Act of Worship

<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent:.7in;line-height:24.0pt;mso-line-height-rule: exactly">An increasingly common fancy in modern society suggests that self-love is right. Statements such as, “I know my worth,” or even something that proposes the term itself like, “I am focusing on loving myself,” are seemingly prevalent. The idea, while alluring, however, does not reflect the gospel of Jesus Christ. In fact, such a concept is antithetical to the gospel and should be avoided by Christians. A rebuttal might ask, “Does not Christ want us to love ourselves? Is not self-love merely viewing ourselves the way God views us?” While sincere questions, the gospel message answers such contentions with stark and often difficult truth: truthful in that the gospel realizes humanity’s dire state and difficult because such a realization demands justice, which certainly is not the mercy of God (except that his wrath was poured on his Son Jesus Christ); thus, God’s love, mercy, and grace are consummately underserved for anyone.<span style="font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;line-height:200%;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif;mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri;mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-fareast-language: EN-US;mso-bidi-language:AR-SA">[1] <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent:.7in;line-height:24.0pt;mso-line-height-rule: exactly">To appropriately analyze the absolute incorrect perpetuation of self-love, one must consider the opposing views which subsist in society: 1) the worldly idea of self-love and 2) what should be considered Christ-honoring love,<span style="font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;line-height:200%;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif;mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri;mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-fareast-language: EN-US;mso-bidi-language:AR-SA">[2] as the two offer diametrically competing concepts; yet, the two concepts are not both right, for only Christ-honoring love permeates the gospel message. The world’s idea of self-love, however, offers only deadlocks and destruction. Human nature enjoys being in control and struggles with the truth that a loving God is also just so reality is that he would be unequivocally right in punishing every single radically depraved person (i.e., everyone) in utter and eternal torment. To conclude such a truth, both concepts should be considered: self-love and Christ-honoring love. <p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="margin-bottom:10.0pt;text-indent:.7in; line-height:10.0pt;mso-line-height-rule:exactly"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;line-height:200%; font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif;mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri;mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-fareast-language: EN-US;mso-bidi-language:AR-SA">[1] Even suggestions that a loving God would not send an innocent person to hell falls short because such a person does not exist, and the gospel message teaches and realizes this truth. <p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="margin-bottom:10.0pt;text-indent:.7in; line-height:10.0pt;mso-line-height-rule:exactly"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;line-height:200%; font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif;mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri;mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-fareast-language: EN-US;mso-bidi-language:AR-SA">[2] It should be noted that the opposite of self-love is not low self-esteem, which is itself selfish and self-centered. Rather, Christ-honoring love understands the twofold reality of humanity’s utter and debased depravity and the unmerited mercy of God; additionally, Christ-honoring love chooses to boast not in self but in Christ and understands that the only reason Christians may stand before the Father is the mediation of Christ.

<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent:.7in;line-height:24.0pt;mso-line-height-rule: exactly">People often claim that respect is earned rather than given. Nonetheless, is such a claim biblical and right? What nuances establish such a claim? The common understanding is that Christ respects all (or is at least tolerant of) all opinions, but does he? Is he? Sensible thought would suggest that people should have a broad respect for a position (e.g., the president or leader of a country, a wise teacher of a course, etc.). Therefore, to a degree, much respect is not earned but simply given in specific positions, especially those of authority.<span style="font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;line-height:200%;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif;mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri;mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-fareast-language: EN-US;mso-bidi-language:AR-SA">[1] The simplest Christian worldview on given versus earned respect then is this: respect is largely given rather than earned, for believers should show the same respect Christ shows for all people. <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent:.7in;line-height:24.0pt;mso-line-height-rule: exactly">How then is one to assess what more respect he or she should give? To answer such a question, a distinction should be made between those inside and those outside the Christian faith. Scripture offers several indicators of Christian respect and how God’s people should treat others—both inside and outside the faith. <p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="margin-bottom:10.0pt;text-indent:.7in; line-height:10.0pt;mso-line-height-rule:exactly"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;line-height:200%; font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif;mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri;mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-fareast-language: EN-US;mso-bidi-language:AR-SA">[1] If respect had to be perpetually earned, mutual respect among humans could not exist, for everyone would constantly try to establish and reestablish respect.&nbsp;

