HOW OFTEN SHOULD WE OBSERVE COMMUNION?

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

HOW OFTEN SHOULD WE OBSERVE COMMUNION?

            Commonly referred to as Communion, the Eucharist, or even the Great Thanksgiving, the Lord’s Supper is one of two ordinances of the church and, thus, must be considered a serious and sacred act of worship. I recently had a conversation with another worship leader who said to me that the Lord’s Supper is not an act of worship. I was stunned, to say the least. If Communion is not an act of worship, what is it? Contrarily, not only is Communion an act of worship, it is also a vital sacred act of fellowship in the body of Christ. To neglect the Lord’s Supper, is to disobey Christ’s institution of and command to partake in it. Doubtlessly, believers should prioritize the Lord’s Supper. A good question then is this: how often should a church observe the Lord’s Supper? There are varying opinions on this matter. Communion was a crucial aspect of my doctoral studies so I have four thoughts regarding the interval between a church’s Lord’s Supper observances.

There Is No Specified Interval of Time in Scripture

            Try as we may, there is not a biblical prescription for how often a church should observe the Lord’s Supper. The command Christ gives is to take Communion in remembrance of him until he returns (1 Cor 11:23-26). If we are not careful, we could grow prideful in our observance of the Lord’s Supper, as if how often we observe the sacred act indicates our spirituality above churches who may not observe it as often. This is certainly one end of the spectrum on which we should not aspire to be. To claim that a weekly (or any other interval of time) Lord’s Supper is a specific command is to effectively add to Scripture. We should be mindful to observe Communion in a worthy manner but not use it as a instrument of pride.

The Early Church Observed Communion Each Week

            In stark contrast to the prideful approach just discussed, we should never neglect Communion. The early church and indeed the church throughout the centuries observed Communion on a weekly basis.[1][2] The historic order of worship has been a fourfold order consisting of gathering, word, table, and sending.[3] Where most current Protestant traditions would consider the sermon to be the pinnacle of the worship service,[4] historically, there was not a pinnacle or most important part; the Lord’s Supper was of equal importance to all other aspects of the weekly gathering of God’s people. From the early church and until around the 19^th century, the Lord’s Supper was a weekly part of Christian worship. Some have argued that Communion occurred each day in the early church based on their breaking bread each day (Acts 2:46), though the language does not necessarily imply Communion but rather general meals of fellowship together. Nonetheless, Communion has been vitally important throughout the church’s history whether in an ordinal or sacramental tradition. The weekly observation of Communion is not a new idea; nor should it be considered wrong or meaningless ritual when early Christians practiced Holy Communion on a weekly basis during their corporate worship gatherings.

Doesn’t the Act Mean Less the More Often We Observe It?

            One form of pushback I often hear regarding weekly Communion is, “Doesn’t it become meaningless if we observe it weekly?” The short answer is no. We utilize many acts of worship weekly, e.g. sermons, congregational singing, and prayers. If the logic is that it becomes meaningless the more we do it, why not also get rid of everything else we do weekly?

Additionally, if it does indeed become meaningless, the issue is not with the act itself but rather with the individual participating. Ritual has never been wrong in and of itself. In fact, if a sacred act of worship becomes mere ritual to an individual or a group of individuals, it could be that those believers should examine their own hearts rather than assume the act is the problem. Personally, churches with which I have worshiped who have held Communion most reverently have been the ones who observe it most often. The concept of an act becoming less important the more it is observed is bad logic. On such a principle then, we should not assume that a routine act is bad in and of itself; we should instead examine our own hearts so that the Lord’s Supper is perpetually realized in our lives and churches as a vital part of the worship experience.

It Is One of Two Ordinances of the Church: Why Not Observe It More?

