Adam, Eve, and Maple Tree Leaves

by Kevin L. Hester

I have the privilege of working at Welch College which is nestled in the historic Richland Village neighborhood of Nashville, Tennessee. Every fall I am greeted with the brilliant yellows and bright reds of the neighborhood’s American maples. The beauty of this time of year always brings me back to the glory of God’s creation. My Christian worldview understands the beauty, intricacy, and order of this world within the context of God’s creation as outlined in Genesis 1-2. Sometimes I take this worldview for granted. After all, it isn’t the only one, and it certainly isn’t the predominant view in this country.

Modern science has argued for an alternative worldview story of accident and happenstance. Since Darwin, Christians have wrestled with the implications of his theory for Christianity. At times the Church has incorporated the view by reading “gaps” in the Genesis narrative or epochal “days” of creation. Still other parts of the Church have rejected naturalism entirely, preferring the “literal” interpretation of Genesis. This latter view has been the predominant evangelical view until recently. But more and more evangelicals have embraced forms of “theistic evolution” in an attempt to reconcile science and theology. This has led them to reread or reinterpret the Genesis narrative according to a scientific framework.

While many evangelical Christians have done an exemplary job responding to the challenge of Darwin’s thought, others have embraced it. New “advances” in the study of genetics promise to raise similar questions. Recently, Francis Collins and Karl Giberson of the BioLogos Forum have questioned the existence of a historical Adam and Eve as presented in Genesis. Their position was heavily covered both in Christian media and in secular news programs.

The appearance of a book covering this topic in Zondervan’s Counterpoint Series indicates that such thinking is infiltrating a number of branches of evangelicalism. Yet what is sometimes overshadowed or overlooked by these discussions are the implications of the loss of a historical Adam and Eve for the Church, for the Christian worldview, and for the gospel.

I am sure that technical answers from Christian scientists will be forthcoming. Already advances in discoveries about what was previously thought to be “junk DNA” are promising that there is much more to the story of human diversity both in reference to other species and variety in our own (see here).

Those technical answers will not come from me. I am not a scientist. Rather, I am a Christian theologian who knows what it is like to live in a beautiful, broken world. It is the story of Adam and Even that holds the key to the beauty, the brokenness, and the promise of redemption.

This promise lies in a historical Adam and Eve. Rather than reading Genesis 1-3 according to a scientific preconception of what it must mean, perhaps we should attempt to read it according to the narrative of the book in which it is found. In this case, the Bible is thoroughly historical in nature. Even books that are not strictly historical are set within a historical framework. Some books such as Kings, Chronicles, and Judges are historical in the highest degree. Others like prophecy occur in the context of historical disobedience or punishment. The wisdom literature is tied to historical authors striving to live their faith out in community. Likewise, the Psalms are linked to human authors, attest to human events, and cry out for lived experience in the present and future communities of faith. The Gospels describe the incarnation of Christ in historical detail dating the events by Roman rulers. Acts and the Epistles relate the growth of the Church in time and narrate its experience of living out the faith until Christ’s return. The whole scope of Scripture is historical in nature. Why should we expect anything different from the book of Genesis?

Genesis itself reads as a historical narrative starting as it does “in the beginning.” The ordered arrangement of the creation days speaks to temporal flow. The genealogies and events described all function to set the narrative firmly in the historical genre. The author clearly intends the text to be taken as history. Jesus and Paul likewise understood and presented the story of Adam and Eve as a literal event (cf. Rom. 5:12-14).

The events of Genesis 1-3 tell the basic worldview story of Christianity. Christianity is a historical religion. It preaches a historical gospel about a historical Jesus crucified under Pontius Pilate. But the events of Jesus’ incarnation, death, and resurrection have no meaning without the creation and fall of Adam and Eve. Paul, in Romans 5, outlines that it was Christ who came to set right all that had gone wrong because of Adam’s sin. The effects of the fall are being undone as we are recreated in God’s image as sons and daughters of God, and it is these effects that will be finally undone at the restoration of all things in the new heaven and the new earth. The Christian doctrine of the atonement, of salvation, and the eternal state–of the Gospel itself–are rooted in the historical Adam and Eve.

The story of Adam and Eve also explains human culture and relationships. According to Genesis 1, humans were designed, we did not simply come to be. Things that are designed have a purpose and this purpose is likewise described in the first few chapters of Genesis. Humans were created in God’s image so that they might have a relationship with God and with all the rest of creation. Genesis 2 points out how Eve was created to govern the world together with Adam and to be his partner establishing marriage and the nuclear family as the basis for human culture. Jesus himself makes precisely this point when he discusses the importance of marriage in Matthew 19:4-6. Without the story of such a design, there is no basis for societal norms and no standard for human relationships.

