

            Lastly, regarding benefits, confessions unify. Specifically, they unify a common group of believers. Many people are opposed to organized religion. Often, the assumption in these cases is that the church universal should not have divisions, i.e. the Protestant Reformation should have never happened. I do not want to speculate on that specific issue, but the truth is that the church is diverse and within the diversity, local churches are disparate in thought and in practice; and that is acceptable. I also suggest that humanity in general needs structure; we were created with an innate need for structure. Consider your own daily affairs. Structure encircles you because, as humans, we need it to function. What confessions do then is provide structure to groups of people with common beliefs. While the church varies on secondary issues, we (should) agree on primary and salvific issues.[1] The church is founded upon Jesus Christ; this is the singular commonality along with all elements that surround him as Lord and Savior. Nonetheless, within our individual delineations of people with varying beliefs on secondary issues, confessions unify; confessions provide a sense of focus for a group of people. In that sense then, confessions are certainly beneficial.

Pitfalls

            Aside from benefits, there are also pitfalls of confessions, but I would like to approach the pitfalls from the perspective of what might happen as a result of confessions, not what absolutely will happen.

People Might Make Confessions Equal to the Bible

            First, people could easily place confessions on the same level as Scripture. While confessions themselves are derived from Scripture, they should not be canonized and are certainly not Scripture. There is a clear distinction. Why do we believe what we believe and why do we utilize confessions to state those beliefs? It is because the Bible teaches the doctrines we confess. Consider it this way: without the Bible, there would be no confessions because confessions are built upon the foundation of Scripture. Confessions are a useful tool in proclaiming the gospel message, but holding to a confession above the Bible is wrong. If confessions are exercised in a given context, a people should be careful to realize the underpinning of the confessional text and not place the confession itself on the same plane as the Bible.

Confessions Might Hinder Personal Spirituality

            Secondly, confessions possess the potential to hinder personal spirituality. If a local church relies largely on confessions and pre-ordered statements of belief for their spiritual growth and discernment rather than personal study of the Bible, spirituality is hindered. Confessions should be viewed as a tool to proclaim the source rather than the source itself. If Christians desire to grow spiritually, they must take the initiative to know God himself through prayer and the word, which ensures a two-way relationship between humankind and God through Jesus Christ. Confessions must never be relied on as the sole medium for spiritual growth. Believers rather should study the word and commune with God themselves and then employ confessions (if they are going to at all) as a tool for stating precise beliefs.

Conclusion

            Are confessions beneficial? Yes. Do confessions possess pitfalls? Yes, potentially. These are waters we must navigate through as the church and especially as worship leaders. Confessions in and of themselves are not bad but are, in fact, excellent tools of proclamation. Let us hold firm then to the truth of Scripture and boldly confess our beliefs while standing firm upon the foundation of the word.

---

[1] Primary and salvific issues here refer to items of the Christian faith which are explicit in the text of Scripture and contain no room from wavering.

UNDER ALL, SOME, OR NONE OF THE LAW

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

UNDER ALL, SOME, OR NONE OF THE LAW

            Discussions of the law can be both frustrating and confusing. I was once asked a question by an atheist that went something like this: “Why do you pick and choose which biblical laws you obey? Why do you believe that homosexuality is a sin, but you wear mixed fabrics[1] and eat shrimp?”[2] When I first began pondering questions such as this, I was dumbfounded and had inadequate responses, which, in my mind, legitimized the questions. Attempting to move beyond embedded theology into deliberative theology, I had to ask myself why indeed I obey some laws but not others. I heard many explanations from very intelligent people, but nothing was satisfactory. The ultimate question then is, “Are we, as Christians, under some, all, or none of the law?”[3] To answer this ultimate question, I have three thoughts to give clarity to the issue.

The Threefold Division of the Law

            A significant view held regarding the law is the threefold division of the law, i.e. old covenant laws include the moral law, the civil law, and the ceremonial law. Those who hold to this view will likely assert that the civil law and the ceremonial law were only applicable to Israel; we, therefore, are no longer bound by them. An example of such a law is Leviticus 19:28, which reads, “You shall not make any cuts on your body for the dead or tattoo yourselves: I am the LORD.” (ESV) This is a law that applied only to Israel before entering the Promised Land. If it applied to us today, we should not only assume that tattoos are sinful, but many of us are also sinning by disobeying the law just prior to it, which commands not to trim the edges of one’s beard. The context then makes it apparent that this is not a moral law but a civil law. Those who hold to the threefold division of the law perspective would likely argue that moral laws are still common in the New Testament.