            In matters of corporate worship, we regularly ask the wrong questions. While we might ask why we observe the Lord’s Supper so often, we should instead ask ourselves why we do not observe it more, for it is certainly not a bad act but a holy and sacred one. My guess is that believers would not complain about the ordinance of baptism each week; why then would we dare complain about the Lord’s Supper each week? We could even consider baptism and the Lord’s Supper to be two different manifestations of one ordinance: namely Jesus Christ; baptism is Christ realized and the Lord’s Supper is Christ remembered. The same could also be considered in sacramental traditions.[5]

            Communion is to be observed as a corporate act since it is an ordinance of the church, i.e. it should not be observed between a couple in a wedding ceremony or in a youth ministry camp or meeting. It is of vital importance. Nevertheless, many churches neglect the importance of the Lord’s Supper. While there is no prescribed interval of time between its observances, there exists great historical and spiritual substance for the Lord’s Supper’s weekly observances, though no matter what a local congregation decides, to neglect the Lord’s Supper or its importance is to disobey Christ’s command to partake in remembrance of him.

---

[1] Didache 7:14.

[2] Justin Martyr, Apology I, 67.

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

[4] Falsely assumed to be the word, the sermon is a mere portion of the service of the word.

[5] I claim ordinances because I believe that baptism and the Lord’s Supper were both ordained and instituted by Christ as a visible symbol rather than a means of imparting grace.

SHOULD WE USE THE MUSIC OF UNGODLY COMPOSERS?

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

SHOULD WE USE THE MUSIC OF UNGODLY COMPOSERS?

            Throughout my ministry, I have had some form of the following question: is it okay to use the music of ungodly composers and song-writers in your ministry? This question could certainly be asked of other Christian artists and creators such as authors and preachers. The question is likely not derived from thoughts of their work but rather their lives. In my experience, it has been asked out of a genuine concern for God’s people and how using such people’s work will impact the local church. Years ago, a prominent Christian musician to which I grew up listening professed his own homosexuality while I was serving in a local church fellowship; I am still asked questions about whether it is wrong or right to use his music. While I openly admit that his decision has had drastic negative effects on professing Christians, we should assess whether using his music is still acceptable.

Although we should test and measure everything we allow into our lives, I would like to examine how to respond to the music of ungodly composers, song-writers, and hymn-writers. I firmly believe that it is acceptable and even good to use the music of anyone, irrespective of the composer’s lifestyle, if the music is created within the bounds of certain parameters, namely correct theology. Regarding this topic then, I have four thoughts concerning the church’s use of ungodly composers’ music.

God Can Use Anyone and Anything He Desires

            In Numbers 22, God uses Balaam’s donkey to speak. God has used unworthy people throughout the history of the church. In a world that seeks to be ahead of everyone else, it can be easy to forget that everything good comes from God, i.e. our gifts and talents matter not. With God himself as the foundation of the church, it is not uncommon for the Lord to use people who are unworthy and even seemingly despicable. Therefore, God can and does assuredly use sinners for his glory, no matter the degree of their sin. If God inspires song-writers to produce music that glorifies him greatly but their lives contradict the authority of Scripture, is the truth in their message of music revoked? The message in song is still objective truth. To be objective means that nothing can affect its component of truth, including the messenger. As God’s people, if we believe that one’s lifestyle affects the truth of their message, we practically make that person an idol by elevating the person above the God who gives them the message. God can use the music of anyone he pleases. Since we are imperfect people, song-writers are bound to make mistakes, some greater than others, though the Lord surely still uses the message.

The Power of the Gospel Is in Its Message, Not Its Messenger

            Rather than the artist, we should focus on the message of the music we sing and to which we listen. The message in gospel music is the same message that was preached by Paul and the Apostles. Just as God uses the foolishness of preaching (1 Cor 1:21), so he also uses the foolishness of song-writing. Our talents and abilities save no one; only the righteous power of God through the Holy Spirit saves. This is evident when God uses a preacher’s horrid sermon to bring lost souls to know him. In such a case, it was not the messenger who saved people; it was God himself. The message then is far more vital than the messenger.

