Reformed worship is both “transferable” and “flexible,” as J. Ligon Duncan observes. “Reformed worship has worked and is working in every situation and culture where there is an historic Protestant church committed to scriptural principles of worship.” he argues. Duncan provides global examples, from the Peruvian Andes, to West Philadelphia, to Dundee in Scotland, to Malawi in East Africa, to Eastern Australia, to Japan, to Israel; among Baptists, Presbyterians, Congregationalists, and Anglicans. There are churches, Duncan says, “on six continents, first world and two-thirds world, ministering to every conceivable class of society– (that) are following in the train of historic Reformed Protestant worship.”

This kind of unity is possible when it is recognized that the church has its own biblical, catholic, and organically developing culture through which its form of worship and ministry is expressed. Rather than dividing and excluding through new worship services that cater to popular styles and tastes, it is wiser for the church to maintain a significant measure of uniformity of worship, expressed in the forms of its own ecclesiastical heritage, through which the diversity of its peoples can unite. “Only a church which resists being merely of one generation (or ethnic culture, we would add) can be relevant to them all,” Gene Veith reminds us. Only a church with a common and catholic worship can facilitate the communion of all the saints.

The cultural values and social patterns prevalent among Southern whites included an aversion to work, proneness to violence, neglect of education, sexual promiscuity, improvidence, drunkenness, lack of entrepreneurship, reckless searches for excitement, lively music and dance, and a style of religious oratory marked by strident rhetoric, unbridled emotions, and flamboyant imagery.

Professor Willie Ruff of the Yale School of Music has demonstrated that even the origins of black music, spirituals, blues, gospel, and so on, are to be found in the psalm-singing, even Gaelic psalm-singing, of the Scottish and Scots-Irish slave owners.

The “cultural values” and “social patterns” of which Sowell writes were absorbed by southern blacks. At the same time they were not characteristic of northern blacks or of blacks from the Caribbean Islands. These characteristics, Sowell insists, cannot in any sense be considered genetically or racially inherent. Sowell laments the association of this negative, largely borrowed, white southern culture with what many consider to be authentic black culture:

What is painfully ironic is that such attitudes and behavior are projected today as aspects of a distinctive “black identity” when in fact they are part of a centuries-old pattern among the whites in whose midst generations of blacks lived in the South.5

Gunnar Murdal, in his landmark book, An American Dilemma, recognized the influence of Southern white religious culture upon the culture of American blacks noting that religious “emotionalism was borrowed from and sanctioned by religious behavior among whites.”6 For Sowell, the prevailing black religious culture is part of the redneck culture “whose track record has been largely negative for both black and whites.”

There are voices from the past who would concur in this criticism of black religious culture. Thabiti M. Anyabwile, in his The Faithful Preacher, chronicles the concerns of nineteenth and early twentieth century black preachers who were eager for the development of a disciplined religious life among African-Americans.8 Daniel A. Payne (1811–1893), a founder and President of Wilberforce College and a Bishop of the African Methodist Episcopal Church, championed order over emotion in the Black church. At the General Conference of 1852 he cautioned against emotionalistic preaching consisting of “whooping, stamping and beating the Bible and the desk.”9 He recognized the need to correct “the religious errors of the freedman and to bridle their wild enthusiasm.”10 He even sought more “civilized” and rational music for the church and disparaged what he called “cornfield ditties.” He characterized the hand clapping, foot stomping, and dancing in black religious gatherings as “ridiculous and heathenish,” even “disgraceful to themselves, the race, and the Christian name.”

Similarly Francis J. Grimké (1850–1937), son of a slave mother and her master, educated at Princeton Seminary under Charles Hodge, trustee of Howard University and a founder of the NAACP, denounced the emotionalism of the African-American pulpit, which, in Anyabwile’s words, “yielded little or no biblical instruction for the people, required no serious study from the preacher, lowered the spiritual state of the congregation, and defiled the very idea of biblical religion.” The “House of God in many cases,” Grimké complained, had become “a mere playhouse for the entertainment and amusement of the people.”13 Grimké was particularly critical of “Afro-American pulpit,” whose “aim seems to be to get up an excitement, to arouse the feelings, to create an audible outburst or emotion, or, in the popular phraseology, to get up and shout to make people ‘happy.’”

Noting that “people do not shout and get happy over the Ten Commandments or the Sermon on the Mount,” he denounced the “utter hollowness of the whole thing” and characterized the emotionalism as an “evil” that “is to be greatly deplored.”15 Emphasizing the importance of the “line upon line and precept upon precept” teaching of God’s word for Christian growth and health, he insists, “We cannot get up there on the wings of emotion; we cannot shout ourselves up to a high Christian manhood and womanhood any more than we can shout ourselves into heaven.”

What was true when Grimké first spoke these words (1892) remains true today. There developed, in fact, two traditions of African-American worship, the emotive Southern tradition and the more restrained northern and Methodist tradition.17 When the great migrations of Southern blacks in the early twentieth century brought new comers north they “broke the decorum,” says James M. Gregory, with their loud “Amens” and “Hallelujahs.” “Initially, congregations resisted these southernisms,” he says.18 Over time, however, emotionalism came to be all but universal in the African American church. (to be continued)

First, if catholicity is to be preserved, the church must recognize its own ecclesiastical culture of order, format, music, and language which transcends individual and group cultural tastes and preferences. Reformed worship should not be understood as the worship of any one group. Reformed worship may not be dismissed as an expression of eurocentricity. Reformed worship has the shape it does primarily because of the Reformers’ study of Scripture and the church fathers, a claim well documented in Hughes Old’s Patristic Roots of Reformed Worship. In other words, it is as the result not only of the Bible’s teaching, written over a period of nearly 1500 years by men in diverse cultures, rural, urban, and nomadic, but also the influence of the church fathers whose homelands included Africa, Egypt, Asia Minor, Palestine, and Europe. The worship of the “Ancient Church” (borrowing Calvin’s phrase) was not based on cultural preferences but the Bible. The same is true of the Reformed Church which self-consciously mimicked it. In a remarkable statement Old finds a root of Scottish Presbyterian psalm singing in the Egyptian desert Fathers, whose monastic communities enthusiastically sang psalms. The Reformers knew of this ancient practice as they reformed medieval worship.2 The forms of historic Reformed worship and ministry are not culturally relative but biblical and normative and conducive of catholicity and the communion of the saints. The traditional liturgy, says Mark Galli, “does not target any age or cultural subgroup. It does not even target this century . . . Instead the liturgy draws us into worship that transcends our time and place.”