            I see two primary problems with this view. First, there is no explicit biblical foundation to support a threefold view, i.e. the threefold division of the law, while it makes sense, is something human minds have devised. Nowhere in Scripture is such a division presented. Secondly, even if there is a threefold division of the law, it is often difficult to determine which laws belong to which category. The truth is that the law is the law no matter which division it may be in so disobedience to it is disobedience to God. We can try to compartmentalize laws, but we still find ourselves utterly failing at keeping them. While the threefold division of the law might make sense for a good argument, it is explicitly unfounded.

Christ Fulfilled the Law

            Christ said that he came not to abolish the law but to fulfill it (Matt 5:17). When considering our obligation to the law, Jesus’ words make the most sense to me, as they should. According to Jesus himself, he fulfilled every part of the law, implying that we no longer must; therefore, we are no longer under the law at all. We are not under all of it or some of it because it has been fulfilled. Even though we are no longer under the law, however, we should not assume that it is futile to obey God. Fulfillment of the law does not negate conformity to the image of Christ, i.e. Christians cannot live however they want. The law has no transforming power, but Jesus Christ does. Therefore, because of his atoning death on the cross and because he has fulfilled the law, our lives are changed.

We Conform to God’s Transcendent Character, Not a Law

            How do we reconcile obedience with Scripture then? We conform to the image of Christ. The reason it may seem we obey certain biblical commands is because they are transcendent and timeless as a part of God’s character, i.e. we do not obey laws, but we obey God. There are certainly commonalities in both the New Testament and Old Testament; these commonalities exist, however, because they deal with God’s character, not because the laws in and of themselves are still relevant. We do not murder because it is in the Ten Commandments, for we are no longer under the Ten Commandments; we do not murder because God is not a murderer. This is why we seem to pick and choose. We pick and choose God’s character as our point of obedience, which is often evidenced in New Testament and Old Testament scriptures. Let me challenge all of us to live by the transforming power of Jesus Christ rather than conformity to a powerless law. Christ has fulfilled the law so we do not have to (because we never could anyway). Now we are changed by Jesus Christ so our obedience is in conformity with his character. We are no longer under the law but under the grace and mercy of Jesus Christ.

---

[1] Lev 19:19.

[2] Lev 11 reference to unclean animals.

[3] The law(s) of God under old covenants.

THREE MAIN POINTS OF MARTIN LUTHER'S THESES

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

THREE MAIN POINTS OF MARTIN LUTHER’S THESES

            October 31 of this year marks 500 years since Martin Luther began the Protestant Reformation by nailing 95 theses to the church door in Wittenberg. Luther, a minister and professor in the Catholic Church himself, did not have a complete revolt in mind when he did this; he merely wanted the church to make the necessary reforms in executing a genuine Christian faith and in carrying out the message of the gospel. Nonetheless, Luther’s theses caused perhaps the largest divide of any religious group in history. If you are an evangelical or Protestant, your church is likely the result of Luther’s reforms. I do not want to speculate on whether or not a division was good or bad for the church; certainly, reforms were necessary, but could they have been made without the split? Only God knows the answer to that question. In honor of the 500^th anniversary of the Reformation though, I would like to give a summary of what Luther’s theses said and did for the church. So much good came out of the Reformation so it is important for us to know what Luther’s ideas were. I would like to suggest three main points of Luther’s theses; these three points are borrowed from the Uncommon Travel Germany website.[1]

I.                   Selling indulgences to finance the building of St. Peter’s is wrong

St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome was largely financed by the Catholic Church’s selling of indulgences. In fact, it could be said that the selling of indulgences was the final straw for Martin Luther. Luther criticized the Catholic Church’s approach in this area, even suggesting that the Pope himself was already wealthy.[2] About the selling of indulgences, Luther said, “"The revenues of all Christendom are being sucked into this insatiable basilica. The Germans laugh at calling this the common treasure of Christendom. Before long, all the churches, palaces, walls and bridges of Rome will be built out of our money.”[3] Not only was Luther staunchly against the selling of indulgences, but he saw a further issue in the corruptness of the practice, i.e. the Catholic Church was using indulgences as a means for forgiveness of sin, thus forcing the poor and unfortunate to continue giving their own money and struggle so that their sins were supposedly forgiven. Luther had enough of this thought so he nailed the theses to the door, and thanks largely to the printing press, his theses were published far and wide. One might wonder why he nailed the theses to the church door in Wittenberg. In short, the church door was utilized as a bulletin board for events and important items in the town; nailing the theses to the door then insured that people would read them. Luther made abundantly clear in his theses that the selling of indulgences is wrong.

