“Wer Singt Mit Mir”
November 20, 2007 at 12:55 am (Assurance of Salvation, Music, New Perspective on Paul, Quotes, Theology)
Posted by Dr. Jeff Hutchinson
Church historian Mark Noll writes in his recent article for Christianity Today, “Praise the Lord” (found at http://www.christianitytoday.com/bc/2007/006/9.14.html):
An old German proverb runs: “Wer spricht mit mir ist mein Mitmensch; wer singt mit mir ist mein Bruder” (the one who speaks with me is my fellow human; the one who sings with me is my brother)….Believers who together sang the same hymns in the same way came to experience very strong ties with each other and even stronger rooting in Christianity….(But) as much as hymn singing has always been one of the most effective builders of Christian community, it has also always been one of the strongest dividers of Christian communities.
The one who sings with me is my brother. Now, this is just a German proverb (not to be confused with the divinely inspired sort), but it does speak to a deep truth. The one who is troubled by the hymns that sing of the gospel is, well, troubled.
One of Bob’s recent posts here at Green Bagginses reminded me of these unfortunate words from the Anglican scholar N. T. Wright, part of his lecture at the August 2003 Edinburgh Dogmatics Conference. Wright says that Paul “looks ahead to the coming day of judgment and sees God’s favourable verdict not on the basis of the merits and death of Christ, not because like Lord Hailsham he simply casts himself on the mercy of the judge, but on the basis of his apostolic work. ’What is our hope and joy and crown of boasting before our Lord Jesus Christ as his royal appearing? Is it not you? For you are our glory and our joy.’ (1 Thess. 3.19f [sic]; cp. Phil. 2.15f) I suspect that if you or I were to say such a thing, we could expect a quick rebuke of ‘nothing in my hand I bring; simply to thy cross I cling.’ “
Well, I’m not sure that if N. T. Wright were to “say such a thing” in conversation with me that I would bring a “quick rebuke,” but I might see if he’d let me encourage him in the gospel. Then maybe he would want to sing ”Nothing in my hands I bring, simply to Thy cross I cling” with me, in praise and thanksgiving to the Triune God. My great-grandfather (the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church in the 1920’s) would be thrilled to see such brotherly unity across the Anglican-Presbyterian divide.
Posted by Jeff Hutchinson
On Boundaries and Creativity
November 12, 2007 at 8:49 pm (Federal Vision, Heresy, Music, New Perspective on Paul, Theology)
I was in music composition class in college. I had a very brilliant teacher, who knew exactly what creativity was, and what environment it took to be creative. To have no boundaries at all is extremely limiting. Staring at a blank sheet of paper, wondering how many instruments to score for, what are the main themes going to be, what key, whether the music be program music or absolute music, is extremely stultifying to creativity. What my teacher told me that was extremely profound, and unbelievably helpful, was that you need to set up strong and narrow boundaries for what you want to create. Then, when creativity takes over, it will automatically say, “What can I do inside these boundaries?” I decided, in that class, to write a piece for organ pedal solo. Of course, the hands would be furiously changing stop combinations. However, the feet were going to be the only appendages making any noise. I finished the piece in an unbelievably short amount of time. And I believe it is one of my better works.
I get the distinct feeling that creativity in modern theology is seen as a completely blank slate, or at least mostly blank. There should not be very many “shackles,” if any, limiting what exegesis should be able to do. So say many. That is certainly what Briggs thought in his polemic against Warfield.
I would like to suggest that boundaries are extremely important for creative thinking. I would hope that all would agree that there is room for creative thinking in theology. However (and the best theologians have always known this), this theology needs to be conducted in a rather constrictive boundary. It is a question of dimensions. If one goes wide, one cannot go deep. Having barriers (such as the Bible firstly, and then, secondarily…confessions!) is vitally important for the deepening of theology. Playing with the boundaries is not the source of creativity in theology, but is rather the destruction of creativity. Federal Vision advocates and New Perspective advocates really ought to take note of this, and pull back inside the confessional boundaries.
Pavarotti Dies at 71
September 6, 2007 at 1:01 pm (Culture, Music)
One of the world’s greatest tenors died early today. He is most famous for his trademark Nessun Dorma (“No one is sleeping”), easily the most famous opera aria in the world today.
