This Week's Blog - January 20, 2012
Worship: Performance vs. Praise
Each Sunday morning, we have the opportunity to gather at 9 or 11 and celebrate our love for God and one another. While some avoid this privilege, we rejoice in the fact that we can express thanksgiving to God, grow in the faith, support and pray for each other, etc., in peace and safety every Sunday!
An element of this each week is our musical Praise and Worship time. Our 9:00 AM service has a full bank and multiple singers while our 11:00 is acoustic guitar and just a couple singers. In the first, we "raise the roof" and in the second, we meditate and pray...still--my question to all of us is...
Why?
Why do we do this? Why have music? Some denominations gather weekly without it...others have huge choruses and orchestras. Why do it at all? Is it a performance to entertain those in attendance? Is it an outreach tool to draw seekers or those considering Christianity? Why do the whole music thing.
I think the correct answer is simple--but the implementation of it is tricky. The answer SHOULD be that music helps us express our love for God. Think about it--95% of the music we listen to on the radio is about love and relationships. Love songs are the top 40 hits, at least most of the time. Human beings love to love one another via. music. So why not love God that way? From the dawn of Christianity, believers have done so--and rightly so!
But here's the problem.
We often forget this motive in a room full of people. Often, we get caught-up in evaluating the singers or the quality of the sound. We might even enjoy the band or singers--but forget that it's all about Jesus. Sometimes, we worry about what others around us are doing or what they might think if we clap or sway or sing "too loud." All of these things take away from the ultimate purpose--to love God in song.
So this week, when we come together, let's forget about everything but Jesus. Let's picture ourselves standing before the Throne and expressing our thankfulness in song. I believe everything else will "take care of itself" if we can do this. Further, I KNOW our awesome God will smile!
In His Love,
Pastor Joel
One Man or Two?
This week at MPC, we'll look at the story of the two demon-possessed men from Matthew chapter 8. Many will note that the other gospel writers only describe one man in their accounts (Mark 5 for instance). For some, this seems to be a contradiction. "Was it one or two?" they ask, "Can't these authors get their story straight?"
This may seem like a picky question, but it's relevant. After all, if the gospel writers can't agree on something THIS basic, how do we know they got other things right? If they're wrong about something simple like this, couldn't they be wrong about something life-changing--say, like the resurrection of Jesus for instance?!
Other "synoptic problems" occur in the gospels as well. Normally, it's little things like the order of events or the name of a city/town. Still, the same question comes-up a lot--if we can't "count on" Matthew, Mark, Luke or John for the little details, how can we count on their written record at all?
There's a foundational principle of biblical interpretation that not only answers these questions, but helps us understand and apply other scriptural passages as well. It's the principle of context and perspective. If we start with the premise that the Bible IS inspired and thus infallible (a perspective we at Mill Pond embrace), then the seeming contradictions like how many demoniacs did Jesus encounter in the region of the Gadarenes, becomes clear.
For example, let's consider Matthew, the only author who mentions both men in his account. Who was Matthew and who was he writing to? Matthew was a Jew and a tax collector. He wrote primarily to a Jewish audience. While the other authors wrote from different perspectives and different audiences, their common goal in telling this particular story was to focus on the MOST oppressed man, the one with a legion of demons (at least 6,000). That man was obviously, the one who spoke and was clearly the lead in the destruction that took place. The other man was, to most gospel writers, almost invisible and inconsequential in terms of the outcome of the account.
So why did Matthew mention him?
We can only speculate, but let me give it a try. First, the Jewish people knew that the law required two witnesses to give credibility to an account (Deut 19:15, etc.). Mark makes it clear that many heard about Jesus and presumably came to believe in Him as a result of the testimony of the most afflicted man (Mark 5:20). Jewish readers would discount the claims of one man...but Matthew is sure to point out that there were two. Also, while most of Jesus' ministry was to Jews, the region of the Gadarenes was populated by Gentiles. This is clear from the fact that they were keeping a herd of 2,000 pigs--something Jews were forbidden to do. Yet, Jesus goes there and heals these two men. Is it possible that one was Jewish and the other was not? We don't know...but it's an interesting possibility since Jesus is hereby "bridging the gap" and showing his Messianic role over all men. Finally, there's just the fact of Matthew's occupation--he was a tax collector. He was a man of numbers. Who more likely to "be precise" in terms of mentioning the other man--making sure to point out that there wasn't only the one--more oppressed and vocal man--but actually, two.
The bottom line is that the Bible IS reliable. It is accurate and flawless in its original form. The differences sometimes seen are simply different perspective, not contradictions. One more reason to read it--all of it--as often as possible!
In Jesus,
Pastor Joel
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
