The Antidote to Bad Theology is Good Worship

There’s a lot of hubbub out there in Evangelicaland about Rob Bell’s new book, Love Wins.  I have not read the book.  The accusations are that Rob Bell is a (Christo-centric) universalist—i.e. in the end everyone gets saved.  I hear these accusations from folks I trust.  Nevertheless, Bell says he’s not (see this fascinating MSNBC interview), so I’ll take his word that he’s not intending to convey the universalism it appears he does.

While I don’t side with Bell, I do not have the same fear I’ve been sensing some pastors do that this will stir up heresy in my local church, despite the fact that among our people are some die hard Nooma fans.  Why?  Because I’m my church’s primary worship-planner, and I know what our flock is fed, week in and week out.

Worship truly is a form of indoctrination.  “Indoctrination” is a four-letter word in postmodernity, for it is the unpardonable sin—forcing someone to believe what you believe.  Such doings would be grievous sin, if it were indoctrinating falsehood.  If it is The Truth, then indoctrination is not only good.  It is the right thing to do.   So indoctrination is one of the things the Church should be about.  She is the pillar and foundation of truth, after all (1 Tim 3:15).  The reason that worship is a form of indoctrination is that both the content and the form of worship train us, shape us, and teach us. 

Let’s take the test case of the present universalism scare.  Weekly, our church worships through a very specific progression of the Gospel.  We enter in, praising God for His character, holiness, perfection, and glory.  Met by such a Presence, we are immediately confronted by our own sin and brokenness.  We confess that to God, and we find Him responding by yet again proclaiming the Good News of Christ’s salvation: because He lived perfectly, we can receive his spotless record; because He died sacrificially, we can receive the Father’s forgiveness.  We respond in praise and thanksgiving, offering ourselves, in turn, wholeheartedly to God. 

When that cycle is imbibed weekly by our people, if they truly imbibed it, then I don’t need to schedule a special “Why Universalism is Bad” module into our Sunday School curriculum.  They have been drinking the antidote to bad theology every week.  The Gospel cycle presents us with the reality of hell, damnation, and judgment.  And it presents us with the true grace of heaven, forgiveness, and pardon…in Christ.  We learn in the Gospel cycle that God must judge to satisfy His holy character, or else He would not be a God of integrity.  We learn in the Gospel cycle that God has judged His Son in our place.  Love only wins if it’s set against the backdrop of God’s holiness.  Otherwise, it’s impotent, costless, insignificant, Oprah-style love.

Good, Gospel-soaked worship, in this instance, defends heresy just as well as a systematic theology course. Indoctrination certainly is not the goal and objective of worship.  But when worship is done well, indoctrination is a glorious byproduct.  Worship leaders, this begs the question: What are you feeding your people?  If all you’re giving them is the touchy-feely, lovey-dovey stuff, then maybe you should be a little concerned when the winds of heresy blow your way.

Keep her life and doctrine pure;
Grand her patience to endure;
Trusting in Thy promise sure.
We beseech Thee, hear us.

Thomas Pollock, 1871

Why Right Theology is a Heavy Obligation for Worship Leaders

In his opening chapter to The Knowledge of the Holy, A. W. Tozer exposes the crux of what makes churches crumble:

The essence of idolatry is the entertainment of thoughts about God that are unworthy of Him…Perverted notions about God soon rot the religion in which they appear. The long career of Israel demonstrates this clearly enough, and the history of the Church confirms it. So necessary to the Church is a lofty concept of God that when that concept in any measure declines, the Church with her worship and her moral standards declines along with it. The first step down for any church is taken when it surrenders its high opinion of God…The heaviest obligation lying upon the Christian Church today is to purify and elevate her concept of God until it is once more worthy of Him—and of her.¹

These words seem timely now, but the reality is that they are perpetually timely.  As idol-factories, our hearts are prone to wander.  If Tozer is right, then worship leaders and planners have a burden to bear.  That burden is to give their people a lofty view of God.  They must be exposed to God’s greatness and loftiness.  God’s transcendence must never be lacking in a worship service. 

Critics of modern worship have continually pointed out the me-centered nature of so many modern worship songs.  Thankfully, I believe the leaders of the modern worship movement have been heeding these criticisms.  My reviews of recent worship albums such as those of Matt Redman, Chris Tomlin, and Gateway Worship, attempt to point that out.  But modern worship must continue along its trajectory. 

There is no better place than in the worship service for the Christian Church to fulfill her “heaviest obligation.”  More than in Sunday School, small groups, and special events, God has ordained a unique and special ministry of His Spirit to take place in the context of the gathered people of God.  It is uniquely in the context of worship where it seems that all the parts of the self—the intellect, the affections, the body—are stirred together in praise and experience of God Almighty.  Worship leaders should, consciously and subconsciously, always be asking themselves the following set of questions:

·   What view of God is being presented to the people of God this week? this month? this year?

·   Is one of my primary aims and goals to have people walk away from a worship service inspired by the greatness of God?

·   Are songs which do have more of a me-focus (which, by the way, are okay, given that many of the Psalms were written from such a perspective) set within a proper context of God’s greatness, whether that context be other songs surrounding them or other liturgical elements accompanying them?

How can worship leaders awaken their sensitivity to this very important issue?  A great place to start is by studying the attributes of God, and particularly His incommunicable attributes (those characteristics of God which he does not share with humanity).  If you are a worship leader or congregant and this is new to you, I’d suggest asking your pastor to recommend a good systematic theology text from your church’s tradition that will walk you through a deep, meditative study of who God is.  (And if your pastor can’t recommend anything or says that it’s not valuable, I’d further suggest you find another church J.)  But for now, here is one list of some of the incommunicable attributes of God, perhaps to whet the appetite for further study:

·   Independence (a.k.a. Aseity, Self-Existence)

·   Unchangeableness (a.k.a. Impassibility, Immutability)

·   Eternity

·   Omnipresence

·   Omniscience

·   Omnipresence

·   Unity

·   Self-sufficiency

What happens when worship leaders commit to studying and meditating upon the being and attributes of God?  For one, you develop a radar for and sensitivity to content that doesn’t measure up.  You start to listen to and evaluate worship songs with a different set of ears.  Furthermore, almost by instinct, you begin to crave extolling the greatness of God and you begin to develop a jealousy for God’s greatness when it is absent.  Meditation upon God is very much like an addictive drug.  You end up seeking more and more of God.  The difference is that, because of God’s infinitude, there is no point of diminishing returns, and because of His goodness, there are no ill side-effects…only blessing and “grace upon grace.”  The pursuit of God in all His greatness is the only truly healthy addiction, which nourishes us, strengthens us, and centers us.  And once a worship leader is hooked, they never turn back. 

Ascribe to the LORD, O mighty ones,
Ascribe to the LORD glory and strength.
Ascribe to the LORD the glory due his name.
(Psalm 29:1-2, NIV)

¹ A.W. Tozer, The Knowledge of the Holy (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1978), 3-4.

Worship Leaders Should Be Theologians, and Theologians Should Be Worship Leaders

In preparations for a sermon on Psalm 29, I re-opened two influential works in my own life and theological development: Wayne Grudem’s Systematic Theology and A. W. Tozer’s The Knowledge of the Holy.  The two theologians share a feature in their respective works—a feature which is instructive to both theologians and worship leaders alike (not that the two have to or should be separate offices).

For too long, the church has functionally made theology (study and meditation upon God and the Bible) and doxology (worship) two separate enterprises.  We have “theologians” and “pastors” on one side, and we have “worship leaders” on the other.  And the church has suffered greatly because of this bifurcation.  At least part of the reason that critics of modern worship are justified when they accuse contemporary churches of “dumbing down” the sacred expression of the gathered people of God is that we’ve made this split between theologians and worship leaders okay.  We’ve fostered it with our employment structures.  We’ve encouraged it with our niched resources and industry.  We’ve catered to it with our degree programs. 

Grudem and Tozer show us that there is a different way.  They’ve peppered doxology throughout their theology.  In fact, both The Knowledge of the Holy and Systematic Theology end each chapter with the text of a hymn.  For example, after expounding “The Infinitude of God,” Tozer ends with two verses of a Joseph Hart hymn:¹

This, this is the God we adore,
Our faithful, unchangeable Friend,
Whose love is as great as His power,
And neither knows measure nor end.

‘Tis Jesus, the first and the last,
Whose Spirit shall guide us safe home;
We’ll praise Him for all that is past,
And trust Him for all that’s to come.

