JANUARY 2017

    We have created some national resonance in 2016. Many people liked notions of a stronger military, betters borders, less taxes, better health care, and a more streamlined government; we need to aggressively capitalize on this cultural resonance moving forward, and especially looking toward 2018.    But there are concerns on the horizon. First, I don’t think that we necessarily prosecuted the case for conservative principles and persuasively demonstrated to enough people the folly of liberalism. Many were won to Trump, but I’m not sure that many were won over to conservativism. 

    Much of this is because the GOP has drifted from its conservative principles. It has been distracted by getting in people’s lives and bedrooms when they should be fixing the economy and helping businesses. The GOP cowers before race-baiters when they should be declaring how conservative principles help people of all genders, ethnicities, and creeds. Why are they not fighting for the rights of all states and individuals, and for streamlining government and consequently lowering taxes? Why did the GOP fight so hard against fellow GOP candidates but then completely misplace their spine in their fights against liberalism?

    There are other challenges, too: How do we get more GOP representatives and especially senators elected in 2018? How do we retain the “rust” belt states like WI, MI, OH and PA that Trump won in 2016 especially as we are looking ahead to 2020? These are legitimate concerns and challenges, and below I propose a few specific solutions for handling them.

    Christ reorients her thinking to the fact that God seeks those who will worship Him in “spirit and in truth” (vv. 23-24). In this instance, “spirit” does not refer to the third member of the Trinity, but rather to the human spirit (see Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich, Danker, p 675, 3b). This sincerity, which includes the emotive and volitional components of a human being, is what is required for the “true” worshiper. “The combination ‘spirit and truth’ points to the need for complete sincerity and complete reality in our approach to God” (Leon Morris, John, p. 239). The two words are joined by hendiadys, as are “grace” and “truth” in John 1:17, which shows that these are not two separate categories but two mutually dependent elements of worship; truth without sincerity is rigid ritualism, and sincerity without truth is sappiness. The Greek word dei (meaning, “it is necessary”) in verse 24 shows that these elements are not desired, but demanded. Sincerity (“in spirit”) and reality (“in truth”) are compulsory requirements for true worship.    The Psalms also demonstrate that worship is holistic, integrating body, mind and emotion. They express external objective truths about God and emotional elements from individuals to produce volitional and ethical responses by God’s people. Words like “joy” and “gladness” (Ps 5:11; 32:11; 92:4) are both emotionally laden, but those emotions are based on objective realities regarding God’s character, redemption and blessings. These emotions related to joy, penitence, relief and frustration lead to decisions of trust and attitudes and actions of faith. This balance of intellect and emotions stands in sharp contrast to the intellectual dearth of many modern worship songs. This balance also contrasts both the emotional excess or, conversely, absence in many modern worship services.

    The struggle to find balance between intellect and emotion in the music of the church is not an easy one and it is not a new one. St. Augustine (354-430 CE) similarly struggled with the tensions between text, music, emotion and passion in the corporate worship of his day. He declared that he enjoyed the use of music in services, which he calls, “sound to which [God’s] message gives life” and especially “when they are sung with a good and well-trained voice” (Confessions of Saint Augustine, trans. E. M. Blaiklock, 271). However, Augustine was constantly concerned about the danger of being too emotionally gripped by the melodies of the songs. He continues:

For at times I seem to give them more honor than is proper, sensing that our minds are more devoutly and fervently inflamed in devotion by the holy words themselves when they are sung this way than when they are not. I notice that the different emotions of my spirit, by their sweet variety, have their appropriate expressions in the voice and singing, but some hidden relationship which stirs them up. But gratification of my flesh, which must not be allowed to take control over my mind, often beguiles me. My feelings do not serve reason, so as to follow it patiently, but after having gained admission for the sake of reason, strive to grab the reins and take the lead. Thus in these things I sin without knowing, but realize it afterwards. . . . When I happen to be more moved by the singing than by what is being sung, I confess that I have sinned gravely (Confessions of Saint Augustine, trans. Hal M. Helms, 217-18, emphasis mine).