No One Is Perfect; This Is Nothing New

            We must be conduits of God’s grace with the perpetual realization that no one is perfect and no one has ever been perfect. In a digital and technological age, we seem to know too much about people. Theologians and hymn-writers of the past often lived lives that would make people blush today. We should be people of grace and understand that everyone needs God’s grace. If the tool used to present the gospel message, namely music, is true, does the composer’s lifestyle change the message? It does not; yet, the church often wants to immediately purge herself of anything good which God has given through the artist. I fear that the truth is we try to protect our reputation by distancing ourselves from those who have fallen. If that is the case, we sin by judging rather than mercifully restoring the one who has fallen. Do not hear what I am not saying; I am not saying to hire every musician who lives an ungodly lifestyle. In fact, discipline is necessary in such a person’s life. Nonetheless, we should understand our own need for mercy just as much as anyone else. There is still truth and value in their music.

If the Lord Used a Sinful Messenger to Bring You to Salvation, Does that Negate His Saving Work in Your Life?

            Finally, I would like to ask a rhetorical question. If the Lord used a sinful messenger to bring you to salvation, does that negate his saving work in your life? The obvious answer is no; yet, we do not live as if that is true. Perhaps you can recall a minister in your life who eventually fell into the traps of sin. If you came to know Christ under such a person’s ministry, do their mistakes revoke or cancel your salvation experience? If God has truly saved you, you are his no matter how you came to know him. The sinfulness of the messenger then does not affect the power of the message.

Exercise Wisdom

            In all of this, a worship leader should exercise wisdom in using the music of ungodly people. I do not advocate using it or not using it. Nonetheless, the message of music is still used by God. It could be that no one in a local church knows nothing of an artist’s sinful lifestyle. Making these decisions is contextual. It might work in one context but not in another. We should be wise in selecting the music we employ in our churches, though do not decide solely based on one’s lifestyle. God is sovereign. Ultimately, our best is nothing but filthy rags. Even in musical leadership, God uses humankind’s foolishness. If the message is true, why not use the composition? The composer’s lifestyle does not impact the truth of the message; nor is using such a person’s music promoting their lifestyle. We must preach gospel truth always, whether directly or indirectly in the music we choose. Exercise wisdom, but let me encourage you also not to throw out the wonderful artistic expressions of composers who perhaps live ungodly lives. Pray for them and help them if you have the opportunity, but also realize that their work is from God, not themselves.

CHARACTERISTICS OF HYMNS

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

CHARACTERISTICS OF HYMNS PERSONAL

            I was recently asked what my church’s hymn to contemporary congregational music ratio is. I keep a running chart and continuously update it so I knew the answer to that question; yet, it was apparent to me that the person asking did not understand the meaning of the words, hymn and contemporary. Most people would likely assume contemporary to mean in a modern style. Contemporary, however, denotes an era or timeframe. If I were to ask of a contemporary of Mozart, for example, one might respond with Haydn. Certainly, this is true, while a contemporary of myself could be Carrie Underwood. To restate the question then, I think it would be more appropriate to ask, “What is your church’s ratio of hymns to modern music,” though even then, one must define a hymn.

My church is about an 88% hymn-singing church. The problem many worship pastors might experience is not a lack of singing hymns but rather which hymns they sing. Many congregants have a wrong idea of what constitutes a hymn. There are certain characteristics that hymns possess. The age of a song then does not define it as a hymn or not a hymn. Of the hymns my church sings, 72% are what refer to as timeless and 28% modern.[1] In my role as a worship leader over the years, it has become clear that most people do not know what a hymn is. The Apostle Paul tells the Colossians to admonish one another with “psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs” (Col 3:16). There is then a difference between hymns and other types of congregational music. I do not intend to delve into the biblical difference between these three categories but only to give specific characteristics of hymns. I will do so by defining first what a hymn is not and then what it is. There are characteristics unique to hymns, both sacred and secular.[2]

