Category: Worship

top view of a family praying before christmas dinner

Notes on Venema’s “Children and the Lord’s Supper,” Part 3, Children in the Old Testament.

On December 1, 2024

In Bible, Church, Covenant, Holiness, Reformed Theology, sacraments, Worship

Venema fails to account for the nature of the transition from the Old to the New Testament.

I pass over some of Venema’s other work as it stands or falls based on other assumptions. However, it is worth examining some of Venema’s assumptions as he walks through the Old Testament. He mentions a number of things concerning the Old Testament that he believes paedo-communionists have not adequately thought through in applying the Old Testament to the New. I found it helpful that he points these out, because in reflection on these, we have a better basis for paedo-communion and how it ought to be practiced than we would otherwise.

I find Venema’s discussion of the Old Testament quite interesting because he recognizes the weakness of a credo communionist argument from the Old Testament. He continually appeals to New Testament realities. Much of his time is spent seeking to undermine paedo-communionist appeals to the Old Testament, but he doesn’t build much of a case for his beliefs in his chapter on the Old Testament.

Venema seems to believe that a great deal of the paedo communion approach is based on an understanding of the Old Testament, mostly focussing on the Old Testament practice around Passover. Considering the time in which it was written; this is probably fair.

However, I am surprised that Venema does not acknowledge that a prominent paedo communionist like Tim Gallant makes his primary argument from the New Testament.

Yet even so, if the Old Testament is paedo communion and the New Testament is credo communion, there must be clear evidence that the New Testament is breaking from the Old Testament. Meanwhile, if the Old Testament is credo communion and the New Testament is paedo, there must also be some good evidence for the move in that direction as well.

However, Venema gives us some limited arguments for his position from the Old Testament. Venema’s arguments focus on the natural limitations and exceptions that were prevalent among Israel; he also argues from the hierarchies of holiness that existed among Israel, allowing only priests to participate in some meals, along with laws about cleanliness that would have only permitted some to participate in various feasts, and finally, Venema argues from historical records, that demonstrate it was not necessarily common among the Jews to have small children participating in many of their festivals.

Evidence for natural limitations that caused exclusion

Israel’s men are commanded to attend the three main festivals in Deuteronomy, while the women and children do not have to come. This is important to Venema because the children are not commanded to come.

Venema fails to understand how communities work.

Sometimes, natural limitations prevent the immediate obedience of a command. God does not ignore the ability of individuals when he calls them to obedience. He does not assume that we are superhuman. The law of God assumes ordinary ability, the measure of grace that is in you. When Israel is spread throughout all the land, even though all have the right, they do not all have the necessity of coming. It is those who have the most natural ability to come to the feasts who are commanded to come. Yet all Israel still has the right to those feasts even if it is the men who are commanded to come.

It’s similar to a tiny suckling baby. The baby does have the right to the table, but not the ability.

Let me give an analogy. When you are circumcised, we are told that you are bound to the whole law, everything in it, yet some of the laws do not make sense to even command a two-year-old. “You shall not commit adultery” means nothing at that time, and yet the two-year-old is bound to the whole law anyway. He cannot tithe, and he cannot observe the Sabbath, but he is taught to tithe and observe the Sabbath as soon as possible, when he is physically able to do those things because he is bound to the whole law. I could go on.

The point is that there is not some special ritual he has to go through to participate in these things, but he is taught all along according to his capacity to obey these things. He is not barred because he does not entirely understand their significance yet. He does not need training to practice these things; he is taught to practice these things as soon as he can. He is taught through practice and participation, not in order to participate.

It is the same with Baptism. Paul says in Romans 6 that in baptism, we are bound to Christ and his righteousness. Therefore, we are bound to believe and to act according to belief. Therefore, babies are bound to the call “to pray without ceasing. We don’t force babies to pray before they can speak. But as soon as they can speak, we teach them how to pray. And we consider their prayers real. They matter to God.

It’s similar to the table: we don’t force the baby to eat or drink before he can drink, but as soon as he can eat or drink, we encourage him to come to the table. And yet that means something different to a 2-year-old, a 10-year-old and a 25-year-old. The 60-year-old potentially understands the significance of this far more than the 30-year-old and yet ultimately, each one is a baby in obedience compared to the fullness of the righteousness in Christ.

The question follows: We bind our children to righteousness in baptism, but we dare not give them the spiritual food God has provided, to strengthen them in the faith that produces righteousness?

The point is, God knows our human limitations when he binds us to himself. His instruction takes into account those human limitations. That is the point in the exceptions that are given for the feast in the Old Testament. We don’t need to travel to Jerusalem anymore to participate in temple feasts. Jesus is in heaven and is available everywhere through his Spirit, the same limitations do not apply. Yet even then, he is patient and tells us to live in obedience according to the measure of grace given to each individual and to the physical abilities that through his grace he has given to each member of the church.

The problem with the Jews’ historical application

The fact that Jews used these limitations later to refuse the children participation in various feasts is no point in the favor of a Profession of Faith. Yet Venema uses the history we know of the intertestamental Jewish people to demonstrate a line by which he will prove the good of Profession of Faith.

Do you ever wonder why Jesus had to teach his disciples to receive children in Matthew 18 and 19? It wasn’t because the Jews had decided to stop circumcising children. They knew they were in the covenant just as the reformed do. And it’s possible that just like the reformed, they were not taking that seriously. The reformed saw the natural limitations of a child’s expression of faith and decided they could not be at the table. The Jews saw the exceptions for limitations in the Old Testament and turned that into a rule.

Divisions of Holiness and Baptism

That brings us to our final point here, the way Venema uses the lines of holiness within Judaism to demonstrate his point. Holiness was hierarchical in Judaism. The priests had to go through endless washing and sacrifices to remain pure before God so that they could represent the people. God spoke through persons because the work of the Spirit and holy spaces and holy persons were more limited.

The New Covenant brought an end to these distinctions between groups. The priests’ food is now available to all. In Hebrews, we are even told that we eat of a sacrifice they (old covenant believers) had no right to eat. The author is likely referring to the offering on the day of atonement, which was a sacrifice that was not eaten. Christians have a right to that offering. Christians have a right to everything in Christ. The distinctions that divided high priests from priests from Levites and Israelites are gone. The distinctions that divided men from women and Gentile believers from Israelites are gone. The Eunuch and the Gentile, through faith and baptism, may find flourishing in Christ.

