Some Thoughts on Worship

(The following is an article I wrote for my home church’s – Bacolod Christian Community Baptist Church or BCCBC – newsletter. Pastor Ricky Benitez is the pastor of The Lord’s Lampstand-Bacolod City and has spoken in our church on a number of occasions.)

Pastor Ricky Benitez, one of our regular speakers here at BCCBC, once remarked that he finds our church unique, in that we employ traditional hymns as well as contemporary praise and worship songs in our worship. I remember sensing a note of amazement in his remark. Probably he was amazed because he was aware that for some churches hymns and contemporary Christian music don’t mix.

I have no intention of taking sides in a debate that has caused so much bitterness as to split many churches in half. All I want to do is to point out that we here in BCCBC do not find this a problem. Good hymns are a gift from God, but so are a number of contemporary praise and worship songs. The point is we sing for the glory of God songs that are true, noble, right, pure, lovely, admirable, excellent and praiseworthy – see Phil 4:8 – whether they be traditional or modern. The songs we sing are chosen on the basis of their merits, whether they satisfy the criteria found in Phil 4:8.

Of course, others do not see things as we do. For some, the fact that we employ contemporary praise and worship songs is in their eyes proof of our having succumbed to worldliness. The fact that we use drums (electric drums at that!) is to them proof that we are flirting with seducing spirits. They argue: “Did not African pagans use drums in their worship of spirits? Do not rock stars use drums in their satanic concerts? What justification can there ever be in using these satanic instruments in church?” I wrote above that I don’t intend to take sides in this debate, but this charge is so common, and to my mind so unfair, that it just won’t do to leave it unanswered. Suffice it to say that we must distinguish between the instrument per se and the use we make of it.

It seems to me those who are critical of the use of drums in church are guilty of the fallacy of attaching guilt to someone or something by reason merely of association. The same goes for contemporary music styles: these are automatically branded as “worldly” simply because they happen to be similar to what the world is singing and enjoying. It saddens me to hear this kind of charges for the simple reason that they are simplistic and unfair. The fact is instruments in general are neutral: it’s the use to which these instruments are given that is either good or bad. For example, in the hands of a cook a knife is something to cut and carve meat with, which is of course a good use of the knife. In the hands of a murderer, however, the same knife can be use to perpetrate a crime. The point is the knife is in and of itself neutral. The same principle applies to drums and other musical instruments. Drums, guitars, keyboards can be used in a decent and orderly manner. On the other hand, they can also be used in an indecent and disorderly manner.

In the same way, good musical styles, which are decent and orderly, can be legitimately used in church for God’s glory. The fact that these same styles are popular and appreciated by the “secular world” is beside the point. The fact that these styles are modern is also beside the point. What matters is: Is this style “good”? Is there anything here excellent or praiseworthy? Can it be used in the church in a decent and orderly manner? Well then, if it is “good” in the best sense of the word, God is its author (its secularity notwithstanding), since every good and perfect gift comes from him, and God’s children are entitled to it.

Going now to the other side of the fence, we see Christians who deplore the fact that we have not completely cast away the shackles of tradition. “The hymns are good,” they say, “but they have served their purpose. They are now passé. For you to continue using them is like putting new wine into old wineskins. They are not relevant to this generation. We need new songs for a new generation. Let the dead therefore bury the dead.” My answer to that is really quite simple: some good things never grow old. We call them timeless classics. “Rock of Ages” and “How Great Thou Art” are hymns too great to die out.

The bottom line is I do not see the logic in being prejudiced against the old simply because they are old, or against the new simply because they are new. Whether they are new or old what matters is they are excellent and praiseworthy – good gifts from God that can be offered back to Him.

At any rate, after all is said and done, the thing we must never forget is that God looks at the heart. The important thing is we worship him in spirit and in truth. Whether we employ the lively style of contemporary Christian music or the more serious style of traditional hymns what matters is we truly seek to love, please and honor him. Pastor Ricky Benitez said a very wise thing one time: “If you focus on the externals you’ll always find something to criticize.” What matters in worship is the attitude of our hearts towards God and our submission to his will as revealed in his Word. When this is foremost in our worship of God the criticisms by people who cannot see our hearts in the first place will not be able to hurt us. “Men heed thee, praise thee, love thee not; the Master praises! What are men?”

