In the grand scheme of eternity, our lives here on earth are our childhood.  Some of us never grow up.  And given the opportunity some of us would still jump off a roof with a sheet as a parachute just to find out what we missed out on during our childhood.  But at some point in the process of growing up we should begin to understand that there are things we just shouldn’t do because someone might get hurt; physically, mentally, emotionally, spiritually.  We go ahead and do them anyway.  We come up with excuses for why we should do them. 
God, our Father, tells us that there are certain things that we should not do, and that there are thing we should do.  Yet we think we can get away with doing what we want to do.  We presume He’s not watching anyway.  Or we assume He’ll just let it slide unless someone actually does get hurt.  And when someone does get hurt our response so often is, “Oops. I goofed.”  Our response should be, “Father forgive me for I have sinned.”  And not only when someone gets hurt, but we should seek forgiveness for sins when we realize we have done something contrary to God’s will. 

Different people have their own definition of sin.  Some limit sin to only those actions that cause harm to someone unless done in retaliation for harm someone has done them.  Then it is justified.  Others will have a mile-long list of do’s and don’ts for their definition of sin.  To some, sin is anything from which we derive pleasure.  Romans 14:23 says “Whatsoever is not of faith is sin”.  And as clear as that sounds, I’ve heard contradictory perspectives on that phrase, without much regard to its context.  My simple take on that is this: If you think it might be sin, you’d better not do it.  For you cannot do it in faith if you believe it might be sin.  We are justified by faith, and doing acts of faith is much better than doing sinful acts to prove your faith in God’s grace and mercy.  Instead, It’s His kindness that leads us to repentance. (Romans 2:4)

Tracy Henness

I often hear debates over the music in many churches today.  There will always be people who love the music they grew up in church with.  And when they hear something new they may complain that the church is getting away from the pure form of worship that hymns posess.  The problem arises in what they define as hymns.  On the other end of the spectrum, some want to move away from hymns because they don’t want the music to drive away the younger visitors in the hopes of keeping them coming so that they can hear the messages and become converts.  Again there is a problem with not appealing to the ways in which different people enter into true worship. 

Those who grew up with the old hymns will still enjoy the hymns.  Those who grew up with a more contemporary sound will have a preference for the contemporary worship music.  But neither should be exclusive.  There are also many churches that use a “country” style to hymns or more contemporary spiritual songs.  I personally would find that hard to worship to, but I can’t say it’s wrong.  It just doesn’t appeal to me.

But my real issue is that people, in trying to justify their taste in music will give some pretty lame arguments.  Some years ago a dear lady complained during the Saturday night service that it seems we only do contemporary music anymore.  Then she argued that the new stuff doesn’t talk about the blood and the hymns do.  Well the music for Sunday morning had already been selected and that wasn’t going to change, but of the 5 songs chosen four were contemporary, and one was a hymn (Defined as: it’s in the Hymnal. Conversely: not in Hymnal = not hymn.)  Three of the four “not-hymns” mentioned the blood of Jesus.  The “hymn” did not.  She quit coming I regret to say.  But this was not a deliberate attempt to prove her wrong nor to justify future selections.  She found another church where she was more comfortable.  And although we would welcome her back to worship and fellowship with us, she has a new pastor, and we are not in the business of stealing another shepherd’s sheep.

Some of the things people don’t take into consideration in their pro-hymn inclinations is that at one time those hymns were contemporary music, and in some cases were considered inappropriate for true worship. Also, not every song found in a hymnal meets every individual’s definition of a hymn.  Then there is the “test of time” criterion.  That is, that we should only be singing those songs that have endured the “test of time”.  What I deduce from that is that a song must be sung and loved in the church for a period of several years before it qualifies as a hymn, but until it does it should not be sung in the church because it hasn’t stood the “test of time”.  I’m glad that criterion was not enforced back before we had such beautiful hymns as “A Mighty Fortress”, “Amazing Grace”, “How Great Thou Art”, “He Lives”, “The Old Rugged Cross”, and many, many more.  I must add too that there are many hymns found in many hymnals that I’ve never heard sung in the church in my more than fifty years of faithful attendance.  So I would say that those have not endured the “test of time”.  I’m sure at one time they were well loved, and probably were significant to someone, or to a time period, but they seem to have lost significance.

Now, let’s look at the other end of the spectrum.  There are those who love the more modern, upbeat songs and think the old hymns are boring or irrelevant.  I’m sorry they think that, but I can understand that perception to some extent.  When I first started playing piano back in the ’70s I found hymns difficult to play, not because thay they were complicated, but because they seemed too simple.  The chords didn’t change often enough.  The standard 4-part harmonies were predictable and simplistic.  But over the years I’ve learned to add passion to the music.  I realized that passion had gotten lost in the formality and simplicity. 

