Yarr! – The Weblog of Bob Heffernan

I had some comments on my last post which seem to imply I was not making myself very clear (as those commenting misunderstood what I was saying). I replied, but I thought I might also put my reply here as a full post (with a few small changes):

I wrote this post as a break from a lot of hard work, so it’s possible that I didn’t make myself clear. I wasn’t advocating any particular view of worship myself, but rather I was challenging the T4G statement on worship. I have long been an advocate of the idea of ‘worship’ being much broader than the singing of songs. I have also pushed the practice of reading the Scripture as an act of worship and I certainly agree that our worship must be informed by scripture. Furthermore, I do believe that expository preaching and the public reading of scripture are acts of worship. I would go so far as to say that our worship is our very life offered up to God, and any more restrictive definition is too narrow.

However, what I tried to argue in the above post was the the T4G statement made expository preaching the core of worship – the essential element. You can gather together and eat a meal, you can sing songs, you can do a dance, you can pray, you can have fellowship together, you can share testimonies of what God is doing in your life, etc. But, if you don’t also have some expository preaching then you’re not worshipping.

This is what I feel the T4G statement implies, and I don’t agree with it.

I was talking with my Dad about the Together for the Gospel statement, specifically about article IV. This article affirms “the centrality of expository preaching in the church” and denies that “God-honoring worship can marginalize [sic] or neglect the ministry of the Word as manifested through exposition and public reading”. With his usual insight Dad followed the logic of this denial to its conclusions. If we say worship cannot neglect expository preaching or the reading of the word then we are saying that worship must contain expository preaching as an element. No such claim is made for any other potential element of worship, so we are left with the conclusion that worship is expository preaching. For example, according to this denial, the singing of worship songs plus expository preaching equals worship but the singing of worship songs alone does not. So, while the singing of songs is a good thing by itself it cannot qualify as worship.

Really?

I’m not elucidating this as well as my Dad did, but I think the implication is clear once it has been pointed out. Read Article IV again. Does it or does it not effectively make the terms ‘worship’ and ‘expository preaching’ (or ‘public reading of scripture’) synonymous or, if not synonymous, does it not at least say “if X does not contain expository preaching as a component, X is not worship’? Is this true? Is this biblical?

The Together for the Gospel guys (C.J Mahaney, Albert Mohler, Mark Dever, & Ligon Duncan) have released the final version of their list of affirmations and denials. Here are a few questions I would ask them, if I could. They’re not in any particular order.

1. You guys are together for the ‘gospel’. How is expository preaching central to the gospel, or central to the witness of the gospel? [cf. Article IV]
2. On a similar note, while the doctrine of Biblical inerrancy may be important in many ways, is it really central to the message of the gospel? [ cf. Article I and II]
3. You use the word ‘gospel’ a lot. What do you mean by it? God’s plan of salvation? Justification by faith alone? Is what you mean by ‘gospel’ the same as what Jesus meant by ‘gospel of the Kingdom’? Why not define this term? Is your list of affirmations and denials your definition of ‘gospel’?
4. How exactly does holding an egalitarian position toward the role of women in the church ‘damage’ ones witness to the gospel? [cf. Article XVI]
5. You use the phrase ‘gospel Church’ a few times. Is this a church that could sign your statement? Can a church with an egalitarian position be a gospel Church? If not, why do you feel the issue of the role of women so important while you obviously feel that the issue of infant baptism is not so important? Do you not feel that setting some churches apart as ‘gospel Churches’ based on issues of doctrine is divisive? What exactly are non-gospel churches? Are they Christian at all?
6. Your stand against racism is commendable and your specific mention of the injustice done to African-Americans doubly so. However, what about Native Americans? What about those in Latin America? Of course, I am not American so perhaps I’m out of place commenting on this. Still, it bears pointing out, I think. [cf. Article XVII]
7. You say that the doctrine of justification by faith alone is both ‘essential’ and ‘central’ to the gospel. While I can certainly understand what you mean by ‘essential’ (and I wholeheartedly agree that justification by faith alone is essential to the gospel) I am confused as to what you mean by ‘central’. What is the difference in your mind(s) between ‘essential’ and ‘central’?
8. What about the Holy Spirit?

I probably have more, but these come immediately to mind.