In Egypt, But Not Of Egypt
November 12, 2006 at 1:36 pm (Culture, Evangelism, Faith, Music, OT-Genesis)
Donald Grey Barnhouse once related this story about culture: Some years ago, musicians noted that errand boys in a certain part of London all whistled out of tune as they went about their work. It was talked about and someone suggested that it was because the bells of Westminster were slightly out of tune. Something had gone wrong with the chimes and they were discordant. The boys did not know there was anything wrong with the peals, and quite unconsciously they had copied their pitch. So we tend to copy the people with whom we associate; we borrow thoughts from the books we read and the programs to which we listen, almost without knowing it. God has given us His Word which is the absolute pitch of life and living. If we learn to sing by it, we shall easily detect the false in all of the music of the world. The world’s musical smiles are more dangerous than its attacking frowns. Its bells are more dangerous than its bullies. What we are going to see today is that we are to be in Egypt, but not of Egypt, in the world, but not of the world. We need to recognize that the world’s influence over us is oftentimes unconscious, like the boys influenced by the chimes.
Joseph’s brothers and his father are now all in Goshen. They are all in the land of Egypt. Goshen, however, is as close to the land of Canaan as it is possible to get in the land of Egypt. Joseph had a very good reason for wanting his people to settle so far out of the mainstream of Egyptian life. He wanted them to be in Egypt, but not of Egypt. Notice something very interesting about Jacob’s presentation to Pharaoh: Joseph does not push his family to have high positions in court. He simply does not do it. He could have. He could have said a word to Pharaoh, and each of his brothers would have had a posh job at the top of Pharaoh’s court. But that is not what Joseph does. Instead, he works hard to get them their own land in Egypt, separated from the influence of Egypt. What this shows is Joseph’s faith. He believes in the promises of God to his people, that Canaan is their real home. Yes, they are here for awhile. However, this is not their permanent rest. This is not their promised land. They are in Egypt, but not of Egypt, in the world, but not of the world.
It is evident from verse 4 that the brothers also understood this. They said that they are there to live there awhile. Another way to say it is that they are there to sojourn for awhile. They are pilgrims. They know that this world is not their home. They are just passing through. Their plea to Pharaoh is heard and approved.
After this, we see something unusual in the text. We see Jacob and Pharaoh meeting. Obviously, Moses is thinking of his own meetings with Pharaoh as he is writing this. He is comparing and contrasting the very different meetings that Jacob had with Pharaoh versus his own meetings with Pharaoh. The Scriptures say that the better person is the one who blesses the inferior person. That was true of Melchizedek and Abraham. Here it is true of Jacob and Pharaoh. Jacob blesses Pharaoh. This is in fulfillment of the promise of God to Abraham all the way back in chapter 12, verse 3, where God promises that Abraham will be a blessing to the nations. Here is Jacob being a blessing to the nation of Egypt.
The next section of our text shows us Joseph being a blessing to Egypt. Now, many people think that Joseph is acting like a tyrant here, enslaving the people, and taking everything away from them such that Pharaoh owns everything. That, however, is not true. First of all, Joseph only taxed the people’s grain %20 during the plentiful years. The people themselves would have had plenty of opportunity to build up for themselves grain in abundance. Secondly, the people themselves ask for Joseph to take the livestock. But Joseph always gives them something in return. He gives them fair market value for that livestock in the form of grain. Then, the next year, Joseph gives them again the fair market value of the grain in exchange for their servant-hood. What do the people think about it? Verse 25 has the people saying, “You have saved our lives; may it please my lord, we will be servants of Pharaoh.” So the people wanted this to happen, since the famine was so severe. Desperate times sometimes call for desperate measures. Thirdly, the language for how Joseph treated the people is more like the language of shepherding rather than tyrannizing. In verse 21, the Hebrew says that he placed the people in the cities, probably for easier grain distribution. This was grace on Joseph’s part. In fact, Joseph was a complete blessing to the nation surrounding him, just as God had promised to Abraham that in him all the nations of the earth shall be blessed. In doing so, he did not compromise his faith. He was in Egypt, but not of Egypt, in the world, but not of the world. He never viewed Egypt as his final rest, or the final answer to life’s problems.
Ultimately, Joseph points us here to Jesus Christ, the Ultimate Blessing to all nations on earth. The nations of the world were about to perish in the spiritual hunger that sin brings with it. We were sold body and soul to the law. But Jesus bought us and redeemed us, not with grain, but with His precious blood. Then He gives us the seed to sow among all nations. Remember that you were bought with a price, and that we are all farmers of God’s seed, the Word. Our problems are never solved in an Egyptian way, in a worldly way, even if we have power in the government. Our solution always lies in the Promised Land, for us: heaven, where Jesus is.
The third section of our chapter shows us in the last days of Jacob. Jacob requires that Joseph bury him in Canaan, and not in Egypt. The reason for this is that Egypt is not their final resting place. It is Jacob’s concern, just as much as it was Joseph’s concern earlier in the chapter. In fact, the time period in Egypt was an incubation period for the people of God. It was not an interruption of the covenant promises. They needed to become large, even under persecution, just as we see the church today in China, for instance. This passage here sets the stage for the Exodus. Right now, they are the prosperous ones. But we know that as soon as a Pharaoh arose who did not know Joseph, the situation would completely change, and Israel would become persecuted. That is God’s way of bringing them to their promised rest. As God did with them, so also does He do with His church. He sets the church in a place where it will be tested and persecuted. In Egypt, in fact, in the world, but not of the world.
How is it sometimes that we are in the world and of the world? So often is this the case, that it is often very difficult to tell the difference between the Christians and the non-Christians. Divorce is only 1% lower among Christians than among non-Christians, and that rate is about 50%. Christians lie, kill, steal, commit adultery, and every other sin just about as much as non-Christians these days. Why is that? It is because we have lost sight of our Promised Land, lost sight of our pilgrimage status, lost sight of the fact that this world is not our home. We have lost sight of Christ. We should not ever lose sight of Christ. Instead, we should be in the world, but not of the world, in Egypt, but not of Egypt.
What is our hope ultimately? We find it in verses 29-30. Jacob tells Joseph to bury him in Canaan, and not in Egypt. Why is that? Well, to continue our theme, it certainly is because he saw the Promised Land as the real stopping place, the real place of rest. However, there is more. Jacob did not need to worry about his soul. Instead, he believed that having his body in that place meant something. Well, it would only mean something if he believed in resurrection from the dead. Ultimately, that is where Jacob’s hope is. It is in the resurrection. Is our hope in the resurrection of our body, just as Christ’s body was raised from the dead? If that is not our hope, then we are still in our sins. We should not be fixed in false hopes. Our hope must be in the resurrection of Christ, being the first-fruits of the resurrection harvest when Christ comes back. Then, we will truly be of the new heavens and the new earth. Then we will be in the world, and of the world, the changed world.
Music and Theology
August 27, 2005 at 8:33 am (Music)
Again, contra Johannus Weslianus, here I am talking about music again. When I played the Liszt b minor Sonata on my senior recital, it was only after my teacher and I had struggled to understand the piece as a whole. There were serious difficulties in the way: the piece was half an hour long without a break, the piece could easily be sectioned off into movements if one desired to do so, and the piece was very demanding of both performer and audience. So, how to make the piece understandable was a question that burned in both my teacher’s mind, and in my own.
This is very analogous to theology. It is extremely easy to cordon off various parts of theology to suit our fancy. Most of the time these days, it is exegetes who sniff at systematic theologians, thinking that systematic theology has no bearing on how to interpret a text. Au contraire. Pardon my French. But when you come to a text that says, “God repented,” do we allow other Scripture to weigh in on this? Do we say that Scripture has no errors or contradictions? God does not lie. When He says at one point that He does not change like shifting shadows, and then elsewhere that God cannot lie, then we need to allow knowledge of those texts to influence how we read the statement, “God repented.” If we do not do this, then open theism might be the result. Open theism is the belief that God is open to the future, and that if plan A does not work, then God goes to plan B.
Of course, this interaction of systematic theology and exegesis must not be allowed to flatten out biblical history. God did not drop Scripture out of heaven all at one time. There is a progression. Systematic theology and exegesis are inseparable yet distinct. Those two words seem to be watchwords in Reformed theology. They apply to the Trinity, Jesus’ divine and human nature, the benefits we have in union with Christ, and probably many other vitals of the Christian faith. Systematic theology must take into account the biblical progression of revelation. Apologetics must not be forgotten, nor must church history, or practical theology. They are all like spokes of a wheel, interrelated yet distinct.

RSS - Posts