He admits, on the other hand that sometimes he reacts too strictly, “wishing to have every melody of sweet music to which David’s Psalter is often sung banished both from my ears and from the Church itself” (Ibid., 217). But in response to this he realizes the “great usefulness” of setting truth to music, “so that the weaker minds may rise to the feeling of devotion by the delight of the ears” (Ibid., 218). By way of balance he conveyed to his readers the wisdom of Athanasius, the prominent Bishop of Alexandria: “He made the reader of the psalm utter it with such a slight inflection of the voice that it was more like speaking than singing” (Ibid., 217). For Augustine, this solution was better than being unnecessarily distracted in one way or another by the use of music in worship on one hand, and ridding the church of music altogether on the other.

    Closer to our own time, the insights of worship guru Don Hustad regarding excessive emotionalism in worship are pertinent:

I get the sense that emotion is used not as a means of expression but of manipulation. For example, praise-and-worship singing that seems to be spontaneous actually follows a predictable progression. Often it begins moderately and increases in tempo, rhythm, and volume over a period of perhaps thirty minutes; at that point, usually the music is hushed, when, with quiet singing or in silence, the Holy Spirit “takes over” and worshipers experience the climax of intimacy with God. In a charismatic service, that is the time when supernatural phenomena, especially speaking in tongues, occur. In this progressive experience, the worship leader (the central figure in the praise band) is very important. Apparently, the leader is authorized and expected to lead the entire congregation “into the presence of God” (Hustad, True Worship [1998], pp. 98-99).

Hustad comments later in his book, “Though individual praise choruses may function excellently in specific ‘response’ situations, I am convinced that the typical, prolonged, charismatic praise-and-worship ‘experience’ (like the old-fashioned revival song service) is an emotional musical ‘binge’ that is inappropriate for mature, cognitive worship. The traditional approach that allows a congregation to sing multiple stanzas of well-written texts that express, praise thanksgiving, penitence, dedication, and petition at appropriate places throughout the service is much better. If that practice succumbs to contemporary musical emotionalism today, the church will beg for its return tomorrow!” (202).

    In summary, author Christopher Shelt warns against, “Imbalances in singing such as dead orthodoxy or mindless emotionalism” (“Toward a Biblical Theology of Music in Worship,” Reformed Theological Review 55, no. 2 [1996]: p. 70). Churches must seek balance, and avoid the emotional excess as well as the emotional absence that contaminate many Sunday morning services.

    A church worship service should be authentic without feeling sappy; it should be of high performance quality without seeming “canned”; it should be joyful and personable without being hype-driven. 

    Most importantly, the songs, the sermons, the readings and the recitations should all burst with Biblical content and substance. Worship that is in spirit and in truth is concerned for authentic spirituality as well as doctrinal veracity.

ROMANS: The Only Just Judge, Romans 2:4-8

    The fairness of God has fallen upon hard times.

    Many people today doubt that God is fair and just. Natural and man-made catastrophes stoke the flames of doubt in God’s abilities or God’s concern for humanity. Modern people assume some moral superiority over God and either explicitly or implicitly claim to be His judge.

    In Romans 2:1-3, Paul warned the Jewish segment of his audience to beware of judging others, for those judgments may boomerang back on them. In Romans 2:4-8, Paul continues addressing the Jews, though there are certainly applications here for Gentiles, too. Paul notes several of God’s attributes and demonstrates that He is the only just Judge; He is kind, compassionate, gracious, but also completely true and fair.

    In Romans 2:4, Paul lists several qualities of God that balance His role as judge. In v. 3, Paul urged his audience to keep in mind that they could not escape the judgment of God; but in v. 4, Paul challenges them with the thought that as believers, they may also be in danger of minimizing the effect of God’s mercy and kindness. That is, when we judge someone else, we act as though we ourselves are exempt from judgment and not in desperate need of kindness.

    The profusion of synonyms in v. 4 demonstrates the depth of God’s mercy and are described as “riches,” a word that frequently points to the advantages that believers have through Christ (Rom 9:23; Eph 1:7, 18; 2:7; 3:8; Phil 4:19; Col 2:2; 1 Tim 6:17; Heb 11:26). Those riches include the incredible kindness and the surpassing patience of God.

    The one who judges “despises” or “looks down” on the fact that God has exhibited these qualities to him. The verb kataphroneo, literally meaning “to think down upon,” is a strong word that involves the repudiation and rejection of something, usually in deference to something else (Matt 6:24; 18:10; Luke 16:13; Rom 2:4; 1 Cor 11:22; 1 Tim 4:12; 6:2; Heb 12:2; 2 Pet 2:10). That is, whenever we judge someone else as though we are inherently better, we reject and despise the mercy and kindness that God demonstrated toward us. In fact, when believers judge, they exhibit that they are “unknowing” or “ignorant” of the mercy and kindness that they themselves needed; it was the very kindness of God that led believers to repentance in the first place.