II.                The Pope has no power over Purgatory

The Catholic Church seemed to imply a special power over Purgatory in the way of forgiving sins. One of Luther’s significant beliefs was priesthood of the believer. This was an unpopular belief in the Catholic Church, which is why parishioners needed to be granted forgiveness by the priest. Luther stated it this way: “Papal indulgences do not remove guilt. Beware of those who say that indulgences effect reconciliation with God.”[4] Themes of repentance are embedded deep within Luther’s theses. Not only should the Christian repent, but he or she should continue living in repentance. The Pope then has no power to grant forgiveness, for each believer is responsible for his or her own actions and repentance. Martin Luther possessed a doctorate in theology so he had a great knowledge of the Bible; he surely would have been familiar with the Hebrews proposition that Jesus Christ serves as our great high priest (Heb 4:14). For Luther, Christ’s position as high priest negates the need for human priests; we no longer need them for matters of eternal forgiveness. While the Catholic Church continued to present a hierarchy of power to forgive in the Pope, Luther went against the grain and submitted the true gospel message, namely that only Christ can forgive. This thought is ever-present in Protestant congregations today; in Luther’s era, however, it was largely unpopular. Many reformers were martyred for this belief during the Reformation.

III.             Buying indulgences gives people a false sense of security and endangers their salvation

Because of the priesthood of the believer, Martin Luther realized the astonishing truth that those who rely on the Catholic Church for forgiveness of sin are in danger of eternal damnation. If salvation is by faith in Christ alone (Eph 2:8-9), each believer must come to the Father through Christ themselves without relying on the clergy; salvation includes a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. Perhaps Luther saw the problem in parishioners’ lack of biblical understanding. Mass was carried out solely in Latin while most congregants were German-speaking. Luther believed in utilizing the vernacular language so that people could not only participate but also understand and think for themselves. The Catholic Church, during this time, taught that buying indulgences played a significant role in one’s forgiveness. 500 years later, we largely realize that Jesus is the only one who can forgive sins. Posting this thesis, Luther was eventually excommunicated as a heretic. Taking the difficult path, Luther desired to preach the truth rather than distort the gospel for his personal gain.

The Many Benefits of the Protestant Reformation

Martin Luther’s goal was not to start a revolt but for genuine reforms to be made among the institution God ordained, namely the church. Posting his 95 theses to the church door in Wittenberg in 1517, an undying fire was started that spread rapidly. To this day, we are still seeing the effects of the Reformation. Luther, zealous for the word of God and the church’s identity in Christ alone, began a good work that we should be thankful for. As we approach 500 years since the Protestant Reformation began, let us thank God where the gospel is preached and where lives are changed.

---

[1] “The 95 Theses: A Summary,” Uncommon Travel Germany, accessed October 4, 2017, http://www.uncommon-travel-germany.com/95-theses.html.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Ibid.

RITUAL: GOOD OR BAD?

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

RITUAL: GOOD OR BAD?

            I have heard people in Protestant circles speak of ritual in a negative light, as if to imply that ritual is meaningless and disconnected from sincerity. In my recent studies on corporate prayer for my doctoral thesis, however, I have concluded that this thought is unsubstantiated, for sincerity is truly rooted in the heart, not the action. An action might surely stem from a sincere or insincere heart. Nonetheless, the action is the result of the heart. Realizing this should cause us to pontificate upon our ideas of sincerity and furthermore of ritual. In many evangelical camps, ritual is frowned upon; yet, nearly every church participates in some type of ritual (perhaps unbeknownst). I find it ironic that many who churches which admit to not using a liturgy are, in many ways, the most apt to abide by a liturgy, i.e. while they may not strictly follow a lectionary, they certainly abide by their own order, which often lends itself to routine and ritual; what are the roots of those rituals though? Perhaps because the routine is disparate from a liturgical church (those that follow a lectionary), the subconscious thought (in some free traditions) is that ritual is not present; yet, it absolutely is. Here is the question then: is ritual good or bad? If what I propose is true, namely that ritual is disconnected from both sincerity and insincerity, how should we approach it? Should we abandon it or realize its helpfulness? To answer these questions, I have three thoughts regarding ritual.

