Tag: denominations

Form, Substance, and Formalism

I love variety in the church! Though I am committed to and unwilling to compromise the fundamentals of the faith (the inerrancy and authority of Scripture, the exclusivity of the Gospel, the urgency of the Great Commission, etc.), I am grateful for the different forms of worship that I’ve had the joy of experiencing.

I grew up in a small rural Baptist church where the windows only had a hint of stain in the glass, the old hymns were sung with a southern twang, the day of worship started with a Sunday School assembly (including the obligatory birthday and anniversary recognitions and songs), and every verse of “Just As I Am” was sung at least a couple of times during the invitation. Of course, this church consistently presented me with the Gospel of Christ!

That traditional rural church also took me to children’s camps, youth retreats, and youth rallies where I was saved and challenged to grow much deeper in my faith. In fact, those events were the most exciting and God-encountering moments of my childhood and teen years. And the form of those experiences was much different than that of the worship in the church that sent me. Yet the substance was the same solid Gospel. It was straightforward J-E-S-U-S.

But this substance was celebrated in a variety of new ways. I remember the guitar around the campfire on a dark night, the introduction of those Keith Green songs and other choruses (that are now in hymnbooks), and the pageantry and lighting of the coliseum rallies. I never felt like it was a show, just that they were making large of Jesus and inviting us to worship Him. I was still committed to the Sunday morning services in my local church but longed for the freshness, passion, energy, and intimacy of those events planned for youth and children.

Those various “Baptist” experiences have not provided my only context of form in worship. Being called into the ministry I continued to attend the Pentecostal college that was close to home. At that time, most of the Baptist colleges of my denomination were struggling with serious substance issues related to the nature of Scripture. Besides, I assumed I was Pentecostal because of my love for the aforementioned passion, energy, and intimacy in worship. No doubt, I discovered some theological differences fairly quickly. But I also made some genuine friends, served on some ministry teams committed to sharing Jesus, and dug deeper in my personal relationship with Christ. I am so thankful for that time and the ongoing impact it has had on my life.

I met my wife while attending seminary in North Carolina. She had grown up in a large Presbyterian church. I was able to attend worship there on several occasions. The form was very different from the rural Baptist and Pentecostal churches that I had attended. But believe it or not, there were elements of liturgical worship that inspired me. The large organ, the recitation of the Apostles Creed and Lord’s Prayer, prayers of confession, while having become vain ritual for some were a welcome change of pace for me.

I could go on. I have attended predominantly African American churches where the choir sings a special that lasts nearly twenty minutes and the pastor preaches with organ accompaniment. I have been in worship in different countries all around the world that looked, in form, nothing like what I had experienced in this nation. In other words, I have experienced a variety of forms and styles in worship. But I have never abandoned the substance of my faith, THE FAITH once for all delivered to the saints (Jude 3).

Here’s the thing…

The New Testament does not reveal a legalistic order of worship, description of facilities, or partiality toward styles when it comes to form in worship. However, the New Testament focuses big time on substance. Jesus Christ is the focus of New Testament worship. The exaltation of the risen Lord is primary. The saints of God are to be equipped in the Word of God to do the will of God. And the lost who choose to attend should hear the Gospel of Christ clearly articulated. Certain substantive elements and principles like preaching, teaching, fellowship, accountability, and the environment of praise are laid out again and again.

This substance of authentic, Christ-centered worship can take on a number of forms. Some early Jewish believers placed Jesus at the center of the passion and pageantry that was already part of their temple worship and festivals. The New Testament contains no instructions telling them to reject the multi-instrumental music and dance style of worship described in the Psalms (see Psalm 150), the torch lighting at the Feast of Tabernacles, or the hanging of colorful banners or curtains like they saw in the Temple. Nor does the New Testament require the Gentile believers to embrace Old Covenant forms (Colossians 2:16-17; Acts 15). Form would vary in the early church, but the substance was always the crucified and resurrected Christ!

That brings me to the subject at hand. Form is what helps us contextualize and celebrate substance. Formalism is equating form with substance or elevating it over substance.

Form is helpful. Ritual does not always mean ritualism. Whether high church liturgical, old-fashioned non-liturgical, or new contemporary, the form can give us tangible ways to magnify the substance. Different forms are likely necessary to engage different cultures and accomplish the substantive mission even in one given geographical area, especially if a community’s demographics are wide and varied.

It is important to know that all these categories of form have been embraced by theological liberals and theological conservatives. I completely reject attempts to classify a local church as liberal or conservative based on their form. Bible-believing churches are churches that refuse to compromise the substance of the Gospel and the authority of the Word of God, regardless of form. If form incorporates something the Bible blatantly calls sinful, you have a substance issue. In fact, heresy is not a respecter of forms! It manifests itself in all types of form.

