It is interesting that since the late 1980s when there was a concerted political campaign in the UK to prevent Sunday trading and ‘Keep Sunday Special’, shopping on Sundays is much more acceptable for Christians these days. In fact, many of the arguments made by the Keep Sunday Special campaigners were prescient – Sunday has become just another day for many, and shopping is the number one leisure activity, far outstripping church attendance.

The idea that Sunday should be set apart as the ‘Lord’s Day’ really grew to prominence in the Puritan and non-Conformist tradition in Britain. Detractors often referred to it as ‘Sabbatarianism’, because of Sunday often being referred to as the Sabbath, and the strict restrictions on what could and could not be done on that day. Anecdotes abound of families having to go to church three times a day, and not being able to play games or have any fun whatsoever.

Some of this stereotyping of non-Conformist practice as legalistic and joyless is unfair. But certainly the stricter churches did outlaw many things seen as unspiritual and unworthy of the Sabbath. Shopping on Sundays would have been considered taboo.

However, despite the religiosity of churchgoers, life goes on outside the church. For the first few centuries of the Church’s existence, Sunday was a normal weekday. For Jewish believers, meeting fellow followers of Christ meant observing the Sabbath rules, then getting up early the next day to worship Jesus before going to work. Gentile converts would also have to meet before work.

In the middle ages most people worked a seven-day week and the Church carried on its rituals with little impact on the majority of people, who would turn up for the festivals and possible an ordinary service if they had the time. It was only with the passing of certain worker-friendly laws as Britain industrialised that ordinary people ever got time off. The weekend is a fairly modern innovation in human history.

But as people were given more free time, and because many mill owners (for example) were also devout men, workers were compelled to go to church. Gradually, particularly among Reformed and evangelical churches, it was felt that Sunday, the Lord’s Day, should be set apart for worship and service, much like the Jewish Sabbath. The fourth commandment[1] – of setting one day a week apart for ‘rest’ – began to be seen as a requirement.

But of course ‘rest’ is a vague term. Defining ‘rest’ as sitting in church listening to a sermon, and other things, for example buying fair trade items from a stall at the back of the church, is highly subjective. Basically, it comes down to personal preference and tradition.

However, if the ‘Lord’s day’ is really going to mean a day given over to God, then any activity that is in line with God’s agenda is perfectly acceptable. There is Biblical and theological justification for selling fair trade goods, so there should be no issue with selling them on a Sunday.

There is one more point to make here, though. The use of the story about Jesus driving traders out of the Temple to justify selling fair trade on a Sunday is interesting. Yes, Jesus was reacting to the injustice and swindling that was going on. But Jesus was also reacting to the way the outer court of the Temple had become a market place. [2]

The outer court was supposed to be the area where the Gentiles could worship God – in fact, probably one of the most important places in the Temple, in that through it Israel could fulfil their calling and be a light to the Gentiles. By trading there, Gentile worship was rendered impossible, and Gentiles were excluded. Jesus’ reaction was also about making sure the rights of worshippers on the fringes weren’t impinged upon.

Without a doubt, trading in any church can be done with a minimum of disruption and fuss. However, there may be a good rationale for not having stalls set up at the back of the church, if they would distract people from worshipping.

Related article
Read Jon the freelance theologian talk about Fair Trade as a prophetic act

Reference
[1] Exodus chapter 20, verse 8
[2] The story of Jesus clearing the Temple appears in all four gospels. John places it at the beginning of Jesus’ ministry (John chapter 2, verses 12-16). The Synoptic gospels place it in the last few days of Jesus’ life (Luke chapter 19, verse 45-46; Mark chapter 11, verses 15-17; Matthew chapter 21, verses 12-13). The Synoptic accounts reference Isaiah chapter 56, verse 7 – “for my house will be called a house of prayer for all nations”.

Do you have a favourite Bible verse, and why is it your favourite?
I think 2 Corinthians chapter 5 and verse 19 [“in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses , and entrusting us with the message of reconciliation”], because it puts the focus on reconciliation with God and among human beings.

Which theologians have had the biggest influence on you?
Francis Schaeffer, CS Lewis, Leslie Newbiggin, Walter Bruggeman, NT Wright, Rene Padilla, and Nancey Murphy. (When pushed to pick one, Brian said NT Wright was his biggest influence).