Second, if the communion of the saints is to be preserved the church must reject a multicultural approach to worship. We’ve looked at generational churches (e.g. Hip Hop) and affinity churches (e.g. Cowboy). What about ethnic churches? Do they require their own music, language, content, and format? Would the attempt to establish historic Reformed worship in ethnic communities amount to a kind of cultural imperialism? Are Hispanics and Africans genetically or culturally programmed for “emotionally expressive” services, as they are sometimes called? Are churches, whose heritage and conviction is one of emotional discipline, wasting their time if they attempt to establish an emotionally restrained approach to worship in ethnic communities? Thomas Sowell points out that culture, broadly considered, is to an important degree chosen. He cites the examples of eighteenth century Scotland and nineteenth century Japan as peoples who saw the deficiencies of their indigenous cultures and made conscious choices to embrace beneficial characteristics of other cultures in order to improve their own. Sowell reminds us that some cultures are more conducive to educational advancement and material well being than others. Similarly, we would argue, some ecclesiastical cultures are more conducive to growth in biblical knowledge and spiritual well being than others. Sowell warns that “clinging to a counterproductive culture in the name of group pride” does no one any good, whether that culture is contemporary American pop culture, Australian aboriginal, historical Anglican, or “traditional” African-American.

The question ethnic churches as well as Reformed missions committees should ask is, would the biblical content and emotional discipline of Reformed worship and ministry be beneficial for these minority communities? Would, for example, the natural gifts of preaching and singing found in the African-American churches be enhanced by wedding them to lectio continua reading and preaching, metrical psalmody, and classical hymnody? Would these historic forms not multiply the sanctifying impact of African-American worship services even though their use would require a restraining of emotional expression? (to be continued)

1. Culturally specific worship and ministry is not the New Testament way. Warren’s attempts to enlist Jesus’ priority of “the lost sheep of Israel” (e.g. Mt 15:22-28, 10:5-6) in his cause of “targeting specific kinds of people for evangelism” is bad ecclesiology and worse exegesis. Jesus limits his ministry to Israel for redemptive-historical purposes, not in pursuit of effective evangelistic strategy. Those limits were temporary, abrogated by the Great Commission (Mt 28:18ff; Acts 1:8ff), and had nothing to do with cultural preferences among the various groups of Gentiles.1 Warren’s philosophy confuses the church’s evangelism and mission with its public worship and congregational life (see Chapter 4). We have seen in previous articles the Apostle Paul appealing to the Corinthian church on the basis of catholicity, that is, what was practiced in “all the churches” (1 Cor 1:2, 4:7, 11:16, 14:33). Significant uniformity of church practice was achieved in the New Testament era between churches that were Mid-Eastern, Asian, Greek, and Latin. In Christ there is neither Greek nor Jew (Gal 3:28). In Christ the dividing wall has been broken down and Gentile and Jew have been reconciled (Eph 2:14-22). In Christ, as we have seen, there is but one baptism (Eph 4:4-5), and by implication one worship. In Christ, Greek and Jew worship together in a common service. It is difficult to believe that the Apostles would have approved of the homogenous church as a goal of church life. It might happen as an accident of circumstances, but not a goal. “Did the early church separate itself out into units of the like minded in terms of ethnicity, class, and language,” asks David Wells? “It did not,” he answers forcefully.

2. Culturally specific worship and ministry was not the way of the Patristic and medieval churches. Historians find continuity between the New Testament church and the Patristic church of the first three to four centuries. We have sought to demonstrate that continuity in the preceding articles. Yet in spite of the increased ethnic diversity of the church as it expanded into Africa and Asia, the interiors of the Mediterranean, and Europe, into cultures beyond those of its first century roots, we find increased emphasis on uniformity both in doctrine and practice as a means of fighting heterodoxy. The banning of hymns by church councils in the fourth century may serve as the case in point.

3. Culturally specific worship and ministry was not the way of the Reformers and their children to the mid-twentieth century. The Genevan liturgy and Psalter were translated almost immediately upon publication into German, Dutch, Spanish, English, Hungarian, and other languages. The differences between Romantic, Germanic, Slavic, and Celtic cultures, for example, were not seen as barriers to implementing historic Reformed worship. Scholars don’t speak of “international Lutheranism” or “international Anglicanism.” But they do write extensively of the dynamic of “international Calvinism.” Could there have been more unreceptive soil on which to plant Genevan faith and worship than violent, amoral, backward, illiterate, and clannish sixteenth century Scotland? Yet it did flourish there and elsewhere without any particular attempt to contextualize or show sensitivity to cultural forms. The Reformed faith and its ministry flourished because Reformed worship was theologically, not culturally, driven. It is interesting to follow Martin Bucer’s changing views on diversity. His Grund und Ursach, published in 1524, was the first systematic defense of worship “according to Scripture.” In it he championed innovation and diversity as good things. Later he came to lament the chaos introduced into the church by those who took diversity too far. He denounced the “deplorable differences” of practice and “detestable changes” made in the name of Christian liberty. According to Hughes Old, “The prevailing opinion of Strasbourg, an opinion which the Reformed Church has often reaffirmed, is that liturgical reform is not to be left to the illumination of individual pastors, but rather is a concern of the church as a whole.”6

4. Culturally specific worship and ministry was not the method employed by the Modern Missionary Movement. As the bold missionaries of the early 19th century scattered around the globe, they took their Prayer Books and Psalters with them. Missionaries as diverse as Roman Catholic Matthew Ricci (1583–1610) and Hudson Taylor (1832–1905) were willing to adopt the fashion and manners of indigenous cultures. Ricci dressed as a Confucian scholar. However, they taught their converts to worship as Anglicans, Presbyterians, and Baptists. In Ricci’s case, worshiping as a Roman Catholic meant a Latin Roman mass! Yet he was among the most successful missionaries in the history of the church.

