Seperation.

I'm baaaack. Not much surprise there.

On my mind today is marriage. Actually, marriage is on my mind on a regular basis, as anyone who knows me and my girl would know; today, my specific thought is on the topic of marriage in relation to separation of Church and State. This is not a thought I spontaneously came up with, it's more what I would consider a suggestion to a blog written by a buddy of mine, Kevin, who was responding to a blog post by Tony Jones, a prominent pastor in the Emerging Church movement. Now Kevin and myself agree on many theological issues as far as I am aware, and neither one of us is usually in agreement with Tony Jones or that movement in general, but Jones did bring up a legitimate point in his blog.

In that blog post, he stated that he believes that pastors should give up the right to perform legal marriages. For Kevin's comment on the post, click here. The point in question is that while we are commanded by Romans 13 to obey the government as far as is possible, it is hard to challenge it when necessary when you are an agent of said government, which is exactly what clergy and the church becomes when you are granted the power to legitimize legal marriages.

Now, I will not go out of my way to fully explain what the others articulated in their posts, since it would be easier for you to go and read them yourselves. But I do have a suggestion as to a possible solution, and I'll leave it to you reading to decide its merit and comment accordingly, since this was a random, spontaneous thought while headbanging to As I Lay Dying. It would go as follows:

(In case you didn't notice, I do enjoy numbers and lists)

1. Obtain a legal marriage license.

Since we are to obey the government, a couple would go to a Justice and become legally married.

2. Enter into Sacramental marriage.

Obviously, what culture defines as a marriage and what scripture defines as a marriage differ. Therefore, after becoming legally married, the couple would have a sacramental wedding. What I would propose (and I realize this may all seem horribly redundant to state but in case it isn't I'm posting it anyways) is that the couple would go through the wedding ceremony the same as they do, except instead of signing a marriage license, they would sign, along with the pastor and usual witnesses, a covenant agreement for their marriage, much like churches do with those becoming members. In the covenant would be the agreement on what the Bible defines as true sacramental marriage, the Biblical definitions of the roles in marriage, each spouse's responsibilities to the other, and agreeing to open themselves to church discipline in their marriage if needed.

Now obviously this is a little rough, unspecific, and I'm sure there are many "what if"s and "what about"s that could arise from this process, particularly since I mentioned nothing about the processes leading up to marriage, but that is, in a sense, why I'm posting this in the first place: feedback.

The Regulative Principle

On my prior post I talked about worship idolatry and it brought up what is called the Regulative Principle of worship. To those who don't know, the Regulative Principle is one of two possible principles held by Bible-believing Christians that regulates what we can and cannot do in gathered worship settings (Church services). They are the Regulative and Normative principles. They're defined as follows:

Regulative: In church services, only that which is commanded in scripture, or that which is a good and necessary implication of a Biblical text, is allowed in organizing a service, and nothing more. (i.e. communion per 1 Corinthians 11:23-26, prayer per 1 Tim 2:8 as one example)

Normative: In church services, what God commands is to be be done, but as long as something is not forbidden by scripture it can, by the discernment of the leadership, be practiced in gathered church services.

Many debates have been made on this issue, with the question being which should we follow? My personal answer to the question of whether I agree with the Regulative or Normative principle is: Yes.

Not A or B.

Yes.

Why? Because I think they are the two halves of one answer and are much closer together than the extremists on either side will often recognize or admit. At least if defined properly. One defines the means and the other the methods. The Bible holds both commands and principles to follow in regards to how a service, and life in general, is to be conducted. Are we to sing in celebration? Yes. (Ps. 96:1) Are we to pray? Yes. (Eph. 6:18) Is there to be preaching of the word? Yes. (2 Tim. 4:1-2) There are many things that, in principle and by command, we are to incorporate into the service. Likewise, there are things which are forbidden in worship to God, such as copying specific religious rituals from other religions (Deuteronomy 12:30-31). In this way, we hold to the Regulative Principle of worship.