A True Knowledge of God

“A true knowledge of God and divine things is a practical knowledge. As to a mere speculative knowledge of the things of religion, many wicked men have attained to great measures of it. Men may possess vast learning, and their learning may consist very much of their knowledge in divinity, and of the Bible, and of the things pertaining to religion, and they may be able to reason very strongly about the attributes of God and the doctrines of Christianity, and yet herein their knowledge fails of being a saving knowledge, that it is only speculative and not practical.”

– Jonathan Edwards, Charity and Its Fruits (The Banner of Truth Trust, reprinted 1978) p. 226

Labor Law Article

The August 2006 issue of the IBP Newsletter (Negros Occ. chapter) is out, and I have an article in it on labor law, which I’m posting here:

 

IMPLICATIONS OF THE BURDEN OF PROOF

IN LABOR LAW: A TEST CASE

Some people have the gift of making simple things complicated. I do not claim to possess such a gift but I’d like to try my hand at doing precisely that (i.e., making simple things complicated) in relation to labor law. I Intend to explore the possible implications of the concept of “the burden of proof” in the context of labor law. The test case I have in mind is Westmont Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. vs. Ricardo C. Samaniego (G.R. Nos. 146653-54/G.R. Nos. 147407-08. February 20, 2006) – a case dealing with the issue: When does transfer of an employee amount to constructive dismissal? Here’s the Supreme Court’s answer:

“In constructive dismissal, the employer has the burden of proving that the transfer of an employee is for just and valid grounds, such as genuine business necessity. The employer must be able to show that the transfer is not unreasonable, inconvenient, or prejudicial to the employee. It must not involve a demotion in rank or a diminution of salary and other benefits. If the employer cannot overcome this burden of proof, the employee’s transfer shall be tantamount to unlawful constructive dismissal.

“Westmont and Unilab failed to discharge this burden. Samaniego was unceremoniously transferred from Isabela to Metro Manila. We hold that such transfer is economically and emotionally burdensome on his part. He was constrained to maintain two residences – one for himself in Metro Manila, and the other for his family in Tuguegarao City, Cagayan. Worse, immediately after his transfer to Metro Manila, he was placed “on floating status” and was demoted in rank, performing functions no longer supervisory in nature.

“There may also be constructive dismissal if an act of clear insensibility or disdain by an employer becomes so unbearable on the part of the employee that it could foreclose any choice by him except to forego his continued employment. This was what happened to Samaniego. Thus, he is entitled to reinstatement without loss of seniority rights, full backwages, inclusive of allowances, and other benefits or their monetary equivalent, computed from the time his compensation was withheld from him up to the time of his actual reinstatement.

“However, the circumstances obtaining in this case do not warrant the reinstatement of Samaniego. Antagonism caused a severe strain in the relationship between him and his employer. A more equitable disposition would be an award of separation pay equivalent to at least one month pay, or one month pay for every year of service, whichever is higher (with a fraction of at least six [6] months being considered as one [1] whole year), in addition to his full backwages, allowances and other benefits.”

The main thing to note in this case is that it is the employer who has the burden of proving that the transfer of his employee is for just and valid grounds, such as business necessity. This implies, I think – although the decision doesn’t explicitly say so – that every transfer of an employee is presumed to be unreasonable and prejudicial to the employee, until and unless the employer subsequently proves otherwise. I think this is what the decision implies for the simple reason that until the employer actually proves that the transfer is reasonable, how else should we deem it? If the transfer is presumed to be reasonable from the start, I don’t see why the employer should have the burden of proving the transfer’s reasonableness in the first place. But if I am correct in inferring such a “presumption of unreasonableness” from this burden of proof, this creates a problem for management. Does not the “presumption of unreasonableness” attaching to a transfer entail a “presumption of good faith” attaching to an employee’s disobedience to an order of transfer? Does not the one imply the other? But if so, does this not put management in a quandary? If an automatic presumption of unreasonableness attaches to an order of transfer, is not the employee concerned entitled to rely on this presumption and to act accordingly? If he disobeys the order of transfer can he not justify such disobedience on the ground that the order is presumed unreasonable until actually proven otherwise? Again, if an employee is entitled to rely on this presumption of unreasonableness would not his dismissal by management, prior to the latter’s actual overcoming of such a presumption, be deemed premature and therefore illegal?