What It Is Not

            First, I would like to discuss what a hymn is not. To press against many people’s preconceived notions, a hymn is disconnected from a style, an age of composition, or an instrumentation. Hymns then could be freshly composed in recent years or even weeks and might be employed with the use of modern instrumentation rather than solely pianos and organs. The ideas many people have of what a hymn is come from stereotypes. In considering hymn-writer, surely, we might think of people like Isaac Watts (AD 1674-1748), often referred to as “the Godfather of English hymnody.”[3] There are also, however, modern hymn-writers. I, myself, am such a composer. There are also people like Keith Getty and Matt Boswell who write theologically challenging, thought-provoking, and deep hymn texts. Keith Getty’s In Christ Alone comes to mind. In such cases, we should rid ourselves of the thought that hymns are always old and always sung with organ accompaniment.

What It Is

            To define a hymn, I have four characteristics I would like to discuss that will bring clarity to what a hymn is and how to define it. These characteristics are not true 100% of the time but are doubtlessly exemplified in the overwhelming majority of hymns.

Strophic

            First, a hymn is usually strophic. This might be a new term to some. Strophic form is a term used to describe the organization of a piece of music. Many might argue that strophic form and hymn form are synonymous, i.e. hymns are stalwartly tied to strophic form. When we read music from a hymnal, an obvious realization is the stanza designation;[4] there are usually multiple stanzas throughout which apply the same melody. Sometimes a refrain is added. Nonetheless, each stanza of text uses the same melody as the previous and the next. Strophic form is common throughout most hymn compositions.

Metrical

            Second, a hymn is metrical. Here I do not refer to only musical meter, for certainly there are unmetered hymns. I am specifically referring to textual meter. The first book ever published in the United States was The Bay Psalm Book. It is not a hymnal but rather a psalter, a collection of Psalms designed for congregational singing. In the 17^th century AD when this psalter was published, congregations would have known approximately thirty tunes to which they would set the texts in the psalter. A textual meter is essentially a combination of the number of syllables in each line of text or phrase, which also coincide with the musical phrases in the tune to which it is set. For example, John Newton’s Amazing Grace possesses 8 syllables in the first line of text, 6 in the second, 8 in the third, and 6 in the last. The textual meter then would be 8.6.8.6. One could take any other 8.6.8.6 tune and interchange it with any 8.6.8.6 text (such as Amazing Grace). For centuries, this was a common practice, particularly in Protestant worship. There were three primary meters employed during the era of The Bay Psalm Book: common meter (8.6.8.6), long meter (8.8.8.8), and short meter (6.6.8.6). There are far more meters utilized today; yet, hymns are largely still metrical. If a tune of text has a metered pattern, it could likely be a hymn.

Hymnic Language

            Third, hymns utilize hymnic language. What I mean by hymnic language is a clear and unapologetic use of biblical and theological language. The tendency in modern music is to shy away from words and texts that might confuse unbelievers or new believers. As a sensible means of gospel communication, there is nothing wrong with adapting language. My caution, however, would be that certain gospel-centered words exist in the text of Scripture because they are the most appropriate in clear and right theology. Words like sanctification, propitiation, incarnate, Godhead, and triune leave little room for doubt. While congregants might not be as familiar with such words and may even need explanation, these words offer teaching opportunities for both the worship leader and the congregation. Many modern hymn-writers do not avoid using such words and terms but rather use them abundantly. Take the second stanza Matt Boswell’s Come, Behold the Wondrous Mystery, for example:

Come behold the wondrous mystery,
he the perfect Son of man.
In his living, in his suffering,
never trace nor stain of sin.
See the true and better Adam
come to save the hell-bound man.
Christ the great and sure fulfillment
of the law; in him we stand.

At first glance, one might not understand the concept of Christ as the “true and better Adam;” yet, this language creates a wonderful teaching moment where, through the text, a worship leader can discuss the fact that just as sin entered humanity through Adam, righteousness entered God’s people through Jesus Christ. Using such language could be indicative of a hymn.