One significant aspect that Venema misses is baptism itself. He makes the same mistake that some paedo communionists make in too strongly correlating the Passover and the Lord’s Supper, with the institutions of circumcision and baptism. Yes, baptism replaces circumcision, but baptism has its own story in the Old Testament. Baptism is going through the flood and through the Red Sea. Baptism includes all the washings of the Old Testament. Baptism incorporates all the various anointings and purifications.

Thus, baptism is an anointing, “You have been anointed by the Holy One, and therefore you know all things.” You are a holy priesthood. That means even more now, than in the Old Testament, because, we are all priests now. There is no division between one group of people that is ritually more holy and another group that is less holy. We all have the anointing of prophet, priest, and king, though babies do not yet exercise it in the same way adults do.

Baptism is a purification that does not need to be repeated. While Israel had to go through all types of washings to prepare herself for various festivals, we only need one washing. Yes, we must continue to live in repentance, but objectively speaking we have the one washing that proclaims forgiveness for all our sins, and declares that we are part of the New Creation. Yes, we must respond in faith. That is something we must continue to do all our lives.

In Old Testament Israel, the need for cleansing was a limiting factor in attending feasts. The Israelite had to go through various washings in order to attend the feast. When we say that washing happens once ad for all in, that means that the one who is baptized into Christ is always clean, always ready to participate in the feast. What are we doing when we deny the full reality of that baptism by refusing those who have not expressed their faith yet to join in the feast. They are washed! In Christ, all things and all persons are clean! “As many as have been baptized into Christ, have put on Christ!”

Yet Venema is very cautious in affirming these aspects of the New Covenant. And that seems to have more to do with his desire to preserve the ritual of profession of faith, rather than a desire to deny these aspects. He wants to use these Old Testament divisions to bring in some formal divisions into the new covenant, divisions between two groups among the people of God, albeit in a much milder form. With him, we affirm that there remains a division between those who are people of God and those who are not people of God, and with him, we affirm that those who, by their belief and practice, deny God ought not be brought to the table. The church is to purge the evil one from their midst.

Why does he need to add another division? We will shortly discover why in our last point, but for now, the onus is on him to find this other division in the pages of the New Testament.

So we see that reflection on Venema’s questions about the exceptions made for festivals, the holiness divisions in the Old Testament, and the history of the application of the Old Testament in Jewish Communities, actually strengthens the case for a fuller welcome to all members to the meal of God, including small children.

Another side note

Venema suggests in certain places that the paedo-communionist approach will produce a laxity of discipline in the church. I would argue that discipline will be more effective. For here, the discipline of the church, especially in separating you from the table, is questioning your status in Christ; that is what removing you from the table is. Yet in a church that practices Profession of Faith, you always have a group within the church who do not have access to the table and yet are marked as Christians. This is strange.

The significance of communicant membership means that the leaders of the church have to take it seriously and use it well. That means the man or woman who receives discipline has to take it seriously.

Too often people are disciplined for not being reformed when they should be disciplined for not being Christian. Discipline is not about whether you have access to one sect of Christianity, it is about access to Christ. It is the opening and closing of the kingdom of heaven.

From a paedo-communion perspective, removal from the table and ex-communication is far more significant than it is for many today. In a credo-communionist setting there is always a group who has some sort of halfway status, whether it is children and sometimes Christians from other traditions. The table is no longer Christ’s table but the table of some sect.

Notes on Venema’s, “Children at the Lord’s Supper:” Part 2, Faith and the Church Fathers.

By James

On November 28, 2024

In Bible, Church, Covenant, History, Reformed Theology, sacraments, Worship

2. Venema fails to consider the various ways the church fathers may have conceived of faith.

In line with this, he fails to account for other contextual readings, prioritizing his own reading as obvious because he has already assumed his conclusion.
As a side note, reading this response alongside the book is beneficial as I do not fully reproduce what I am responding to.

The quotes from the church fathers that Venema provides can be made to align with a paedo-communion position just as easily as the credo-communion position. Venema assumes his conclusion. To be fair, I do the same. In my estimation, I’m more honest about it.

Venema’s failure to understand the role of faith at the supper continues as he turns to the church fathers. He assumes that the fathers have the same account of faith that he takes for granted. Venema also fails to understand how the context of these quotes does not necessarily support what he wants to make of them.

The comment on faith should be clarified. It is common among the reformed to make intellectual assent a part of faith, and it is assumed that babies do not have the rationality to express faith. That is why the reformed, when speaking of faith in infants, preferred to use phrases like “the principle of faith,” “the root of faith,” or “an inclination to faith.” They often forget that the fundamental meaning of the word faith is simply trust, which babies, as well as adults, can express. This faith expresses itself very differently in the infant, whose reason is not yet formed, than in the adult. We can even say that in the adult, this rational or intellectual element is necessary, for as the scriptures say: let each act according to the measure of grace that is in him.

The worst effect of this sort of reasoning is that faith becomes ideological. Faith in Christ becomes equated with any number of propositional truths or system one must hold before the come to the table of Christ. While this is undoubtedly part of faith, the danger of the practice of Profession of Faith is that this faith becomes boiled down to an ideology.

This reality causes me to wonder whether the current state of denominationalism is not in part due to a natural working out of the doctrine of Profession of Fatih. Each denomination finds a way to quantify the level of ideological purity they need at their table, making the table no longer Christ’s table but that denomination’s table, to the degree that some will recognize that there are many other Christians out there but because of they do not hold to that particular denomination’s or federation’s ideology they are refused the table of the Lord. This makes the table the table of a particular sect of the church rather than the Lord’s table.

I am not denying the importance of knowledge or propositional truth in the church’s public confession. I am merely making a note of how the practice of Profession of Faith might have worked out the relative importance of that aspect of the church’s life sociologically. Paedo-communion suggests a different sociology that might even take a form that is more similar (it will never be the same) to how the 3^rd and 4^th century church functioned. I merely suggest. It may take a form not seen yet, as well. The latter is the more likely outcome.

Neither do I argue these things because I am anti-intellectual or I don’t love reason. These are wonderful gifts of God to us. I merely state that the reformed overemphasized the role of reason in such a way so that they could not see that faith could be properly attributed to infants. Here they failed to deal with the biblical evidence already offered above.