However, while we do get many principles and commands from scripture, many of the commands are not very specific as to their practice, and the principles do not give specific methods. Those who adhere to a strict Regulative Principle say that if the Bible doesn't explicitly say what to do, we shouldn't do it. But this presents a few problems. For example, we do not have a fully detailed, practical example of a New Testament temple meeting by which to measure our own meetings by. And while we are told to sing, what do we sing? What instruments do we use? Exactly how long should the preaching be? What time should services start? How many people make a most effective community setting? In the example of singing, we are told to sing to God psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs (Col. 3:16) while told elsewhere to sing to the Lord a "new song". (Ps 96:1) So how do we decide which, how long, and with what? If we hold to a strict form of the principle, we're stuck. Also, consider the following: the Bible does not mention anywhere chairs, organs, greeters, suits, ties, or children's care/nurseries. So, by that definition, any church that contains any of the above things is unbiblical.

So how do we get these cultural adaptations to scriptural principles?

The Normative Principle. The faithful applying of a biblical command or principle culturally adapted to the situation at hand. If we realize we have the freedom to apply the scriptures faithfully within different cultures so long as scripture does not forbid it, we have the new space available to move around as would best suit the forward movement of the Gospel. We have the opportunity to contextualize within culture to reach as many as possible, as Paul did upon Mars Hill, while still remain faithful to the scriptures. Like with the other principle, some take it too far and begin filling their services with meaningless forms of entertainment (is there a way to justify a mime in a service?), or confusing the priorities as to which should hold more ground in a service (i.e. the church that shortens its sermons to make room for a drama).

In saying all of this, I believe there are things we can remember in order to remain faithful and relevant at the same time.

1. Worship is God-focused, not people-focused.

Our worship is not about what gives us the most pleasure or what we would necessarily enjoy or be entertained by. It is our response to the realization of the gospel, of our forgiveness of sins by Christ dying on the cross, and the expression of the joy that is brought with the realization and fruitition of this amazing truth. Therefore, our decisions must always be dictated by the question, "what will glorify God the most," then diving into Scripture and prayer to find what God has said will do so most effectively. This realization is, I believe, what will mainly help avoid a misunderstanding of cultural contextualization, and will keep us from sacrificing faithfulness for being "hip", which is the common over-reaction of the Normative Principle. Like Deuteronomy 12:8 says, worship is not "everyone doing whatever is right in his own eyes."

2. Worship is a life-consuming responsibility and activity.

What we do in a service is simply a continuation of what has occurred during the rest of the week. To quote a well-known pastor, worship is a lifestyle. Therefore, we cannot live by one set of rules during the week and another set on Sunday. The problem with strict Regulative Principle adherents is that they betray their own philosophy by misunderstanding the principle of worship itself. What we do on Sunday should not differ from our lives the other 6 days of the week, and during the rest of the week these people, at least I'd hope, brush their teeth, drive a car, use a computer, wear socks and pants, and use deodorant, none of which is even mentioned in scripture. We cannot be hypocrites, living one way during the week and another on Sunday. All of life is worship, regardless of what day it is on. Therefore, we should treat all worship with the same reverence and guidelines, no matter whether we are with the church singing on Sundays or home alone taking a shower.

3. Just because a freedom is abused does not mean we should abandon it, but rather redeem it and use it as God intended.

In a world filled with sinful human beings, everything, whether it is neutral or good on its own, will be abused in some form. All the freedoms we are given in Christ, be it worship style, alcohol, sex, or money, will be abused in some sense by someone. Often times, these abuses are made popular and many fall in line, believing they are just "exercising their freedom in Christ" even when their actions are explicitly forbidden by scripture. But that does not mean we should villify and/or abandon them. For hyper-liberals, scriptural principles are abused and abandoned, including biblical male eldership, church discipline, sound theology, and even the authority of Scripture itself. For hyper-Conservatives, the cultural contextualization of the gospel is often abused and abandoned, including such things as the use of alcohol, music style and taste, clothing, the entertainment industry, and even dialect.* Just because something, including a freedom, is abused does not mean we abandon it, but rather we seek to do the work of the Gospel in redeeming the whole world, and take that which has been defiled and redeem it and use it as God originally intended.