In the postmodern era we are seeing the re-emergence of Gnostic alternative truths (e.g. Dan Brown’s The Da Vinci Code, National Geographic’s Gospel of Judas). Most reactions from Christians are modern proof-based arguments against them. What postmodern ways could we respond?
I’ve actually got an article on the Sojourners website on this topic, so it’s probably best if people read that. What I add is that the popularity of The Da Vinci Code tells us there are deficiencies in the way we present Jesus to people. [Click on this link to visit Brian’s Sojourners article – you may need to subscribe to Sojourners’ regular email update to access the article]

How do ongoing doctrinal disagreements in Christianity affect the credibility of Christians seeking to engage a modern and postmodern society that has no need of God?
Jesus said that ‘all people will know my disciples by the love they have for one another, and will know that the Father sent me for the same reason’ [John chapter 17, verses 20-23]. So if we don’t love one another it’s a very serious problem. Speaking personally, I am most unloving when I’m afraid or angry or greedy…

Your church, Cedar Ridge Community Church, is based in Washington DC. How do you feel about the recent establishment of the Washington Nationals baseball team? And do you think that the artificiality of baseball franchises have parallels in how Christians regard church?
I haven’t been to a Nationals game and haven’t kept up with them. I live closer to Baltimore anyway, so pay more attention to the Orioles. Franchises are formed by market realities and when we let our churches be formed by market realities too, then they do seem like a game.

Have you got one thing you would like to say to readers of freelance theology?
It’s great that you’re engaged through this website in theological conversation because if people can engage in constructive and charitable theological conversation that helps build a better world.

What does the ‘D’ stand for and why do so many Americans use a middle initial?
Douglas. The US is a big country. There are a couple of other Brian McLarens, who I feel sorry for in case they get saddled with my critics.

Read more by Brian Douglas McLaren on his personal website [click]:
Brian’s also recommends: Amahoro; Emergent (UK)

In our church people have an opportunity to share their prayer concerns and joys. A lot of the time I feel these prayer requests are really just information sharing. Which I guess is okay because they can be prayers too and we all have pure and impure motives when we pray, we are a broken people! But now people would like a follow up to these concerns. They would like an elder to contact them after the prayer request and I guess see how it went. My question is: isn’t this taking the focus then away from God and putting it back on to us? Aren’t we then sort of checking up on God? And aren’t we then sending the message to the congregation that this is a time of information sharing and a call to have a pastoral visit, instead of focusing on God and asking Him alone to transform people? Or am I missing the point of the sharing time during corporate worship?

Corporate prayer in Christian religious services has a long history, stretching back to Peter’s prayer shortly before the selection of Matthias as a replacement for Judas Iscariot in Acts chapter 1, verses 24-25. However, it would seem that even among the earliest Christian gatherings, there were some difficulties when it came to corporate expressions of worship (see, for example, 1 Corinthians chapter 14, verses 26-40). As Christianity became more structured, corporate prayers were usually led by the recognised leaders, or priests, and this system is found in many traditional denominations today. However, there has been a move in recent years towards setting time aside in Christian services for ‘open prayer’. As is ever the case, freedom of expression can lead to problems.

One of the clearest examples of the misuse of public prayer found in the New Testament is in the parable where Jesus contrasts the motives of the ‘holy’ Pharisee and the ‘sinful’ tax collector (Luke chapter 18, verses 9-14). In this short fable, the Pharisee uses his prayer to tell others about his own holiness, while the sinner addresses only God and asks for forgiveness. The Pharisee thus abuses the prayer time and it does him no good in the eyes of God. Taking this parable and applying it to the scenario outlined in the question, it would seem that moving the focus of prayer from God to the needs of the person praying, is less than ideal.

However, and while it is not the place of freelance theology to criticise any particular form of Christian expression, it would appear that there is a genuine case of unmet pastoral needs in this given situation. It is probably the case that it is only when the pastoral needs of the church members are addressed adequately that the proper focus for corporate prayer will be rediscovered.

Thanks for your question, LH.

I’ve been living in Sweden for two months now and have come across a puzzling difference between the translations of the Bible that we commonly use in the UK and their Swedish equivalent…

And again in the Swedish bibles it reads almost word for word, but with the word women taken out and replaced with “them”. Is there some kind of conspiracy going on?

This is particularly of interest to some of my friends who are female, Swedish and have leadership gifts, but have been taught by the Swedish state church that women are not allowed to lead.

