God made lungs and vocal cords and oxygen, ultimately, so that we could use them to worship him. The purpose of breathing is praise. But words fall short of his greatness. We feel this when we pray and sing, don’t we? It feels true, and yet so inadequate. We should feel that way. The inadequacy of our worship reminds us God is always better than we can grasp or express, and it drives us to find more creative ways to tell him so.

Let everything that has breath praise the Lord! Praise the Lord! (Psalm 150:6)
The first and last psalms tell us a great deal about what God wants us to see and hear in all the psalms. The first is quoted far more often than the last:
Blessed is the manwho walks not in the counsel of the wicked,nor stands in the way of sinners,nor sits in the seat of scoffers;but his delight is in the law of the Lord,and on his law he meditates day and night. (Psalm 1:1–2)
Psalm 1 tells us that the happiest and most fruitful people, anywhere on earth and at any point in history, will be those who delight most in the words of God. The words of this book — and every other book in the Bible — are meant to be read slowly, wrestled with, and savored. And not just for a few minutes each day, but throughout the day. The psalm is an invitation into the rich and rewarding life of meditation.
If the first psalm tells us how to hear from God, though, the last psalm tells us how to respond. Humble, wise, happy souls let God have the first word, but encountering him eventually draws words out of them. Like the disciples, we “cannot but speak of what we have seen and heard” (Acts 4:20). How does God bring 150 psalms to an end? With a clear charge and refrain: “Let everything that has breath praise the Lord! Praise the Lord!”
The Closing Psalm
Anyone can discern what the last psalm wants us to do in response to what God has said. All thirteen lines make the same point: “Praise the Lord!”
No matter where we are, and how bleak or difficult our life becomes, we always have reason to praise our God — to stop and worship him for who he is and what he is done. “Praise him for his mighty deeds; praise him according to his excellent greatness!” (Psalm 150:2). Our reasons for praising him — his mighty deeds and his glory over all — always eclipse and outweigh what we suffer, and all the more so now that Christ has come, died, and risen. God doesn’t minimize or neglect our suffering, but his goodness to us always outshines the trials he hands us. And so the psalmist can say to every one of us, at every moment of our lives, “Praise the Lord!”
The psalms, however, are not a simple chorus repeated over and over again, but a symphony, filled with as many experiences and emotions as humans endure and feel.
Read More
Related Posts:

Written by Aaron M. Renn |
Monday, May 23, 2022
Is it really the case that the culture’s view of Christianity and its moral systems are still basically the same as they were three decades ago, and that there was no major cultural break around 2014? I would argue No. There is very strong evidence for such a cultural break.

My First Things article on the three worlds of evangelicalism featured as a part of the context for a recent debate over the legacy of Tim Keller (see here, here, here, and here among others). In that dispute, some people critiqued my framework. One of their points of dispute is about the dating of what I labeled the “negative world.” I want to explain why their critique of my framework fails to persuade and lacks explanatory power.
To refresh, my framework posits that during the period of secularization post-1965, America has passed through three distinct phases or worlds in terms of how secular culture views Christianity.

Positive World (Pre-1994). Christianity was viewed positively by society and Christian morality was still normative. To be seen as a religious person and one who exemplifies traditional Christian norms was a social positive. Christianity was a status enhancer. In some cases, failure to embrace Christian norms hurt you.
Neutral World (1994-2014). Christianity is seen as a socially neutral attribute. It no longer had dominant status in society, but to be seen as a religious person was not a knock either. It was more like a personal affectation or hobby. Christian moral norms retained residual force.
Negative World (2014-). In this world, being a Christian is now a social negative, especially in high status positions. Christianity in many ways is seen as undermining the social good. Christian morality is expressly repudiated.

