But mostly the Calvinism.

I’m speaking somewhat tongue-in-cheek here.  Yes, it’s true that Calvinism* is finding a warmer reception among younger Fundamentalists than it finds with older generations.  (I say that broadly; there are always exceptions.)  Yes, it’s true that many young Fundamentalists bristle when older Fundamentalists caricature and wrongly attack Calvinism.  But will “the growing Calvinist influence” that evangelicals are observing today “help heal their decades-long dispute with fundamentalists”?  Collin Hansen speculated that it might.

But Dave Doran respectfully (and insightfully) disagreed.  Here’s the paragraph (from Hansen) that Doran specifically took issue with:

After years of tension, Billy Graham delivered the decisive break between evangelicals and fundamentalists in 1957. Graham turned down invitations to preach in New York City under the sponsorship of fundamentalist churches before accepting one from the liberal Protestant Council. Fundamentalists have never let Graham or his evangelical sympathizers forget the snub.

That allegation is simply not correct.  Fundamentalism’s separation from the “new evangelicalism” of the 50′s was not about snubs; it was primarily about separation from apostasy for the sake of gospel ministry.

Further, Hansen’s logic doesn’t click for me.  Those Fundamentalists went off to pout because Graham picked the liberals above them.  Now that Fundamentalists are reading Piper, Calvinism will bring us all back together. Huh?  If the divide between “evangelicals” and “fundamentalists” started over hurt feelings after the ’57 NY crusade, why will election and predestination bring us back together as though nothing happened?  It seems to me that patching the relationship should have something to do with the original issue.

Please don’t misunderstand this: I’m not looking at Christianity today with a pair of 1957 glasses.  None of us should do that!  There have been significant changes to the Christian landscape in the last 15 years (for instance, look at Mark Dever and John MacArthur and try to force them into either Fundamentalism or “new evangelicalism” – doesn’t really work, does it?), and we need to remember that and nuance our discussion and practice appropriately.

All the same, the “decades-long dispute” will not be resolved by Calvinism, even if every Fundamentalist embraced it heartily, which is somewhat unlikely.  Calvinism isn’t the issue; in fact, it’s a topic that Christians can disagree about and live with (read: Calvinism is not something to separate over!).  It can be healed when both sides come to view separation from a biblical perspective and agree on which issues matter at which levels.  (And quietly, I suspect that all of us have some learning and moving to do in that area.)

* The Calvinism referred to in this post is the biblically sound, evangelistically active Calvinism, not anything hyper or caricatured.  And just because I’m talking about it here doesn’t mean I embrace every detail or nuance of the system.  I’m not aware of any systems that are worthy of embracing whole-heartedly.

Several months ago, I started using RefTagger from Logos on this site.  That free code snippet automatically adds hyperlinks to any Scripture reference I type in a post here.  That link will take you to the passage (online) and display a pop-up box with the verse(s) in it when you hover your mouse over the link.

That’s fine for my blog, but what about the dozens of other blogs I read (many of which don’t use RefTagger)?  Refalizer adds a very similar feature to Firefox so that you can have a hyperlink for every reference displayed in your browser.  (Well, almost every.  I typically use a period between the chapter & verse numbers and Refalizer quits at the period and only links to the book/chapter.  Perhaps that’s an update coming soon?)  Still, it’s quite an improvement over opening another tab to look it up “the long way.”  And as a Firefox extension, it’s a cinch to install.  It access a half-dozen or so different online Bible sites and offers quite a number of translations.  You can pick your personal favorite in the preferences (open “Addons” and click “Preferences” on the Refalizer extension box).

You can download the Refalizer extension here.

Is old music better than new music? We all know the joy and freshness of learning a new hymn or hearing a new song of praise, but at other times we feel hesitant and uncertain about being too new or too edgy. Add to the mix the fact that churches and families are made of people with a variety of opinions and ideas about music. It certainly seems like the safe thing to do is just to stick with the old, proven hymns that we’ve been using for years. The safe and easy option, however, is not necessarily best. God teaches us that we should create and sing new songs of worship.

The Scriptural references to singing a new song are widespread. Around 1000 BC, David testified that God had “put a new song in [his] mouth” (Ps. 40:3) and that he would “sing a new song” to God (Ps. 144:9). Three hundred years later, Isaiah preached, “Sing unto the Lord a new song” to the nation of Judah (Isa. 42:10). Throughout that time, several anonymous psalms called God’s people to sing a new song to the Lord (Pss. 33:3; 96:1; 98:1; 149:1). In the New Testament, it is possible that several passages in Paul’s letters are parts of ancient hymns (perhaps Phil. 2:6-11 and 1 Tim. 3:16). The apostle John looked forward to the new song that the twenty-four elders and four heavenly creatures would sing to the Lamb (Rev. 5:9), and he saw 144,000 redeemed people singing a new song that only they could learn (Rev. 14:3). Throughout Bible history, each generation of God’s people wrote new songs to express their praise.