Perhaps previous generations of missionaries went overboard. Perhaps they should not have erected gothic cathedrals in the jungles of East Africa. Perhaps they were not as culturally nuanced as they might have been. Modern missiologists are sharply critical of them for their failure to indigenize and for their denominationalism.7 Still, their own self-understanding was that they taught their mission-field churches to worship denominationally not because they were cultural imperialists, but because they saw their worship as arising from their theology, not from their cultural preferences. Their widely acclaimed success, we might add, was nothing short of astonishing.

And when I came to you, brethren, I did not come with superiority of speech or of wisdom, proclaiming to you the testimony of God. (1Co 2:1)

He readily admits,

And I was with you in weakness and in fear and in much trembling. (1Co 2:3)

Further,

And my message and my preaching were not in persuasive words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power (1Co 2:4)

Think through the implications of the Apostle Paul’s words very carefully. Notice his concern for both “speech” (manner) and “wisdom” (message) (1 Cor 2:1), for his “message” and “preaching” (1 Cor 2:4). He insisted upon a simple gospel of “Christ crucified” (1Co 2:3) and a simple presentation lest faith have a natural source in “the wisdom of man” rather than a supernatural origin in “the power of God” (1Co 2:5). He steadfastly refused to adorn his preaching though he knew that for the Greeks its simplicity was “foolishness” (1 Cor 1:17ff).

If the Apostles would not sanction rhetorical enhancement in order to “contextualize” the gospel to rhetoric loving Greeks, it’s hard to imagine them going further and sanctioning the use of drama for theater-loving Greeks, or the use of the visual arts for art-loving Greeks. Whatever the Apostle Paul meant by being “all things to all men,” the locus classicus for the marketers of the church, he didn’t’ mean repackaging the gospel according to the cultural preferences of his audience (1 Cor 9:19-23). The “all things” of which the Apostle Paul speaks have to do with the rights that he has, whether as a Jew, Gentile, or Christian minister, that he gladly relinquishes in order to preach the gospel. He’ll surrender his right to eat pork and otherwise ignore Jewish dietary laws if observing those laws preserves his audience with the Jews. He’ll also surrender his right to observe these same Jewish dietary laws if observing them runs the risk of obscuring the gospel for Gentiles. The same principle applies to his right to remuneration (1Co 9:6-18). He surrenders that right for the sake of the gospel. Becoming “all things” has to do with giving up rightful liberties and privileges that might prove offensive or become a hindrance to hearing the gospel on the part of certain classes of persons.

Does this principle apply to how the Christian church conducts its worship services? It is noteworthy that the Apostles don’t apply it to liturgical matters. They don’t, and the post-apostolic church didn’t design services to suit the cultural preferences, tastes, and styles of the various groups of converts, whether Greek, Roman, Asian, Egyptian, Middle Eastern, or African. The use of 1 Cor 9:22 to justify building homogenous churches through designer ministries is unwarranted.

Furthermore, we question the whole project of targeting one group over another. It may be that for one reason or another a church is only able to reach one kind of person. Maybe its neighborhood consists primarily of one kind of person. We see no apparent problem with advertising one’s ministry or message broadly to a whole community per se. But should the church deliberately shape its services to reach one slice of the demographic: the WWII generation, the silent generation, Baby-Boomers, Baby-Busters, Gen Xers, Millenials, African-Americans, Anglos, or Latinos? Should the church allow a given demographic group’s cultural preferences (especially music) to dominate the service to the extent that it feels comfortable while every other group, inevitably, feels outside and excluded? Should a church be planted in a neighborhood and then deliberately market its ministry so one-sidedly to one segment of the population, that it alone is reached while all others are implicitly bypassed or ignored? It won’t do to say that one’s aim is “to be effective, not to be exclusive.”1 When music is generationally or ethnically specific it screams at all others groups, “this service is not for you.” Say what one will, when WWII generation believers are greeted by drums and electric guitar they know immediately that they don’t belong. The marketers of the church admit as much.

Protests not withstanding, market-driven churches end up being composed of one “kind of person” to the exclusion in practice of every other kind of person. Homogenous churches are the result of homogenous forms of ministry. Is this what Jesus intended? Is this the apostolic vision for the church? Did the Apostles envision churches made up of one kind of person, united by age, race, ethnicity, or class? To ask the question is to answer it.

The truth is that churches today are practicing generational exclusion. They design their ministries without consideration of the older generations, even fully aware that older folks will be alienated by their innovations. Churches today which recoil in horror at the deliberate racial segregation of the churches of previous generations think nothing of justifying generational segregation today. It remains largely unrecognized by the advocates of diversity that a common (or catholic) worship alone makes the communion of all the saints possible. Ironically, it is precisely the generational, ethnic and cultural diversity of the church that makes uniformity in worship so important. All ages, races, and ethnic groups can gather together for worship only if the church has a common worship. Current theory runs in exactly the opposite direction. Donald McGavran and the church growth movement have provided the philosophical justification for the “homogeneous unit,” that is, the building of churches in which members are ethnically, culturally, educationally, and racially similar.1 The movement’s aim has been to remove sociological barriers to conversion, which were thought to play a crucial role in preventing church growth. The principle of homogeneity has been applied to the generations as well, as overwhelming numbers of churches have devised forms of worship that are thought to be effective in attracting the young.

Church-growth experts argue that if the church is to properly “market” itself each culture and subculture must have its own worship, with culturally familiar or relevant forms if the church is to grow. Michael S. Hamilton, Assistant Professor of History at the University of Notre Dame, says that contemporary worship musicians “bring the baby-boom assumption that different groups will all need their own music.”2 Rick Warren, in his often helpful, frequently insightful, but fundamentally flawed, The Purpose-Driven Church, urges, “Discover what types of people live in your area,” and then, “decide which of those groups your church is equipped to reach . . .” 3 Then tailor your church’s services to the tastes and style-preferences of that type of person: “You must decide who you’re trying to reach, identify their preferred style of music, and them stick with it.”4 Notice he is not saying that a church should discover the kinds of people living in its neighborhood and then reach those people, all of them. No, he urges that churches target a subset of the neighborhood, a group within the neighborhood, and reach that group and be content not to reach the rest. Again, “You must match your music to the kind of people God wants your church to reach (my emphasis).”5 Warren claims that “targeting specific kinds of people for evangelism is a biblical principle for ministry,” and cites Matthew 15:22-28 and 10:5-6, “I was sent to the lost sheep of Israel,” for support. “Targeting your audience for evangelism is a method God invented! He expects us to witness to people in their own terms.”6 The purpose-driven church is, in truth, the market-driven church.