Sincerity Is Not Linked to Ritual or Spontaneity

            We should be careful not to falsely link sincerity to either ritual or spontaneity. Sincerity is a matter of the heart, for out of the heart, the mouth speaks (Luke 6:45). The idea that sincerity is somehow dependent on either ritual or spontaneity is unsubstantiated, i.e. there is no practical and (much more) biblical support for the idea. I would define sincerity as genuineness of the heart, i.e. one’s words and actions reflect the attitude of their heart. It is important that God’s people are sincere in worship; yet, sincerity is not found in the routine actions we employ in our worship practices. Additionally, sincerity is found apart from spontaneity. What might be derived from the truth here is that one may surely be sincere in both ritual and spontaneity. Certainly, the Holy Spirit guides spontaneously; however, he also guides God’s people through rigorous and careful planning. What we can imply then is that the one who prays using a scripted and prepared prayer could be equally as sincere as the one who prays extemporaneously. For sincerity to protrude from the believer’s life, the heart must be found in right standing with God in the righteousness of Jesus Christ.

We Are Not Formed without Repetition

            James K.A. Smith says, “. . . there is no formation without repetition.”[1] Logic would ask to consider Smith’s statement and likely conclude the truth in it. I speak from personal experience when I say that the areas of growth in my life have come largely from repetition. Whether spiritual growth or growth in an area such as musicianship, athletic ability, or academic growth, the more I repeated something, the better I became at it. Spiritually speaking, many of the deep and mysterious truths of the faith that I acquired over the years were planted in me through repetition, e.g. scripture memorization, attending weekly worship growing up, and singing hymns consistently. In those cases then, sincerity is certainly evident in the routines. The routines themselves did not bring about sincerity. Sincerity, in fact, was neither caused nor hindered by routine. Through routine, however, I was formed in the power of the Holy Spirit. If we consider our spiritual journeys and those in our lives who have been largely responsible for fostering our growth, we might remember repetitive practices such as memorizing scripture, worshiping with God’s people on a weekly basis, reading the Bible, and praying with God’s people. These are repetitive actions, but through repetition, God has formed and continues to form us. When an athlete trains, they repeat; when a musician rehearses, they repeat; why would Christians not do the same in their spiritual journeys then? Far be it from us to criticize repetition because there is no formation without repetition.

Much Liturgical Ritual Comes from Deep Roots

            As already mentioned, nearly every church adheres to some type of liturgy, i.e. while there may not be a strict adherence to a lectionary, an order of worship is usually present.     With that in mind then, we should understand that many of our weekly worship practices and routines are deeply rooted in an unmatched depth of theological reason. Even in Protestant and rather progressive traditions, our rituals stem from historically and biblically based practices, many of which are centuries old. I know of no one who would suggest ridding the local church of the communion table; yet, it is an ordinance of the church instituted by Jesus himself the night before he was crucified. It is, therefore, an old tradition. The same is true for practices such as proclaiming the mystery of faith.[2] Not only is this proclamation found in the text of Scripture, but it has been proclaimed since the early church. These are two examples among many; the point is that routine is not always empty. Certainly, it can be if the heart is not right. The roots of many rituals, however, are deep and both biblically and historically based. We then should not be so quick to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

            We should answer the original question then: is ritual good or bad? The answer is yes, implying that ritual may be either good or bad depending on the heart. I submit, nonetheless, that routine or ritual in and of itself should not be the determining factor to answer this question. Rather the heart should be. Sincerity is not solely linked to tradition or spontaneity; it is, in fact, a matter of the heart. If a tradition possesses deep roots and is beneficial for the church in a substantial manner, why would we not keep it? Let us carefully examine all our worship practices and act accordingly. There is no formation without repetition so let the church cling to the ever-true mysteries of the faith and worship God in sincerity and with a clean heart.