I admit to reading through the lines, but Venema’s assumptions about the meanings behind the quotes from various fathers of the church fail to account for the different ways in which they used the term faith. Justin Martyr says only those may come to the table who are living as Christ has called them too. If Justin Martyr is working with the assumptions I have argued for, this has nothing to do with Venema’s argument. Similar arguments can be made about the other quotes. Venema seems to assume that a call to faith and a call to examine is the same as making those prerequisites to the table. Similar things can be said about the more stylized quotes that reflect on the journey of the Christian to the table.

A second thing that Venema does not allow for is that some of these quotes are given to the congregation as a whole and, as such, are given to the whole congregation and received according to age and capacity. I looked up the quote from Clement in the Stromata, for example, and that is the very thing Clement is doing, arguing that in the Christian life, a man ought to continue to examine himself as he walks on the path of righteousness, and he uses the call to examine one’s self from 1 Corinthians 11 as such an example. If Venema is right about 1 Corinthians 11, he may be right about Clement. If Venema is wrong about 1 Corinthians 11, he is likely wrong about Clement.

Another thing that Venema does not make us aware of is the new adult members that are likely coming into the church of Jesus Christ at the time and are also in the mind of the fathers. They certainly would have needed to express an age and capacity-appropriate faith before coming to the Lord’s Supper.

Finally, Venema fails to understand the strong role of typology among the fathers. For example, the quote from Origen that refers to the status of the children in the Old Testament as one of being under a tutor. Origen is tying us, the Christians, into that history. Historically, we were once children, and now, in Christ, we are adults. If we were to take this type of typology and woodenly apply it to the Christian journey in the New Covenant, would we say that small babies are under the law and then when they profess their faith, they are under grace?

Similar things can be said about the quote from the author of the Syrian Didascalia. Once again, we have a stylized quote that summarizes the journey of the Christian life. I imagine that the author is thinking of Hebrews 5 and 6 in the background and equates participation in the meal as eating solid food. If we actually look at Hebrews 5 and 6, the author of Hebrews is speaking to a group of adults, and these adults are given the milk of the word. That does not mean that they did not participate of the sacrament. The sacrament pointed them toward the more solid food of good works. In fact, the author of the Syrian Didascalia here is thinking in the following terms: You are brought into the New Creation through baptism, and in the New Creation, you are fed by word and sacrament. Word first, and then sacrament. Here, we have a logical order that does not need to reflect a temporal order.

If we take this seriously regarding temporal order, are we to prevent baptized adults from being at the table for a while?

A second way to look at this quote is even more straightforward. It is simply a description or list of all the things that are begun in you and continue to happen, whether it is the making new through water or the feeding with the spirit and the word, or admonitions, or the sacrament. Again, Venema assumes a lot when deriving a logical and temporal order from this quote.

Even in his mild conclusions (Venema will qualify with things like “probably”), Venema is not careful enough. He doesn’t allow for the idea that the church fathers may speak out of a very different worldview than his own. I don’t say this proves paedo-communion in the very early church. I only say that Venema is far more free with his explanations of these quotes than he ought to be. He has already assumed his conclusion while working through these quotes.

My conclusion is that Paedo communion was likely common in the early church, as much as from other emphases in the fathers about baptism and the body of Christ and the connection between baptism and full participation in Christ, but I recognize that I believe that, in part, because the teaching is so evident in scripture.

I am also not bothered if I am wrong about one or two of these quotes. Scholars today emphasize the diversity of liturgical practice across the Roman Empire. If some groups did not practice paedo-communion, that does not surprise me. Christ, after all, had to remind the Jews of the central importance of children to his kingdom, it is not a surprise that many Christians throughout history had to be reminded as well.

As for the rest of Venema’s historical reconstruction, he is right to say that the move to credo-communion cannot be reconstructed through the lens of one issue. There are further complications. It is actually his account of a move from credo communion in the first couple of centuries to widespread paedo communion in the fourth century that stretches credulity. I can find the evidences of the first, there is very little evidence for the second. The first happened over hundreds of years while the West was torn apart and had to be rebuilt. A lot was forgotten. The second happened over a hundred years and we have little evidence of a fight over this liturgical change in churches that took liturgical change very seriously.

An addendum:

I want to talk a little more about this argument that is derived from the Origen quote: that some will say that the immature state of Israel before Christ reflects the state of the child. They continue: yes, he feeds on Christ, but not in the fuller sense symbolized by the meal. It follows that entrance to the meal reflects the time of maturity in which Christ has come.

This argument, in particular, really bothers me, for it creates all sorts of problems with the status of Children. Are children under the law? If so, why are they baptized into Christ? Do they necessarily have a less meaningful relationship with Christ? Why? How so? How can Christ then say, “of such are the kingdom of God!” The whole community, the whole tree, is renewed in the New Creation of Christ! Are children somehow barred from the age of the Spirit who cries “Abba, Father!” I do wish that credo-communionists would not use this argument as much for their own sake as for mine.

That is not to say that there are not lessons for us in training up our children, but these have to do with practical child-rearing, not what era an individual belongs in.

Love the Brotherhood. Honor the Emperor

By James

On June 22, 2022

In Church, Reformed Theology, The Basics, Worship

(This is the first of a series on Romans 13. The Covid regime has pushed Romans 13 to the front of conversation between Christians. I am working on putting out several articles on the issues that surround Romans 13 to shed more light on the big picture of what God is doing through his instruction in Romans 13.)

Many of the regulations our government put forward during the Covid-19 crisis undermine the fundamental duty of Christians to love one another. While keeping peace with all men, Christians should continue exercising this divine instruction as much as possible. In this sense, I agree with the many memes that say, “to resist tyranny is to obey God.”

Our duty to demonstrate an embodied love is a higher duty than that of honoring the civil magistrate. In fact, honoring and submitting to the civil magistrate is, in Romans 13, subsequent to the call to promote peace. Such an attitude allows the church to do the necessary work of proclaiming the gospel among men. The nature of the civil magistrate is such that it is good for the church to submit to them, for God has established them to bear the sword of vengeance. But the embodied love of the saints for one another remains a higher calling.

The word “embodied” is essential here. “Glorify God in your body,” God says to the Corinthians in the context of warning them about sexual immorality. The way we use our bodies is vital to God. If it is crucial, then the church’s authority as an expression of the power of Christ is an authority that affects the body as well.

I seek to prove this in two parts. First, I will demonstrate that the love of the brotherhood is the highest calling after the love of God. After that, I will seek to illustrate the importance of that love being embodied instead of projected through letters, phones, or screens.

Before I get to Romans 12 and 13, I will bring in several passages that more clearly point to the priority of the love of the brotherhood. (I assume, of course, that the most important love is the love of God. Brotherly love flows from the love of God and demonstrates that love.)

The most striking passage in this regard is John 13. There Jesus, having washed his disciples’ feet and having expressed his love toward his disciples through the love feast of the Lord’s Supper, says this: “A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another.” The unique expression of Jesus’ love defines the Christian brotherhood’s love for one another. There is a constant willingness to give oneself for one another, just as Christ gave himself for us on the cross, just as Jesus expressed his love by washing the disciples’ feet.

Christ gives this command to the brotherhood, the Christian church. Jesus is speaking to his disciples, giving them instructions on what it is to be the new Israel. Significantly, this is the central commandment he gives his disciples before going to the cross. This command marks out the church as an alternative community, an alternative community that is defined by the self-giving of Christ.

Another place where we see the priority of brotherly love is in 1 Peter 2: 17, “Honor everyone. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the Emperor.” Notice the gradations of command. “Fear God.” Obviously, God is first. God is the only one we ought to tremble before truly. God is the only one whose opinion matters in the end. “Love the Brotherhood.” We owe the brotherhood the sacrificial love of Jesus Christ. “Honor everyone… Honor the Emperor.” These deserve honor because of God’s image and their office. The commands of Peter demonstrate priority, however. We owe God, the brotherhood, and then we have duties to others in society.

The teaching of Paul in 1 Corinthians reflects this on a practical level. In the opening chapters, Paul calls on the Corinthians to prioritize Christ over their attachment to various Christian leaders, but even more the world’s wisdom. Then, in 1 Corinthians 5-10, Paul warns Christians about attachments to the world, especially regarding the temptations of sexual immorality and idolatry.

One passage that particularly stands out for our purposes is in the first part of chapter six, where Paul warns about settling civil matters before the ungodly civil magistrate (in other places, Paul clearly sees the benefit of the civil magistrate for criminal matters). A deduction from this passage might be that the church ought to oversee her own civil affairs as much as possible, especially when the civil magistrate is ungodly.

The remainder of 1^st Corinthians defines the love of the community, especially as it pertains to the practices of worship and the use of each person’s gifts for the sake of the community. Again, we see the priority of the love of the community of Christ.

Now we come to Romans. Romans 13 is sandwiched between calls to love the brotherhood. Romans 12 begins with personal transformation, but that personal transformation turns into the service of love toward the community of God, calling each member to use the gifts of grace given to them for the sake of the community. It all culminates in the words of verses 9 and 10, “Let love be genuine. Abhor what is evil; hold fast to what is good. Love one another with brotherly affection. Outdo one another in showing honor.”

Similarly, after the teaching on civil government in Romans 13: 8, Paul goes back to the love we owe one another, “owe no one anything except to love one another.” The teaching on the civil magistrate is sandwiched in the primary commandment of Christ, “just as I have loved you, so you also are to love one another.”

We can make our case even stronger in Paul’s theology of the church in Ephesians, Colossians, and Philippians. All emphasize our priority in connecting to our head as the body of Christ. In Ephesians, we are told that we are “raised up with him and seated with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus.” In Colossians, “you have been raised with Christ, seek the things that are above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God,” and “you died to the elemental spirits (a reference to the social order) of this world.” Finally, in Philippians, “But our citizenship is in heaven, and from it we await a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ.”

We are citizens of heaven who do not truly belong to this earth. The order of our affairs is distinct. According to that reality we have the calling that is only second to our fear of God to love one another.

And in this love of one another, we have Christ as our example, which brings us to our second part, where I seek to demonstrate the importance of embodied love.

The very act of Christ in washing the feet of his disciples as a demonstration of his love shows the importance of bodily presence in our love of one another. Christ shows his love in a very personal and human way. The fact that Christ has sent his Spirit upon us allows us to call the kindness we do to one another in visiting and sharing good works that we have done to him. We see this in the teaching on the sheep and the goats before the judgment seat of Christ in Matthew 25. “What you have done to the least of these, you have done to me.”

There is also what we noted in our introduction, the call to glorify God with one’s body, which affects most prominently sexuality, but we can also note, again in 1^st Corinthians, how the use of one’s body brings glory or shame to the church of Jesus Christ. Particularly, we can think of the Lord’s supper, where the way the Corinthians have organized themselves is so offensive to God that God tells the Corinthians that it is not the Lord’s Supper they are eating. The way they use their bodies demonstrates their service of God.

Neither can the body be replaced by letters or other forms of distance communication. Most prominent in this is the example of Jesus Christ, who demonstrated himself through a love that could touch, that could become sick, that could be maimed. God did present himself to his people in the Old Testament at a distance, necessarily behind a veil and through mediaries. However, in his most significant act of love, God becomes flesh so that he can be physically present with his people. Christ has the fullness of the glory of God within him. If we are to imitate Christ’s love, our love should also be physical.

The Christian has the Spirit of Christ. He is a temple, like Christ. That is why corporate worship is so important; we come to see Christ in one another. The church has always taught, based on a chapter like Hebrews 12, that Christ is present in a unique way in the corporate worship of the church. Long-distance communication, whether letters or live streams, cannot take the place of this corporate worship. In the same way, private Bible Study cannot replace membership in the body. We need the body.

Of course, we must take circumstance and necessity into account. I cannot be present with my father and mother at this time, so I use other means. But in the community where God put me, where I am fully able and willing to go, I ought to be a part of the communion of saints. Sickness can take us away from the body, weather, coercion, and persecutions, and God gives us strength in these times. Nothing can keep us from his love, even if our bodies are somehow unable to make it to the communion of the saints. However, if possible, I ought to search out the body and join it regularly for my spiritual health. The arm does no good to the heart if it is not physically present.

I ought to make a caveat here that some regulation is helpful in a pandemic. There are regulations I would be happy to follow. There are excellent resources demonstrating a different and wiser path our government may have taken, which considers the flourishing of all parts of society and respects the historical rights of individuals and institutions. One example is the Great Barrington Declaration. But, since the government chose the road of tyranny (as best I understand it), we must figure out how to self-regulate according to the best sources we have on Covid, which isn’t always ideal. Yet even then, we still ought to prioritize the communion of the saints as much as possible.

Therefore, if I owe love to the brotherhood more than I owe submission to the government, and if I that love I owe ought to be embodied, then when governments undermine my love for the brotherhood through mandates, I still ought to fulfill what I owe to my brothers as much as possible. This love can be shown in visiting brothers when we are not allowed to visit. This love can be in showing equal kindness to vaccinated and unvaccinated. This love can be my presence in church for the joy of assembling before the Lord. Because of the importance of the love of the brotherhood, the possibility of fines, mockery, and jail time (all of which have proved relatively low risk if you choose to be non-confrontational and respectful), should be a small price to pay for reflecting Christ in our love toward one another.

In conclusion, the church should count her duties to one another as more important than her duties to the government. There is, however, a big “however” here. Paul notes the importance that as much as possible we ought to have peace with all men. Even where we must obey God before men, we are do so out of a desire for the good of our country, even out of love for our enemies. There is the critical question of prudence in these things. I hope that in our next blog post, we can deal with this question. We also not that we do not dismiss the government entirely even when it acts in a tyrannical fashion. Paul also notes that, properly speaking, the civil magistrate does have a vital role to play which we are called to recognize, submit to, and obey. We owe the civil magistrate for certain services, but that cannot take away from what we owe one another.

A Review of “Aiming to Please” by Rev. Wes Bredenhof

By James

On January 21, 2021

In Reformed Theology, Worship

It is good to see another book on the worship of the church. When we consider the importance the scriptures place on worship, it is an area in which we ought to examine ourselves continually. Over time we can pick up attitudes toward worship or certain elements of worship that we are not even aware of. We use the light of the word to uncover our biases in our worship of God continually.

In “Aiming to Please,” Rev. Bredenhof argues that we ought to take into account both the elements that God calls us to observe in his word, and the order God demonstrates in his word with regard to those elements. Arguably, in our history, the conversation about worship has narrowly focussed on the elements at the expense of thinking about order. Rev. Bredenhof rightly emphasizes both. After all, as reformed, we confess that worship is dialogical, and even the most basic dialogue has a recognizable order to it.

Another critical point for Dr. Bredenhof is the Regulative Principle of Worship; basically, we ought to worship according to the Word of God. He spends a fair bit of time defending it and arguing that it is foundational for Reformed worship. I’m not exactly sure why he puts such emphasis on this principle. Those whom he singles out for not emphasizing the Regulative Principle of Worship, would have few problems with the remaining content, of the book. In fact, they end up arguing for services, which are very close to his proposal. Regardless, he views a conscientious confession of the Regulative Principle of Worship as foundational to his work.

There is a lot to appreciate in his work. I especially note his work on the confession and absolution in the worship service, his work on the psalms, and his attention to detail.

Unfortunately, the confession and absolution was largely lost in the Dutch tradition, so I am happy to see Rev. Bredenhof bring back a heavy emphasis on it. While the denomination I grew up in, the United Reformed Churches, have largely regained the practice, the Canadian Reformed churches still have many churches that do not make this a regular part of their worship. If we are going to grow in our understanding of God’s holiness and the real challenge of our remaining sinfulness, we need a regular confession and absolution. The practice also helps anchor our identity in Christ, as we weekly deny ourselves, crucify the old man, and find full righteousness in our true identity.

Rev. Bredenhof’s work on the Psalms is fantastic. He didn’t fall into the trap of exclusive psalm-singing, which in my opinion is grounded in a juvenile hermeneutic of scripture. At the same time, he fully lays out the case for why the psalms are so essential to the Christian life. He calls for ministers to set up a system for singing the psalms so that they can be regularly sung through every year. It is too bad he is somewhat dismissive of the church calendar later on, for the Anglican and Lutheran liturgical years have resources that would give us a good place to start for such a project.

Finally, I appreciated his attention to detail. The scriptures give us a bounty of worship details and teaching for worship. Therefore it is good to ponder the details of worship. This does make me wonder why he fails to urge a greater frequency in communion. For we certainly have far more precedent for communion, at least weekly, than for many of the smaller details that he commends with high certainty. Nevertheless, the detail is appreciated and is often thought-provoking.

That brings me to a couple of negative criticisms. I did find the book overly reliant on abstractions, especially in its fundamentals. The simplest definition of the RPW is “the Bible forms our worship.” Or if you like, “You shall not make for yourself a carved image… you shall not bow down to them or serve them.” In this sense, every church will claim that they are following the RPW.

In fact, I would argue that historical Reformed, Lutheran, and Anglican worship are all faithful to the RPW to varying degrees. A case could be made that worship service in a Conservative Lutheran Church is more faithful to the RPW than our own services. I am particularly thinking here of the structure of their service as found in the “Lutheran Service Book” of the LCMS. Ultimately the RPW is an abstraction and doesn’t really prove anything until you actually examine concrete “orders of the service” through the lens of scripture.

Another example of this is how he uses the rubric of “guilt, grace, and gratitude.” He argues that this order is foundational to the order of the service. Again this is another abstraction. It is helpful because it helps us see a common pattern. But it doesn’t really find a concrete reality until it finds a form in a sacrifice or the Lord’s Supper. On its own the pattern does nothing because it could merely be applied to a sermon structure. The entire liturgy could be the minister talking. That is actually where Rev. Bredenhof goes for that rubric, the “sermon” of Romans.

Another negative comment is regarding the lack of scripture. I was hoping for a robust Bible Study that allowed me to see how scripture forms our worship. I was somewhat disappointed. Like my comment about abstractions, this judgment is more of a comment on emphasis than a statement about the entire book. While Rev. Bredenhof does a good job of pointing to scripture, it ends up feeling somewhat piecemeal. He gives little insight into how our whole liturgical practice is an organic outgrowing from the whole of scripture.