Marketing a homogenous church through homogenous outreach, however, is fundamentally at odds with apostolic practice. If Warren means by “their own terms” that we must witness to people in their own language, we have no argument. If he means “in their own style” or “according to their cultural preferences,” so that each culture, sub-culture, and sub-sub culture must have the gospel repackaged to suit their preferred style or form, and then must have its own church to serve that preference, we disagree. It is taken for granted by the marketers that churches are supposed to reach certain kinds of persons and not others. Warren is not just saying that the church ought to conduct periodic evangelistic events that target specific kinds of people who are then brought into a church that exists for all kinds of people. Rather, the whole church is designed for and consists of a kind of person––“Saddleback Sam,” in Warren’s case. It is assumed that churches as churches are to “market” to the cultural preferences of a specific demographic. This is how purpose-driven and seeker-sensitive ministry is done. When the targeted generation is the baby-boomers that has meant a style of music: soft-rock; a preferred format: the late-night comedy show; a comfortable environment: non-churchy, with exteriors that look like corporate headquarters or Wal-Marts, interiors that look like TV production sets, and seating that is comfortable and plush; and a mood that is casual: Levi’s and lattes being equally at home. Boomers like entertainment, so market conscious “worship” mimics the world of entertainment: generational music, gregarious leader, conspicuous use of humor, relevant skits, helpful sermons, and perhaps even a dance routine. Is there a problem with this? Yes, indeed. The problem is, what is appealing to boomers is alienating to non-boomers, who will conclude that any such church is not for them.

The gospel-marketers would have us believe that the Apostles would sanction churches according to age: a church for the young, another for the elderly, another for families with children. They would have us further believe that they would establish churches according to race or ethnicity: one for whites, another for blacks, another for Hispanics, and another for Asians. They would have us still further believe that they would establish churches for affinity groups: a church for cowboys, another for Hip-Hoppers, another for jazz lovers, and another for rockers. This is what they would have us believe, but getting us to believe it is a tough sell indeed.

We visited the location of the house in which Calvin lived, and then Theodore Beza (1519–1605) after him. We walked the streets he walked, saw the fountain from which he drew his water, the lecture hall in which he taught, the chair in which he sat, and the pulpit in which he preached. We spent an afternoon on Lake Geneva (viewing the natural beauty that Calvin enjoyed??) and a day in Lausanne. There we visited the cathedral in which the famous Lausanne Disputation (1536) took place, Calvin, joined by Peter Viret (1511–71) and William Farel (1489–1565), refuting their Roman Catholic opponents. We also visited the St. Francis church in Lausanne, the church which Viret served. We enjoyed stimulating lectures (4 each morning!) and excellent preaching (3 each evening!). You were represented by Joan Ackley and Joe and Mary Van Puffelen.

We’ll be having our Calvin 500 celebration in October (10,11). The Rev. Dr. David Hall, the tireless organizer of Calvin 500 and author of several books on Calvin, will be bringing the messages commemorating Calvin’s life and ministry. We honor Calvin because he honored Christ, faithfully serving the gospel in ways that became a pattern for the church right to the present.

The last two months have been a blur for me. Sally’s graduation, back surgery, my father’s death, Calvin 500 in Geneva, student/parent orientation at UGA, family vacation. I’ve been gone a lot. It will be good to settle back into our regular routine. But with Sally leaving for college in August, I don’t think we’ll experience normalcy for some time to come.

Christian civilization, or more precisely, civilizations influenced by Christianity, determined centuries ago that some forms of sexual expression are inherently sinful. This judgment was based on the reading of Scripture, as well as the laws of nature. Polygamy, prostitution, sodomy, incest, bestiality were universally held to be evil, both because the Bible said so and because such acts were unnatural and degrading, so contrary to human nature that they could only be the acts of those who are either desperate, confused, or perverse.

The “consenting adults” argument would have been dismissed by countless generations before ours. Two or more women, pushed by desperate circumstances, may consent to live as wives of a single man, but laws forbade it because a polygamous household was seen as inherently degrading to the women and children involved. A man and a woman may consent to a financial arrangement in which money is exchanged for certain favors, but prostitution is inherently degrading to the prostitute especially, and to her customer as well. What besides desperate circumstances would drive them together? Two men may consent to sodomize and etc. each other. But anyone could see that the desire to do anything so unnatural and bizarre was indicative of startling moral confusion and moral corruption. What could be more degrading to any human being than to be on the giving or receiving ends of these acts? Similar things could be said about incest and bestiality.

Our nation has traveled a vast moral distance in a single generation. What was clear to previous generations, stretching back at least to Moses (c. 1500 B.C.), is not merely unclear. Rather, its opposite is now celebrated. Now the unnatural, the strange, the perverse, the degrading is to be a source of “pride.” So says the leading political figure in the entire planet! So says the government of the most powerful nation on earth. So says our President.

How can our laws, institutions, and customs continue to draw any line, any line whatsoever, distinguishing between moral and immoral sexual behavior? We are morally at sea, rudderless, without compass or any means of navigation. How can laws prohibiting polygamy, incest, prostitution, bestiality, or public indecency continue to stand? They won’t. The logic of “Gay Pride” eventually, over time, will erase the remaining lines. It is the logic of a culture of unfettered and ubiquitous perversion, which “glories” in what was once our “shame.”

First, by honoring universal practice we can join hands in worship with the church of the past, the church triumphant, using the forms that they used before us: singing their hymns and psalms, praying their prayers, preaching expositorily (as they did), and generally using their order. This engenders a view of belonging to something bigger than ourselves, solidifying our self-concept as Reformed Christians, as Protestants, and as mere Christians whose beliefs and practices are rooted in the Scriptures, the early church, and the Reformed tradition. There is something thrilling about singing a hymn or reciting a creed that Christians have used for centuries before us.