    In verse 5, then, Paul seems to be referring to the unbeliever who judges and who is storing up wrath, not only for doing evil, but for judging those who do evil while also accomplishing that evil. This person is “storing up” wrath for himself; the verb used here is related to the noun thesauros, meaning “treasure” or “storeroom,” from which we get the modern word “thesaurus” (a “treasury” of words).

    Don’t neglect the Southeast. The GOP has a pretty firm grip on the Southeast quadrant of the country. Many may be surprised at this in light of the drama that news outlets tried to create on election night by making it sound like Hillary could win TX or GA; in the end Trump beat Hillary definitively in both these states, by over 5% of the vote in GA and 9% in TX. The improvements that Trump can make to the country that would benefit those northern “Trump belt” states greatly, will also benefit these bastion Southeast states.    The point is, don’t neglect these states. Just because the Southeast has voted conservative the last few elections, doesn’t mean that they should be taken for granted. Rather, giving attention to some of these states will be like giving attention to all of them. These are states that historically vote together, even at times, such as in 1904, 1924 or 1976 in defiance of the rest of the country (this area has a history of being defiant!). And this is an area of the country that is becoming more populous and more influential. They will eat out of Trump’s hand if he gives them the kind of attention that they are looking for and if the GOP champions causes such as less regulations on big and small business, more authority over local schools, and less taxes.

    Think Long Term. One last thing: the GOP needs to have more of a long-term strategy for its future leadership. I would hope that someone is thinking about this, but I have no proof that anyone in the short-sighted GOP leadership really is. The GOP needs a mechanism or group of individuals that nurture new talent, and also helps vet and screen candidates; this may not ensure that we get perfect candidates, but it would be better than the debacle that was the recent GOP primary. The party then must fully support and defend that candidate, even if they can’t defend every position, statement or action.

    The best thing that Republicans and Trump can do to ensure their success is to succeed. I know that sounds stupid, so to put it another way, the GOP’s administrative and economic success will translate directly into political success. But some strategy for the future, especially for the 2018 mid-terms and the 2020 elections, would be helpful, too.

    So, let’s not get complacent. The presidential victory in 2016 was neither an easy win nor a landslide; Trump didn’t even win the popular vote. We may have just hit a conservative mood swing in our society, but that doesn’t guarantee anything, given how fickle the American public is. We should strategize now for the next few elections and also recognize that the long range health of the party relies on articulating and practicing conservative ideals.

QUOTE FOR CONTEMPLATION: Divine Election and Free Will

    The balance between Arminianism and Calvinism, divine election and free will, will never be solved during our mortal existence. Nonetheless, Charles Haddon Spurgeon perhaps comes closest to reconciling two theological affirmations that we know to be true and yet seem contradictory:

    I see in one place, God presiding over all in providence; and yet I see, and I cannot help seeing, that man acts as he pleases, and that God has left his actions to his own will, in a great measure.

    Now, if I were to declare that man was so free to act, that there was no precedence of God over his actions, I should be driven very near to Atheism; and if, on the other hand, I declare that God so overrules all things, as that man is not free enough to be responsible, I am driven at once into Antinomianism or fatalism.

    That God predestines, and that man is responsible, are two things that few can see. They are believed to be inconsistent and contradictory; but they are not. It is just the fault of our weak judgment. Two truths cannot be contradictory to each other.

    If, then, I find taught in one place that everything is fore-ordained, that is true; and if I find in another place that man is responsible for all his actions, that is true; and it is my folly that leads me to imagine that two truths can ever contradict each other.

    These two truths, I do not believe, can ever be welded into one upon any human anvil, but one they shall be in eternity: they are two lines that are so nearly parallel, that the mind that shall pursue them farthest, will never discover that they converge; but they do converge, and they will meet somewhere in eternity, close to the throne of God, whence all truth doth spring. . . . Both are true; no two truths can be inconsistent with each other; and what you have to do is to believe them both. 

- Charles Haddon Spurgeon, “Sovereign Grace and Man’s Responsibility,” delivered August 1, 1858