*While one might say that the former is more serious than the latter, may I suggest that if God deemed the New Testament to be written in Koine Greek, the language of the common man, and to include verses from Roman mythology, it should be safe to say that God values the contextualization of His gospel. Also, both lead to equally perverse forms of religion: License, where we value culture over conviction and do whatever we want, allowing ourselves to be our own gods, and Legalism, where we begin making rules and standards not found anywhere in the Bible, and begin enforcing them, relying on things other than the cross to redeem us, and the fruit of the Spirit to identify us.

4. Our ultimate allegiance and identity must never be to a specific denomination, worship style, teacher, or church building, but to Christ first and foremost.

One of the biggest problems between theologies and denominations is the common mistake of human beings to idolize their church, their pastor, their style, or that denomination, and make it so that they alone have the ultimate connection to Christ and everyone else is either wrong, or altogether demonic, even if they agree on the foundational truths of scripture. While it is okay to identify with a specific theological group, pastor, style, or denomination, we must be defined above all as Christian, as a "mini-Christ", and have the humility to not make secondary issues primary issues in regards to theology. Far too often we have the tendency to define ourselves as "Calvinists" or "Arminians" or "Baptists" or "Catholics", and when we define ourselves primarily by that, we make it easier to demonize other Jesus-loving, Bible-believing Christians. There is always room for debate and discussion, but on the secondary issues there are no good reasons to divide and demonize. Even Paul, when asked about those preaching Christ out of selfish ambition and rivalry, said that "whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is proclaimed, and in that I rejoice." (Philippians 1:18)

So, do I believe the Regulative Principle is good? In the sense where it requires scripture to be our conscience when defining our worship, including our large gatherings. And I believe the Normative Principle is also good, allowing us the freedom to contextualize in order to reach as many peoples as possible. In fact, it would be safe to say that when properly understood, these positions are much more parallel than either side might think. Whaddya think Mark? :P

My Biggest Problem With Pentecostalism That Maybe Shouldn't Be, At Least Not Personally

I was at work recently, and my mind happened to wander back to a specific situation I found myself in. Here was I, sitting in a car on a ride to Hamilton along with two of my cousins Nairn and Sherry, and a friend of my cousin from her church who the three of us were dropping off on the way to my other cousin, Carry's house for a Christmas party.

The interesting piece of information?

I was the lone Reformed guy in a car full of full-on Pentecostals.

Charismatic prophecy, miracles, speaking in tongues Pentecostals.

Talk about a fish out of water.

Some background information on me pertaining to this situation: my experience in the charismatic spiritual gifts is VERY limited, and outside of scriptural study on them I've never really experienced, in my opinion, a truly Biblical expression of the more flamboyant gifts. I do believe they still exist and are used by God, and I am most certainly not what one today would consider a culturally conservative Calvinist. I love metal music, a good pint of beer, I smoke, and I like more mainstream movies and music than Christian (I often say that Christian music is an oxymoron), and yet I do love my theology, believing that orthodoxy does lead to orthopraxy. Under today's definitions, I would most likely be grouped in what is called today the New Calvinism. Yet the gifts themselves tend to make me a little nervous, since according to Biblical standards, I have yet to see a true, Bible-guided expression of those specific gifts.

Back to the story.

Halfway to Guelph, where we were dropping this other young lady off to an evening service, I started chuckling. My cousin Nairn saw me and immediately laughed as well, since she knows my stance, and, in that creepy, family-way, can tell almost immediately what was running through my head. Our respective theological positions are not a secret, as we have talked extensively at times about mine and her respective positions on the gifts, and have, thankfully, been able to disagree agreeably, with respect still held on both sides. But of course, our laughing catches the attention of our fellow riders.

When my cousin, Sherry, inquires as to our seemingly-out-of-nowhere fit of laughing, and I respond, "I'm just rather amused that I'm the lone Reformer in a car full of Pentecostals." Sherry begins to laugh, as does our fellow rider (whose name I cannot remember). Up until this point things were good.