Second, by honoring universal practice we can join hands in worship with the church of the future. Think in terms of the church’s songs. When the Family Worship Book was assembled, we gave serious consideration to what songs families should concentrate on in their family devotions.1 We considered including some of the better “Scripture Songs” for the use of the children. In the end we did not because we wanted them to invest the time designated for songs singing those songs that were likely to endure into their adult years, and which could be passed on to their children and grandchildren. Commenting on what makes a given piece of music “durable” (his word), John D. Witvliet answers, “It transcends the cultural movement in which it was written.” He reminds us of “Pass it On” (“It only takes a spark”) and other popular songs from the 1970’s that have not endured. He concludes, “It is wise for us to discern which texts and melodies are the most likely to endure. Over time, singing songs that have the potential to endure will prove to be a wise investment of our singing energy.”2 This sums up well our point. Better to teach one’s congregation the best lyrics and the best music of the Christian tradition, those that have endured the test of time and are likely to be around for them to teach their children, who, in turn, will teach them to their children. This is exactly what is envisioned in Psalm 78:1-8, as parents are exhorted to teach their children “that they (i.e. their children) might arise and tell them (i.e. God’s praises) to their children” (Psalm 78:6 NASV). Might that not be one reason why God included a canonical hymn book, the Psalms? We find compelling the picture of multi-generational families gathered around the hearth, and of multi-generational churches gathered around the pulpit singing the Psalms and hymns of the church, and more generally, worshiping as their fathers had for generations before them.

Third, by honoring universal practice we can worship with the church of the present. Today it is not race or ethnicity that separates Christians, but forms of worship. The use of historic forms that belong to the church, and not to a particular group within the church, makes fellowship among differing Christians possible. This brings us to our next point.

While the Reformers understood the Scriptures to be their sole authority they were very interested in how generations of Christians down through history had understood the Scriptures. Studying the history of Christian worship they found many good examples of how the church had truly understood Scripture. Often the Fathers of the ancient church had been most faithful witnesses to the authority of Scripture.

Among the practices of the Apostolic and Patristic churches that were revived by the Reformers for the ordinary worship of the Lord's Day were the following:

• invocation
• congregational singing
• liturgical use of the Ten Commandments
• congregational confession of sin
• lectio continua Bible reading and preaching
• prayer of illumination
• prayers of intercession
• communion in both kinds
• liturgical use of the Creed
• benediction

This is an impressive list, comprehending most of what Protestants have done in worship for nearly 500 years, and in which even Roman Catholics have joined them since Vatican II in the mi's. Similarly the Reformers rejected post-Constantinian (after 313 A.D.) developments that could not be justified by Scripture and Patristic practice.

• liturgical use of incense
• expansive church calendar
• liturgical use of icons & images
• lectionary of lectio selecta readings
• altars & priests
• sacrament as "sacrifice"

The Reformers were ready to dispense with customary Medieval practices that could not be squared with either Scripture or the catholic principle of "that which has been believed and practiced by all believers in all places and at all times." Unbiblical post-Constantinian innovations were to be rejected in favor of that which was biblical and properly catholic.

Old argues that we study the Reformers for the same reason that we study the Fathers:

One often asks why today we should study the Reformers. We study the Reformers for the same reason the Reformers studied the Church Fathers. They are witnesses to the authority of Scripture. The Reformers studied the patristic commentaries on Scripture because it enriched their own understanding of Scripture. Today we study the Reformers because they throw so much light on the pages of the Bible. They were passionately concerned to worship God truly and they searched the Scriptures to learn how. We study the Reformers because their understanding of Scripture is so profound.

Tradition is a check on the thinking of the present generation. It is the "democracy of the dead,"6 as G. K. Chesterton (1874-1937) called it. Our Reformed ancestors established what they did on the basis of prayer, careful thought, the principle of sola Scriptura, and respect for catholicity. The traditions of previous generations of Christians are their votes on our proposals. We should think highly of their work, think skeptically about our own judgments, and only depart from them when compelled to do so. Humility will serve as a restraint on radicalism. It will keep us biblically sound. (to be continued)

It is not uncommon for leading advocates of the new worship to speak disparagingly of tradition and traditional ways of doing things. Clearly they want liberty from the past, freedom to cast off the forms of historic Christian worship.7 But is this a healthy desire? Is it biblical? The Apostles not only instruct their churches to keep to the Scriptures but also to "hold to the traditions which (they) were taught" and even "keep aloof from every brother who leads an unruly life and not according to the tradition which you received from us" (2 Thessalonians 2:15; 3:6 NASV). The word "tradition" is the same one used by Jesus when He condemned the Pharisees for holding to the "traditions of men" (Mark 7:8; cf Matthew 15:1-14). Apparently there is good tradition and bad tradition. The bad would be that which conflicts with Scripture. The good would be that which is consistent with it. Tradition may not have the authority of Scripture itself. But it is not to be ignored either.

Yet the Apostles themselves made frequent appeal to universal Christian beliefs and practices. "Catholicity" has long been summarized as meaning "that which the church has believed in all places, by all people, and at all times." Catholicity of doctrine is clear enough in Scripture: our faith was "once for all delivered to the saints" (Jude 3). Christian doctrine is a treasure or deposit with which the church has been entrusted and to which alterations are not made - it is "the (i.e. one and only) faith" (1 Timothy 6:20,21; 2 Timothy 1:13, 14; etc.)

Perhaps less well understood is catholicity of practice. Yet repeatedly the Apostle Paul appeals to the practice of the whole church when requiring a given reform. He strengthens his moral, theological, and biblical arguments with appeals to catholicity or universal practice. When he greets the church at Corinth, he does so with ". . . all who in every place call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ" (1 Corinthians 1:2 NASV). The weight of the whole church universal stands with the Apostle Paul in this epistle. This is catholicity. What he writes he writes on behalf of "All (people) who in every place . . ." What he teaches them is taught . . . "everywhere in every church" (1 Corinthians 4:17). Universality was regarded by the Apostles as a principle worth highlighting. Dealing directly with our theme of worship (e.g. prayer, the role of women in the Christian assembly, and the Lord's Supper) he says, ". . .  we have no other practice, nor have the churches of God" (1 Corinthians 11:16 NASV). The practice of the early church is singular enough that the Apostle Paul can appeal to it. The "churches of God" were unified in their use of important liturgical forms. Respecting a whole range of issues touching the church's practice of prayer, singing, prophesying  (preaching), decency (decorum), orderliness, and the role of women, he underscores his writings with a catholic appeal: "for God is not a God of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints" (1 Corinthians 14:33 NASV). The Apostles established a worship common to the churches, a common worship, in which all the churches were expected to participate.  The Apostle Paul expects the Corinthian church to conform to the orderly pattern found in "all the churches."