Genesis 1 tells us that what God created was good, but in Genesis 3 we see what humanity has done to God’s creation. Original beauty is marred and relationships are broken by sin. Consistent human experience tells us this is true. We inherently “feel” that something is wrong with the world. Evil exists and we are uncomfortable with it. We recognize beauty, but all too often see the grotesque creeping in around us. But where can such ideas of beauty and brokenness, of right and wrong come from?

The naturalistic worldview has no basis for such categories. In naturalism there is only good and bad for me but human experience consistently tells us that there really are such categories. The story of Adam and Eve, of a good creation corrupted by an evil use of free will explains the categories and promises a way back to the garden.

We need a historical Adam and Eve. The story’s historical reality is confirmed by the literary genre and by its use in Scripture. The historicity of the narrative from Genesis best accords with the historical faith of the Christian Church doctrinally expressed in the atonement as found in evangelical Christianity. It best explains the human desire to love and be loved and the human experience of good and evil, beauty and brokenness. Without Adam and Eve there is no Christianity, and without Christianity there is no hope.

This hope is also promised in the narrative of Adam and Eve. In Genesis 3:15, in the midst of the curses that came as a result of original sin, there is a promise. This promise shines a glimmer of hope in a dark world broken by sin with the story of the defeat of sin and death. You see this is why I can enjoy those autumn leaves. I know they are dying and will fall. I know that there will be months of cold and days with more darkness than light. But because of Adam and Eve, I have hope. I know that what appears dead and broken can be made new again. I know that a beauty lost can be regained.

Reflections on “Without God, Without Creed”

by W. Jackson Watts

 

I recently read James Turner’s significant 1985 work, Without God, Without Creed: The Origins of Unbelief in America [1]. It’s rare to find such a thoughtful work which combines social and intellectual history and extensive theological discussion. Moreover, it is refreshing to find a book which provides significant explanatory power for our present religious environment in America, even if the occasional detail is debatable.

The book is decidedly descriptive in nature, setting forth an account of how disbelief in God became plausible in late 19th-century America. This particular argument requires Turner to offer extensive commentary on religious and social developments at different epochs in American history. These developments cumulatively paved the way for agnosticism and atheism to be viable options. Since these trends have unavoidably contributed to our contemporary spiritual environment so significantly, in this post I intend to offer a few reflections on these and their bearing on the church today.

Christianity: Doctrine or Morals?

Turner describes evangelicalism, especially in the early-mid 1800s, as having taken a decided turn toward thinking of the Christian religion as being a code of morality rather than a confession of truth claims. While typically the latter wasn’t denied, it was minimized, especially as orthodox Christianity gradually lost mainstream intellectual influence. He develops this claim by pointing to historical incidents as well as direct citations from a number of writers in the past—orthodox Christians as well as those of a heterodox sort. Indeed, it will offend the sensibilities of many to read quotes from pastors such as Jonathan Mayhew in the mid-1700s, who described Christianity as “principally an institution of life and manners, designed to teach us how to be good men, and to show us the necessity of  becoming so” [2] [emphasis mine]. Many other examples abound.

There were more facets to this shift from doctrinal or truth claims to “Christianity as a superior brand of morality.” For our purposes, it should (1) provoke us to consider how our approach to faith embodies and explains the way that truth and morality relate, and (2) consider whether our engagement with the world forces us to erode or deemphasize either of the two. Let’s consider the first of these.

I think Leroy Forlines said it well in his valuable pamphlet Morals & Orthodoxy. He raised the question, “ “If orthodox thought is necessary for sound morality, the question might be asked if a sound morality is essential for orthodoxy?” [3] Forlines poroceeds to answer in the affirmative, stating, “Orthodoxy and morality [orthopraxy] are inseparably bound together. Each needs the other. Anemic morality cannot continually support orthodox theology and orthodox Cheristian experiences” [4].

Much more could be said about the relationship between doctrine and practice, or theology and morality (or ethics). Readers may see my 2012 Theological Symposium paper for some further insight and secondary sources to consider on this topic.

Christianity: World-Affirming or World-Denying?

The way Christian communities understand the fundamental essence of their faith informs how they engage the world in word and deed. Seeing Christianity as a set of metaphysical claims about God’s existence and personal salvation, or envisioning it as principally about the reform of society and its citizens, will inevitably shape how the church postures itself in the world. Christians in the past and even today can be found on various ends of the spectrum in their approach to ministry.

