the gifts and calling of God

It usually frustrates me trying to come up with a blog heading. So, as I was contemplating this blog, I arrived at this title. It worked and made me happy.

Then I figured I might as well explain something now that I have such a title. The title comes from Romans 11:29. However, I doubt I will reference the verse or chapter again. This is something Spurgeon has done on many occasions. Let me explain why this is not necessarily wrong, and also identify some of the cons that can derive from it.

First, the reason for the topic heading is that I want to talk about (1) the gifts of God and the burdens he lays on peoples' hearts, and (2) the calling of God. Those were the two things driving this blog (and in that order, though I will deal with them in reverse order). And so, as I thought about this, the verse comes to mind that names these two things. Again, I do not intend on going through an exegeses of this verse. It is a familiar phrase to me and others, and so it fits as my title.

Spurgeon did things similar to this in his devotionals, and sometimes it would appear so from his printed sermons as well. He would name a passage, read the Scriptural reference and then speak of some named things mentioned in the text, but not spoken of in the text. An example is what I'm doing tonight. Some blame Spurgeon for his "poor exegetical practices." They must understand that Spurgeon did know how to exegete and that he did do so. Before he would preach the messages in print, he would exegete the passage to his congregation during the Scripture reading. He placed a high amount of importance on the proper exposition of God's Word. He understood its place and spoke of how he studied more for the exposition of the reading than he did the preaching of the message.

The biggest con is that people today use any text as a springboard for something they want to say, rather than for something the Scriptures say. Spurgeon, as has been said many times, is not to be emulated in some of the things he does. He would often pick his Sunday morning topics the night before, and his evening service the afternoon of. Would we recommend preachers today attempt this feat? (I think I may have sat through services where the preacher tried...We came out disgusted.) Preachers today shouldn't attempt those things. We should try to emulate Spurgeon in what we can, but not try to emulate the gifts God gave him but did not give to us. Spurgeon spoke admirably, and strongly of not just the benefits, but the necessity of expositional preaching. If preachers today can first grasp this concept and the importance of it, they will quickly learn (from the text) that they cannot just take a few words from a verse and then talk the rest of the hour.

Ok, that was about the title. Now onto the actual blog.

Starting with "calling." And since its getting late now, I may not get to finish gifts/burdens. Let's go. At work, people in the offices/administration regularly use the word "called" or "calling." In the beginning I assumed that they just meant God wanted you here.

Them Me
"You are called to be here." "It is God's will that you are here right now"
"God has called us to this school" "God wants us to work at this school."

But now I'm not so sure it is a matter of semantics (besides, semantics DO matter). Coming into this environment I assumed that "calling" was being used incorrectly. So, this will give me a chance to study and confirm my preconceived notion with biblical basis, or I will find out I'm wrong. =D

Well, the word "calling" occurs 24 times in the Bible. Not too many to read when you have a Biblical Concordance on the PC. With the exception of 1 Cor. 7:20, none of them can be construed in anyway to assume that God calls people in the manner mentioned previously.

Of course, the word "called" occurs 603 times -- a few too many to view tonight. Many of these of course are normal usage such as "God called the light day." Also, many are being "called" (elected, chosen, etc) to salvation. Acts 13:2 God called Paul and Barnabas to a work (missions). Often, Paul mentions being "called" to be an apostle. God calls us to peace, the grace of Christ, life, unto his kingdom, unto holiness, light, etc.

At the moment, I am actually thinking that I may be incorrect in my thinking that calling referred only to pastors and missionaries (ie. preachers). The most applicable passage seems to be Acts 13:2 where Paul is called to missions. But this calling did not necessarily mean that it happened at the moment, it could mean the calling from a eternity, or from their salvation point etc.

There are three different Greek words translated "called" but there isn't a noticeable difference between them.

It appears right now, that the elect/called are called to things that all include the same thing -- the list above are all things that coincide with salvation. Perhaps that is all there is to "calling." This would mean, that I was wrong, and that the school is wrong. We are not "called" to be there. If calling applies equally to all the saints then we are only called to be saints and not to be saints that work at CCS.