What does a “new song” entail? If we were to look at that phrase in the Hebrew or Greek, we’d notice that it literally means “new song.” There’s nothing fancy, surprising, or revolutionary about what the words mean. It was common for a time to make a sharp distinction between “new in time” and “new in quality,” but a detailed study actually shows that those two ideas overlap more than they differ. Those who promoted the split definition usually went on to argue that the music of a Christian should sound different from the music he listened to before he was saved. For some Christians, that’s true. But what about people who listened to classical music before they come to Christ? Or children who grew up in a home where they were protected from harmful music? It is not universally true that one’s music must change stylistically at the occasion of his conversion. I would suggest that the “new song” we’re talking about is new in both time and quality, but primarily in time. Simply stated, the Scriptures call us to write and sing new songs.

Why does God desire that we write and sing new songs? Is our song new because He is changing? Certainly not! He is the same praiseworthy God yesterday, today, and forever (Heb. 13:8). Should we use new songs because the content of our praise is substantially new? Again, no. Take Psalm 33 as an example: the “new song” praised God for creating the world (vv. 6–9). The content can’t get much older than that! Has the record of God’s marvelous work in history changed? No, the historical events of our deliverance (Christ’s life, death, and resurrection) have not changed.

We must sing our new songs because we are new people. We are not the same people who were saved during the third century. We are not the same people who were saved during the Reformation or the Great Awakening or even the 1910s. God wants us to articulate our praise in our own words and our own songs! Here we find an inconsistency in many churches. We rightly stand against ritualistic prayers and stolen sermons, yet some insist on exclusively singing a bygone generation’s praise.

There’s a balance here, of course. Jesus and the disciples sang a hymn at the Last Supper (Matt. 26:30), and that hymn was most likely a psalm. Paul exhorts singing psalms (Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16). We have a hymn heritage that is rich and profitable, and we should certainly take from it the many songs that are doctrinally rich, devotionally expressive, and musically good. But we should not rely solely on the praise of saints who have gone before us; we must put our hearts and minds to the task of creating new songs of worship!

At SacredAudio.com, you can find new songs from nearly all our artists. We seek to offer recordings of the best new conservative sacred music as well as the excellent hymns that have been passed down to us. Our goal is to help your worship as you “sing unto the Lord a new song”!

This is a slightly longer version of the article I recently wrote for SoundForth‘s Accents newsletter.

Isa. 59.15-19

Truth is lacking,
and he who departs from evil makes himself a prey.
The Lord saw it, and it displeased him
that there was no justice.
He saw that there was no man,
and wondered that there was no one to intercede;
then his own arm brought him salvation,
and his righteousness upheld him.
He put on righteousness as a breastplate,
and a helmet of salvation on his head;
he put on garments of vengeance for clothing,
and wrapped himself in zeal as a cloak.
According to their deeds, so will he repay,
wrath to his adversaries, repayment to his enemies;
to the coastlands he will render repayment.
So they shall fear the name of the Lord from the west,
and his glory from the rising of the sun;
for he will come like a rushing stream,
which the wind of the Lord drives.

Eph. 6.13-17

Therefore take up the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand firm. Stand therefore, having fastened on the belt of truth, and having put on the breastplate of righteousness, and, as shoes for your feet, having put on the readiness given by the gospel of peace. In all circumstances take up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the flaming darts of the evil one; and take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God,

Don’t you love surprise blessings?

ABC (Australia) ran this story recently about two men (and their families) who broke with the tradition of their Amish community..  I think the reporters were hoping to play a “real people breaking against their draconian spiritual leaders” angle for this one.  The thing that stood out to me, however, was not the alleged subversion of these men, but the testimony of their conversion!

The video is worth watching.

Isa. 50.7-9

But the Lord God helps me;
therefore I have not been disgraced;
therefore I have set my face like a flint,
and I know that I shall not be put to shame.
He who vindicates me is near.
Who will contend with me?
Let us stand up together.
Who is my adversary?
Let him come near to me.
Behold, the Lord God helps me;
who will declare me guilty?
Behold, all of them will wear out like a garment;
the moth will eat them up.

Rom. 8.31-34

What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us?  He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, how will he not also with him graciously give us all things?  Who shall bring any charge against God’s elect? It is God who justifies.  Who is to condemn? Christ Jesus is the one who died—more than that, who was raised—who is at the right hand of God, who indeed is interceding for us.

Rev. 19.11-16

Then I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse! The one sitting on it is called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he judges and makes war.  His eyes are like a flame of fire, and on his head are many diadems, and he has a name written that no one knows but himself.  He is clothed in a robe dipped in blood, and the name by which he is called is The Word of God.  And the armies of heaven, arrayed in fine linen, white and pure, were following him on white horses.  From his mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations, and he will rule them with a rod of iron. He will tread the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God the Almighty.  On his robe and on his thigh he has a name written, King of kings and Lord of lords.

Ps. 149.5-9

Let the godly exult in glory;
let them sing for joy on their beds.
Let the high praises of God be in their throats
and two-edged swords in their hands,
to execute vengeance on the nations
and punishments on the peoples,
to bind their kings with chains
and their nobles with fetters of iron,
to execute on them the judgment written!
This is honor for all his godly ones.
Praise the Lord!

Logos Bible Software is celebrating the launch of their new online Bible by giving away 72 ultra-premium print Bibles at a rate of 12 per month for six months. The Bible giveaway is being held at Bible.Logos.com and you can get up to five different entries each month! After you enter, be sure to check out Logos and see how it can revolutionize your Bible study.

A few days ago, I raised several questions about aesthetics and how easily absolute standards can be applied to beauty in art (visual, music, etc).  Those questions present a serious challenge to the simplistic application of the view that there is an external standard of beauty by which every piece of art can be judged.

As is very frequently the case, there is a balance that needs to be maintained.  I recently argued against the neglect of the role of personal taste in aesthetics; today, I’ll maintain that personal taste is just a part of the issue.  In this article, I’ll use the word “individualism” to describe relying on subjective personal taste to judge beauty.

In my last post, I questioned the assertion that “God’s character is the absolute standard for beauty and all art must be judged thereby.”  While there is truth in that assertion, it’s an oversimplification of the issue.  While God is the ultimate source of beauty, there’s no easy art-related check-list based on his character.  And there can’t be.  Do you want to evaluate visual art based on God’s character?  You can’t see God, so there is no one-to-one correlation.  Shall we evaluate musical beauty?  We can’t hear God sing; we can’t see a playlist of his favorite music.  Again, there is no quick and easy comparison.  But, the difficulty of evaluation does not excuse us from our obligation to glorify God in this area of life!

The Bible gives us a framework for evaluating beauty and art.  It’s the framework of our world.  God created the world and it was “very good” (Gen. 1.31).  Then things changed (Gen. 3) and with man’s sin, “bad” entered the world.  The world we occupy today is a mixture “creational” and “fallen” elements (to borrow some verbiage from Dr. Dan Forrest).  I almost cringe to write this next statement, but very few things are purely black or white in our world.  Take people, for example.  The purest, holiest saint on earth is still not perfect.  Though very “good,” there are still tints of sin’s corruption in every man on earth.  On the other end, God’s common grace allows that very corrupt people can on occasion do good things.  Some classical composers lived profligate lives and wrote music of enduring quality.  (For a humorous take on common grace, I recommend a word from Gilbert and Sullivan.)

The Bible addresses individualism.  Fallenness affects every one of us at the core of our being: “the heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick” (Jer. 17.9).

Reliance on the community’s standard is not an adequate solution.  After all, the community is flawed at its root because it is made up of fallen individuals.  “All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned – every one – to his own way” (Isa. 53.6).  There is little hope that a crowd of individualists can ultimately correct the problems inherent in individualism!

So how do we judge beauty in art?  There is a factor that lies beyond the human race, I would submit.  When God set himself to make something tangible, visual and audible, he made us and the universe around us.   Art, then, is mankind’s limited, imperfect attempt to create.  Paintings, requiems, sculptures, novels, choruses – these are our attempts to make something new and wonderful.

Bring in the tension: our noblest, finest and most skillful attempts to create are limited by our position as finite creatures and tainted by our fallen condition.  The challenge for the creators among us is to strive for excellence in what they do.  It is their job to pursue the limits of their abilities and to avoid snares like triteness, laziness and mimicry.

The challenge for those who do not create art but simply evaluate what others have created is to evaluate wisely.   As neat and clean as a “this standard categorically determines beauty and ugliness” approach might be, we’re not in that position.  Instead we’ve been given eyes, ears and a mind to use for God’s glory.  Passivity, laziness and willful lack of discernment are unacceptable for Christians.  We are given the mandate to consider carefully whatever is true, honorable, just, pure, lovely, commendable, excellent and praiseworthy (Phil. 4.8).  That requires discernment.

Is there a place still for personal taste?  Absolutely!  Don’t forget that God’s creation is flooded with variety.  We must not forget the distinction between “superior and inferior art” and “right and wrong morality” (but that’s a rabbit trail for a different post!).  Looking down on others simply because they enjoy art that is (in our opinion) inferior, commercial or shoddy – that’s pride, not love.  Lovingly helping them broaden their scope of art appreciation is one thing; blanket criticism of their preferences is quite another.

But how can we cultivate discernment in our own lives?  When we look at a painting, let us consider what reflects the goodness of God’s creation and what reflects the corruption of the Fall.  When we hear music, watch a movie, read a book or see a play, let us ask the same questions.  Our answers will most likely be varied: we will see creational and fallen elements in all art.  Good discernment compares those two elements and assesses art accordingly.

I cannot think of a better summary of the call to discernment than Phil. 1.9-11, Paul’s prayer for his beloved friends:  “And it is my prayer that your love may abound more and more, with knowledge and all discernment, so that you may approve what is excellent, and so be pure and blameless for the day of Christ, filled with the fruit of righteousness that comes through Jesus Christ, to the glory and praise of God.”

Joe Carter at First Things blog recently posted this article about Thomas Kincade’s artwork.  I must admit, I’m not a big Kincade fan – I’ve never used one of his images for my desktop.  But I’ve never had anything against it either.  The glowing-window cottages are quaint.

The gist of the article is this: Kincade’s painting style has changed over the years.  He used to paint better than he does now.  The change has been from aesthetic excellence to Hallmark-quality art.  This change can be measured according to a transcendent objective standard of aesthetic excellence.  According to that article anyway.  The opposition, however, claims that glowing windows and bright lamp-posts are indeed nice to look at and that Kincade, therefore, is just fine in their eyes.  I’d recommend reading that post now if you’re not familiar with this issue yet (don’t forget to come back here, though!).

Some folks have extended this Kincade art debate into the realm of music.  I’ve read two blog posts that wondered if this discussion of visual aesthetics had anything to do with sacred music.  If so, that comparison would imply that music can also be judged by an external, objective standard of aesthetic value.  Let me suggest three reasons why I’m actually somewhat uncomfortable with that objective aesthetic standard philosophy.

In the first place, no one has defined what that standard actually is.  Some folks claim to link that standard to God’s character (and that sounds great!), but let’s be real and practical.  What kind of art is exactly like God’s character?  Is it Rembrandt, Monet, Ansel Adams, da Vinci or Warhol?  Or take music: is it a SoundForth recording, a Paul Jones hymn, a Bach chorale, a sacred Whitacre or Pärt song, the latest Getty CD or Patch the Pirate?  (And that’s not even beginning to answer questions about what kind of non-sacred music has value!)  This lofty, objective standard of aesthetic excellence sounds good, but no one actually knows what it is!

In the second place, making the kind of value judgment about Kincade art that the First Things article made borders on arrogance & snobbery.  It tends toward an artificial divide between “high society” and “the ignorant masses.”  The unspoken (and dangerous!) implication of the Kincade judgment is that if lots of people like it and buy it, then it is common, commercial and valueless.  The danger is that pride will set in and people will think that they have “more refined taste” than others and therefore are “better” than those others.

In the third place, this line of thinking almost entirely eliminates the validity of personal taste (or at least, it neglects personal taste).  When people decry the value of Kincade art, they forget that it’s OK for someone else to like Kincade paintings (just read through the comments on that post!).  They lose the ability to see other people as God’s image-bearers with different tastes.  Personal differences are made into an issue of good-bad, better-worse and right-wrong.

Of course, I agree that there are absolutes of morality based on God’s character.  Please do not misunderstand me or take these concerns out of context.  But do God’s absolutes really disqualify a Kincade painting of a warmly glowing cottage?  Music, of course, is a whole different story from paintings.  I’m not prepared to work out all the details of this question in the music arena.  But I will offer the warning that the first post with the criticism of Kincade’s work is incomplete – the real issue with Kincade is a matter of preference and not morality.

Oh, this image showed up in one of the comments and I thought it was well worth posting here!  :)