Presbyterian “Quirks”: The Sabbath, Psalms-Singing, and Images of Christ
That our spirituality should be guided by faith isn’t necessarily a controversial point among evangelical Christians. Where this becomes controversial, though, is when we extend this logic to chart out how to think about these Presbyterian “quirks.”
The title of this class captures what most people think when they first learn about Sabbatarianism, Psalms-singing, and a rejection of images of Christ, three distinctive areas of Presbyterian piety: That’s quirky! These distinctives raise a lot of questions, and, even with people who have been Christians for a long time, they struggle to understand just why Presbyterians insist on these elements to such a degree.
In many areas, Presbyterians might simply seem traditional in their style. Even if an evangelical Christian prefers more “contemporary” worship styles, musical selections, and creative expressions in their worship services, they probably have some frame of reference to understand a “traditional” style that doesn’t necessarily go in on those approaches to worship. When it comes to these “quirks” however, many evangelical Christians are shocked to learn that Presbyterians consider these issues to be of great moral significance.
This is where we see a difference, then, between a traditional approach to piety and worship, and a confessional Presbyterian approach. These issues are not nostalgic pining for “the good old days,” but deeply formed biblical convictions.
In this class, however, our goal will not be to defend these distinctive beliefs and practices. There are other resources on those issues. In particular, R. Scott Clark has collected a stellar set of resources on the Sabbath, Psalms-singing, and images of Christ.
Instead, in this class, my goal is to offer a positive vision to help you imagine what Reformed and Presbyterian piety and worship might be like if you began to lean into these practices. My goal is that, even if you are not (yet!) persuaded that these practices are biblical, you might at least have a positive imagination about how these practices might reform your relationship with God. Or, at the very least, I hope that after this class you won’t find these beliefs and practices so quirky!
The Foundation: A Biblical and Spiritual Piety
The biblical foundation for this approach is in 2 Corinthians 5:7: “for we walk by faith, not by sight.” This verse captures not merely an encouragement that there is a world beyond this life that we cannot see; more, it captures an entire ethos for living. John Owen writes this:
There are, therefore, two ways or degrees of beholding the glory of Christ, which are constantly distinguished in the Scripture. The one is by faith in this world, which is ‘the evidence of things not seen’; the other is by sight, or immediate vision in eternity, ‘We walk by faith and not by sight’ (2 Cor. 5:7)….No man shall ever behold the glory of Christ by sight hereafter, who does not in some measure behold it by faith here in this world. Grace is a necessary preparation for glory, and faith for sight.1
If the essence of Christian piety is to behold the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ (2 Cor. 4:6), this is something that is (1) by faith, (2) spiritual—that is, by the Spirit, and (3) through the Word of God. That is, our spirituality is guided not by what we can see, but by faith in God’s Word.
That our spirituality should be guided by faith isn’t necessarily a controversial point among evangelical Christians. Where this becomes controversial, though, is when we extend this logic to chart out how to think about these Presbyterian “quirks.”
The Sabbath
I’d like to draw our attention to two important and surprising texts about the Sabbath. First:
[12] And the LORD said to Moses, [13] “You are to speak to the people of Israel and say, ‘Above all you shall keep my Sabbaths, for this is a sign between me and you throughout your generations, that you may know that I, the LORD, sanctify you. [14] You shall keep the Sabbath, because it is holy for you. Everyone who profanes it shall be put to death. Whoever does any work on it, that soul shall be cut off from among his people. [15] Six days shall work be done, but the seventh day is a Sabbath of solemn rest, holy to the LORD. Whoever does any work on the Sabbath day shall be put to death. [16] Therefore the people of Israel shall keep the Sabbath, observing the Sabbath throughout their generations, as a covenant forever. [17] It is a sign forever between me and the people of Israel that in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested and was refreshed.’” (Ex. 31:12–17)
When the Lord insists that his people keep the Sabbath, he does so by insisting that the Sabbath is a sign. A sign is something visible that points us to something else—in this case, to something invisible. Specifically, the Lord teaches that the Sabbath is a (visible) sign that he (invisibly) sanctifies us.