Then our unnamed compatriot, who had been rather untalkative for most of the trip, started talking. And while most of what she said I cannot now remember for the life of me, one particular sentence rattled my bones in a way few things often do:

"It's just too bad you aren't able to freely worship God."

(Cue the oooohhhhh's and "oh boy"s from those who know anything about my personality and my feisty opinionated-ness)

When I began to inquire (not quite so calmly) as to the reason why my specific Calvinistic convictions limited my ability to worship, I got little response, as she had launched into a crusade right there in the car, praying and rambling words I couldn't quite catch, as my two cousins up in the front seat were nearly in tears from laughing so hard at the scene emerging from the back seat.

Thankfully, the length of the ride from her comment to dropping her off at the church was less than a minute. Otherwise, I was feeling rather tempted top grab her shoulders, try to shake her senses back so that we could have an actual discussion, and proceed to completely grill her into a corner as best as I could, which probably would not have been very Christ-like...or maybe. Jesus had a good freak out every now and then, so maybe I could have somehow justified myself as to my desire to scream the air clear of Charismaniacism.

Now, I do not dislike Pentecostals, nor do I hold a grudge or consider them unChristian. Me and my cousin Nairn get along great and, while jokes are sent both ways on the issue, we do respect each other. My roommate, who has become one of my best friends and a dude I insanely enjoy and respect, in Bible College, is, or at least was raised Pentecostal. I've even written a blog critiquing what I consider to be great strengths of the Pentecostal movement while mentioning my concerns. But there is still something about it, often times my seeing a service, that almost provokes a nervous twitch.

And it is all summed up in that one sentence:

"It's just too bad you aren't able to freely worship God."

Why am I not able to freely worship? Because I don't expect a healing of every disease and ailment while we're still in this age? Because I can't prophesy on command? Because I speak in a legible tongue and not in something that, quite frankly, sounds like a bunch of drunks at happy hour trying to mimmic an African tribe? (no disrespect to those who may actually have the gift, I'm talking about the churches who practically command everyone in service to do so) The fact that I don't dance around with a praise banner shaking a tambourine looking like Jefferey in 12 Monkeys?

Okay, breathe Eric.

I'm not even going to go into what I consider wrong with the specific theology of worship they present. (Nope. Not gonna go there. Not gonna whip out 1 Corinthians 14:23. Not going to. Nope. Not gonna. No. Uh Uh. No.)

*Sigh.*

Here is my primary beef:

It's worship idolatry.

It's taking a specific type of worship (Pentecostal, Baptist, etc), and proclaiming it to be THE way to worship, THE best way to commune with God, and "if you don't do things the way we do

then you're not worshipping fully", which often has undertones of "you're not getting as close to God as I am". Hogwash. Bull****. Crap. Take whichever term you prefer and ignore the one(s) you don't.

That's placing the means before the end. That's taking the way to commune with the Father out of the mediation Christ by the ability of the Holy Spirit and placing it in a style, or a song choice, or the music volume. Like how high you jump or how loud you sing or scream or whether you can or can't babble incoherently in a crowd, like someone put too many poprocks on your tongue. (Insert another exhalation here) It's completely inconsistent with Christ, who says that HE is the only way to the Father.

I've seen this more blatantly in Charismatic churches than anywhere else. Which is why I often have a problem with Pentecostalism in general. But I know I cannot get too worked up. The same exists in Lutheran, Wesleyan, Catholic, Baptist traditions, and, yes, even my own treasured Reformed (or Reformissional, 'cause it sounds catchier) tradition. In fact, thinking about it now, many non-Charismatic traditions do the same thing, many are just more subtle about it. Thus my extended comment as to why I should not just have a problem with Pentecostals, or at least personally.

I spent so much time relishing in relaying the story that most of my steam has been blown out to follow it up, but I think that's all I want to say. Now I'm craving relish. And a hot dog. And salad dressing. And onio-*fades out into the distance*

*He's gone.*