That has happened not only with the music, but with the rites and rituals, the formulaic order of service, the pre-written prayers, and many other aspects of the church services.  It’s okay to have order and consistency as long as there is passion, passion for relationship with our Savior, passion for living the Gospel in our lives, our homes, our work-places, the market-places, passion for worship and praise to God Almighty, a passion for righteousness.  Sometimes the desire for the driving force of upbeat, exciting, loud music becomes a substitute mistaken for true passion.  But the message of the songs need to inspire true passion for worship, praise, adoration, thankfulness toward the Almighty Merciful God who gave us His own Son as a sacrifice on our behalf, so that we could become the righteousness of God. 

There are many songs sung in the church today that don’t inspire a passion in me.  Some of those songs are contemporary, some of them are hymns.  But thank God there are many of both that are inspired by the Holy Spirit that breathe into me and others the passion for the things of God.  It’s not about the music.  It’s about the life-giving force evidenced in psalms, hymns and spiritual songs.  It’s about Singing and making melody in our hearts to the Lord.  It’s about pleasing God with the joyful noise and the contrite heart.  And it is certainly not about criticising someone else’s preference in music (even if it is “Country”).

Tracy Henness

Christ was, and still is LOVE

Yes, this is a re-run from last year.  But time is getting short and I wanted to get something posted.  I hope you all have a wonderful and happy Christmas, and a prosperous and joyous New Year.

Tracy Henness

I told her we need to pray for him. She said, “It won’t do any good.” That’s where she like so many of us failed. She had basically determined that her husband is beyond God’s ability to reach, that he is not worth her effort, that he is hopeless. Too often we make judgments on people that it wouldn’t do any good to witness to this person or that one because he or she engages in a certain sin, or espouses another religious belief, or even that they are having too much fun to trade it in for salvation (isn’t that a pathetic view of what God offers us?).

I don’t know the man, and I may never get the chance to meet him, but I promised this woman that I would pray for her husband, and told her that it is important that she pray for him, too. She didn’t seem too thrilled with the idea, but she reluctantly agreed.

I’m not sure what her motivation was that she even brought up this issue to me. I don’t get the sense that I told her what she wanted to hear. Maybe she was hoping I’d tell her it would be okay for her to leave her husband, but I couldn’t do that. She needs to know that God is big enough to change someone from the inside out. God can get someone to say just the right thing to make him stop and think about his own hypocrisy, his need for a savior, his need to know and experience God. She needs to hear true stories from wives who’ve had to pray for years for their husbands and finally saw their conversion. She needs to hear from husbands whose lives were changed because of their wives’ persistent prayer and gentle urging. And she needs people committed to praying that she will renew her love for him and her faith that God is able to do what she now thinks is impossible.

Tracy Henness

Sin is ugly. Admittedly, there is pleasure in sin for a season, but there are consequences. There is penalty for sin. There is punishment for sin. God’s righteousness and justice dictates that there is no remission of sin (or its penalty) without the shedding of blood. Sin brings death. Unrepentant sin brings eternal punishment. But God in His mercy, His love for mankind, His wisdom, devised a plan whereby Jesus, the Son of God, would pay the penalty for all of us who believe. God loved the world so much that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life. God did not send His son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world might be saved through Him. (Jn. 3:16, 17)

Jesus took upon Himself the sins of the world, our sins, not His own for He had no sin. Only the sinless one could pay someone else’s penalty, since those who have sin have incurred penalty of their own. They cannot pay for someone else’s sin until they have payed for their own. But that penalty takes an eternity to pay for. So we need a sinless Savior, the perfect one. For He has made Him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him. (2 Cor 5:21).

So you see, the cross represents and reminds us of our sin. I hate my sin. But my sin is not my sin any more, for He took my sin upon himself, once for all. He did this not that I could go on sinning, but that I need no longer sin. Sin has no power over me because of the blood of Jesus Christ, because of the sacrifice He chose to make. I hate that ugly old cross, covered with sin, including mine. But just like the writer of that old hymn, I cherish the old rugged cross because without it there would not be that symbol I truly love and adore – the empty tomb.

The empty tomb is hope. The empty tomb is assurance that God accepted the sacrifice Jesus made on our behalf. We have part in the resurrection because the tomb is empty. Jesus conquered death and the grave. Jesus conquered and eradicated sin for all who believe in Him. There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. (Rom. 8:1)

Too bad we can’t wear an empty tomb around our necks.

Tracy Henness

Tracy Henness