Sabbath-keeping, then, is a sign about our spirituality, but not a sign of what we are doing for God. That is, Sabbath-keeping is not a weekly method for virtue signaling (“I thank you, Lord, that I’m not like those immoral people who don’t keep Sabbath!”). Rather, Sabbath-keeping is a sign of what God does for us. We rest as a testimony to the watching world of what God is doing in and through us, to sanctify us. It is a powerful reminder amongst ourselves, as well as to the watching world, that we cease from work because we believe that God is at work (John 5:17).
The second text is an important corollary:
[13] “If you turn back your foot from the Sabbath, from doing your pleasure on my holy day, and call the Sabbath a delight and the holy day of the LORD honorable; if you honor it, not going your own ways, or seeking your own pleasure, or talking idly; [14] then you shall take delight in the LORD, and I will make you ride on the heights of the earth; I will feed you with the heritage of Jacob your father, for the mouth of the LORD has spoken.” (Is. 58:13–14)
God teaches us that we learn to delight in him by learning to delight in his Sabbath. That is, the Sabbath is a means of God’s grace toward us. As a sign, the Sabbath proclaims to the watching world that God is sanctifying us. But, as a means of grace, the Sabbath is the venue in which God teaches us to delight in him.
It is in this context that we must understand the strict limitations for the Lord’s Day:
WLC Q. 117. How is the sabbath or the Lord’s day to be sanctified?
A. The sabbath or Lord’s day is to be sanctified by an holy resting all the day, not only from such works as are at all times sinful, but even from such worldly employments and recreations as are on other days lawful; and making it our delight to spend the whole time (except so much of it as is to be taken up in works of necessity and mercy) in the public and private exercises of God’s worship: and, to that end, we are to prepare our hearts, and with such foresight, diligence, and moderation, to dispose and seasonably dispatch our worldly business, that we may be the more free and fit for the duties of that day.
We are to spend the entire Lord’s day in public and private exercises of worship—and we are to duly prepare our hearts and our affairs to enter into that worship as much as possible—not to restrict ourselves. Rather, the Lord’s Day is an invitation to delight in the Lord by worshiping him. This delight isn’t in something that is material, visible, or earthly, but in something that is spiritual, invisible, and heavenly.
As Thomas Boston observes, those who live according to the flesh choke on this spiritual delicacy of the Sabbath:
-
Why Some Evangelicals Are Embracing Racism
Sin is sin, on the right or the left. Kinism is just as evil as critical race theory. So Kinists are not our allies. They’re just as opposed to Biblical views on race as critical race theorists.
Just as leftists use America’s history with white supremacy to justify anti-white racism, some “evangelicals” are using critical race theory to justify racism against non-white people.
Pressure from critical race theorists has convinced many evangelical leaders to become ashamed of the gospel and they’ve embraced anti-white racism. In the same way, through bitterness against critical race theorists, some anti-woke evangelicals have become dissatisfied with Biblical theology and they’ve embraced racism against non-white people.
Like Sadducees and Pharisees, despite their opposing views—these two groups have one major thing in common: they’re refusing to submit to Jesus’ authority.
Worldliness isn’t a leftist trait. It’s not just progressive “Christians” who can be deceived by unbiblical views on race. Satan is cunning. If he’s able to deceive Puritans into embracing white supremacy, he’s able to deceive conservative protestants into embracing Kinism.
Kinism is an ideology within some Reformed circles that teaches that a person’s so-called race makes them “kins” or related to people within their racial group. According to Kinists, all white people have a shared ethnicity and culture that should be preserved. Therefore they support racial segregation in communities and families. Meaning, they’re especially opposed to immigration (not just illegal immigration) and “interracial” marriage.
Just as most Big Eva leaders (mainstream evangelical leaders) do not embrace every facet of critical race theory, not all Kinists embrace every facet of Kinism. However, their soft form of Kinism isn’t any less destructive than a soft form of critical race theory.
These Kinists are significantly smaller in number and influence than professing Christians who’ve embraced critical race theory. However, they’re less uncommon than you might think.
Until recently, all the racist words I’ve received since I started writing on race 8 years ago have come from critical race theorists. However, a few months ago—especially after I called out Stephen Wolfe—I received hundreds of racist words from Kinists on social media, especially since I’m a black man married to a white woman.