Someone might object: “These presumptions, assuming arguendo that they are valid inferences from the above-mentioned burden of proof, are rebuttable and not conclusive. The employer can later on prove to the labor arbiter’s satisfaction that the transfer was reasonable.” That however is beside the point. Actually, my concern is not really with unreasonable transfer as a form of constructive dismissal, but actual dismissal for disobeying an order of transfer. This distinction should be borne in mind. At any rate, one still has to reckon with the question: Is the employee legally entitled to assume from the start that the transfer is unreasonable? If he is, isn’t he also entitled to disobey such an order, especially if the pertinent tribunal has not yet made a finding that the employer has discharged the burden of proving that the order is reasonable? Incidentally, isn’t he all the more entitled to this presumption of good faith, given the principle in labor law that in case of doubt, the same should be resolved in favor of labor?

The foregoing analysis might seem to be stretching logic beyond legitimate limits, resulting in seeing things that might not really be there. One can well argue, as a matter of common sense, that If an employer can overcome the “presumption of unreasonableness” attaching to a transfer, he can also overcome the “presumption of good faith” attaching to an employee’s disobedience of an order of transfer. Actually, I prefer to think this way myself. However, it is not that simple. One can say that the transfer is so patently reasonable that the “presumption of unreasonableness” is immediately dissolved upon receipt by the employee concerned of the notice of transfer, leaving him with no basis for claiming a “presumption of good faith” in his favor. But this is actually the tricky part. When precisely do we consider the “presumption of unreasonableness” to have been overcome and therefore dissolved? It’s important that we pinpoint precisely when the dissolution of the “presumption of unreasonableness” takes place, because prior to such dissolution it would seem that the “disobedient” employee has a rational basis for claiming the protection of the “presumption of good faith”, viz., the existence of the still-to-be-dissolved “presumption of unreasonableness”, from which the “presumption of good faith” flows.

To conclude: this is just a sample of how complicated things can get on the theoretical level, if you put your mind to it. To assert so sweepingly that the employer has the burden of proving that a transfer is reasonable, is easy to do; but as I’ve tried to show, there are some unexpected ramifications. I would feel more comfortable had the Supreme Court inserted a qualification, such as “unless the transfer is so patently reasonable that to assume otherwise would be plainly absurd.” But maybe the qualification is there all along – in the form of an implication. One needs only to draw it out.

Recommended Blog for Young People

I discovered a new blog today which might be of interest to Christian young people: The Rebelution. I’m taking the liberty to copy and paste info from the blog to give you an idea what The Rebelution is all about.

ALEX AND BRETT HARRIS (r-l) are Christian teenagers with a passion for God and for their generation. They are the founders of The Rebelution website and co-authors of the award-winning Rebelution Blog.

Alex & Brett have grown up in a ministry household. Their father, Gregg Harris, is a well-known homeschool author and speaker, teaching elder at Household of Faith Community Church, and director of Noble Institute for Leadership Development. Their mother, Sono Harris, is an accomplished speaker and successful speech coach. Their older brother, Joshua Harris, is senior pastor of Covenant Life Church in Gaithersburg, MD and bestselling author of, “I Kissed Dating Goodbye,” “Boy Meets Girl,” and “Not Even A Hint.”

Following in the footsteps of their family members, 17-year-old Alex & Brett are speaking out for God with a message to their own generation. Recipients of six national championships in high school speech and debate Alex & Brett are applying their gifts in communication to the challenge of exhorting their peers to stop wasting the teen years and to rebel against the low expectations of an ungodly culture.