Yet Turner notes that the nineteenth century witnessed a wide-scale rise of moral reform organizations, including societies for temperance, sabbatarianism, antislavery, anti-dueling, and more [5]. Ironically, Turner’s narrative of early American religion also includes significance evidence of how many orthodox Christians enthusiastically embraced scientific advancement and discovery prior to and during this same period. Some even embraced such changes with the mindset that these advances were the means by which God was establishing His kingdom in the world. Not surprisingly, many theologians were postmillennialists in this era.

These trends force us to ask some significant questions about how Christianity relates to the world. “World” is indeed one of those tricky words which, like most words, has a range of meaning. Theologically speaking, it can refer to God’s good creation, the nations of the earth, or fallen humanity and the brokenness of the present order. Context is everything in making the determination of what “world” means in a given passage.

However, there is a larger, practical concern beyond word studies. Is Christianity world-affirming or world-denying? When we consider any number of passages[6], we could find different answers to this question:

“The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork.”

 (Psalm 19:1)

“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.”

 (John 3:16)

 “Do not love the world, or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him.”

 (1 John 2:15)

 And Jesus, looking at [the rich young man], loved him, and said to him, ‘You lack one thing: go, sell all that you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.’ Disheartened by the saying, he went away sorrowful, for he had great possessions.”

(Mark 10:21-22)

Such passages create tension in our minds as they  suggest an array of potential understandings of the world and the things therein. Certainly context, specific word studies, and reading with the overarching grain of Scripture help us ascertain the meaning of the word in each passage. These are the very things we must do to preach a sermon or teach a lesson. However, they are also essential for forming an ethic of vocation and leisure, a Christian vision of politics, and an overall understanding of culture.

Forging an understanding of this diverse range of subjects is dependent on a biblical worldview, but doctrines such as general revelation, common grace, sin, and eschatology are especially critical also. Otherwise the church will affirm what it must deny or deny what it should affirm. The wrong type of entanglement or withdrawal both yield the same result: unfaithful compromise. The church cannot build a fruitful ministry around uncritical affirmations nor hasty negations. It needs biblically-informed wisdom to avoid both.

I’m not suggesting that the church has an simple task in avoiding different versions of the errors committed by Christians in the seventeenth, eighteenth, and nineteenth centuries. One could argue that we’re still sorting through the ruins of twentieth-century errors as I write. However, Turner’s work is an in-depth treatment of some important issues that helps us evaluate misunderstandings that we likely will be tempted to repeat. Perhaps the way of escape from some temptations can often be found by looking at where we failed in the past.

____________________

[1] James Turner, Without God, Without Creed: The Origins of Unbelief in America (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1985).

[2] Turner, 67 (citing Mayhew).

[3] F. Leroy Forlines, Morals and Orthodoxy (Nashville: FWB Commission on Theological Liberalism, 1974), 5.

[4] Ibid., 12.

[5] Turner, 125.

[6] All Scripture citations come from the English Standard Version.

Why Calvinists Really Believe in Unconditional Election

by J. Matthew Pinson

Often my Calvinist friends say that the reason they are Calvinists is because of total depravity—that the entire Calvinistic system flows from total depravity, because there is no way to rescue people from their total depravity except by complete regeneration prior to faith, which necessitates unconditional election. Many Arminians over the centuries, of course, have bought into this line of reasoning and have jettisoned the doctrine of total depravity.

I contend, though, that it is not really the doctrine of total depravity that causes Calvinists to be Calvinists. To result in the Calvinistic system, Calvinists must add something to total depravity to demand unconditional election. What they add is sovereign and particular grace (“sovereign,” of course, by their definition of it).

Human beings are naturally unable to desire God or salvation; they can do so only through divine grace. On this much Calvinists and Reformed Arminians agree. But Calvinism interprets divine grace in such a way as to necessitate unconditional election: First, for Calvinists, divine grace presupposes a deterministic view of divine sovereignty, and second, God extends this grace only to the particular few because of His good pleasure and His secret will, which He has not revealed.

Therefore, despite the desire of many Calvinists to say that Arminians do not really believe that natural man is unable to desire God on His own, the real difference is that Reformed Arminians believe that God’s grace reaches out to all people, not merely a select few. Furthermore, Arminians believe that God has arranged His universe in such a way that His sovereignty allows for the genuine freedom of His creatures.