Similarly, Grudem ends his Chapter 11, on the “Incommunicable Attributes of God,” with the famous hymn, “Immortal, Invisible, God Only Wise.”²  He explains why he does this in his preface:

I do not believe that God intended the study of theology to be dry and boring. Theology is the study of God and all his works! Theology is meant to be lived and prayed and sung! All of the great doctrinal writings of the Bible…are full of praise to God.  …True theology is “teaching which accords with godliness” (1 Tim 6:3), and theology when studied rightly will lead to growth in our Christian lives, and to worship.³

Just because theology is an academic discipline, complete with published works and degree programs, does not mean it should lack passion and praise.  Just because worship is artistic, expressive, and emotional does not mean it should lack theological reflection.  There are many implications for all of this, but here are some:

·   Theology should drive our worship—what we know about God should fuel our praise of God.

·   Worship songs, even simple ones, communicate theological truths and therefore shape the thinking and spirituality of the people of God.

·   Professional theologians should therefore be some of the most passionate worshipers in our congregations.

·   Professional worship leaders should therefore be some of the most rigorous theologians in our congregations.

·   Good worship leaders will examine and evaluate the songs they lead not only for musicality but for theological content.

·   Good theologians will regularly worship, on the spot, with their pupils, turning the classroom into a sanctuary.

*****

¹ A.W. Tozer, The Knowledge of the Holy (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1978), 48.
² Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994), 183-184.
³ Ibid., 16-17.



When Calvinism Goes Awry: David Bazan's Falling Out

I’m a little behind in my indie-rock listening.  In the late 90s and early 2000s, I was a big fan of indie band, Pedro the Lion.  My indie/emo-dude roommate in college took me to a show in a little club in LA (called Chain Reaction at the time) where I witnessed the mesmerizing performance that cut against the grain of any other rock show I’d ever been to.  David Bazan, the front man, was (and is) a prophet.  His lazy, half-drunk vocals are refreshing against American Idol-style pop singing.  (People ask me why I love hymns artist Christopher Miner's recordings, and I just tell them, "Pedro the Lion.") RELEVANT Magazine, along with a few online indie periodicals, have chronicled Bazan’s trip through married life, having a child, and the alcoholism that has plagued him in recent years.  Bazan has moved from some kind of faith in Jesus to a general agnosticism about God.  This has bewildered many young Christians who hailed Bazan as their generation’s voice.  I would probably count myself as part of that bewildered generation.

I remember hearing a live bootlegged recording of Bazan singing Wesley’s hymn “And Can it Be,” believing it to be one of the best, most authentic renditions of any hymn or worship song I had ever heard.  In fact, hearing that recording still moves me.

As some reporters have noted, and based on my admittedly limited view of Bazan’s life and circumstances, it appears that what drove Bazan over the edge into agnosticism was a Calvinism gone wrong.  This seems confirmed for me in Bazan’s bitter song, “When We Fell.”  The song breaks my heart, because it lays out what opponents of Calvinism often consider to be the logical conclusion of a robust view of God’s sovereignty.  I’ll let the lyrics speak for themselves:

with the threat of hell hanging over my head like a halo
i was made to believe in a couple of beautiful truths
that eventually had the effect of completely unraveling
the powerful curse put on me by you
when you set the table
and when you chose the scale
did you write a riddle
that you knew they would fail
did you make them tremble
so they would tell the tale
did you push us when when we fell
if my mother cries when i tell her what i have discovered
then i hope she remembers she taught me to follow my heart
and if you bully her like you’ve done me with fear of damnation
then i hope she can see you for what you are
what am i afraid of
whom did i betray
in what medieval kingdom does justice work this way
if you knew what would happen and made us just the same
then you , my lord, can take the blame

This makes me shudder.  The opening chapter of John Sanders’ The God Who Risks (Sanders, along with Clark Pinnock and Greg Boyd, is one of the chief proponents of a radical view of divine sovereignty known as “open theism”) lays out a similar reaction to a Calvinistic view of God’s sovereignty.  Philosophically, opponents of Calvinism would say that determinism collapses into fatalism.  This is what Bazan is saying in his song, with its blasphemous closing line. 