The issue that concerns me the most today is the rise of formalism that is manifest not so much in one’s elevation of form over substance in their own worship setting. It is the elevation of form over substance when criticizing the worship setting of other churches that seems to be on the rise. This criticism of form can be a type of formalism. A quick scroll through social media will reveal this elevation of preference in form in a way that divides even Bible-believing followers of Christ.

Here are some statements revealing the prevalence of formalism:

  • “That church is too old-fashioned.” For whom? Are they preaching and exalting Christ? As the senior adult population grows in this nation, and lostness among that group, it may take more old-fashioned churches to engage them. And, by the way, a few young people enjoy that style.
  • “That church is too liturgical. Dry orthodoxy! Dead!” How do you know? The liturgy may keep their passions for Jesus fresh. Do you know their hearts? Some liturgical churches are doing an outstanding job using the liturgy to establish a generation in biblical truth.
  • “We’re losing sound theology by not singing the old hymns!” The old hymns were new at one point. And believe it or not, theologically sound hymns and worship songs are being written today. Perhaps we are losing sound theology because parents aren’t being equipped to teach it in the home to the next generation. There are old hymns that are rich in theology and old hymns that are not. The same can be said of the new songs. There are churches that only use the old hymns that are failing to engage and disciple a generation in sound truth. There are churches that sing predominantly new songs that are winning people to Christ, enlisting them into disciple groups, and growing deep in the doctrines of Christ.
  • “The lighting in the sanctuary should be…” You finish the statement. “Jesus is light, so the entire sanctuary should be well-lit!” Or “The light shined in the darkness, so the sanctuary should show the contrast with bright lights penetrating darkness.” Or “Contemporary lighting turns the service into a man-centered concert!” Each statement places form over substance if you are being critical of how other churches light their sanctuaries. Do you know the hearts and motives of the individuals seeking to engage believers in the exaltation of Jesus Christ? Be careful here. There is room for a variety of preferences. But don’t elevate your preference above substance. Worship can be a “show” in both well-lit sanctuaries where parishioners only go to be seen and in sanctuaries with only well-lit stages. What might be a “show” to one can be the elimination of distractions to another to get their eyes on solid lyrics and a timely message, form designed to place attention on substance.

I will go to battle, and often do, when it comes to defending the substance of our worship! But when it comes to form, I can worship in a spontaneous environment and in a liturgical setting. I can worship in a sanctuary as well-lit as the Crystal Cathedral or as dark and intimate as a theatre. I can exalt Christ with various genres of music. I love my Reformed and my Charismatic friends and the elements of worship each have helped me to appreciate. We may have theological disagreements in some areas of substance. Let those discussions continue. But let’s not belittle one another because we don’t embrace the same form.

The next time we find ourselves criticizing the form of worship in another church, let’s try asking these questions. First, listen to the preaching and teaching that’s taking place. Is it solidly biblical? Is Christ being exalted? Is the body being equipped? Does the lead pastor seem to have a biblical vision and mission? If so, there is also likely much thought and prayer given to how the form of worship facilitates this substance and the mission of the church.

Second, ask yourself, “How well do I know those who plan and lead the worship?” Have you spent enough time with them in worship and outside of worship to speculate concerning their motives? Finally, ask, “Is this church reaching people that a different church may not be reaching?” If so, is that the real cause of the criticism? I know that many of us, perhaps especially ministers, have been tempted to delegitimize that which we envy.

Quick note: Explaining why you choose the form you embrace is not necessarily an act of formalism as long as we do so without being highly critical of those who choose a different form.

I pray that those of us who stand firm on the Gospel of Christ and are committed to sharing Him with our world can learn to respect the various forms that contextualize the mission. Arguing our preferences only causes us to slip into subjective areas of pragmatism and divide the body of Christ. May we focus on the substance with greater passion than ever and see a new awakening of the church in this day!

Standing in Agreement When We Disagree on So Much

Endorsing or standing in agreement with people of influence, when we do agree, doesn’t mean that we endorse everything about that person’s beliefs or character.

Can I confess a great struggle to you? This is a subject that I am learning to navigate my way through, both spiritually and intellectually, with more grace as I get older. Its the struggle of applying Romans 12:18 and “as much as depends on [me], live at peace with all men.”

I am speaking primarily of the ability and need to stand in agreement with those with whom I find so much to disagree on.

There seem to be a couple of extremes to approaching this subject. The sanctification of the church and the defense of the faith says, “Come out from among them and be separate!” (2 Cor. 6:17) And often the “them” I speak of are folks with whom I disagree on many things. But not necessarily everything. At other times I find myself in strong disagreement with “them” that are a part of the church. So I want to be clear where I stand by whom I identify with.