Easily Singable Melodies

            My final suggestion in defining a hymn it usually contains an easily-singable melody. It would not take much to think of a hymn with a comparatively difficult melody or range, although this is the exception rather than the rule. Since most congregants are not trained musicians, hymns are designed for easy use in corporate worship. Related to metered text and musical phrases, hymns often have similar lines. There is commonly a striking similarity between the first and second lines; the third line then usually deviates from the contour (often rising in pitch); the fourth line and phrase is usually precisely the same as the second. Writing music in such a manner allows congregants to understand and sing the melody quickly. Where a modern song might take two or three times for a congregation to feel as though they know it well enough to sing confidently, a hymn might be understood by the congregation after hearing only the first stanza. I would also suggest applying the text of a new hymn to an already familiar tune so that when the new tune is introduced, the congregation already has some experience with the hymn. The easily-singable melody is a striking characteristic of a hymn.

Hymns: An Excellent Tool for Corporate Worship

            It saddens me personally that churches often neglect hymn-singing in corporate worship. There is great value in singing hymns, not only musically but also theologically. While congregational music should not be Christians’ primary source of theological teaching, frequently and subconsciously, it is. Worship leaders should take seriously then the call to not only lead congregational singing but to also aid in the spiritual formation of worshipers. Hymns are an excellent tool for corporate worship theologically and pragmatically. The utilitarian use of hymns allows congregants to sing (and, thus, learn) deep theological truths in a bold manner. The characteristics I have offered should shed light on what a hymn is and what it is not. With these characteristics in mind, one might realize that their church sings more hymns than perhaps they thought. There exists a plurality of ways and styles to sing and play hymns. With that in mind then, it is probably wise to consider hymns even more as part of a church’s worship experience, musical formation, and spiritual formation.

---

[1] The timeless designation has to do with the age of the hymn and whether it is in my denomination’s hymnal. Modern hymns are hymns written primarily in the last fifteen years by living composers and cannot be found in most hymnals.

[2] Secular hymns have existed for centuries, the tunes of which are often also utilized in Christian worship.

[3] “Isaac Watts,” Wikipedia, accessed March 12, 2018, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Watts.

[4] Hymns use stanzas rather than verses.

THE CORRELATION BETWEEN A CONGREGATION'S SPIRITUALITY AND HOW THEY SING

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

THE CORRELATION BETWEEN A CONGREGATION’S SPIRITUALITY AND HOW THEY SING

            Singing in Judeo-Christian worship has been essential for centuries. Even before the church-age, the Israelites utilized singing as a proper mechanism by which to worship God. It is surely not the only element in corporate worship, but it is important, nonetheless. As a worship leader, I have observed the worship practices of many congregations of God’s people. In my close workings within various church contexts, my observations have led me to conclude that a congregation’s spirituality is strongly connected to how they sing. I am not referring to quality of singing but rather the general practice of congregational singing itself, i.e. congregational singing is reflective of a local church’s spirituality. Without grinding at the specifics of what constitutes spirituality, let us concern this topic with a church’s overall connection to God’s heart and character. Said another way, singing indicates a local church’s general spiritual condition. I have four thoughts then that further illustrate my notion.

Godly People Sing

            My first thought concerning the connection between spirituality and a congregation’s singing is that godly people sing. Singing is indeed an effect of exulting in God. I would like to suggest two key reasons godly people sing.

1)     It Is a Command

Scripture is abounding with references to singing, usually in a commanding context, e.g. the command to sing a new song to the Lord (Ps 149:1) and Paul’s instructions to admonish one another with psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs (Eph 5:19). The demanding nature of Scripture’s instructions to sing make it clear that singing is not optional for the believer. In obedience to the command then, godly people sing.

2)     How Can I Keep from Singing?