---

[1] James K.A. Smith, Imagining the Kingdom: How Worship Works (Baker Academic, 2013).

[2] “Christ has died; Christ is risen; Christ will come again.”

THE SERMON IS NOT THE WORD

Audio for the following may be found here.

THE SERMON IS NOT THE WORD

            I am going to suggest something that may seem controversial at first; that is until it is reasonably thought through. My suggestion is that the sermon is not the word. The service of the word in corporate worship is a crucial component, which includes far more than a mere sermon. The sermon certainly is part of the service of the word, but it should usually not be the entirety of the service of the word. I would dare say that the sermon is not the most important part of the worship service as well but that all components should be harmonious in the entire dialogue between God and his people. In fact, in many traditions, the word does not take precedence, but the table does. While the sermon is derived from the word and while, in fact, God speaks through the sermon to proclaim his word, it is not the word.

            My tradition prides itself on being people of the word. I think what people usually mean when they say that is that they place a high priority on the Bible. This is good in and of itself. The word, however, involves more than merely placing an apparent emphasis on the Bible. Often, to prove a zealous appetite for the word, many churches extend the sermon to take up much of time in corporate worship; I think this does nothing but deceive people into believing that their mere head-knowledge of the Bible is equated with a high priority on the word. To further think through the disconnect we find in our churches regarding the word and to illustrate the fact that the sermon is not the word, I would like to answer the question: what is the word?

The Word Is Jesus

            First, the Word is Jesus. John 1 begins with, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” This passage is one of the most evident references to the Trinity in all the Bible. The Apostle soon after this verse mentions the fact that the Word dwelt among us and was rejected by his own people. It then becomes obvious that the Word here is Jesus. When I first grasped this concept at a young age, it baffled me that the Word is Jesus, yet, we also refer to the Bible as the word. That is because the Bible itself centers around Christ. The Bible is a redemptive narrative, which points to Christ as the mediator. It is not that Jesus only knows the word or that he proclaims the word; what Jesus does is proclaim himself because he, in fact, is the Word. Preaching then centers around the person and work of Christ. When the Bible is proclaimed, Jesus is proclaimed. We must be careful not to place the Bible above Jesus. What I mean by that is that we must strive to preach Scripture as a derivative of who Christ is, i.e. Jesus supersedes the Bible. The Bible should be of utmost importance in our churches not because it is the authority in and of itself but because it is the authority in who it declares. We declare Christ in our preaching.

The Word Is the Bible

            Paradoxically, the word is also the Bible. I make this point after suggesting that Jesus is the word to illustrate the fact that the Bible is centered around Christ. Jesus is not subordinate to the text of Scripture, for he, in fact, is the one who created Scripture. Nonetheless, the Bible is crucial in its message about the Savior, Jesus Christ, which is precisely why many evangelical churches claim to be people of the Bible. “People of the Bible” likely implies a high view of Scripture; it is the authority for life and for godliness. If Jesus Christ is God and the very Word himself, then the Bible’s trajectory is toward Jesus Christ and the church must obey and proclaim its words. The Word is Jesus and the word is the Bible so the preacher’s message must be derived from Scripture. The sermon is not the word, but the sermon proclaims the word through the Bible.

The Word Is a Fold of Worship

            I have already suggested the point that the word is a fold of corporate worship. Many churches do not operate under the historic fourfold order, but traditionally, there has been a fourfold order of gathering, word, table, and sending.[1] My point in this commentary is to submit that the word is not merely the sermon. The sermon (or homily), in fact, should be a portion of the service of the word. The Bible is vital to corporate worship, which is why an entire fold is dedicated to it. Nevertheless, we must not make the mistake of equating the sermon with the word, for the sermon proclaims the word, both Jesus and the Bible.

            As the people of God, a narrative of creation, fall, redemption, and consummation has been given to us through the text of Scripture. We should absolutely treat this text with reverence, hide its words in our hearts, and obey it as a transcendent narrative of God’s character in the person of Jesus Christ. What we should not do, however, is treat the sermon as such. The sermon is crucial, but it is not the word. Oddly though, God chooses to use the foolishness of preaching when the preacher preaches the message of Scripture (1 Cor 1:21). When we begin to treat the sermon as the word, we might easily fall into the trap of following celebrity pastors or taking scriptures out of context by failing to see the Bible as a narrative which centers around the person and work of Christ. Let us then be hearers and doers of the word and, in the same manner, followers of Christ, for he is the Word.