Augustine on Peace

1. Peace of the body – lies in the ordered equilibrium of all its parts

2. Peace of the irrational soul – lies in the balanced adjustment of its appetites

3. Peace of the reasoning soul – lies in the harmonious correspondence of conduct and conviction

4. Peace of body and soul - lies in the well-ordered life and health of the living whole

5. Peace between a mortal man and his Maker – consists in ordered obedience, guided by faith, under God’s eternal law

6. Peace between man and man – consists in regulated fellowship

7. Peace of a home – lies in the ordered harmony of authority and obedience between the members of a family living together

8. Peace of the political community – is an ordered harmony of authority and obedience between citizens

9. Peace of the heavenly City – lies in a perfectly ordered and harmonious communion of those who find their joy in God and in one another in God

Peace, in its final sense, is the calm that comes from order. Order is an arrangement of like and unlike things whereby each of them is disposed in its proper place.

(taken from Augustine’s City of God, Image Books 1958 ed., p. 456)

Fixed Link

I fixed the link to my song “We Will Worship You.” You can download it here.

Sin Is Its Own Judgment

From my recent readings I was struck by the idea that the punishment for sin is not necessarily physical suffering or material loss (Job was righteous but he experienced terrible physical and emotional suffering as well as great material loss), but more sin! I am reminded of a verse somewhere in the O.T. (maybe it’s in the Psalms) which goes something like this: “He gave them what they desired but sent leanness to their souls.” Here are the pertinent quotes:

“Fallen human beings have dishonored God; God now acts so that they will dishonor themselves. There is more at stake in this divine giving-up than simply bare permission for people to sin. And there is more at stake than simple cause and effect in the moral realm. God, in fact, is active in this judgment. He no longer restrains human beings in their expressions of sin and so sin becomes, in the short run, its own judgment.”

– David Wells, Above All Earthly Pow’rs (Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2005) p. 201

“[O]ur lust is properly the cause of all temptations that vanquish us [James 1:14], and therefore bears the blame… But this does not prevent God, when it seems good to him, from turning us over to Satan, from casting us into a reprobate mind and foul desires, and from leading us into temptations, by a just and often secret judgment.”

– John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion (F.L. Battles translation, vol. 2) p. 915

SMO and John Piper

Two days ago, Yesterday (i.e., Aug. 26, 2006 Saturday) the Student Missionary Outreach (SMO)-Philippines celebrated its anniversary (can’t remember whether it was their 30th or 20th year). I was invited by the Bacolod chapter to be their speaker. I spoke to a large group of young people on the theme “Don’t Waste Your Life.” That actually is the title of one of John Piper’s books. I did a post on a quote from that book some time back. John Piper’s influence is certainly spreading and the lives of many young people here in the Philippines are being touched for God. I wonder what this will mean for my country when these young people grow up to become leaders of their respective churches and their communities someday.

The Emergent Church

I just received from 9Marks their latest eNewsletter, which is devoted to the topic of the Emergent Church. I don’t know much about this topic but I guess I will have to learn all I can about it.

Some might wonder why Filipino Christians should be interested in theological developments in the United States. The answer is quite simple: what goes on over there eventually reaches here. It’s just a matter of time.

So personally I’ve made it a point to keep abreast of theological developments in the U.S. so that by the time they reach here I’ll be well-equipped to help my fellow Filipino Christians undertand these things. And because of technology the time it takes for these developments to reach the Philippines is much shorter than before.

And here are the developments Filipino evangelicals should be aware of:

1. Postmodernism

2. Open Theism

3. The Emergent Church

4. The New Perspective on Paul

5. The Resurgence of Calvinism – (I confess I consider this one a good development! I wish I could get hold of the Christianity Today issue on “Young, Restless and Calvinist”)

I’ll try to blog more on these things in the next few days.

The Essence of the Christian Religion

“[T]he essence of the Christian religion consists in the reality that the creation of the Father, ruined by sin, is restored in the death of the Son of God and re-created by the grace of the Holy Spirit into a kingdom of God.”

– Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, vol. 1 (Baker Academic, 2004) p. 112