Contemporay vs. Traditional Worship: What's the Real Issue

We've come to a point in time when a lot of churches will focus their sermons and worship not on the Word of God, but rather how it makes the individual feel. So instead of God being the center of our worship services, He becomes secondary to our emotions. Our goal is not "God be glorified," it is "I want to experience emotions and feelings that make me feel good."

So the question should not be whether or not a worship service is "contemporary" or "traditional." Is it God-centered? Is the worship and sermon outlined by what the Bible says or emotion-driven? We should be singing songs, hymns, and spiritual songs that are based on the Word of God: which weeds out the theology of Jesus being someone's homeboy and removes the confusion of whether or not a certain song is about a girlfriend or Jesus.

The Outside Looking In

I just recently came across an opinion section of the New York Times that was titled Religion and Women. I saw it on my Google News page with a 2-sentence theme to the section: "Religions derive their power and popularity in part from the ethical compass they offer. So why do so many faiths help perpetuate something that most of us regard as profoundly unethical: the oppression of women?" While I do strongly disagree with the suppression of women, I figured this would have a liberal's spin on Christianity and how he thinks it's intolerant towards women...and sure enough I was right. Here's a link to the news article

It is unfortunate that so many people will use portions of Scripture to justify numerous ungodly things, like Westboro Baptist displaying a "God Hates Fags" sign on the street corner, or blowing up abortion clinics, or treating women like second-class citizens. But does the Bible really promote the suppression of women like this guy Nick Kristof thinks?

He first quotes Jimmy Carter and talks about how he hates the suppression of women, that religion contributes to this wrongdoing. Interestingly enough, Jimmy Carter also pushed that women should be pastors and leaders in the church, in which the Scriptures do forbid but the justification for that will be explained later on (and it isn't because women are inferior).

I'll be honest and blunt here: non-Christians seem to love passing judgment on the Christian faith, while if we try and defend our position we get called intolerant and told not to judge people...interesting paradox. True, biblical Christianity is almost never what is truly critiqued by those not in the faith, and this leads to many misconceptions as to what Christianity is and is about. And of course they don't believe in the inerrancy and infallibility of Scripture, which is why they scoff and laugh at certain parts (which they take out of context and twist to suit their own passions).

For example, this Kristof guy quotes part of 1 Timothy 2, and has no idea of the model of how the church here on earth should be run. He says "The New Testament quotes St. Paul (I Timothy 2) as saying that women 'must be silent.'" And he just leaves it there, doesn't mention the context or anything...and so any reader of this guy might say, "Oh he's right, it does say that, and therefore Christianity is intolerant and oppressive." I'd be willing to say this is academic dishonesty since he obviously didn't do his homework on this section of Scripture, and since he also didn't quote the entire verse. It's not saying women aren't ever to speak; Paul said, "Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness." Paul is instructing Timothy as to how the church must be run, and here he is telling the women that if they disagree with some doctrine, that they are to ask their husbands rather than just blatantly argue and disagree.

Kristof goes on to say "In fairness, many scholars believe that Paul did not in fact write the passages calling on women to be silent." Oh really? Interestingly enough, the apostle Peter had something to say about this sort of thing:

[15] And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, [16] as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures. [17] You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, take care that you are not carried away with the error of lawless people and lose your own stability. [18] But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be the glory both now and to the day of eternity. Amen. - 2 Peter 3:14-18

It wasn't but a few decades when people were misusing the Scriptures that Paul wrote, so it's no surprise that men are doing it today...and for scholars to just say, "Oh Paul didn't really write that" is not because of historical authenticity but rather from personal emotions and feelings. They think he could not have written that because it's divisive. Scripture isn't the issue here, it's non-Christians thinking that they know how to interpret the Bible. Read 1 Corinthians 2 and Paul says that those who aren't saved don't have the Spirit of God in them, and therefore can't understand the things of God because they're spiritually discerned. (They probably hate that portion on the Bible too, maybe Paul didn't write that either)

Okay, I'm done talking about the article, and now I'm gonna wrap this up.

Once Adam and Eve fell in the garden of Eden, the entire world was thrown into confusion and is tainted with sin. Adam and Eve were created to have a perfect relationship with God, yet they disobeyed Him and caused every human being to be born with a sinful nature. God created animals, with humans being in complete control of them--ever wondered why animals attack people now? May seem weird, but the fall in Genesis 3 is the answer. Humans were to have dominion over every thing on earth, to be in complete control of it all, but that's been lost. Since things aren't perfect here anymore, we're all subject to various frustrations. No relationship here on Earth will be perfect, and this is why many numerous people find fault with how the Christian woman is supposed to act when it comes to marriage. Read Ephesians 5 and you'll see that in fact the husband is given more instruction than the wife. The wife is to submit (love and respect) her husband, while the husband is to love her and lay down his life to her. So there is submission on both parts, just like every Christian is called to submit to one another out the reverence of Christ.

Please read everything in context, especially the Bible, before you start making unwise, uneducated statements, Christians and non-Christians.

Solid Preaching--Where Are You? (A Plea for Pastors, A Wake-Up Call for Laymen)

This audience for this note is twofold: preaching ministers, and Christians who sit and hear preaching (which should be all).

If one day God grants me to have children, one thing I look forward to is reading to them. Children love stories. Let's say one night I read them Green Eggs and Ham. They know the story from beginning to end, since it's rather short. But let's say they want to hear it again the next night...imagine if I continued reading them the book, not from cover to cover, but rather I told them topics that the book brings up and use parts to show how it fits. And imagine I did this every single time they wanted to hear it...they would be bored after awhile, and would soon just say, "Daddy, let me just the read it myself."

Unfortunately, in our time, most preaching our day has become simply topical--taking an idea, and then just going to the Bible to prove it. Now, is there anything wrong with this method? No, because if a pastor wants to talk about prayer, he can go to various scriptures to talk about it. But, what's become of our day is taking this method to the extreme...in some churches this method happens every single Sunday--and just like my little example in the beginning, I believe it eventually just bores the listeners.

In his autobiography, George Muller said "The expounding of the Scriptures is in general more beneficial to the hearers than if, on a single verse, or half a verse, or two or three words of a verse some remarks are made, so that the portion of Scripture is scarcely anything but a motto for the subject." Here's what I'm trying to get at:

I heard a pastor in Georgia use 1 Corinthians 2:9 as his text for the sermon "But, as it is written, 'What no eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor the heart of man imagined, what God has prepared for those who love him.'" And he used this text to talk about why we should be passionate about life. Now, go and read all of 1 Corinthians 2--you will not find Paul talking about why we should be passionate about life--but you will find Paul discussing the work of the Spirit:

• verses 1-5: Paul is telling them he didn't preach to them with eloquent speech to try and seduce them into believing the Gospel, but it was the Holy Spirit speaking through him.

• verses 6-16: Paul explains the wisdom that comes from the Spirit. Christians gain understanding, wisdom, and are led by God through the work of the Spirit. Those who aren't Christians do not have the Holy Spirit, and thus cannot understand the things of God.

Now how in the world does a pastor think he can he get his congregation passionate about life, yet use the Bible incorrectly to do so? Everything in me wanted to go up to the pastor and explain why I believe he misused the Scriptures...but I think I was too hot-headed at that particular moment and didn't want to say anything I'd regret and/or hurt a fellow brother. But this type of preaching is just wrong, and this is when topical preaching is too relaxing.

Preachers, please refrain from this and look at every verse in context to make sure that you are applying them correctly. Everyone else, be on guard to make sure what you're hearing from the pulpit is actually biblical. Acts 17 records a particular people group, Bereans, examining the Scriptures to see if Paul and Silas were teaching correctly. Let us all have the mindset of the Bereans.