Intro for the following may be found here. Additionally, audio for the Sacraments and Sacred Rites series may be found here. You may also listen to podcast episodes here. Additionally, Dr. Jones' book entitled Sacraments and Sacred Rites may be found here or bought on platforms such as Amazon or the Book Patch.Christian worship is a lifetime journey of participation and involvement in the life of Christ. The sacred rites and rituals in which the people of God participate should not be undermined, neglected, or misunderstood, for surely, they are vital to a life of worship both individually and corporately.This series aims to replace misunderstanding with replete comprehension and does not shy from difficult topics and terms often avoided (at least anecdotally) in Evangelical Christianity (e.g., sacrament, rite, etc.). To properly understand the significance of sacred acts of worship, however, one must not separate the sacramental nature of the Christian life, for surely, God is participatory in his people’s lives.Furthermore, Christian worship holds deep roots, which although strongly connected, transcend that of Judaism. The church calendar and the sacred rituals through which God’s people worship the triune and eternal God offer ample opportunity for the church to live within the reality of Christ’s life and participate in his redemptive process and sacrifice, for God’s people are certainly called to share not only in the life of Christ but in his sacrificial death.The more the people of God understand the sacramental nature of sacred actions in worship, the more they will experience the reality of Christ’s work in their lives and fully participate in Christ’s work within his bride: the church. This series, therefore, has the notable aim of clarification and understanding—understanding the nature of the church, the nature of sacrament, and the participatory foundation of Christian worship, which is most evident through the sacraments and sacred rites.

<span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;line-height:200%;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">John’s Gospel communicates that prior to Pentecost, the Holy spirit had not yet been freely given to God’s people (John 7:37-39), i.e. there is a chronological order to trinitarian work (Morrison, 2007, p. 36): the Son proceeds from the Father and the Spirit from both the Father and the Son. All three members of the Godhead are in agreement with such work as the one triune God. As such a chronological order subsists then, the outpouring of the Holy Spirit is dependent on Jesus’ death, burial, resurrection, and ascension (Morrison, 2007, p. 37). “In particular, without the cross, there would be no Pentecost” (Morrison, 2007, p. 37). Jesus’ ascension is deeply tied then to the coming of the Holy Spirit. <span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;line-height:200%;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">John’s Gospel includes a farewell discourse by Jesus. John 14:15-31 is Jesus’ promise of the Holy Spirit who would serve as his ambassador. The Gospel of John already includes more explicit references about the deity of Jesus than the other Gospels; yet, Jesus’ discourse in these verses focuses significantly on the promised Holy Spirit. This post will offer an analysis of three overarching aspects found within Jesus’ discourse: <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="margin-left:.75in;mso-add-space:auto; text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1"><span style="mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt;line-height:200%;mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;; mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">1)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; trinitarian work in the love among the three members of the Godhead, <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:.75in;mso-add-space: auto;text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1"><span style="mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt;line-height:200%;mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;; mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">2)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; the sealing work of the Holy Spirit, and <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="margin-left:.75in;mso-add-space:auto; text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1"><span style="mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt;line-height:200%;mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;; mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">3)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; the ambassadorial role of the Holy Spirit. <span style="mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt;line-height:200%; mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">These three aspects protrude from the text in a profound manner to support the concept of the Holy Spirit which proceeds from both the Father and the Son.