A known hymn text says, “How can I keep from singing?” The question posed in this hymn is rhetorical; those possessed by the love and joy of Christ cannot keep from singing. A natural effect of a life satisfied fully in God and in his glory is singing. Consider the examples of the Apostle Paul who instructs the Ephesians to sing (Eph 5:19), David who composed nearly half of the biblical Psalms, Mary who sang what we now know as the Magnificat in praise to her Lord upon discovering her pregnancy with Jesus (Luke 1:46-55), and biblical references such as the song of Moses (Exod 15). Such vivid descriptions of singing point to overjoyed people of God who cannot help but sing the Lord’s praises. If a church struggles to sing, it could be indicative of a deeper underlying issue: undeveloped or immature spirituality. Godly people sing.

Bold Singing Indicates Bold Faith

            Second, bold singing indicates bold faith. Bold singing points to people who are more concerned with God’s glory than they are their own. Conversely, it could be assumed that timid singing indicates timid faith.[1] The more one’s worth is found in God, the less one is concerned with their own appearance in corporate worship, i.e. the singing will be emboldened and empowered. In my own observations and personal experience, our singing is weakest when our faith is weakest. A congregation that sings boldly reveals a bold faith, whereas a congregation’s weak faith and spirituality gives way to a lack of singing.

The Songs and Hymns a Congregation Sings Is Their Faith Expressed

            The songs and hymns a congregation sings reveals much about their spirituality. I am referring mostly to text, but certainly the musical nuances could indicate a great deal as well. What a church sings represents their faith expressed audibly and concisely. Certainly, there are many songs and hymns which may be universal to the global church of God. There are, however, certain texts that relate to congregations in unique ways and, thus, become a part of their story. The textual theology expressed in a congregation’s music is suggestive of what they believe and experience. Whether or not people know it, congregational music reveals a church’s personality. To that end then, how a congregation sings and what they sing signifies their spirituality or lack thereof.

How a Congregation Sings Together Signifies Their Unity

            Finally, how a congregation sings together signifies their unity. Tertullian would say that the church is already perpetually unified; her job then is to merely exhibit the already-achieved unity she possesses.[2] Of course, a local church’s singing together transcends beyond the simple act of congregational singing. Conclusions may be drawn from observing what happens before and after congregational singing. Is there complaining or grumbling among congregants in respect to the congregational music? Even during singing, do members appear to sing joyfully or begrudgingly? Such observations are suggestive of a deeper reality that perhaps even a local church does not realize. Irrespective of style, appearances of unity or disunity automatically exist in how a church sings together. A church that sings together well is likely a spiritually unified church that exhibits the unity of Christ. Much can be learned from how a congregation sings together.

Singing: A Credible Test

            There are many clues of a church’s spirituality. Assessing a congregation’s spirituality based upon their singing is feasible. I openly admit that it might not be a sure-fire way to know how spirituality developed a local church is; nonetheless, it is usually a good indicator. Worship is formative for believers, i.e. the way one worships is the way one is spiritually formed. As worship forms believers then, so also will their singing be advanced. Those who have been changed and redeemed by triune God are effectively satisfied in him and grow in satisfaction of him. The response then is singing with boldness, with vigor, and with unity among the people of God. Spiritually deep churches are also singing churches. A church’s spirituality then is directly connected to their singing.

---

[1] It should be noted that these assumptions are predicated on observations and are generalizations, i.e. while there are surely exceptions, the points brought out here are likely the rule.

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

FOUR WAYS CHRISTIANS EXERCISE PRACTICAL DENIAL OF CHRIST'S RESURRECTION

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

FOUR WAYS CHRISTIANS EXERCISE PRACTICAL DENIAL OF CHRIST’S RESURRECTION

            It is essential that Christians believe in many aspects of Jesus Christ; yet, one of the most fundamental is his resurrection. Christ’s resurrection from the dead is essential to not only salvation (Rom 10:9) but also to the way God’s people live their lives. Nevertheless, there are ways we often exercise practical denial of Jesus’ resurrection. By practical denial, I mean to imply not a literal belief that he is still dead but rather a seeming denial in the way we live our lives, i.e. our belief in Christ’s resurrection should surely impact our lives in the areas I will discuss. I will, therefore, offer four ways we deny the resurrection of Christ practically, a grave danger, for actions often speak to others louder than words.