That being said, I found value in the book. We live in a time, where, with regard to worship, every man does what is right in his own eyes. The commands of scripture and the witness of the church stand such an approach. The scriptures ought to form our worship. “Aiming to Please” is a good reminder of the importance and necessity of true biblical worship. A reminder, in a time when that is often questioned.

Keeping it Simple – A Simple Order

By James

On March 26, 2020

In Church, sacraments, Worship

The Bible not only gives us the basic liturgical elements for worship, but the Bible also gives us a pattern for worship. To see my discussion on the basic liturgical elements for worship take a look here and here. Just as there are basic elements to worship are very simple, so the basic order of worship is simple.

I will argue that we are called to first call upon God, follow that with the preaching of the word, and finally, celebrate the Lord’s Supper together. This is an order which almost all churches have gravitated to overtime. Really, this is the traditional order of the church. However, various cultural biases keep churches today from fully realizing even the simple order that God has given.

The New Testament has very little to say on the order or pattern of worship. This is likely because there was an established order that was used in the synagogues and in temple life, which was integrated into the worship of the church. The New Testament churches probably combined the order of worship, which was already there, God’s teaching on temple worship in the Old Testament, and the teaching of the apostles’ about Christ’s Sacrifice. Ultimately, New Testament worshippers had to examine everything they did in worship in light of what God had done in Christ.

We might use the Hermeneutic that is found in 1 John 2 concerning the commandment to love one another. At once, John admits this is an old commandment and at the same time he says, this is a new commandment. It is new because Christ has shown what love means in a new way. Using this rubric we might say that all parts of the Old Covenant are fulfilled in the cross of Christ and through the cross of Christ are applied to us in a new way.

This means that we can look to the Old Testament for instruction on worship as well, as long as we understand that that particular Christ has abolished the ceremonial elements (such as the temple and the sacrifices) of that administration.

One of the places where we find a great deal of instruction on worship is in the book of Leviticus. Now, the great part of this instruction deals with the activity of bringing sacrifices before God. We are explicitly told in the New Testament that that institution is done away with in Christ, for he is the final and the only effective sacrifice. However, we are also often told that we are to be living sacrifices in Christ. We can think of Romans 12 and 1 Peter 2, both of which refer to the Christian as a living sacrifice. That would mean that there is something in the nature of the sacrifice that can teach us about reasonable worship.

This is a surprisingly productive turn, particularly, in terms of the amount of materiel we may reflect on. If we are to find a basic order to draw through the various sacrifices, we would see five basic parts to the order. Peter Leithart puts it catchily in his Theopolitan Liturgy.

“Lay the hands

Slay the beast

Spread the blood

Burn the flesh

Eat the meal”

These elements can be brought out in five separate elements in the service. For the sake of simplicity, we will simplify these into three elements. First, the laying on of hands. Second the slaughter of the animal and the burning of the animal. Finally, (for many sacrifices) we partake of the animal in a meal.

These three elements correlate to three different sacrifices. The purification offering emphasizes the laying on of hands. Here we have an emphasis on our need to be purified before God. The ascension offering (commonly called the burnt offering) focusses on the burning of the animal. The worshipper burned the entire animal in that offering. Finally, the peace offering focusses on the meal, for that sacrifice focussed on the worshippers eating the offered animal.

So how does that apply to the service of God? The laying on of hands implies a claiming and a transfer. If we are living sacrifices that means the service ought to begin with an acknowledgment that God lays his hands on us and claims us for his own. In responding, we also lay our hands on Jesus as the only effective sacrifice in our place. This involves a recognition that God calls us and a recognition of our sin and the need to deal with that in order to properly approach God.

Then God divides the sacrifice and burns all of it or part of it. Hebrews 4 speaks of the word accomplishing that in the service. The word of God is sharper than a two-edged sword, dividing joints from marrow. In doing so, God the Spirit raises our hearts to the right hand of God in Christ. Figuratively speaking we go up in sweet-smelling smoke before God.

Finally, we have a meal in the sacrifices. The meal symbolizes the peace we may have with God. So we see that the Lord’s Supper, the new covenant meal follows after the preaching of the word.

Jesus follows a similar order in the institution of the Lord’s Supper. He lays his hands on the bread or wine and names it (his body or blood) (the laying on of hands), he breaks the bread or pours the wine (dividing the offering), and then passes them out so that his followers may eat (the meal).

Now two elements that we discussed in our previous blog posts on the elements of worship do not automatically find their place here (find those blog posts here and here). But if we think about what these elements represent we can find their place in the worship service.

The first is the prayers. The prayers will be interspersed through the worship service. A prayer of repentance is appropriate near the beginning of the service. Here we take hold of Christ as our righteousness. A prayer for the Spirit’s work is appropriate before the sermon and a prayer of thankfulness is appropriate in response to the sermon. Of course, it is also quite appropriate to put songs in various parts of the worship service. We might sing an opening song praising God, a song praising God for choosing and calling us, and a song following the Lord’s Supper.

The other element we missed was the collection. We do have a precursor for that in the Old Testament as well: the wave offering. In the wave offering, people brought their gifts of grain and poured our wine before the Lord. God used these offerings to provide food for his priests. This suggests that the fitting place for the collection, the sign of our devotion to the fellowship of Jesus Christ, is immediately before the supper we share with Christ. For the Lord’s Supper signifies, not only what Christ gives to us, but also how we sacrifice ourselves for one another. We give of ourselves to one another under the forgiveness of sins given by Jesus Christ.

So we have a simple order for worship: A call upon God with repentant hearts, the preaching of the word, and the Lord’s Supper. Further, we intersperse this order with prayers, psalms, thanksgivings, and collections for our brothers in distress.

Worship Wars: Keeping it Simple

By James

On January 7, 2020

In Church, Worship

At its most basic worship is meeting with God. The flesh does not know how to do this anymore. It is only the Holy Spirit, on the foundation of Christ’s sacrifice, and the word that God has given which provides a way to the Father. The Scriptures, the word that God gives us, also gives us the elements that should be part of this worship. Worship is simple; It is teaching, prayer, eating bread, and drinking wine.

We read of these elements in Acts 2:42, immediately after Christ has sent out his Holy Spirit, the initial formation of his church. “And they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers.” The purpose of this passage is to show the dedication of the new Christians to the newly formed church of Jesus Christ. God did not give this passage as an outline for worship.