On the other hand, Romans 13 suggests that even pagan governments can stand for what is good at times, in which case I should support them and cooperate with them unless their statutes are clearly contrary to God’s Word (Acts 5:28-29). We are also warned that there should not be factions within the church (1 Cor. 1:10-13).

When you consider the whole of Scripture, we should come to a place where we stand in agreement in areas where we find agreement, but clearly communicate where there is disagreement on things that are sacred and of utmost importance. No need to sweat the small stuff and make a big deal of little things… which is another discussion all together.

So let me give you a few areas where I have to address this issue with wisdom, grace, and (hopefully) maturity.

The Sanctity of Human Life. While I have significant theological disagreements with Mother Theresa, I know she was one of the greatest advocates ever for the unborn. I stand with many Roman Catholics on this issue of abortion, but reserve the freedom to disagree with their understanding of the sacraments, prayers to saints, and other beliefs that I perceive as extra-biblical.

While on the subject of the sanctity of human life, we must not neglect the speaking out against racism. As with Mother Theresa, I also have theological disagreements with Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., but I can stand in agreement with powerful and truthful statements against discrimination.

Endorsing or standing in agreement with people of influence, when we do agree, doesn’t mean that we endorse everything about that person’s beliefs or character. For we all have flaws.

Speaking of that, is there a more polarizing subject than President Donald Trump? If I agree with a statement he makes on religious freedom, the economy, or the sanctity of life it doesn’t mean I endorse everything he says or does. I can vocally disagree, and have, with many other statements he has made as well as language he has used. Discerning people commend that which is good and reject that which is vulgar.

I can’t recall a president in my lifetime with whom I agreed with on every issue. My support of George W. Bush did not prevent me from warning people of the dangers of the strings attached to some of his faith-based initiatives.

It seems that with famous people, you are supposed to love all they represented or reject them completely. I don’t get that. Only Jesus was perfect all of the time!

What about various denominations of the Christian faith? I am not one of these pastors who believe the very existence of denominations is evil, anymore than Israel having various tribes or Sunday School programs having a way of organizing people according to age or subject matter would be considered evil.

Denominationalism, or the worship of a denomination, on the other hand is a problem. But when we realize that our denomination is not the equivalent to the Kingdom of God (I hear a Baptist gasping, “It’s Not?”), denominations can actually promote unity by keeping us from arguing over many secondary issues while we unite for missions, evangelism, and theological training.

Therefore, when we a major on the majors with other denominations, we need to lock arms with them and stand in agreement for the sake of God’s glory and His church. I have dear friends from a variety of denominations, including that denomination of non-denomination, who agree with men on things like:

  1. The authority of the Bible.
  2. The virgin birth, sinless life, atoning death, literal resurrection. and certain return of Jesus Christ.
  3. The Holy Trinity.
  4. The exclusivity of the Gospel.
  5. Our call to win the world to Christ.

Certainly many denominations are forsaking these convictions. But with those who haven’t we can and we must stand together in agreement on such convictions. Even then, however, I reserve the right to disagree with them on polity, hermeneutics, and strategies for which I personally find it difficult to support with Scripture. Perhaps that is why you attend the church you attend. Interestingly, there are more Southern Baptist churches than of any other evangelical denomination. Yet you are not likely to find two of them very much alike in style and structure in a given geographical area.

One more popular conversation in this area has to do with church music. I recently read a post about old hymns that we sing which we “didn’t realize had bad theology.” I agreed with some of the observations, and disagreed with others. But I had a problem throwing out solid songs with good lyrics even when the author had been exposed to bad theological foundations.

As theology professors have often said, “All truth is God’s truth wherever it may be found.” If I were to go all David Koresh or Jim Jones in the future, it wouldn’t make the truth I have proclaimed in the past any less true.

In the same way, there are modern worship movements whose theological foundations I question. But as the old adage goes, “Even a blind squirrel finds a nut every now and then.” Occasionally a powerful and truthful song (sometimes even the simple recitation of Scripture and creeds) comes out of a movement that embraces some things with which I disagree. If they proclaim “Christ is risen” while asserting some weird stuff in other songs and sermons, we do not have to avoid singing “Christ is risen!” Don’t throw out the baby with the bath water.

Bottom line? Use discernment. Learn to stand in agreement when you agree. Don’t interpret one’s agreement with someone else on an issue as a total endorsement of all they stand for.

If various denominations and political parties can gather in a stadium to cheer on the same football team, surely we can stand together on a few other things of greater relevance.