It is doubtful that the common practice of the churches of which the Apostle Paul speaks refers to that moment only, as though the standards to which they were to conform were always changing. Rather, it implies continuity not only from church to church but from one generation to the next. Uniformity is a virtue, and conformity at least at some important visible level is a requirement in the New Testament. It seems not to matter if a church is Greek (Corinth), or Asian (Ephesus), or Mid-Eastern (Jerusalem), or Latin (Rome). It is expected that the churches will not deviate from the apostolically established practice of the whole church. Idiosyncratic churches created to suit the taste and style preferences of specific ethnic groups or generations would not have been contemplated.

To what categories of worship does a uniform catholicity apply?  From our brief review of 1 Corinthians 11-14 and Ephesians 4 we can see that the Apostles expected uniformity of practice in the following areas: 

• • prayer
  • singing
  • preaching
  • the Lord's Supper
  • baptism (Eph 4:4,5)
  • orderliness and decorum
  • the role of women in public worship

This is a substantial list. Catholicity in ministry was important to the Apostles and should be important to us as well. The church then, and the church now, needs a common worship in which a common ministry functions.

"An unwillingness to consult tradition," says Tim Keller, "is not in keeping with either Christian humility or Christian community."1 Christians who were often better disciples of Christ than ourselves established the practices that we call traditional. Why did they establish a given practice, we should ask. What were their reasons? We are not required to follow them slavishly in every detail. To do so would be to make an idol of tradition. On the other hand, to ignore tradition is to make an idol of the present.

Six months after this development was reported in USA Today, a similar article in Christianity Today described the same phenomenon with a straight face, seemingly oblivious to the silliness of some of these innovations, and especially to the unfeasibility and divisiveness of this philosophy if universally accepted.3 When the advocates of "contemporary worship" promote its implementation they cannot be urging for a single thing because there is no one contemporary culture. Instead, they argue for a thousand times a thousand different approaches to worship, each catering to individual cultural preferences based on age, affinity, or ethnicity, and at the same time excluding all the rest. Sally Morgenthaler finds it necessary to devote nearly 40 pages to distinguishing the worship that appeals to "Boomers" to that which appeals to "Busters."4 Being "contemporary" isn't enough. One must determine which contemporary constituency one wishes to reach and tailor one's services to its tastes. Saddleback now conducts four services simultaneously on Sunday mornings: "traditional" Saddleback, rock, gospel, and classic hymns and choruses. "How will we respond to the new tribalism of worship and music?" asks Michael S. Hamilton, in an article otherwise favorable to the new diversity in worship. "How can we keep our sectarian worship from becoming a sectarianism of the soul?"5 "In today's climate," argues Gene E. Veith, "if a church seizes upon one particular style of popular music, then that will privilege those whose music is chosen and alienate everyone else."6 What is the answer to this fragmenting of the church? A fresh appreciation of its catholicity.

Reformed Protestants have always affirmed the importance of the church's catholicity and apostolicity, though they have tended to define these doctrinally and spiritually rather than institutionally.7 Anabaptists were criticized by the Reformed as schismatics who ignored or even disdained catholicity of doctrine and practice. The Reformers showed little patience for the individualistic and idiosyncratic. They affirmed the priesthood of all believers (collectively). They did not believe in the priesthood (or preacher-hood) of every believer.8 Catholicity, and its regular companion, unity, were esteemed. Reformed Protestants have seen themselves as practicing a reformed version of Catholicism, which, though reformed, is nonetheless catholic. William Perkins (1558-1602), a father of English Puritanism, wrote in 1597 a work entitled Reformed Catholic, claiming for the Reformed church a true catholicity over against Rome's false claims.9 John Owen, Richard Baxter, and mainstream Puritans embraced the titles of "reformed catholic" or "mere catholic."10 Their argument was that the novelties of doctrine and practice that developed in the Middle Ages were discontinuous with the Apostolic and Patristic doctrine and practice that had preceded it. The Reformers attempted to establish unity in ministry and doctrine with the Apostolic and Patristic church, as well as all that was sound from the Middle Ages. Rome, with its normalizing of Medieval innovations, had broken ranks with the catholic church, the church of the Apostles and Fathers with whom the Reformers were joining hands in fellowship. The Reformation, in this sense, may be regarded as an argument over which church would be regarded as normative, the Medieval church as it had evolved or the Patristic. The Protestant Reformers "anchored their case" for reform "in the patristic period . . ." says David Wells, "arguing that the Reformation was really a contest between patristic and medieval Christianity."11 Nevertheless they respected and borrowed generously even from the medieval church. "The Reformed churches . . . intentionally harvested the best theology, piety and practice of the Eastern and Western church," as Scott Clark points out, "from the fathers through the Middle Ages" (my emphasis).12 Continuity with the past in both doctrine and worship has always been a serious concern of Reformed Protestantism. (to be continued)

Download the entire list for 2009 here.

Note:
Hymn numbers are from the Trinity Hymnal (1990), Psalm selections from the Trinity Psalter (1994).
LIW = Leading in Worship
NTH= New Trinity Hymnal

In the 1980's the NFL added Monday Night Football. Then Sunday Night Football. In the 1990's and 2000's, the NCAA and the cable channels added multiple Saturday games, extending from noon until after 2:00a.m. Saturday morning. "Game Day" starts at 10:30a.m. on ESPN. A Thursday night game was added just a few years ago. One could easily watch 5 college games and 4 NFL games a week, consuming 30 hours a week, not counting "Game Day" and countless sports highlights and commentary shows. Many sports fans do just that, bleary-eyed by late Saturday night, but by Sunday morning eagerly anticipating the next round of games. This devotion to football is immoderate if not idolatrous, gobbling up time that ought to be devoted to family, exercise, vacation, charity or the cultivation of the soul.

What can be done about it? Observe the Sabbath and abstain from all competitive athletics, whether as a spectator or athlete, on Sunday. The Sabbath, like tithing and fasting, are disciplines of moderation. We are tempted to make idols out of our secular passions, whether vocational or avocational (spectator sports, hobbies, food, etc.). Sabbath, tithing, and fasting (all sorts of fasting) draw a line and say "thus far and not further." Inclined to make money your god? Tithing requires that you turn 10% of your increase over to God. Inclined to make food your god? Fasting requires that one abstain from all food for a period. Obsessed with hunting, fishing, golf, reading detective novels, gardening or whatever? The Sabbath demands at least the moderation of Sunday abstinence, 24 hours without your obsession.

These disciplines are not a cure-all. They don't solve the problem of over-indulgence. These are heart issues that must be resolved, that only the Holy Spirit can handle. Rather, they should be seen as one weapon in the arsenal of sanctification. They provide regular, structured reminders that we are called to higher ends and therefore to moderation to all the pleasures available to us in this world.

They lied.

Our weepy good-byes to Sam prove that we're still no good at this.

Life can be seen as a progression through a series of stages, from childhood to adolescence, to early adulthood, to mature adulthood. I have enjoyed every phase of life as far back as I can remember. But I've never wanted to go back. I loved early, pre-school childhood. I cried every day for weeks when I started grammar school. After Christmas and summer vacations, I'd cry again the first Monday back at school, more than once wheeling my bike around before getting to the end of the block, and heading back home in tears, to a home I didn't want to outgrow.

But by the 6th grade I loved grammar school life and regretted its passing. I loved the 9th grade of junior high, and mourned its end and the arrival of scary 10th grade at Phineas Banning High School. So it went with high school, college, seminary, internship, ministry, marriage, and the arrival of children. I have loved each stage and lamented its end, even as I grew to love the succeeding stage.

Yet I have never wanted to go back. I was sad when my teens ended. But I never wanted to relive the teenage years. Who would? I loved seminary study, but didn't want to do it over again. But this latest stage, the dropping off your children at college stage, is different. It signals that life's major task is now almost over. We only rear our children once. In many ways everything leads up to our child-rearing years and everything else looks back on them. The primary job that God has given us to do (as a covenant community as well as families) is to be fruitful and multiply, to bring children into the world into whose hands the torch can be placed to continue the work of subduing the earth to the glory of God. I don't want these days to end. I want to go back to the days when our house was full of our five loud, energetic, school-aged children.

"Being a grandparent is more enjoyable than being a parent," I've been told. Maybe so. Still, the pathos in the Johnson home is deep. Sam's piano has been the background music for our family. We have delighted in his emotive style of playing, whether the music was classical, jazz, or church music. The silence since he has left is deafening. Just before we left for Wofford College on Monday morning (August 25) he went back to the piano one more time and played, "Softly and Tenderly" and "Jesus Keep Me Near the Cross." Call it the straw that broke the camel's back. We're just not good at this.

It is gratifying for a parent to see younger sisters weep as they say goodbye to their older brother, but it is also heart-wrenching. I love that they love him. Sally doesn't know what it means to go to school without Sam. And she doesn't want to. For Ben, with two brothers gone, "this will be the worst fall ever." He doesn't know life without two big brothers to look up to.

Sam and Drew have both settled in at college and are studying, making friends, and playing football. Drew's thumb injury has knocked him out for the season. Sam, on the other hand, after missing August football camp and walking on in early September, within 2 weeks made the 60-man travel team, got in for one play against SEC opponent South Carolina, and is starting on special teams.

Families fight and fuss and presume on each other and "take each other for advantage," as we say in our house. But when we are deprived of each other, then we realize most clearly how profound, how deep, how mysterious our love for each other is. For the first time I not only don't want it to end. I want to freeze the present. No, I want to go back.

Our Sunday School classrooms are packed. We now have 60 children, 3-years-old and under, stuffed into our nurseries. Our dearth of parking, if left unaddressed, will continue to suffocate the future growth of our ministry. We had 300 or more in attendance on six different Sunday nights this summer at Point Pleasant and averaged 280 in attendance in a building designed for 250! Only one of two things can be done about physical limits. One can accept them and stand still, or one can build, overcome them, and continue to grow. I don't see any other options. Do nothing, and we smother growth that would otherwise have occurred. Physically and materially accommodate growth, and we move forward.

What do we need to do? Build and renovate Sunday School space, purchase additional Sunday School space, find additional parking, build for Sunday nights at Point Pleasant and renovate throughout. What will this require? Here are some very, very rough estimates: $5.5 million downtown and another $2.0 million at Point Pleasant. We have just put $713,656 into renovating our steeple, an unanticipated repair job. We have $750,000 in capital donations in the bank. But these funds will only scratch the surface. Here is the way it breaks down.

Whitaker Street Building - $2.3 million
Build on existing property

Sanctuary - $200,000
Carpet removed, floors restored, pews resealed, cushions repaired/replaced

Administration Building - $130,000
Carpets removed, floors refinished, 2nd and 3rd floors repainted

Education Building - $200,000
Restrooms renovated, carpets removed, floors refinished

Lane - $670,000
Complete renovation with landscaping, new lights, new walkways, security cameras

Parking - $924,000
Purchase adjacent property

Additional Sunday School Space - $750,000
Purchase adjacent property

These are, I repeat, very rough estimates, but clearly we will need to undertake a new fundraising effort after the first of the year. Fundraising is never fun. But the growth that makes it necessary certainly beats the alternative. These are intriguing times for us.

The current financial crisis is unsettling and could upend the best of plans. Yet, the blessing of God is clearly evident. We have watered and planted, but He is causing the growth (1 Corinthians 3:6,7). More growth may be in the offing, but bold steps are necessary if we are to make room for it.