Before continuing this discussion of election, it will be helpful to define what theologians typically mean by words like predestination, election, and reprobation. It is helpful to think of election and reprobation as subsets of divine predestination. Predestination is simply God’s predetermination of the destiny of human beings. Election is His gracious choice of people to be His for eternity, while reprobation is His decree that the non-elect will be eternally separated from him. On this Calvinists and Arminians agree. It is the question of how people come to be elect or reprobate that causes the disagreement.

In other words, why does God predestine certain people to be His for eternity (election) and predestine others to be separated from Himself for eternity (reprobation)? This brings us to the “U” in the TULIP: Unconditional Election. Calvinists believe in unconditional election, and Arminians believe in conditional election. According to Calvinists, God predestines people to faith without any conditions. His reasons for choosing these people and passing over others are known only to Him. It is a part of His secret will, as distinguished from His revealed will in Holy Scripture.

Calvinists differ on whether reprobation is conditional or unconditional. Single reprobationists believe that, while God unconditionally chooses His elect for salvation, He conditionally reprobates the rest of humanity on account of their sin. This of course makes little sense to Arminians, who think that, if God’s redemptive decisions are conditional, then His decisions regarding human judgment would be conditional as well, and vice versa. Thus, many Arminians believe that double predestination is the more consistent Calvinist position. This seems to have been the position of John Calvin (though Calvinists disagree on whether his position was single or double predestination).

Calvin wrote, in Book 3, ch. 22 of his Institutes: “Those whom God passes over, he condemns; and this he does for no other reason than that he wills to exclude them from the inheritance which he predestines for his own children” [1]. Later he asked, “Whence does it happen that Adam’s fall irremediably involved so many people, together with their infant offspring in eternal death, unless it so pleased God” [2]. Thus, for Calvin, the good pleasure of God, and that alone, is the reason for divine reprobation.

For Arminians, both reprobation and election are conditioned on whether or not, in God’s foreknowledge, one is in union with Christ. If God foreknows one as in union with His Son through faith, then God elects that person to be one of His people for eternity. If God does not so foreknow one, He reprobates that person on the basis of unbelief.

I contend that the reason Calvinists believe in unconditional election is not their view of total depravity. Unconditional election is just one way God could use to save people who are totally depraved. The reason Calvinists resort to the doctrine of unconditional election is their view of God’s sovereignty. Consistent Calvinists would agree with Calvin’s statement that the reason why “Adam’s fall irremediably involved so many people, together with their infant offspring, in eternal death” is simply that “it so pleased God” [3].

Another way of saying this is that this is the best of all possible worlds. In the Arminian view, there are contingencies in the universe. In other words, because God gives human beings the gift of freedom, events can transpire in a way God does not want them to transpire. Even our common experiences in the world of seeing people—including Christians—openly disobey God seems to confirm this belief. For the Arminian, something has gone terribly wrong in the world. It is not the best of all possible worlds. But it was the world that God chose to create because He chose to create free, rational creatures—creatures who would not love and serve Him simply because it could not be otherwise.

Classical Calvinists, on the contrary, believe that God foreordained all of reality. For example, Jerome Zanchius stated that “All beings whatever, from the highest angel to the meanest reptile, and from the meanest reptile to the minutest atom, are the objects of God’s eternal decrees” [4]. August Toplady said concerning the sparrow that God’s “all-wise providence hath before appointed what bough it shall pitch on, what grains it shall pick up, where it shall lodge, and where it shall build; on what it shall live, and when it shall die” [5].

God foreordains every detail of reality, according to Classical Calvinism. Things are just as God pleased to foreordain them. The sole actor is God, and to say that human beings can freely choose a course of action, and could have chosen an alternate course of action, is to make man the measure of all things and to detract from God as sole actor in the universe.

This, not total depravity, is the reason unconditional election is necessary in the Calvinistic system. It is what led Herman Bavinck to say, “The final answer to the question why a thing is and why it is as it must ever remain, is ‘God willed it,’ according to his absolute sovereignty” [6]. If this approach to divine sovereignty were true, then A. A. Hodge’s statement would naturally follow: “A conditional decree would subvert the sovereignty of God and make him . . . dependent upon the uncontrollable actions of his own creatures” [7] (emphasis added). That, not total depravity, is the reason Calvinism necessitates the doctrine of unconditional election.

 

____________________

[1] Book 3, ch. 22 of his Institutes, 947.

[2] 955

[3] Institutes, 3.23.7.