We Worry

            Rick Warren once tweeted, “Worry is practical atheism. It is unbelief; acting like an orphan without a heavenly Father who's made 6,000 promises to you.”[1] Worry is indicative of a lack of trust in sovereign God. We might often quote comforting scriptures such as, “. . . If God is for us, who can be against us?” (Rom 8:31); nonetheless, the actions of our lives could easily communicate a disparate message, namely that we do not trust God and his great promises to his children whom he loves. Many believers likely do not consider worry to be a sin; yet, it is a direct command of Jesus Christ himself not to worry (Matt 6:25). In a similar way, Jesus tells us not to fear numerous times in Scripture. God is the only one worthy of our trust; God is the only person worthy of our fear; when we feebly attempt to trust and fear other people or things, we effectively communicate that Jesus’ commands do not matter and that we do not believe he is alive and still interceding on our behalf. Worry then is an exercise of practical denial of the living Son of God.

We Live without Change

            A second way we practically deny the resurrection is we live without change. If we are who we claim to be as Christians[2], our lives will reveal ongoing change. While repentance certainly occurs the moment the Lord awakens one from death into life, they should also continue repenting. If we believe we are Christians because we walked and aisle and said a prayer but there is no continuous change, it is right to assume a lack of fruit. Such a person then might not actually be a Christian. The resurrection of Christ then is not expressed practically. There are many professing Christians who are not actual Christians; the resurrection of Jesus then has not changed them. They might not be atheists (or even agnostics), but in action, they deny the resurrection of Christ. If God’s people live without change, we practically deny Jesus’ resurrection as well as our own resurrection from spiritual death to abundant life in Jesus Christ.

We Live without Power

            A third way we practically deny Christ’s resurrection is we live without power. Jesus told his disciples (and us) they would do greater things than even he did (John 14:12). The implications of Jesus’ words here are manifold; additionally, hermeneutics are many and diverse as well. Without exhausting the various interpretations of what it means to do greater things than Jesus Christ, suffice it to say that God’s people have the same Spirit living in and with them that Jesus himself had as he performed great works and miracles, though most Christians do not realize such a belief in their lives. What if God calls you to preach the gospel in a closed and dangerous country? What if he calls you to quite literally raise someone from the dead? These are acts that are only possible in the power of Jesus Christ. Often, Christians live mediocre and comfortable lives without employing the power of the Holy Spirit. We essentially then communicate a dead Jesus rather than a living one. Jesus’ resurrection guarantees us power, not fear and mediocrity (2 Tim 1:7). We should examine ourselves regarding the power exuded from our lives. If it is lacking, we exercise practical denial of Christ’s resurrection.

We Live without Obedience

            Finally, we communicate a dead Jesus by living without obedience. Connected solidly to change is obedience; if we are changed, we will obey. Christ’s resurrection ensures that we do not obey a dead God, thus exercising futility in our lives, but rather a living God. Obedience is key to worship, i.e. it is the fruit of a Christian’s love for Christ (John 14:15). A lack of obedience suggests practical denial of Jesus’ resurrection.

We serve a living God, not a dead one. Let us then be true and thankful and ever-serving our living Christ without worry or fear, with change, with power, and with obedience. As we sing of and celebrate God’s victory over sin and death in the power of his resurrection, let us live in both actual and practical realization of Jesus’ life, for we have a King who reigns eternally supreme.

---

[1] Rick Warren, Twitter account, accessed March 12, 2018, https://twitter.com/rickwarren/status/10933607975?lang=en.

[2] By merely claiming to be a Christian, the assumption is that one is a follower of Christ. Claiming this distinction then should never be taken lightly by anyone.