But this passage does help us identify what acts are most important in the worship of the church. We see a simple summary of what goes on in the worship of the early church: “teaching, breaking of bread, and prayers.” We have a fourth concept here too, “the fellowship.” The fellowship is not so much an element of worship but designates the fact that the new converts were continually coming together to spend time together in community with both God and one another. It is that “meeting with God,” which we have already mentioned.

For our purpose, though, we will focus on the elements of worship. We assume that you want to come to worship God regularly.

Scripture distinguishes these elements of worship. However, they cannot be separated. Properly, our devotion is manifested as a configuration of all of these elements. To say it with greater simplicity: the elements come as one package. They form a single sacrifice of praise before the Lord. This reality suggests that element may not even be the best word to describe these things; the word “elements” suggest the possibility of isolating parts from the whole. However, for our purposes, the concept is useful.

The first element in our passage is the Apostles’ teaching. The Apostles were sharing and reflecting upon Christ’s words and works before the first Christian congregation. They would later write down this teaching in the gospels. God calls us to continue to reflect on the Apostles’ witness to Christ. Christ did not physically write any part of the Bible. It was the Apostles who wrote down the events of Christ’s life and further reflection upon those events. We continue to teach and apply that teaching without adding anything to God’s revelation, for Christ is the final word. This is the first and most important part of worship; the preaching of the Word.

We devote ourselves to the Apostles’ teaching by seeking to understand the whole Bible in light of what God is doing in Christ. Notice the word “devote” in Acts 2:42. As a church, we are called to devote ourselves, mind, heart, and soul to the teachings of the Word of God.

We next see a reference to the breaking of bread. In light of how this “breaking of bread” is often connected with the church’s worship, we can guess that this a reference to the Lord’s Supper. It could merely refer to eating together, but this is highly unlikely. For this guess is strengthened by the observation that the church would not have automatically used titles like “Lord’s Supper or Eucharist.” The phrase “breaking of bread” fits very well with the language used at the institution of the Lord’s Supper. It would have been an easy shorthand for Luke to use and expressive of the broader fellowship it signified among the body of Christ as well. When we consider these things and the importance placed on the practice of the Lord’s Supper right from the beginning of the church, we are justified in seeing this as a reference to the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper.

Finally, we see a reference to the prayers. The definite article “the,” as in “the prayers,” suggests that these are more than just prayer generally speaking. Most likely, this refers to the Psalms, the book of prayers. The Psalms were a regular part of Jewish worship and would become a regular part of Christian worship. “The prayers” would also include other written prayers that were a regular part of Jewish worship, as well is unwritten prayers. The practice of praying closely connects to the practice of singing. We know that the Jewish people sang the Psalms. They sang their prayers. There were choirs among the Levites and they sang the Psalms as part of worship. We know from Colossians 3 and Ephesians 5 that singing was a vital part of worship as well. What is more likely than that these early Christians were singing the Psalms?

We promised to keep it simple. Here’s the simple part. How do we worship God? We take the opportunity to read his word and to explain it. This practice should not be complicated. In many churches throughout history, this was done through the pastor sitting or standing in front of the congregation and going through a portion of scripture verse by verse. The Lord’s Supper is also part of worship. Everybody sit down. Pray over the bread. Pass it out. Pray over the wine. Pass it out. Use the words of institution that Christ gave in scripture. Finally, pray. Pray with written and unwritten prayers. Use speech and song. Use the Psalms. They are God’s prayer book. Allow that to form your selection of hymns; and your hymn-writing.

(I would add that there is an underlying order to worship that God calls us to observe as well, but that is an argument for another blog-post)

Now, I will be the first to admit the importance of many other questions. About what type of music might be better, what might be the better way of preaching, how we ought to order our prayers, and to what degree tradition should affect these choices. Fundamentally, if a church has these identifiable elements in its worship and does not seek to hide them or cover them up, I willingly accept that church as a legitimate church. It is a church that I spiritually worship with at Mt. Zion. It doesn’t matter if they choose to have electric guitars, rap elements, preachers that tell a lot of jokes, whether they look more or less disorganized, whether they have choirs on top of congregational singing, whether they are highly traditional and formal or highly contemporary and informal, and whether they have dancing and hand-raising or they “do church” mostly seated. I argue that some of these practices are better than others, but if we can begin with the regular explanation of the word, the regular practice of the Lord’s Supper, the singing of psalms and hymns, and the constant use of prayer. We can grow from that point.

Too many churches lose God’s word in trying to be relevant or cool. Maybe they are bored with scripture. Too many churches lose the Lord’s Supper because they arbitrarily make it challenging to practice every Sunday. Possibly, they don’t think it’s important or they make it too important. Too many churches lose God’s prayerbook. They lose the Psalms and so their other prayers lose the pattern of worship given by God.

We will make everything a lot more complicated. Scripture has a lot to say about worship. And there is a lot of materials to work through and apply to our worship service. But at its heart, when we gather together to worship God, we want these three things: most importantly, the word of God, secondly, God’s holy supper, and finally prayer.

Worship Wars

By James

On October 12, 2019

In Church, Worship

When we are reflecting on worship, we naturally begin with our own traditions. We grow within a certain order of worship. The way we worship educates us on who God is and who we are. If our tradition teaches us something in the order of worship that leaves us with a twisted or a diminished view of God it should be changed. If our tradition leaves us with a twisted or false view of ourselves it must be changed.

This really encapsulates why worship is so important to the Christian. Here is the reason why so many fights within the church today are over worship. In the traditional understanding, worship is where we meet with God. The way we worship and the things we do in worship affect our understanding of God.

In the last fifty years, we have seen a major reset in the liturgy of the church. People will talk about the worship wars and these probably peaked in the 80s and 90 and they continue to be a part of the dialogue in some of the more traditional churches. While liturgical change is happening all the time, the last major re-set of the liturgy was in the 16th century during the protestant reformation. Roger Olson details our contemporary changes in an article that you can find here.

There were a number of causes for these changes. Already before the changes, there was a growing apathy in some churches. There were doctrinal shifts. There were shifts in worship itself and in understanding worship. We can talk about preaching. The Psalms lost their place in worship. We can talk about growing liberalism. Major shifts like the one we are currently observing are not mono-causal. There is a complexity behind a historical change.

Now, I am on the side of the traditionalists. I am on the losing side. I believe that contemporary liturgies have eviscerated the worship service of its proper content. However, too many traditionalists have simply dug in their heels without examining their own liturgical tradition or the tradition of the church. Little do we realize that part of our contemporary problem arises from developments in traditional liturgies. I hope to explore this more in future posts. The church has not spent the necessary time to create a liturgical culture that is equally robust to the American contemporary liturgy. We need to develop our liturgical tradition so that is deeply and unavoidably biblical.

The service on the Lord’s Day is, after all, a gift to man, a gift to encourage him in continuing to seek after God, so that he grows in mortifying his sin, desiring Christ, and doing good deeds for the sake of his Lord.

I’ve already hinted that I find many traditional churches lacking in this matter. I am a pastor in the Canadian Reformed Churches. We have a very traditional liturgy. There is no doubt that we worship God in Spirit and truth, and we do see and experience God in our worship. There is a lot of God in our tradition, but there is also room to grow. The worship wars and our own struggles, especially over the question of music, give us the opportunity to examine ourselves. I hope to offer some reflection on both the good and the bad over the coming months.

As a bit of a postscript, I do not believe I have the last word on this subject. Liturgical concerns are controverted and they always will be. I merely hope to shed some light on the subject. Ideally, I also hope to encourage those who truly do desire to worship God in the beauty of holiness.

I respond that I may be changed

By James

On December 3, 2018

In eschatology, Witness, Worship

The title of this website is respondeo etsi mutabor, that is, I respond so that I may be changed. This is a basic philosophical outlook on life: we respond to our parents, to our teachers and so we are formed. Most importantly we respond to God in faith, hope, and love. He commands and we obey, directed ourselves toward his righteousness.

What about when we don’t know how to respond? What if all options for action are not options? According to Romans 8, we groan. We groan already because we long for the redemption of our bodies. However, we groan all the more when we lose the way forward. Further, the Spirit groans with us. Reason fails. We are like Hamlet stuck between action and inaction. So we groan before our God, seeking his wisdom.

Perhaps he changes the situation so that we may move forward in good conscience. Perhaps he gives new wisdom. Regardless he changes us. I groan so that I might be changed.

Holy War and Exuberance in Worship

By James

On December 8, 2017

In Worship

Let me begin with a general observation; one to which there are likely many exceptions. In the worship wars, there seems to be a divide between those who push exuberance in worship and those who feel uncomfortable with what seems to be an excess of personal feeling in worship.

Think of things like raising or clapping your hands or moving around. On the one side, people will point to the many passages in scripture, which support such actions. There are calls to raise your hands in the scripture. There are calls to shouts of joy. They will conclude that worship should be an informal expression of such feelings. Worship should be a heart experience.

On the other side, many will point to other passages in scripture. These emphasize the Holiness of God and the sober reflection necessary to enter his courts on the Lord’s Day. They will call for formal worship. Worship is a heart experience, but they emphasize the heart in its role of confessing and learning. They will often dismiss the calls to demonstrate exuberance as cultural practices, which are not necessary to follow today.

In my mind, this is a very frustrating conversation because both sides are ignoring certain scripture passages. I sympathize more with those who emphasize formal worship for reasons I will detail below (They have a better beginning than those who call for worship according to personal feelings toward God), but I am distraught that they often fail to integrate calls to exuberance in scripture in their worship.

In order to understand how to fit the calls to exuberance in scripture to worship, we need to examine worship in light of a theme that is often ignored in scripture: holy war. As James Jordan has argued repeatedly, “worship is holy war.” This doesn’t mean that worship is merely holy war. Worship is also a drawing near to God. Worship is about renewal for the week ahead.

Why do we say that worship is holy war?

I want to work from three different passages in the Old Testament where Christ used the worship of his people in order to accomplish a victory for his people. The first comes from Exodus 17. At the end of that passage, the Amalekites attack Israel. In the war that ensues, it is the place of Moses’ hands that decide the victory. While Moses’ hands reached up to God the battle went well. When Moses let his hands down the battle went badly. The battle depended on the worship of God.

Another passage comes from 1 Samuel. In 1 Samuel Israel gathers to free herself from the Philistines. In the midst of that battle, Samuel is offering a burnt offering. By that burnt offering; by that holy worship, God accomplishes victory.

A 3rd passage is found in 1 Chronicles 20. In that passage, King Jehoshaphat, obeying the command of the Lord, puts singers in front of his army to singpraises the Lord. We are told that the moment they began to shout and praise the Lord, God set an ambush against their enemies.

A fourth passage confirms what we have seen in these other passages. In Psalm 8, God tells us that it is through the praise of babies that he ordains strength.

We need to understand that the war is won in the worship that the Israelites offer, not in the actual war with swords and arrows. The war is won through a humble expression of need for God. And when God knows that his people believe in his promises and are seeking his righteousness that is when God acts in favor of his people. We should not hold to this in a simplistic way though. Perhaps God wants to use dark times in order to accomplish his purposes.

The fact that worship is Holy War certainly affects the matter of our worship. We emphasize that Christ is a king and through us he is fighting a war against principalities and powers (Ephesians 6). The church fight that war in worship. She wars against our own corrupt flesh in worship. We are at war with Satan in worship. We also fight the war as we go out from worship.

Worship trains us for war during the week. Think of our last example from the Old Testament, the story of Jehoshaphat from 2 Chronicles 20. In the beginning of the chapter, the people come together to worship God. Later in the chapter, they go out to war worshipping God. Through their worship, they have learned how to fight against their enemies. It should be the same with us. We need to learn to approach our big struggles in life with confession, with prayer, with praise and with hearing the Word of God.

At the same time, the fact that worship is Holy War affects the manner of worship. If worship is holy war, then the church is an exercise room, where Christ trains us in the disciplines of following God. Such an understanding demands formality in worship.

Type of exuberance

That formality is not without exuberance. It must have exuberance. God commands exuberance in scripture. But this is not an informal exuberance. Rather, it is an ordered exuberance. We might say, “a military exuberance.” As we have said, when we go to worship we are in the training room of God. That is why it is fitting for us to kneel, to stand to raise our hands because we do so as the mighty army of God. We offer God our praise as the corporate body of God. Each individual adds his or her zeal within order that is given.