As we approach Ash Wednesday, my aim today is to discuss what the church might gain from observing the season of lent. Lent is not solely Catholic as many would assume, for there are many Protestant traditions who observe the season. It is also not insincere simply because it is tradition as others might assume. I have spoken often of the fact that sincerity has little to do with ritual or spontaneity. Sincerity, rather, is connected to the heart. Perhaps, this is to what Jesus refers when he says, “This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.” (Matt 15:8 ESV) This should surely highlight the corporate nature of spirituality; yet, it also points to a deeper matter than what is on the surface. Lent could certainly be surface-level for some people; for others, however, Lent could (and should for everyone in reality) be a sincere observance. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Lent is the 40-day season leading to Easter. The season is considered 40 days if Sundays are not included. Lent then begins Ash Wednesday and ends the Saturday of the Paschal Triduum just before Easter Sunday. Shrove Tuesday (Fat Tuesday in Western culture) is often lumped in with Lent but is actually just before Lent begins.[1] Its beginnings are born of a 2nd-century reflection during a 2-day fast leading to Easter; by the 3rd-century, fasting was expanded through Holy Week; and by the 4th-century, Rome developed a practice of a 3-week fast, which expanded throughout the empire and eventually became an observance of an entire season beginning the sixth Sunday before Easter. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The biblical background is diverse including the 40-day flood, Moses on Mt. Sinai, the spies in Cana, the Israelites in the desert for 40 years, most apparently Jesus in the desert for 40 days, and even his walking the earth for 40 days after his resurrection. There exists a variety of themes during Lent which are vital to the Christian life, e.g. reflection, a refocusing of one’s relationship with God, dependence on God, a reminder of humanity’s mortality, and selflessness. Knowing this information, I suggest that Lent is, in no way, a meaningless ritual, especially if one’s observances are sincere. If the observance of Lent is meaningless ritual, why then is the observance of Christmas or Easter not the same? Derived from this knowledge then, I have four predominant imperatives which we gain from observing Lent. [1] Shrove Tuesday is from the Latin absolve and is intended for the believer to reflect upon the current sins and struggles of which he or she needs to repent. Its evolution into “Fat Tuesday” is unbiblical, unhistorical, and a distortion of its intent at best.

A recent popular worship song has caused great controversy among worship leaders and churches. Cory Asbury’s “Reckless Love” has sparked debate far and wide. Arguments made both for the use of the word, reckless, are: 1)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; it is a metaphor; 2)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; from a human perspective, God’s love is reckless because it does not make sense; 3)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; the song does not speak of God himself but rather his love; 4)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; and many more. I do not intend to delve into discussion of this song itself or the use of the word, reckless, but I would like to discuss the broader topic of language in worship music. I would like to examine the pros and cons of modern vs. traditional and metaphorical vs. literal language. I do not mean to sway one way or another but merely to have us think about these issues as it relates to the message of the gospel as well as the context we minister in, which is disparate across the spectrum. To sum, I will discuss how to approach language in worship music, which, by the way, is nothing to be taken lightly.

A recent popular worship song has caused great controversy among worship leaders and churches. Cory Asbury’s “Reckless Love” has sparked debate far and wide. Arguments made both for the use of the word, reckless, are: 1)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; it is a metaphor; 2)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; from a human perspective, God’s love is reckless because it does not make sense; 3)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; the song does not speak of God himself but rather his love; 4)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; and many more. I do not intend to delve into discussion of this song itself or the use of the word, reckless, but I would like to discuss the broader topic of language in worship music. I would like to examine the pros and cons of modern vs. traditional and metaphorical vs. literal language. I do not mean to sway one way or another but merely to have us think about these issues as it relates to the message of the gospel as well as the context we minister in, which is disparate across the spectrum. To sum, I will discuss how to approach language in worship music, which, by the way, is nothing to be taken lightly.

A recent popular worship song has caused great controversy among worship leaders and churches. Cory Asbury’s “Reckless Love” has sparked debate far and wide. Arguments made both for the use of the word, reckless, are: 1)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; it is a metaphor; 2)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; from a human perspective, God’s love is reckless because it does not make sense; 3)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; the song does not speak of God himself but rather his love; 4)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; and many more. I do not intend to delve into discussion of this song itself or the use of the word, reckless, but I would like to discuss the broader topic of language in worship music. I would like to examine the pros and cons of modern vs. traditional and metaphorical vs. literal language. I do not mean to sway one way or another but merely to have us think about these issues as it relates to the message of the gospel as well as the context we minister in, which is disparate across the spectrum. To sum, I will discuss how to approach language in worship music, which, by the way, is nothing to be taken lightly.

A recent popular worship song has caused great controversy among worship leaders and churches. Cory Asbury’s “Reckless Love” has sparked debate far and wide. Arguments made both for the use of the word, reckless, are: 1)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; it is a metaphor; 2)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; from a human perspective, God’s love is reckless because it does not make sense; 3)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; the song does not speak of God himself but rather his love; 4)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; and many more. I do not intend to delve into discussion of this song itself or the use of the word, reckless, but I would like to discuss the broader topic of language in worship music. I would like to examine the pros and cons of modern vs. traditional and metaphorical vs. literal language. I do not mean to sway one way or another but merely to have us think about these issues as it relates to the message of the gospel as well as the context we minister in, which is disparate across the spectrum. To sum, I will discuss how to approach language in worship music, which, by the way, is nothing to be taken lightly.