The problem here lies in the particular texts used by the translators. A variant reading of Colossians chapter 4, verse 15 does read ‘his house’, rather than ‘her house’. It was this reading that was used in the English King James Version, drawing on the ‘Received text’ that was prepared by the scholar Erasmus during the Reformation and was also used by Martin Luther in his German translation of the New Testament. As the Scandinavian state churches are Lutheran, it is highly likely their traditional translations are also based on the ‘Received text’.

It’s worth noting that the ‘Received text’ is so called because it was the complete Greek text that Luther and others received from Erasmus. Despite the subsequent claims of supporters of the King James Version, the title ‘Received text’ does not imply any greater authority. In fact it was an edited Greek text drawing on the best-preserved manuscripts of the time, prepared in virtually the same way as modern textual scholars collate Greek texts to produce the most accurate version possible.

In the past 500 years or so, a number of earlier, and therefore arguably more reliable, texts have been discovered. In these earlier manuscripts ‘Nymphas and the church in her house’ (oikon autes: literally ‘house, belonging to her’) is the more common reading. In more recent collated Greek textual versions of the New Testament (e.g. Nestle-Aland fourth revised edition, published by the United Bible Societies in 1993), this textual form is given, with a footnote recording the textual variant oikon autou (‘house, of him’). It is therefore at the discretion of the translator whether Nymphas is considered to be a man or a woman.

The strong likelihood is that Nymphas is a woman’s name and the earliest texts bear this out. It could be presumed that with the growth of an exclusively male priesthood, it was naturally assumed that Nymphas would be a man, because of the implication that Nymphas led the church that met in his/her house.

In Philippians chapter 4, verse 2-3, the correct translation is actually the Swedish one. The passage reads ‘help them’ (sulambanou autais) and the word ‘women’ does not appear. But this translation, while accurate, is slightly disingenuous because there is no other way for us to tell in translation that Euodia and Synteche are women, as their names suggest. Paul refers to them as ‘fellow contenders for the truth’ and as ‘co-workers’, indicating some level of equality in service. Translating ‘autais’ as merely ‘them’ does not indicate the gender of the two women (who were undoubtedly women), leaving the modern reader uncertain as to their gender, and perhaps assuming that such named and important individuals would be male.

So, in short, there is probably something of a conspiracy, but it has its roots way back in the early history of Christianity as women were marginalised from positions of leadership. Most contemporary scholars and translators would seek to redress the balance by highlighting the gender of these leaders who worked alongside the apostle Paul (e.g. by inserting the word ‘women’ into the translation for clarity). The fact that the institutional church in Sweden has not incorporated these findings into current practice or translation probably indicates a continuing bias against women in leadership roles that has more to do with historical prejudice than accurate Biblical scholarship.

Thanks for your question, JM.

Those who come to Church seem more worried about “experiencing” God these days than about having a deep and full knowledge of Him as contained within the Bible. Is that a just a sign of the times that people want “signs and wonders” and faith just isn’t good enough anymore?

Wanting to see ‘signs and wonders’ is nothing new. Jesus was asked by the leading religious people to give them a sign in Matthew chapter 12, verse 38. His response, as recorded in that gospel, was vitriolic. Similarly Herod, the puppet ruler of Judea, was apparently eager to see the captive Jesus because “he hoped to see him perform a miracle” (Luke chapter 23, verse 8).

In both these cases Jesus refused to comply. The religious elite were chastised for not recognising his messiahship, a theme that dominates Jesus’ confrontations with them. They were the people who should have had no need for a sign. Herod was interested out of his own curiosity, nothing more, and Jesus had no intention of pandering to the demands of a spoiled despot.

However, elsewhere in the gospel accounts, and in the Biblical stories concerning Jesus’ followers, the miraculous is commonplace. Despite originally being included in the gospels to authenticate Jesus’ divinity in the minds of the reader, the miracles have caused immense problems for scholars in Western society since the Enlightenment. The rise of post-Modernism has fortunately rehabilitated the miracle stories, making them more acceptable to people.

As there has always been a ‘demand for a sign’, except during recent fads of rigorous rationalism, it should not be a surprise that people are looking for that now. Not much has changed in human nature in the past two thousand years and current Western culture is both consumerist and existential. Patrick Whitworth describes this tendency as such: “Reality today is people’s own experience. So we are all, in our Western society, children of existentialism, meaning ‘What I experience is truth’.” [Becoming a Spiritual Leader, Terra Nova, 2005, p.259]

This is both a challenge and a correction for the Christian Church. It is a challenge because it means the Church has to live good its promise. It is not enough to tell people that God loves them; they have to be shown. Similarly it is not enough to merely say that Jesus has conquered sickness; healing is the proof of the claim. Christians are therefore being pushed to prove their claims, which is only a worry for those who secretly do not believe their own propaganda. It is perfectly legitimate for the unbelieving to demand proof.

This questioning attitude is also a correction for the Church in that it prevents the development of a purely intellectual faith reliant more on human reason than faith experience. Obviously, there needs to be a balance between the two – experience should keep (fallible, limited) human reason in its place, while reason provides a limit on the possible excesses of charismatic religion. The difficulty is that sometimes the scale tips too far, so there exist churches with shallow theology ‘proven’ by dubious hysterical activity that can be easily manipulated, and churches who go as far as to deny that the miraculous can happen at all these days. In the case of the latter, a cynic could say that such churches have gotten so used to not seeing miraculous events they have had to find a reasonable explanation for why the things they read about in the New Testament Church do not happen in their church. Cue a doctrine of ‘dispensationalism’, prevalent in many non-Charismatic churches, that states that the ‘Spiritual Gifts’ were solely for the Apostolic era.

The question about faith ‘not being good enough anymore’ is interesting. Of course, this depends on what is meant by ‘faith’. If it means sound doctrine, then the argument can be advanced that any doctrine needs to be tested in the real world. Words have to be backed up by actions. While this probably does not apply to doctrines concerning the divinity of Christ, it does apply, as mentioned, to God’s power in healing. It is not unreasonable to expect pragmatic demonstrations that reinforce the doctrinal claims of Christianity, in some areas. Otherwise the statements made by Christians, however grand they sound, are ultimately meaningless.

There is a worry, however, that churches which perhaps over-emphasise the miraculous are ‘living in the moment’. As time goes on, and circumstances change, anecdotal evidence seems to suggest that Christians without a sound knowledge of the Bible or Christian teaching (catechism to use its proper description) are more likely to lose their faith. Experience is transient and highly variable. A person who bases their personal faith on the way they feel is therefore constructing their life on something that may change rapidly. They are also partaking in the modern cultural cult, the idolatry of self; making themselves the arbiters of what is real and doing what sinful human beings have always tried to do – put themselves in the place of God.

I’ve often heard Christians saying things like ‘if I ever found a perfect church I couldn’t join because then it wouldn’t be perfect anymore’, or ‘I’m remaining at my current church as a witness of what I really believe’ etc. While this is a sentiment I’ll go along with to a point in regard to the out-workings and practices of a church, I believe it can be unwise in terms of beliefs and doctrines. So, how much (if at all) do you think you should go along with what a church believes/does/says if it goes against what you believe the true message of Christ is? How much should you ‘play church’? Are these people just making excuses, and at what point do you think you should stand up for what you believe to be right and leave? Is staying just making a mockery of what doing church is meant to be all about? (The example that comes to the forefront of my mind is that of the role of women, but it also applies to worship, outreach, regard for the poor, dress, gifts of the spirit, to name a few.)

And then regular question-poser CM, United Kingdom, asked:

I have a couple of Christian friends that seem to be drawn into this new Christian trend of individualism and the rejection of regular church fellowship as beneficial. They say they don’t need to go to church and think their spiritual life is fine. Their lifestyle is totally contrary to what they say they believe, not just in a typically human way but in a “If it feels good how can it be wrong” way. How would you define this? Is it a form of Christian relativism or is it liberalism? They don’t think anything of sleeping around and as long as it’s only with one person at a time they think it’s alright, but at least they’re not hurting anyone. I seem to meet others who are like this too, usually either in university or not long out of it. Have they succumbed to the overpowering influence of submitting to an institution that doesn’t reflect their beliefs? I can think of a dozen or more reasons to excuse their behaviour but ultimately surely if they really understood their salvation and what it truly means to be ‘born again’ they would not act like this?

While freelance theology does not advocate any particular type of church over and above another, both these questions reflect key issues facing many churches, which boil down ultimately to one issue – the growth of the consumer, materialistic, individual worldview that still characterises the ‘Modern’ mindset of Western Christianity. This consumerism has infiltrated Christianity to the point where Christians often mistakenly believe that there are many churches within a given location. In fact, there is only one church. There may be many expressions of it (and some of those expressions may disagree with each other to the point of exclusion), but it is worth pointing out that no one denomination, or particular gathering of Christians, has the right to label themselves ‘the’ Church, only ‘a’ church.

Belonging (or not) to any Christian community of faith is always an act of conscience and an act of will. A believer commits to a particular brand of church, or decides not to belong anywhere. Difficulties often arise over three points. The first is theological – does what this particular local church say is true resonate with me and my reading of Scripture or understanding of the world. The second is practical – do I enjoy or appreciate this particular way of ‘doing church’. The third difficulty ties in with the first two and asks whether being part of this community is relevant – or in other words, does it help me?

It could be argued that all three difficulties are, as stated above, down to the consumer mindset inculcated by society. But there are genuine criticisms of ‘church’ made by many believers who struggle to see the ideal of what church should be in the day-to-day reality of how churches actually are. This dichotomy between the ideal and the real, not just in the area of church life, is one of the main reasons those outside the faith brand Christians hypocrites. To put it another way, if Christians claim that the God they worship is powerfully involved with the world, why are their meetings so dull? It’s a legitimate point that is usually ignored by those who seek to defend Christianity from its detractors.

Leaving a church due to theological differences is a thorny issue. On one level, again, you have to be pretty sure that you are wholly correct (and the rest of the church wholly in error) before you ‘take a stand’ and even then is the issue important enough to ‘break fellowship’ with other Christians? The history of protestant Christianity is littered with breakaway churches, where people have taken issue over minor theological points – the way to baptise people is a classic one, while in recent years the legitimacy of the ‘gifts of the Spirit’ have become a frequent reason for church splits. It has been noted that there is always a tension between the establishment and the radical tendency – a conflict that is sometimes labelled ‘prophecy’ versus ‘order’. Christianity has a tendency to stabilise and normalise into a rigid orthodoxy with a legalistic, conforming bent. In reaction to this, there has always been a reforming strand, both before the Reformation proper, and certainly in Protestantism since the break with Rome. The old joke goes: “We don’t mean to cause a split, but we are known as the dissenting church…”

However, it is unlikely that, with a few exceptions, most people leave a church due to theological objections. The evidence seems to be that most people switch churches because they prefer the meeting format elsewhere or they fall out with people. The same is true for people who stop attending church altogether. It just does not seem relevant to real life. Again the ideal of church – that it is a place where the believing community meets to corporately express their worshipful gratitude to God and grow as disciples of Christ through teaching and proclamation of God’s truth – does not match the real experience of church.

Protestantism’s over-emphasis on individual salvation (which, incidentally, was a prime formational component of Modernist individualism) has naturally led to a point where many believers look to their own interpretations of Scripture, plan their own discipleship strategies, and generally live their own Christian lives independent of a believing community. Critics of such an individualistic outlook often cite Hebrews chapter 10, verse 25 (“let us not forsake meeting together, as some are in the habit of doing”), to castigate those who have voluntarily chosen not to participate in church life. Although, in fairness the eschatology within the same verse – that sees Judgment Day as immanent – is hard to appreciate two thousand years later. The internal logic of this verse would imply that Christians should be meeting together al the time now, as we are presumably so much nearer to Judgment Day!

The importance of the Church universal, as opposed to the local expressions of it, is of course a prominent part of New Testament theology. The Church is the “Body of Christ” (1 Corinthians chapter 12, Ephesians chapter 4, verse 25, Colossians chapter 1, verse 24) and a ‘living Temple’ that replaces the Jewish Temple as the place where God meets his people (1 Peter chapter 2, verse 5), among other allegorical statements. It is quite clear that exiting the believing community was considered a sign of disbelief among the New Testament writers, as too was disharmony, quarrelling and one-upmanship. Most of the advice to specific people given by Paul and the other letter-writers ends up with the writer urging people to get along. So, difficulties in church life are nothing particularly new.

The tension, then between asserting a personally-grasped faith and individual commitment and the belief that a believer should stay in community, does lead to a tricky dilemma, at least within protestant churches. On the one hand, there is no desire to locate salvation within the institutional set-up (unlike in the Roman church for example, where you have be part of the Church, however loosely that is applied, to be saved), but at the same time a check needs to be placed on taking personal salvation too far and away from accountable relationships. ‘Discipleship’ shares the same root word as ‘discipline’ and, as is frequently seen by many people besides CM, it is hard to maintain self-discipline in isolation from the normative influences of the community.

Churches have often been quick to condemn those who have left as ‘backsliders’ or for ‘falling away’, but it can be convincingly argued that many churches have themselves fallen away from the ideal of what the Church should be about. Christian faith has often been weakened to a vague set of rules and ‘happy thoughts about heaven’, while churches have sought to increase their influence in society, seeking respectability rather than scandalous radicalism that affronts the world and wins over the hearts and minds of people.

Comment from AH, United Kingdom

I’m not sure I’m entirely happy with how my question was answered, the importance of corporate worship disappeared in an air of political correctness about worship as a lifestyle, something that I severely agree with. However, my concern and what I wanted to highlight with the question was actually the fact that worship, the corporate singing version of it, plays an important part in our lining up with God and each other. Joining the angels, like the crowd in heaven. I could be wrong, I’ve been wrong before. I don’t know. I just felt that that it wasn’t really a thorough answer to my question.

A response from Jon the freelance theologian

The comment about worship being a lifestyle is not being politically correct, although it is a popular ‘buzz-phrase’ at the moment. In fact, the original answer noted that sung worship has almost always been part of the way Christians worship God. However, the equally valid point was made that it was not the only way.

The concept of having a ‘time of worship’ during a religious service can be open to misinterpretation. There is a tendency in Christianity to divide the ‘sacred’ from the ‘secular’, but Paul’s instruction in Romans chapter 12, verse 1 is to “…offer your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God – this is your spiritual act of worship.” This implies that worship affects every part of a Christian’s life, not just the physical things that occur during church services. Paul has been called many things over the years, but ‘politically correct’ isn’t one of them (ask any feminist theologian!).

If corporate sung worship is called just ‘worship’, that implies worship only happens at certain times on certain days, which can lead to the idea that whatever happens during the rest of the week is unimportant. Seeing the whole of life as worship to God hopefully means Christians can avoid the frequent charge of hypocrisy – that what they say on Sunday bears no relation to how they act on Monday.

Of course Christians gathering together is important. Songs and music may help Christians ‘line up’ with each other. There is a long-standing Christian tradition of corporately singing praises to God, a tradition that works so well at bringing people together that Marxists decided to copy the Christian idea and sing their own hymn, The Red Flag, together at their meetings. However, again the point must be made and it was said in your original comment, singing is only part of this. Most Christians also engage in religious rites (communion being the prime example), many speak creeds together, celebrate Christian festivals in special ways and a few choose to live in actual community together. All these activities bring Christians into line with each other and with God and they could all be viewed as acts of worship.

Got a question or a comment? Want to make a point? Email freelance theology.

I was curious to hear how the word ‘worship’ is used in the Bible. Some people seem to say that singing is not worship, because worship is about your whole lifestyle. But in Amos 5 the word ‘worship’ is used for congregational singing, which sort of tells me there is still a place for calling worship by its proper name. I think you take away from ‘worship’ if you call it singing and just go for the worship is a lifestyle kind of thing. If we refer to sung worship as just ’singing’ does that make it less important?

The interesting thing about this question is the underlying assumption that the fairly modern, Western way of conducting a Christian meeting is Biblical. While songs have always been part of Jewish and then Christian worship, the Bible does not indicate that they are more important than any other means of worshipping God. In fact, the prime means of worship under the Mosaic covenant, and in Jesus’ day, was through sacrificing animals or birds in the Temple gathering.

The reference in Amos to “the noise of your songs!” (Amos chapter 5, verse 23) follows prophetic utterances regarding ‘religious feasts’, ‘assemblies’, burnt sacrificial offerings, ‘grain offerings’ and atonement (fellowship) offerings. Songs and music feature last in the list. The whole point of this passage is that all these religious actions were meaningless if performed in the wrong spirit, which is why after the prophet dismisses them he issues this statement: “But let justice roll on like a river, righteousness like a never-failing stream!” (verse 24)

In the fourth gospel, when Jesus is asked about the correct method of worship, his famous reply is “the true worshippers will worship the Father in spirit and in truth” (John chapter 4, verse 23). This reflects an attitude towards life, not an instruction to break into song or to perform any other religious function which would then be called ‘worship’. Unfortunately, in many churches, the idea that Christians indulge occasionally in a ‘time of worship’ (e.g. on Sunday mornings) has taken hold. This is not a Biblical principle and has the added effect of separating life ‘in church’ (the sacred) from life outside (the secular).

Music has the power to move and songs remain a vital means of imparting Christian truth. Kierkegaard, one of the pioneers of what became known as existentialism, wrote that “Music is the abstract made concrete”, meaning that feelings and emotions could be expressed and understood through the medium of music, even though they could never be adequately vocalised. Church leaders through the ages have recognised the importance of songs. Arius, the arch-heretic of early Christianity used songs put to popular sea-shanties to propagate his doctrines, a technique used centuries later by William Booth and his Salvation Army, who ‘borrowed’ music hall tunes for the same purpose. (NB: Booth was not a heretic, though). It would seem that sung expressions of worship will remain part of the Christian tradition, but the fact is that singing is only one aspect of Christian worship.

Thank you for contributing to freelance theology, AH.

Dear Freelance Theology
What is emerging Church? And what is post-modern Church? And what is liquid Church? Are they real biblical models of Church or are they a sell out to modern culture?

‘Emerging church’ is the latest phrase in common use among church planters attached mainly to charismatic church streams. Simply put, it is a church ‘without boundaries’, with no set style of meeting or clearly defined membership. Similarly ‘liquid church’ and even the term ‘post-modern’ are used to try and describe this different way of acting as a Christian community. There is no such thing as a typical emerging church, but it could be a community reaching a particular age group or sub-culture through ‘relevant’ means (beach barbeques to reach surfers, for example).

Some traditionalists have criticised emerging church on two fronts. Firstly that it is all style over substance and secondly that these new forms of church borrow heavily from a number of different traditions. A recent article in the UK magazine Christianity and Renewal likened emerging church to Unitarianism, due to its propensity to use ideas from all over the place. However, reactionary nonsense aside, there is the serious question of Biblical and doctrinal authenticity.

Non-traditional ‘emerging’ churches can be Biblical. That doesn’t mean they necessarily are – it will depend on the local leaders and their emphasis. Because ‘emerging’ churches have no central pattern to follow, they can vary greatly. Obviously, as was seen in what have become the main charismatic denominations, a lack of co-ordinated accountability could result in spiritual abuse (like ‘heavy shepherding’) or erroneous extra-Biblical teaching.

A better question to ask is ‘How Biblical are emerged churches?’ – churches with established patterns of worship and church order going back centuries (or just a few years to when they ‘emerged’). And then we have to ask ‘Is it even possible to develop a Biblical ‘New Testament’ church? ‘– a quest that many of the churches that have formed as a result of 20th century ‘revivals’ or ‘renewals’ have consciously claimed to be on.

The honest truth, given what has happened in the past, is that a quest for a New Testament church seems bound to fail and will end in a culturally irrelevant backwater. We are Christians in the 21st century, not the 1st century. We have a wealth of Christian heritage to draw on, and we carry doctrines that were the product of five centuries of intense debate and several decades of Reformation.

Even if we put that aside, which Biblical church do we want to model? FF Bruce’s short book Men and Movements in the Primitive Church is an excellent starting point for people wanting to study the varied nature of the earliest Christian communities. Do we want a Jewish-styled ‘Jerusalem church’, or a cosmopolitan ‘Corinthian church’, or are we trying to recapture the mysteriously elusive church that grew up around the apostle John?

It would seem that the 1st century apostolic church was an emerging church too, adapting to its surroundings and the particular needs of the local area. Antioch, Corinth, Ephesus, Philippi, Rome – each had it’s own part to play as Christianity spread throughout the Empire. As a model, ‘emerging church’ fits the Biblical example better than any traditional set-up, even if the churches that are emerging do not seem to.

Thanks for your question DM. I hope the answer was helpful. If you would like to comment on this or ask a question of your own, please email it using the ‘contact me’ button.

“What is Pentecostal?”

Pentecostal is a word describing a particular branch of Christianity (denomination). It is a movement that grew out of a ‘revival’ in the early part of the twentieth century that was characterised by ’speaking in tongues’ and other unusual phenomena.

The word ‘Pentecostal’ was applied to this new form of Christianity because of the similarities to the events recorded in the Book of Acts chapter 2 when the Holy Spirit impacted upon the followers of Jesus. This event became known in the church calendar as Pentecost, hence ‘Pentecostal’.

In the year 2000 there were 115 million Christians around the world who would class themselves as ‘Pentecostal’ or belonged to an official ‘Pentecostal Church’. (Source: Operation World, 2001)

I hope that answers your question TS. Thank you for contributing to freelance theology.
If you have a question or comment please use the ‘email me’ button on this website.