Like all frameworks of this type – such as the division of history into ancient, medieval, and modern – my three worlds model is a simplification of very complex phenomena, and designed primarily for utilitarian purposes. Unlike with theological or scientific models, which are claims to objective truth, frameworks like these are tools to help us make sense of and navigate the world. There may be many frameworks to explain the same phenomenon, each of which is useful to some people but not others, or each of which illuminates different dimensions of the situation. I always encourage people to try out different frameworks or lenses on a problem to look at it from multiple angles. Rod Dreher’s Benedict Option is a related but different lens, for example.
So I wouldn’t expect my framework to be the last or only word about how to interpret today’s world when it comes to the relationship of the church and secular society. Indeed, robust critique and the development of alternative points of view are key to understanding and adapting to our age.
Unfortunately, the current round of critiques was not especially useful. The main critique leveled at my framework is that there’s nothing new about the negative world, and that American Christians have lived in a negative world for some time. Thus, what I labeled the neutral world either never existed, or happened much earlier than in my accounting. We see this view best expressed by David French:
There are so many things to say in response to this argument, but let’s begin with the premise that we’ve transitioned from a “neutral world” to a “negative world.” As someone who attended law school in the early 1990s and lived in deep blue America for most of this alleged “neutral” period, the premise seems flawed. The world didn’t feel “neutral” to me when I was shouted down in class, or when I was told by classmates to “die” for my pro-life views.
It is objectively true that there was once a positive world in the United States. This world was, specifically, positive towards Protestant Christianity. Up through the 1950s, the United States had a well-documented Protestant establishment. Even Catholics could be excluded from certain institutions on account of their religion, and the election of John F. Kennedy in 1960 as the first Catholic president was controversial at the time. The establishment’s religion was predominantly liberal Protestantism, but it was Protestantism to be sure. The divisions of this era were not Christian vs. non- or anti-Christian, but primarily sectarian and ethnic.
Read More
Related Posts:

The ratification of the overtures would have been helpful and a key victory, but largely symbolic. In this sense the National Partnership was right: Overtures 23 and 37 are unnecessary (but they are neither unclear nor unloving). Everything required by these overtures is already set forth by the Westminster Standards. The problem has been an unwillingness in some presbyteries and agencies of the PCA to uphold the Standards or to interpret them according to their historic meaning.

Despite voices warning the PCA was slipping down a progressive slope, for the most part confessional churches (now referred to by the chic as “Neo-Fundamentalists”) and progressive congregations (are they the “Neo-Liberals” according to the new chic nomenclature?) got along well enough until recently.
While they had concerns regarding some currents in the PCA, many small-and-medium-sized confessional churches were content to leave the work of General Assembly largely to others. As a result, the PCA lurched slowly, yet steadily in a broad, progressive direction until about 2019.1
The 2019 and 2021 Assemblies represented a clear rejection of the broad, progressive, wing of the General Assembly. And elders at the Assembly took heed to the warnings about the slippery progressive slope.

Changing the PCA Trajectory 

The recent unveiling of a series of emails from the once-secretive National Partnership (NP) reveals the alarm of the Progressives regarding the new trajectory of the General Assembly beginning in 2019. A member in the NP sent this email as voting was about to begin in Dallas:
“The Overtures will be voted on in the assembly NOW. If by chance you are picking up SWAG in the assembly hall, smack yourselves and join us!”
After the votes were taken that same NP coordinator summarized his goals for the 2019 Assembly as follows:
Dear friends,The 47th GA is in the books. If you remember I listed three of my personal goals for this assembly:1. Reject Nashville statement and approve SSA study committee2. Approve the Abuse study committee3. Approve Overture 8 regarding the service of unordained people on committees
While the Study Committee on Abuse was approved after receiving widespread support in the Assembly, the Assembly rejected an attempt by the NP and its allies to dilute the PCA doctrine of ordination by permitting unordained people on the committees of the General Assembly.
Even more tellingly, the Assembly resoundingly approved the Nashville Statement (NS) as a faithful summary of biblical doctrine regarding gender and human sexuality. These were two significant defeats for the progressive agenda in the PCA. For more assessment of the NP agenda, read the Session report from First Presbyterian Church.
After the approval of the NS, one of its vocal opponents took to Twitter to prophesy the ultimate victory of a progressive vision for the PCA and a defeat for those in favor of the definitions in the NS:
“Last night the NS won the battle, but they will lose the war. 1. We had a seat at the table. That’s new. 2. Notice the average age of the proponents and opponents. Big shift. 3. About 40% of the PCA leaders rejected NS. WE got a study committee whose report will supersede NS in the PCA.”
While the author of this Tweet spoke out against approval of the Study Committee Report in 2021, the Study Committee was passed overwhelmingly by that Assembly and it seemingly does not undermine or contradict the Nashville Statement, but only strengthens it.
The 2021 GA in Saint Louis was an even more decisive defeat for the NP and the broad/progressive wing of the PCA. The PCA almost unanimously approved its solidly biblical and remarkably concise Study Report on Human Sexuality. The 2021 Assembly also delivered several other items long sought by confessional and conservative elders in the PCA:

The Assembly rejected a latitudinarian impulse on the Review of Presbytery Records Committee.
The Assembly prohibited Mission to the World from having unordained women and men in line authority supervising missionary pastors or ruling elders.
The Assembly overwhelmingly passed two overtures (23 and 37) that clearly bar anyone identifying as a Gay Christian or enslaved to other scandalous sins (e.g. racism, pornography, violence, etc.) from church office.
The Assembly largely rejected the (secret) NP slate of recommended candidates for the permanent committees, agencies, and Standing Judicial Commission of the PCA.2

An organizer in the NP graciously and realistically noted the goals of the NP and their progressive colleagues were clearly not accomplished at the 2021 Assembly and they would need to take stock of their “place” in the PCA:
“The side representing our views was significantly outnumbered. We will have to take that to heart and consider what it means for the next years. There will be conversations in the weeks and months ahead about how we best steward our place in this denomination. But for now I just wanted to thank you all for working together, and for stepping into the gap when it was needed on committee reports, microphones, bottles of bourbon and cigars.”

The Significance of the General Assembly

While many celebrated (or lamented) the passage of Overtures 23 and 37 (Item Three above), they are not the most significant result of the Saint Louis Assembly. Nor are they the only reason to be hopeful about a confessional renaissance in the PCA.
Item Four is the most significant because it is the permanent committees who oversee the daily operation of the PCA and recommend to the GA the hiring and firing of senior staff who set the agenda for the PCA. A few more Assemblies like Saint Louis (and to a large extent the 2019 Dallas Assembly as well) and the character of this denomination will reflect a clearer commitment to biblical fidelity and confessional integrity.
If conservative and confessional elders stay engaged and active at the General Assembly and presbytery level, we will be able to elect men to those committees and the SJC who will plot a course for the PCA within the Old Paths of the Reformed Faith, who will not prioritize “the culture’s view of the church over the church’s faithfulness to the unvarnished, countercultural, and often offensive proclamation of God’s truth,”3 and who will enable the courts of the PCA to uphold the Standards all her elders have subscribed.
That’s a big if; do confessional and conservative churches have the numbers to send elders to the General Assembly in 2022 to build on these successes from 2019 and 2021? I believe they do.
Read More

1 One notable exception to this is the Greensboro General Assembly in which the confessional wing of the PCA succeeded in having Northwest Georgia Presbytery cited with an exception of substance for including a purported image of the Second Person of the Trinity in their worship order in violation of WLC109. The reason for the confessional success later was revealed by documents containing the NP Correspondence: the members of the NP didn’t know this was happening and were “taken by surprise on the floor of the Assembly” (p. 255). I guess many of them didn’t read their Commissioner Handbooks to know they should be on the floor for this. This was the debate in which the Assembly was told pictures of “Jesus” should be allowed because “we all have pictures of Aslan in our office.”
2 “ALL_NPP_Emails…” pp. 431ff. While some NP recommended candidates were elected by the Assembly, the compositions of these committees and the SJC took a decidedly conservative and confessional turn after the 2021 GA.
3 TE Jon Payne, https://www.facebook.com/jon.d.payne.7/posts/1878803962320114.