[4] The Doctrine of Absolute Predestination Stated and Asserted (New York: George Lindsay, 1811), 114.

[5] The Works of Augustus Toplady (London: J. J. Chidley, 1841), 664.

[6] The Doctrine of God (Grand Rapids: Baker, repr. 1977), 371.

[7] Outlines of Theology (London: Thomas Nelson, 1863), 172.

“Strange Fire” by John MacArthur: A Book Review

by Randy Corn

 John MacArthur is a pastor, a nationally-syndicated radio speaker, and educator. However, he may well leave his most lasting mark as a writer.  Many have benefited from his New Testament commentary series, and have also been instructed by his books on many contemporary issues of concern to evangelicals, like the Lordship-Salvation debate. His willingness to engage issues debated by the church had led the California pastor to write Charismatic Chaos in 1992, a book which dealt with what he then saw as the essential differences between Charismatics and non-charismatic evangelicals. In Strange Fire (Thomas Nelson, 2013) he revisits the subject, showing some of how the intervening history has allowed a further deviation from biblical worship.

The subtitle of this book is “the danger of offending the Holy Spirit with counterfeit worship.” This theme is developed across twelve chapters which are evenly divided into three parts: Part 1 – Confronting a Counterfeit Revival; Part 2 – Exposing the Counterfeit Gifts; and finally, Part 3 – Rediscovering the Spirit’s True Work.

As one might expect, MacArthur begins with the story of Nadab and Abihu and the “strange fire” they offered in an act of worship at the tabernacle in Leviticus 10. In commenting on this incident he writes, “The crux of their sin was approaching God in a careless, self-willed, inappropriate manner, without the reverence He deserved.”[1]  It is the author’s contention those who believe the “sign gifts” of the New Testament are still active today have actually done with such gifts. Never one to mince words, MacArthur says of this movement, “It has warped genuine worship through unbridled emotionalism, polluted prayer with private gibberish, contaminated true spirituality with unbiblical mysticism, and corrupted faith by turning it into a creative force for speaking worldly desires into existence.”[2]

When I picked this book up, I thought it might be an attack on the extremes of the Charismatic movement, but it is much broader than that. Essentially MacArthur lumps together all the Pentecostals, neo-Pentecostals, and charismatics.  This broad-brush approach had me a bit concerned at times.  It just seems too harsh to class the sincere and godly men I have known in the Assemblies of God with Joel Osteen. I know that many of my friends in the Pentecostal church are far more biblical than that. I suppose MacArthur would say they aren’t biblical enough.

That objection being stated, I have to say it was interesting to read about both the history and the extremes of this movement.  It is alarming, but at the same time I do think it creating a distance between biblical Christianity and whatever it is that the Charismatics are producing. I have to think that sooner or later their brand of religion will collapse. Of course, I wonder if evangelicals were saying that about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints when they were becoming well-established in Utah and evangelical leaders realized that it would not simply go away. Even so, it is important to be aware of what is going on in the name of God.  Some of it clearly is “strange fire.”

This is the kind of book that a lot of people will be talking about. Some will read it for that reason, but it should also be read because it is presenting some important information and adds to ones comprehension of the ecclesiastical terrain.

____________________

[1] John MacArthur, Strange Fire: The Danger of Offending the Holy Spirit with Counterfeit Worship (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2013), 1 (ebook edition).

[2] Ibid., 2.

Emotions in Worship: Part 3

by Kevin Hester

How Then Should We Emote?

In part one of this discussion we learned that emotions are part of God’s creative purposes in human nature. If God created emotions they must be good. There is no room for an absolute stoicism – in life, or in worship. But the Fall has corrupted our emotions just as it has corrupted our minds. Controlling our emotions is not about suppressing them. Instead it involves a conscious weighing of why and how we are feeling what it is that we are feeling.

In part two we looked at what it means to consciously weigh and express our emotions in corporate worship. We noted that our worship was commanded by God and that we should actively engage worship with all our being. Our worship glorifies God, but it also encourages and edifies believers and convicts the unrepentant of sin. However, true worship is the worship that God has commanded conducted in a way that is pleasing to God.

With this in mind we pointed out four Biblical principles concerning emotion in worship. These principles were: 1) we are called to worship God with all our heart, mind, and soul; 2) all things must be done decently and in order; 3) Christian liberty is active in worship; and, 4) the intentional manipulation of emotion in worship does damage to the Gospel.

Today, I would like to reflect further on these principles and the way that they can or should be applied in corporate worship. The most effective way to do this is by examining several common misconceptions about emotions in worship. My prayer through this discussion is that we can find balance in our emotions and balance in our worship.