Stephen Wolfe is one of the most influentual Kinists in evangelical circles. He’s the author of the popular book, The Case For Christian Nationalism. On Twitter last year, he said:
“while intermarriage is not itself wrong (as an individual matter), groups have a collective duty to be separate and marry among themselves…there is a difference between something being sinful absolutely and something being sinful relatively. Interethnic marriage can be sinful relatively and absolutely.”
He’s since deleted those tweets. But his tweets are consistent with his words in The Case For Christian Nationalism:
Read More
Related Posts: -
The Bible’s Strange Reasons for Generosity: Show them God!
God withholds nothing from us. As we are conformed into his image, we grow in our Triune God-echoing generosity. When we give, we display the very character of Christ to the world. We, ambassadors of this strangely generous King, display his category-defying generosity in our own generosity.
Why do we give? The first hit when you Google “why should I be generous?” is this article which lays out four reasons:
1) Giving frees you from the “burden of materialism”
2) Giving helps you “to feel better about yourself”
3) Giving makes you less self-centered
4) Giving helps make people like you.
Do you find those reasons compelling? Two of them (1 &3) have echoes of biblical truth in them. But 2 & 4 are shockingly empty reasons.
Paul also has four reasons for giving: none of which overlap with this list. Here is Paul’s list:
1) Give because giving is a grace
2) Give because it proves your love of Jesus
3) Give because Jesus first gave
4) Give because you will be blessed.
Give Because Jesus Gave
Today we arrive at the third reason on that list: give because Jesus first gave. Paul says it this way in 2 Corinthians 8:9:
“For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that thought he was rich, yet for your sake he became poor, so that you by his poverty might become rich.”
Read More
Related Posts: -
Romans 1 and Atheism
Atheists do not spend all their time and energy hating on and railing against flying spaghetti monsters for the simple reason that they know there are no such things. But they DO know that God exists, and they hate him for it. If God exists, then they cannot be god.
Yes they actually do hate God:
Having just penned another piece on the war against God, I of course got the usual angry atheists writing in with their fists flying. They hate it when you dare challenge their derelict worldview. And they always go on about how they do not really hate God. Yeah right.
Of course they hate God. Their entire life screams out this hatred. And it is no wonder: when they are told that they are NOT the centre of the universe, but only the one real and living God is, that incenses them. That outrages them. Atheists hate it when you point out the truth that there can be only one true God. And the reasons are obvious:
They want to be king, not subject.They want to rule, not be ruled.They want to give orders, not take orders.They want to call the shots, not be told what to do.They want to determine what is true and false, not God.They want to determine what is right and wrong, not God.They want to be independent, not dependent.They want to do their own will, not God’s will.They want to live like the devil, not God.They want to rule in hell, not serve in heaven.
Scripture of course often speaks about atheists. Twice in the Psalter for example they are called “fools” because they refuse to recognise God (Ps. 14:1 and 53:1). Rejecting their creator—and judge—is the height of foolishness. And this is a deliberate, defiant rejection of God. D. A. Carson, commenting on Psalm 14:1, puts it this way:
The word rendered ‘fool’ is in Hebrew a term of moral opprobrium suggesting perversity, churlish and aggressive perversity…The Bible’s view is that in the last analysis atheism is less the product of misguided searching, a kind of intellectual mistake, than a defiant and stubborn rebellion…The fact that atheism is not widely seen that way is itself an index of our depravity. In fact, the best-informed atheists commonly acknowledge the connection between morality and belief, between immorality and unbelief. There is a famous passage in Huxley that acknowledges that one of the driving forces behind atheistic naturalism is the desire to tear away any sort of moral condemnation of otherwise condemned behavior. In a passage scarcely less famous, Michael Foucault, one of the theoreticians behind postmodernism, frankly acknowledges that it became important for him to destroy traditional notions of truth and morality, because he wished to justify his own sexual conduct. A few years ago, Foucault died of AIDS.
But the classic text on the atheist mindset and value system is found in Romans 1:18-32. It reads:
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.
Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.
For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.
Read MoreRelated Posts:
