There is Right and Wrong

And that's all there is.

Sometimes, people are fond of finding gray areas, about which they presume there is neither right nor wrong, but each can be convinced in his own mind.

I believe this is misguided. I do not believe there is neutrality. Something is either right or its wrong.

The fact that "good men differ" does not mean that both are right, or that God is indifferent on the matter. It does not even mean that both sides have some part of the truth. The fact is that when "good men differ" one of them is wrong.

The rub comes in when people treat something "right" as if it is "wrong" because of their own personal conscience. This often causes division in the body, particularly in a local body, which is another issue for another day.

The fact that a person judges something to be wrong, does not mean that it is. He may be judging wrongly, for any number of reasons. Conversely, the fact that someone judges something right does not mean that it is right. He may be judging wrongly, again, for any number of reasons.

But let us dispense with the notion that there is some kind of middle ground out there about which God is indifferent. Something either pleases God or it does not.

Book Review of Silva's Biblical Word and Their Meaning

Moisés Silva, Biblical Words and Their Meaning: An Introduction to Biblical Semantics. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994. Pp. 8-211.

Silva is well-known for his work in hermeneutics and lexicography and this book is part of the reason why.

This book is divided into two sections, Historical Semantics and then Descriptive Semantics. The first section is largely devote to word use in history (as one might surmise), in terms of diachronic vs. synchronic linguistics. While recognizing a role for a diachronic method, Silva follows Saussare’s methodology in preferring synchronic linguistics while noting that the two are not mutually exclusive (p.38). For Silva, diachronic linguistics is of less value because people rarely use words based on their history (except in rare and often technical cases) but rather use words on the basis of the contemporary usage. His discussion of etymology provides a good caution in this regard, quoting Vendryes that, “Words are not used according to their historical value. The mind forgets—assuming it ever knew—the semantic evolutions through which the words have passed” (p. 46). With this, Silva does not dismiss historical usage or etymological derivation, but rightly cautions against loading them with too much freight, particularly in the case of common words. His historical section closes with two sections (pp. 55-93) on Semantic Change and the Septuagint and Semantic Change and the New Testament where he illustrates and further explicates his previous position, showing both the difficulty and value of trying to determine how and why particular words were used.

His section on descriptive semantics (part 2) is devoted to examining words in their context, and in comparison with other words that may have been used. He illustrates the various ways of relating words to one another (e.g., overlapping relations, contiguous relations), ultimately arguing that the meaning of words are determined by their context including their syntactical combinations

This book has a number of examples from several different language (including Greek, Hebrew, French, and English). These examples are well-placed illustrations of the various points under discussions. In addition, his work is sprinkled with comments about the relative strengths and weaknesses of various works, including a short annotated bibliography. It concludes with an appendix that serves as a case study for the words for worship in the NT. While this appendix was not written by Silva, it admirably illustrates the lexical and exegetical process defended by the book.

This book is probably not written for a beginner, in spite of being called An Introduction. It seems that some parts are made harder to understand than they have to be. It almost seems that an introduction to the introduction is in order, particularly when it comes to the meaning of particular words that are used throughout the book (e.g. homonymy, hyponymy, acceptation, phoneme, lexeme, etc.). These are all important concepts, but keeping them straight will be yeoman’s work for those unfamiliar with them.

Overall, this is a work that should be read—two or three times in order to begin to grasp the ideas in it. It should, however, be preceded by Silva’s God, Language, and Scripture as well as several other works on hermeneutics and language.

On Lament in Worship

A while back I read someone's blog lamenting that a certain lady had gone to church in the midst of a personal struggle and had found the church singing only joyful songs. She found nothing for her soul there since she did not feel like singing those kinds of songs.

I have also seen those who lamented going to church and finding that the church was singing songs of lament or testimony that did not personally apply to them. They claimed a certain discomfort at being asked to sing something that did not personally resonate with them at that moment.

Which raises the question of what is the role of singing in church?

Let's start with what it is not. It is not the role of singing (or worship planning) to anticipate the personal spiritual, emotional, or physical state of the individual worshipper (though each song will probably be suited to someone in the congregation). It is neither the role of singing in corporate worship to meet the needs of individual worshippers (though each song will probably meet the needs of individuals worshippers).

These points, to me, renders both of the above complaints misguided and even somewhat, dare I say, self-centered. Should I really judge the usefulness of a song in a worship service because it does not exactly reflect my personal state at the moment? I think not. Perhaps, in the sovereignty and providence of God, he planned that song so that I would be brought to a place of brokenness, or raised to a place of joy, in both cases by considering something greater than myself. Furthermore, perhaps it is God's plan for the church as a body to minister to someone else through a particular song. The great collective voice of the redeemed rings out a clarion call to all who are in attendance to respond to God. It may be that the song, while perhaps not reflecting your personal state at the moment, reminds you of the state of others to whom you should be ministering. Because behind you, or in front of you, or beside you, is a brother or sister in Christ for whom that song does have particular relevance, and you could be ministering to them.

Can you imagine a church where the SOP was to only sing the songs that fit your personal state or personal prayer? What a strange idea, and yet that is what it seems some would propose.

The fact is that when a service is being planned, it is very likely that the one planning it has no idea what is going on in the lives of people that week, aside from his own. And in a church with more than three people in attendance, it is unlikely that any song will grasp the full range of their spiritual or emotional state. Some people will be called to praise God when they don't feel like it; and others will be called to lament when they do not feel like they have anything to lament (something lamentable in and of itself).

To answer the question of the role of singing positively, we need to look at Scripture. The Psalms are filled with a variety of content, summed up basically under the two ideas of lamentation and rejoicing. We could further classify into personal and corporate for each category. And then there are a number of sub-genres under those categories.

As these psalms were used in corporate worship, it is doubtful that the personal state of the worshipper was considered in worship planning. It was assumed that the worshipped would conform his spiritual response to the text of the psalm. It was the role of singing to express a corporate prayer or praise to God, such as would be appropriate for people (not necessarily a particular individual) to express. Such singing also would serve to resonate with some who were in particular spiritual states, and to encourage them. If a psalm did not minister to a particular individual, it was still expected that he would participate because it was corporate worship.

I wonder if we should expect any less today.

It is true that there are cheesy, trite, stupid songs of personal lament or need or celebration better suited for the young man trying to attract a young woman or the person who has just scored a winning goal (or given it up), than for a sinful redeemed person to worship the Creator God. These should not be sung regardless of the personal state of the worshipper.

But the pattern of corporate worship in the OT reveals a mixture of lament and praise, and so our worship today should reveal the same mixture.

And since it is corporate worship, one's personal spiritual or emotional state is not really the issue. That's for private worship.

The idea that one is lying by singing a true and serious song corporately that may not perfectly reflect his current state is ... well ... nonsense, in my judgment. It reveals a state of individuality that has no place in corporate worship. It leads me to wonder what these people do when, in their private reading of the Psalms, they come across one that does not resonate with their immediate condition. Do they skip it? Do they read it silently from dispassionate distance? Or do they seek to see what God has for them in that passage that day?

Would not it be better to interact with the psalm (or song) spiritually, in diligent search of our own soul? Is there not a latent (or not so latent) pride demonstrated when one refuses to worship corporately because he or she personally does not like the song or does not feel it best reflects their spiritual state at the moment? Perhaps, at that moment, they are in need of the spiritual state that would be able to sing such a song as I imagine here, to come to a place of brokenness where they realize that corporate worship is corporate; it's not about them.

When people who lament the individualism of some kinds of approach to church, and rightly so, then turn around and judge the appropriateness of worship by whether or not it conformed to their own spiritual state at the moment, I am befuddled. I might be weird, but that seems strange to me.

Mark Dever Recommends Books

I thought the list of "must read books" according to Dever was interesting. It comes from a recent interview of Dever by C. J. Mahaney.

1. J.I. Packer – Fundamentalism and the Word of God
2. J.I. Packer – Knowing God
3. J.I. Packer – Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God
4. D. A. Carson – For the Love of God (2 vols.)
5. C. J. Mahaney – Humility
6. Martin Lloyd-Jones – Preaching and Preachers
7. John Stott – Between Two Worlds

Interestingly, they are not the same list of books that Dever gave when asked which books had greatly influenced him. There is a pretty comical exchange about the question. It starts about 24:45 in the interview.

On the Super Bowl

It is hard to imagine that I could care less. (Boy, how times have changed. I rarely watch a complete sports event any more unless it is soccer. How weird am I ...). I guess I will watch some tomorrow night. Maybe ...

But in the meantime, if you have not already seen them, here are two things worth looking at, in my opinion.

CJ Mahaney has started a blog which I had not read until tonight. I thought this post on the Super Bowl was good. I have heard CJ once or twice, but have not read any of his books. But I like what seems to be his genuineness and straightforwardness. This is no exception.

The Tom-In-the-Box News Network is on My Bloglines simply because it is funny. And this is no exception either. Creative people bother me ... mostly because I am not one and otherwise simply because I read something creative and think how easy it would have been to come up with. But alas, I never come up with anything creative. But these guys are really creative and really funny.