A recent popular worship song has caused great controversy among worship leaders and churches. Cory Asbury’s “Reckless Love” has sparked debate far and wide. Arguments made both for the use of the word, reckless, are: 1)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; it is a metaphor; 2)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; from a human perspective, God’s love is reckless because it does not make sense; 3)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; the song does not speak of God himself but rather his love; 4)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; and many more. I do not intend to delve into discussion of this song itself or the use of the word, reckless, but I would like to discuss the broader topic of language in worship music. I would like to examine the pros and cons of modern vs. traditional and metaphorical vs. literal language. I do not mean to sway one way or another but merely to have us think about these issues as it relates to the message of the gospel as well as the context we minister in, which is disparate across the spectrum. To sum, I will discuss how to approach language in worship music, which, by the way, is nothing to be taken lightly.

A recent popular worship song has caused great controversy among worship leaders and churches. Cory Asbury’s “Reckless Love” has sparked debate far and wide. Arguments made both for the use of the word, reckless, are: 1)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; it is a metaphor; 2)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; from a human perspective, God’s love is reckless because it does not make sense; 3)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; the song does not speak of God himself but rather his love; 4)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; and many more. I do not intend to delve into discussion of this song itself or the use of the word, reckless, but I would like to discuss the broader topic of language in worship music. I would like to examine the pros and cons of modern vs. traditional and metaphorical vs. literal language. I do not mean to sway one way or another but merely to have us think about these issues as it relates to the message of the gospel as well as the context we minister in, which is disparate across the spectrum. To sum, I will discuss how to approach language in worship music, which, by the way, is nothing to be taken lightly.

A recent popular worship song has caused great controversy among worship leaders and churches. Cory Asbury’s “Reckless Love” has sparked debate far and wide. Arguments made both for the use of the word, reckless, are: 1)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; it is a metaphor; 2)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; from a human perspective, God’s love is reckless because it does not make sense; 3)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; the song does not speak of God himself but rather his love; 4)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; and many more. I do not intend to delve into discussion of this song itself or the use of the word, reckless, but I would like to discuss the broader topic of language in worship music. I would like to examine the pros and cons of modern vs. traditional and metaphorical vs. literal language. I do not mean to sway one way or another but merely to have us think about these issues as it relates to the message of the gospel as well as the context we minister in, which is disparate across the spectrum. To sum, I will discuss how to approach language in worship music, which, by the way, is nothing to be taken lightly.

A recent popular worship song has caused great controversy among worship leaders and churches. Cory Asbury’s “Reckless Love” has sparked debate far and wide. Arguments made both for the use of the word, reckless, are: 1)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; it is a metaphor; 2)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; from a human perspective, God’s love is reckless because it does not make sense; 3)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; the song does not speak of God himself but rather his love; 4)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; and many more. I do not intend to delve into discussion of this song itself or the use of the word, reckless, but I would like to discuss the broader topic of language in worship music. I would like to examine the pros and cons of modern vs. traditional and metaphorical vs. literal language. I do not mean to sway one way or another but merely to have us think about these issues as it relates to the message of the gospel as well as the context we minister in, which is disparate across the spectrum. To sum, I will discuss how to approach language in worship music, which, by the way, is nothing to be taken lightly.

A recent popular worship song has caused great controversy among worship leaders and churches. Cory Asbury’s “Reckless Love” has sparked debate far and wide. Arguments made both for the use of the word, reckless, are: 1)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; it is a metaphor; 2)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; from a human perspective, God’s love is reckless because it does not make sense; 3)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; the song does not speak of God himself but rather his love; 4)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; and many more. I do not intend to delve into discussion of this song itself or the use of the word, reckless, but I would like to discuss the broader topic of language in worship music. I would like to examine the pros and cons of modern vs. traditional and metaphorical vs. literal language. I do not mean to sway one way or another but merely to have us think about these issues as it relates to the message of the gospel as well as the context we minister in, which is disparate across the spectrum. To sum, I will discuss how to approach language in worship music, which, by the way, is nothing to be taken lightly.