---

[1] Robert E. Webber, Planning Blended Worship: The Creative Mixture of Old and New (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1998), 21.

THE VITALITY OF THE KISS OF PEACE

Audio for the following may be found here.

THE VITALITY OF THE KISS OF PEACE

Most churches have a time of greeting during their worship gatherings. When I was younger, I did not realize the purpose and importance of greeting one another in the name of the Lord. My ignorance, however, was derived from a lack of understanding about unity in the body of Christ as well as the historic significance of greeting. In many contexts, including my own, the greeting is placed toward the beginning of the worship service. Historically, there has been a fourfold order in the church: gathering, word, table, and sending.[1] Placing the greeting during the gathering portion seems appropriate considering the concept of God gathering his unified people to a place and attitude of worship. I have also seen the greeting placed at the end of the service of the word as the people of God move to the service of the table to symbolize the perpetual communion and fellowship in Christ. No matter where the greeting is placed, it is certainly an important and sacred act of worship.

            The Apostle Paul says to “greet one another with a holy kiss” (1 Cor 16:20). The thought of a casual kiss in greeting someone may seem foreign to Americans. Nonetheless, a kiss was a common form of greeting during Paul’s time. It was the equivalent of our handshake, hug, or even fist bump in a modern context then, i.e. we are to greet one another with a holy gesture, whatever that may be. How is that any different than shaking hands in a business deal then? The word, holy, surely implies some sort of difference.

            My aim here is to describe the kiss of peace and specifically its uniqueness to in the body of Christ. Because it is no ordinary act, I have three items I would like to suggest regarding the kiss of peace.

The Kiss of Peace Is a Sacred Act

            First, the kiss of peace is a sacred act. Many traditions refer to the kissing of peace as passing the peace. The idea is that the peace of Christ is ever-present in the church. It is no ordinary act; therefore, it should not be treated as such. The kiss of peace has been a part of Christian gatherings since the early church. It is not an extension of the previous week’s conversations of sports, entertainment, and other trivial items. The kiss of peace is a holy greeting in the name of the Lord; it is a rendering of peace. My observations in most contexts have led me to conclude that most churches’ greeting times do not employ a passing of peace, i.e. it is not a sacred act treated with utmost reverence. When we realize that the kiss of peace is a sacred act of worship, we treat it as a part of the dialogue between God and his people. The kiss of peace is unique, and it is a sacred act.

The Kiss of Peace Is a Holy Act

            Secondly, the kiss of peace is a holy act. It is set apart from other acts of worship but also distinctly from other (even friendly and kind) gestures we participate in daily. The kiss of peace itself is holy in a practical sense because it is an act of corporate worship unlike a handshake in a business deal. We should not treat our greeting times as mere moments of entertaining conversation. We should approach the kiss of peace with reverence and a realization that we are participating in a holy act of worship.

It is set apart practically, but it is also set apart spiritually, i.e. only the church can rightfully participate in the kiss of peace. Tertullian says, “The unity of the church of God is a perpetual fact; our task is not to create it, but to exhibit it.”[2] Because of the unity in Christ through the power of the Holy Spirit, the kiss of peace is a display of the body of Jesus Christ. Those who are not Christians lack the ability to participate in the kiss of peace. The holiness of the kiss of peace then points further to the uniqueness of the act. The kiss of peace is a holy act of worship; we should then approach it as such.

The Kiss of Peace Points to a Deeper Reality

            The deeper reality which the kiss of peace points to is the perpetual unification of the people of God. Tertullian had it right when he proposed that the church is already unified in Christ; we must simply display it. It should break our hearts when we see God’s people casually worship in any fashion, not the least of which is through the kiss of peace. In our times of greeting, let us realize the sacred act we participate in, and let us be a people who embody the peace of Christ. Far from a casual time of merely saying hello, we have the privilege and right to participate in a sacred and a holy act of worship when we offer the kiss of peace.

---

[1] Robert E. Webber, Planning Blended Worship: The Creative Mixture of Old and New (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1998), 21.

[2] Dow Kirkpatrick, ed., The Doctrine of the Church (New York: Abingdon Press, 1964), 187.