I don’t have space to lay out why determinism does not collapse into fatalism.  Philosopher-theologians like John Feinberg, John Frame, and Douglas Groothuis* have done a far better job than I ever could.  I’d only like to point out  that there are views of determinism which hold in tension (not contradiction) God’s sovereignty and human responsibility, which help put Calvinism at philosophical rest…without letting go of the affirmations of Scripture, and without affirming a contradiction.  The view I hold to is most often called “compatibilism” or “soft determinism.”  Another view I highly respect, but do not personally hold to, is often called “Calvinistic Molinism.”  I’m not throwing out terms to name-drop but to provide tools for further research if this is an area that interests you.  Googling goes a long way these days. 

What concerns me about Bazan’s take is that it begins existentially rather than Scripturally (the same criticism is often given to Sanders' work, the opening chapter of which is a testimonial of a tragic event which drove him to question a high view of God's sovereignty).  Bazan observes his life and circumstances and concludes that what Scripture says about God must not be true.  However, if God exists and has revealed Himself in the Scriptures, then the proper modus operandi is to let Scripture inform and define our reality, not the other way around.  I don’t think that such an observation would be at all persuasive to Bazan, and my goal is not to “re-convert” him.  Only the Spirit can do that work.  I simply want to re-affirm some solid truths of Christian faith in the face of some real and challenging problems. 

The hard reality for Bazan is that he’s lost the type of influence he once had.  Pedro the Lion’s album Control remains one of the most prophetic albums I have ever heard (next to their other album Winners Never Quit).  By moving to agnosticism, Bazan has lost the foundation that makes his prophetic voice valid—external revelation from a higher source.  When you listen to Control, you are arrested by the penetrating cultural analysis Bazan makes, set against the backdrop of the ethics of God.  He cannot make those analyses anymore.  And it’s obvious that he doesn’t want to.  So, while Bazan continues to exert influence, it is one of a lone voice crying out in the wilderness.  Yahweh is not supplying the foundation for his words. 

The only thing I’m holding out for is that perhaps Bazan, with his songwriting in the last few years, is taking the concept of persona to new depths.  Could he be putting on a different self, so real, that even he is convinced he is who he says he is?  I think I may be scraping for that one…

*The works that have influenced me most:
John Frame, The Doctrine of God: A Theology of Lordship. Phillipsburg: P&R, 2002.
John S. Feinberg, The Many Faces of Evil: Theological Systems and the Problems of Evil. Wheaton: Crossway, 2004.
Douglas Groothuis (see his forthcoming apologetics text from IVP)
R. K. McGregor Wright, No Place for Sovereignty: What’s Wrong with Freewill Theism.  Downers Grove: IVP, 1996.

the modern worship request to "see God's face"

"I want to see Your face."  That line and derivatives thereof are a common request in modern worship songs.  We are often telling God we want to see Him.  Some notables: "In the Secret," by Andy Park: "I want to touch You, I want to see Your face." "Better is One Day," by Matt Redman (albeit from Ps 27): "One thing I ask and I would seek, to see Your beauty." "Open the Eyes of My Heart," by Paul Baloche: "Open the eyes of my heart, I want to see You." "Show Me Your Glory," by Third Day: "Send down Your presence, I want to see Your face." I myself have added a refrain to Isaac Watts' great hymn, "Come, We That Love the Lord," which reads, We have come to give You praise Almighty God, lift up our gaze Lord, we long to see Your face Won't You come and fill this place? No doubt some of my theologically conscious worship-leading buddies, especially those in the hymns movement, are rolling their eyes...maybe even furrowing their brows.  Not only have I added to the already perfect hymn of the greatest hymn-writer, I've inserted some spurious theology, capitulating to the likes of mainstreamers like the four aforementioned songwriters. The seriousness of the request of seeing God/God's face/God's beauty/God's glory (they're all pretty much the same request) was first pointed out to me by Michael Horton in a book that was very formative for my theology of worship, entitled, In the Face of God. In it, he wrote,

Any aspect of worship that attempts to take the seeker into the Holy of Holies without going through the Mediator and the sacrifice leads to judgment. Israel's faith was filled with a sense of awe and respectful distance, fearful even to spell out the divine name. his reverence stands in sharp contrast to today's 'God is rad; he's my dad' informality. We must beware of scandalous familiarity with God. Perhaps we do not know him as well as we thought we did.*