We are getting an exciting number of visitors these days. They represent a wonderful opportunity and a solemn responsibility. One thing we need to ask ourselves is, "What do they see when they come to our facility?" They see our beautiful sanctuary, of course. But what else? Does it matter? Those of us on the "purist" end of the church spectrum should not underestimate the importance of the appearance and condition of our facilities. Matthew Henry's counsel to "those who are serious in religion" is that when they are able to persuade others "to that which is good," they "should make it as cheap and easy to them as may be."  Our theology and worship is difficult enough. We should not drive people off by careless negligence. Some of us, perhaps, in the name of honoring the sovereignty of God, have gone Gnostic, treating people like disembodied spirits for whom the physical and aesthetic environment were of no consequence. If the proponents of historic Christianity wish to see their tribe increase, they must give focused attention to parking, grounds, restrooms, nurseries, upkeep and overall appearance of the physical plant. We cannot avoid issues of acoustics, lighting, temperature, and seating, as well as the overall friendliness of the congregation. There is nothing about these concerns that is incompatible with Reformed theology, a high regard for the sovereignty of God, or a priority placed on the work of the Holy Spirit. It is merely to practice biblical wisdom, to understand the nature of people and things, to take into account the physical and material dimension of the human experience, and accommodate that dimension as we rely on the supernatural work of the Holy Spirit working through the word.

Bill Hybels, Rick Warren, Randy Pope, and the Seeker-Church pastors are geniuses at eyeballing church facilities from the perspective of visitors. They encourage us to ask a number of questions about our building, grounds, and reception of guests. Those who have urged the church to "contextualize" its ministry are correct up to a point. We minister in a given cultural context. We are foolish not to accommodate that culture where we can without compromising principle. Attention should be given to the following items.

Regarding buildings & grounds

• Adequate parking - if parking is difficult, people may find a more convenient place to attend or stop attending altogether. This is particularly a problem for urban churches but one which must be solved.
• Posted signs - have signs everywhere telling people where to find what they need.
• Grounds - lawn should be mowed, gardens well groomed and weeded. Landscaping should be attractive.
• Neatness - trash should be picked up, clutter removed. A neat, tidy appearance should be maintained.
• Restrooms - clean, well-stocked modern facilities should be provided.
• Nurseries - as noted, clean, safe, attractive nurseries are a must.
• Wear & tear - where paint is chipping or carpets fraying, touch-up or replacement (as the case may apply) is necessary.

The common theme moving through this list is the evidence that someone is paying attention. Sloppy, dirty, cluttered, unkempt facilities beg the question, "Does anyone care about this church and its ministry?" And if, as evidenced by the deteriorating church facility, they don't, why, as a visitor, should I? How do we measure up? I'm afraid we need a major overhaul of most of our facilities and we need to do it now, not tomorrow.

• Clutter can be seen everywhere. We all need to pick-up, clean-up, and put away that which is cluttering-up our classrooms and hallways.
• Wear & tear - take a look at the carpet in the Administration Building. It is vile. Stains are omnipresent. It should be replaced immediately. Then look at the restrooms. They are a mess, especially the ladies restrooms in the Axson Education Building. Water stained ceiling tiles, rusted vents, and other messes need to be cleaned, painted, or removed. Look at the chipped paint in the hallways and stairwells. They probably should be repainted and touched-up annually.
• Grounds - the entire lane needs to be doused in weed-killer. The front lawn needs spot-replanting and the roadside beds trimmed up.
• Signs are completely inadequate. Buildings are not properly identified. Directions and maps are nowhere to be found.
• Parking remains a constant problem. More and more of us need to be part of the solution by parking in the Liberty Street parking structure or the Board of Education lot so that visitors and the disabled can park close by.

The church staff has already begun to tackle some of these problems. Would you like to be a part of solving others? We need money for immediate replacement and clean-up, and laborers to weed, scrub, paint, and organize. Are you ready, for the sake of the visitors, to pitch in? Are you willing to see your church expand its ministry significantly? We can start by coming to the Saturday morning work-day, September 13, 9:00-12:00 (breakfast at 8:30).

The truth, however, is that exemplary piety on the part of those leading the church is the single most important factor determining whether a ministry will or will not be fruitful. Years ago my brother-in-law, an elder in the Presbyterian Church of America, served on his church's search committee for an assistant minister. After interviewing half-a-dozen candidates he made an interesting comment. He noted that all of the candidates were young, sharp, and hip. He said they all displayed keen wit, winsome personalities, and social finesse. However, he went on to observe, none of them seemed to be particularly godly. He didn't perceive much spiritual passion. Or disciplined devotion. Or ethical precision. Or a burden for souls. Or a controlling love for Christ. Or a zeal for the glory of God. They were well- educated, thoroughly trained for ministry, and competent program organizers. They were groomed for success. All the necessary ingredients were present. But they lacked spiritual gravitas, the seriousness and focus, the intensity and carefulness, that comes from knowing the God of the Bible.

Deep piety, we would argue, is a necessary concomitant of supernatural religion. Spiritual worship requires spiritual leadership. The single most important factor in the leading of effective ministries is the spiritual maturity, the depth of devotion, the depth of piety of the ones leading these services. Put negatively, one cannot effectively lead in prayer publicly if one is not devoted to prayer in the closet; one cannot effectively lead in the study of God's word through its reading and preaching in public if one is not disciplined in the study of God word in private; one cannot effectively lead the people of God into communion with Christ at the Table unless one pursues communion with Him as a habit of life.

The professionalization of the pastorate coupled with a market-driven philosophy has been tragically misleading at this point. The impression has been made that "success" in ministry is almost entirely a matter of external factors. This may not have been said in so many words, but rather has been implied by where the marketers and church- growthers have placed their emphasis. The keys to success, one might have thought, are to be found in a style of dress (casual), a format (late- night talk show), a style of music (pop), a type of building (non-churchy), and kind of message (topical sermons addressing felt needs). Success for the church (it has been implied) is to be found in niche programs and services, advertising, marketing, top-of-the-line sound and light systems, therapeutic or "practical" messages, managerial skill and professional leadership. The godliness of those leading the church is almost entirely overlooked. This is nowhere more obvious than in the prevalence of young people, often teenagers, up front, leading worship services with instruments, music, and transitional comments, who, unlike the ministers of yesteryear, are untested, untrained, and spiritually unqualified for the task. Personality, it would seem, has been allowed to trump piety; format, faithfulness; style, substance, and technique, character. If John Angell James thought in 1847 that "An Earnest Ministry" was "the want of the times," one can scarcely imagine his response to the state of the ministry at the beginning of the twenty-first century.