Common Misconceptions on Emotions in Worship.

  1. If you feel anything in worship it is fleshly and of the devil. If you feel something in worship it is indeed fleshly but as we have pointed out we are called to use all aspects of our nature in the worship of God. Emotions are not of the devil. God made them. That is not to say that they can not be used inappropriately. We have seen that they can. Yet, inasmuch as our emotions are authentic, directed toward God, and manifested in congruence with the regulative principle God is honored by them.
  2. If I don’t walk away from worship feeling good I haven’t worshiped. This concept is wrong on two counts. First, it demonstrates a level of individualism that is inconsistent with corporate worship. Worship is our service to God, not his service to us. Any benefit we receive from worship is a by-product and not the end goal. Second, whether I walk away from worship feeling good misses the point. Authentic, active, emotional worship only means that I will leave a worship service feeling. There are many appropriate emotions for worship. Joy is certainly one, but there are many others: reverence in the presence of our Creator and Redeemer; sorrow for our sin and fear of our Judge; love, for God and for one another; peace in our reconciliation and the anticipation of God’s promises fulfilled. I could go on, but hopefully you get the point. Engaging our emotions in worship means feeling, not necessarily feeling good.
  3. The display of emotion in worship is most appropriate while singing. There is something about music that speaks to us on a visceral level and has the capacity for drawing forth a deep emotional response. Our emotions, together with our mind and our wills ought to be engaged in our singing but it sometimes seems as if there is a switch that many people turn off as the pastor stands to preach, as people pray, and as the offering plate is passed. We are called to fully engage all aspects of our being in all parts of the divinely-instituted worship service. Emotions are not just appropriate in singing. After all, Scripture speaks of “cheerful giving,” of crying out with our emotions in prayer, and directs us with thanksgiving to make our requests before God. The Bible is also replete with emotional responses to hearing the Word of God including: fear, joy, and thanksgiving.
  4. Emotions are just about feelings I get and not what I do. Emotions are expressions of our heart but mere emotion without will and action is simply tinkling brass or a clanging gong. Notice James’ instruction on worship at the close of his book. He asks, “Is anyone among you suffering? Let him pray. Is anyone among you cheerful? Let him sing praise” (5:13). Notice that James equates feeling with doing. Both he and Paul point out that our emotions should motivate us to action in worshiping and praising God. I would also draw your attention to the fact that the actions being discussed here are, as all legitimate worship, directed toward God. These acts of emotional worship are not for the self but for God and in their viewing for the edification of all the believers. There is no room for individualism in corporate worship.
  5. All emotional expression of worship across the world will be homogenous. Emotions are similarly felt by all people but emotional expression is often culturally driven. While the regulative principle outlines the content and context of our worship with norms that are universal we must realize that the application of these principles may sometimes have a different tone or feel. All Christian worship services should have the same elements but the expression of these elements may differ. The principle that is binding here as it relates to emotional expression is that all cultures must honor God in a way that is decent, orderly, and peaceful. If an unbeliever from that culture were to happen upon the service, he or she should find nothing there that would seem out of place or irreverent. No emotional expression that draws the focus of our worship away from God or his message of redemption is ever appropriate.
  6. If that person were really worshiping he would be crying, shouting, smiling, raising his hands just like me. Although all persons have the same emotions not all people experience and display emotions in the same way. Some of this is associated with our culture and some with our upbringing. Some emotions are difficult to detect. Our role in worship is to actively engage and not to judge others for appearances that may or may not be indicative of his or her heart. Again, we must not bind the consciences of others by our own perceptions and experiences. In many ways this is the other side of the coin to the first misconception we looked at. Both reveal a judgmental character that defines spirituality externally; by what is, or is not done. Both are condemned by Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount and the principle of Christian liberty demands us to extend grace and acceptance to all our brothers and sisters in Christ.

Conclusion

In the midst of worship debates that more often resemble a royal rumpus than a theological discussion, I ask that you consider a few clear points. God created us, even our emotions and God created us with no greater purpose than to worship Him. Let us love him and serve him with all our hearts, all our minds, all our souls, all our strength. Stop looking around in worship and start looking to God. It is not about us. It is about Him.

“Therefore do not be foolish, but understand what the will of the Lord is…be filled with the Spirit, addressing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody to the Lord with your heart, giving thanks always and for everything to God the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ.” (Ephesians 5: 17-21)

Preserving and Promoting Free Will Baptist Doctrine