This resonated in my soul at a time of life when my view of God's power, glory, and sovereignty was rapidly expanding, concurrent with my increasing dissatisfaction with how carelessly some in the modern worship camp seemed to approach Yahweh Sabaoth.  That was the early 2000's, and I'm happy to find modern worship nowadays being steered in a direction of higher praise, loftier theology, and a more transcendent Deity.  So why have I seemingly come full circle, to the point of inserting a "face request" in one of my own songs? (Ooh...just had a revelation of a new cheesy book title: The Bible: God's Facebook...actually there's a lot of analogical substance there...anyway.) The answer is that I find "face time" with God to be a scripturally sound concept: (1) marked as a blessing of the new covenant to be fully realized at the eschaton; (2) encouraged in portions of the old covenant, where one would think such talk would be banned. Job 33:26 He prays to God and finds favor with him, he sees God's face and shouts for joy; he is restored by God to his righteous state. ~Seeing God's face here is framed in a positive light. Psalm 11:7 For the LORD is righteous, he loves justice; upright men will see his face. ~Seeing God's face is a reward for (ultimately Christ's) righteousness.  We can conclude that we who are in Christ do and will partake of that reward. Psalm 17:15 And I—in righteousness I will see your face; when I awake, I will be satisfied with seeing your likeness. ~Here the Psalmist seems to be speaking of the hope of the eschaton, and through a righteousness which is ultimately not his, but Christ's...nonetheless a moment of face-longing. Psalm 24:6 Such is the generation of those who seek him, who seek your face, O God of Jacob. ~Face-seeking is a positive thing, a habit esteemed and encouraged. Psalm 27:8 My heart says of you, "Seek his face!" Your face, LORD, I will seek. ~Much like the previous, but an even bolder claim of commitment to seek His face. Hosea 5:15 Then I will go back to my place until they admit their guilt. And they will seek my face; in their misery they will earnestly seek me. ~Repentance and the pursuit of justice, mercy, and godliness is summarized in the concept of seeking God's face.  Seeking God's face is not only a good thing, it is the right thing. 1 Cor 13:12 Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known. ~I understand that interpretive directions could lead to a variety of ends, but given the rest of the "face talk" of scripture, I see warrant to interpret at least part of "face to face" as our face and God's face. 2 Cor 3:18 And we, who with unveiled faces all reflect the Lord's glory, are being transformed into his likeness with ever-increasing glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit. Besides biblical quotations about seeking God's face, the modern worship request is backed by a biblical theology of the new covenant (see especially the book of Hebrews).  The veil is torn in the temple.  We have access to God's very throne-room through the meritorious blood of Jesus Christ.  So biblical soteriology (salvation theology) supports this kind of face talk. Christology (the study of the person of Jesus) also supports it, for in Him, we behold God incarnate, the face of the eternal One.  We read the eyewitness accounts of the gospel writers and of Paul, and by the Spirit we mysteriously behold the face of God through the Word of God. Sacramentology (a biblical understanding of the sacraments), at least for the Presbyterian/Reformed, Catholic, Lutheran, and Eastern Orthodox, also supports face talk.  For in the Lord's Supper there is a genuine communion between Christians and Christ (however that happens)--authentic "face time," seen and experienced with the spiritual eyes of faith (1 Cor 10:16). The biblical evidence, to me, is overwhelming.  Requesting and expecting the face of God not only seems to be allowable, but encouraged.  But, as Horton has reminded us, there's a scriptural balance of, in Matt Redman's words, "the friendship and the fear."  Depending on your disposition, you will be inclined toward one or the other, and your inclination will often cause you to subtly discount the other end of the spectrum.  Stately, fear-minded worshipers might scoff at face-statements as too brash, too disrespectful, too irreverent, too assuming.   Casual, face-seeking worshipers might balk at overly transcendent worship language as too distant, too cold, unworshipful, and mood-killing.  The reality, as in many instances, lies somewhere in between.  And perhaps a good marker of being somewhere in the middle is a fully authentic willingness to say or sing, "Lord, I want to see your face," while in the back of your mind remembering, "but I know that is a potentially dreadful and awesome request." Such balanced face-seeking in worship actually makes the face-seeking all the more rich and meaningful.  It ups the ante of the request instead of cheapening the manifest presence of the Almighty One.  It's my hope that we all can grow in seeking God's face together. ----------------------- *Michael Horton, In the Face of God (Dallas: Word Publishing, 1996), 16-17.

Click to read more ...