There is my current conclusion; I will do more research later.

What I mostly wanted to blog about is the different burdens God lays upon the hearts of different people, and it is now 11:35. Let's see.

I know a lot of people with different burdens. Burdens for kids. Burdens for the country. Burdens for the church. Burdens for all sorts of stuff. People have a heart for the lost, or for the family unit, or for the people in Africa, or the people in China, or the people in Palau, etc. People have burdens and desires to help all sorts of things. Some people have a desire to see Christianity work together in unity as the Bible speaks of unity in many different places. Some people have a desire for the militancy of the Gospel that no man preach anything other than that which is preached.

I think the first thing here, is that people need to accept that different people have different burdens and different things God had pressed upon their hearts. We too often try to impress our burdens on others.

The second thing that we need to be aware of is that often, several of these burdens and things being emphasized are both correct. Example: God commands unity, and God commands separation. So, we need to find the correct way of fulfilling both of those commands. Not just one, not just the other -- both. Along with this, the burden for the lost and the burden for the church are both commanded. The burden for the family is something we should all care about. We should all care about the direction of our nation. I am not implying a lack of care exists with those who have a burden. God impresses a greater burden for different things. This is how I am using the word "burden."

On a side note, I find it interesting that while Christ came to "seek and to save that which was lost," he loved the church and "gave himself for her." The offer of salvation is for all (general call). Only the elect get the special call. Christ came to provide salvation to mankind/sinners/lost (generally). However, that salvation is applied to the church (specifically). I say this of course to justify my present burden--the church. Of course we must love the lost and go and win them, but they cannot all be won. Indeed, the church itself is the bride, and while we are attempting to add to the body of Christ, we must needs keep the body healthy and pure for Christ.

I see people who seem to have a gift and ability and desire to use that gift with children. The burden upon their heart is the children they deal with. I pray for my kids. I desire to instruct them in godly principles as well as math. But my burden is not for them. My burden is not for CCS. My burden has never been for the lost either. I pray about that. I know that I need to love them. And I work on it. But it is not my burden. I have a strong sense of desire to do something in the country. I love that my cousin is running for office and try to help whenever I can. I wish I could do more. I would want to be his right hand man in this if I were there. I boast of myself to think he might as well. I also have a strong desire for the church. I have had both of those desires/burdens for years. I have often wanted to be politically active. I have debated what I could do in a church. I weep for the state that we are in. Perhaps I see more action that can be taken in the nation than in the church. There is action being taken nationwide to remove all the current representatives. People are working hard for this upcoming election cycle.

By the way, if you have not registered here: http://www.libertyaction.org/310 go do it. There are sites out there that you can find all of your elected officials just by entering your zip code. There is no excuse for not being active in today's process. And this is not just for the people whose burden this is. This is the part that every Christian should be taking. Those who have the burdens are the ones protesting, attending tea parties, and running for office. Every Christian should be standing up for what is right in the legal means presented by our Constitution.

Back to what I was saying. People are working hard across the nation for conservative values. I don't see that in the church of God. Maybe I see the momentum and my desire to make a difference sees a bigger advantage for joining the political movement than the church reforming movement. That of course is not a movement. It is an individual church by church occurrence where the pastor gets in the pulpit and actually preaches the word. The people in the pew are diligent to study it and apply it, and the church as a whole is zealous for God in remaining pure and winning the lost. One little church doing that does not reform the church as a whole. And yet, something tells me that that little church is where I would be most happy.

It is late. I have more thoughts, but my brain is slowing, and I need to go to bed with my wife. Goodnight to all.

music

A short synopsis of music: my thoughts and conclusions thus far (I have not come to a sure conclusion on music yet)

The Bible has little to say on what music is, and on what is right or wrong about it. The Bible tells us to be musical. -- Col. 3:16, Eph. 5:19, (And a host of OT verses where David was involved in both composing and playing music, and using music to worship God.)


Some other facts:

The Bible does not define music (as far as I have found; I would be interested if someone could prove otherwise). I wonder if I need to be a music major to define music acceptably. I do not have a definition currently. It will take time/study which I don't have much of currently.

The Bible does not condemn any particular beat/melody.

Different cultures involve different types/styles/beats/etc. Therefore, just because we are an Anglo-Saxon culture does not mean that all other styles/types/etc are wrong.

Music can consist of both lyrics and melody. Obviously, bad lyrics -- swearing, wrong theme/topic, etc -- are wrong, and shouldn't be listened to. That is the easy part.

Music can appeal to the body. This should not be immediately paralleled to the flesh as contrasting the spirit. When in worship, many have been compelled to dance, and leap, praising God. Acts 3:1-11 (I am not arguing that this is the norm, rather that it was not wrong for the previously lame man to praise God in this way, IE. with his body involved.) 2 Sam. 6:12-23 (The classic example. "David danced before the Lord with all his might;" He further defended his actions to his wife who thought it inappropriate.) This fact (that it appeals to the body)is often used as a statement of fact, implying the immediate parallel that it is wrong. Many things appeal to the body, and are not inherently sin. A simple example, is eating chocolate. It appeals to many people's bodies, and it is not wrong to eat chocolate. It can be sinful if you over-eat. It doesn't mean chocolate is wrong. There are other examples which I won't go into. Continuing, music can indeed be wrong if the purpose, and/or atmosphere/environment lends itself to the sinful appeal to flesh. Let me also state here that "purpose" and "intentions" are not enough. Many do things with good purpose/intention, but it is still wrong. The music must provide an environment, a tug, an inclination, etc. that does not appeal to the flesh (not just the body) rather than the spirit.

A particular melody cannot be said to be wrong in and of itself. Different melodies are not therefore wrong.


Other issues that pertain to music:

Let's begin with association. Many musicians today may be affiliated with sinful things. Does this mean that one cannot/shouldn't enjoy a particular song by said person? To adopt such a stance is either hypocritical, or impossible. Almost every store, and brand are associated with something wrong. To boycott a single store/brand leaves you a hypocrite. Stores/brands/people support hollywood, sex, homosexuals, alcohol, etc. Therefore, it is impossible to separate ourselves from it in this way. We are not to be of the world, but we do live in it. Recall, we are discussing association. We take good things from the reformed; we take stuff from the church fathers; we take stuff from some of the old Catholics. We do not give them our approval. We use what is good and ignore what is bad. We may only recommend them with discretion and a disclaimer. So, the same can be said with musicians.

Church music vs personal music. Is there, and should there be a difference? Like all things, we are to live our lives glorifying to God. This does not mean that if something does not have direct glory to God it should be ignored. God has given us the Earth and the fullness thereof for our good and enjoyment -- it is often through these things that we enjoy the goodness of God. Thus, I can enjoy Beethoven, understanding that music itself is a gift from God, and appreciating the gift God gave to him to be able to compose and play the piece. That applies to personal music. Church music however needs to be directly pointed to the worship of God. It is not enough to be neutral. We come to God's house to worship. So, while it may be "ok" to listen to jailhouse rock on the way to work, it is not appropriate for church. Music in church needs to draw our body, mind, and spirit into a position of humility and worship before a holy God. That means the lyrics needs to be directed that way, and that the melody needs to as well.

This leads to my last point: melody in church. Different people grow up in different environments ranging from cultural, to regional. These differences can be huge. Add to that, that many are indoctrinated in the view that their music is correct, and it can be a hurdle too large for someone to overcome to attend a church where the music differs. I cannot however find any evidence or reason to imply a morality (good or bad) in any of these differences (assuming of course, as I said before, that the primary purpose and the pull/atmosphere is the worship and glory of God).

Thoughts are welcome. I wouldn't mind some possible definitions of music either.