If God created the universe, who created God?

If God created the universe, who created God?

Reading Time: 5 minutes

Above image by Raphael from Pixabay

One of the men attending our early Sunday morning apologetic class, Anthony, shared with me that someone actually asked him this specific question.

We started watching the six week Greg Koukl DVD series on Tactics. At the end of the 2nd session, I made eight statements, or claims, that I wanted those attending to think about. The second one on my list was, “If God created the universe, who created God?” So when Anthony heard that one, it reminded him of someone asking him that question.

This question has been around for a long time. What some of you may find interesting is that the response, at least in part, comes from Muslim philosophers. It is called the Kalam Cosmological Argument. I know it sounds like a mouthful and would not come up when you’re fishing with your buddies, but let me explain.

It is a philosophical argument for the existence of God, which has become popular with Christian apologists in the last 40 years or so. Part of its popularity has to do with the Big Bang theory, which dovetails perfectly with this philosophical argument. The Kalam Cosmological Argument comes in many forms, but a nut shell, goes like this:
1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause outside of itself.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause outside of itself.
What do we call that cause? God.

If you were to look at a tree in your yard, you could start tracing its cause back, starting with the tree that dropped the seed which sprouted the one in your yard. Then back to the tree that seeded the one which seeded the first. Then to the one that seeded that one, and the next, and the next…you get the idea. Your tree, and everything else that begins to exist, traces its cause to something outside of itself. Nothing that has a beginning can be the cause of its own existence.

Think about it. Not only trees, but cars, dogs, books, flowers, the sand on the beach, and the very earth we stand on.

Genesis 1:1 Over the centuries, most monotheistic religions believed that God was the cause of the universe.

Over time, many began to believe that God was unnecessary for the universe because the universe was static, it always existed. If that was true, then there was no need for God. He could not have created something that was always there. Even Einstein believed the universe always existed and in the process of working out the Theory of General Relativity, his equation reflected the view of a static, eternal universe. But Einstein was wrong.

Einstein was uncomfortable with the thought of an expanding universe. Obviously, if it is expanding, as we move backward in time the universe is smaller. The further back in time we move, the smaller the universe, until we have a point from which we say the Big Bang emerged. This theory is widely accepted among the scientific community today. Not only is it expanding, but the further out we study distant galaxies, we find they are moving away faster than the ones closer to our own Milky Way.

There are other indications to the universe having a beginning. The example of our own sun points out that as time passes, the fuel declines. Eventually, (several billion years from now), our sun will burn up the supply of hydrogen and swell to a red giant. So large in fact, that the orbit of the earth will intercept the sun. 1

If our universe had always existed, then we would have run out of usable energy long ago. Our own sun could not have have been burning forever. D’Souza put it this way, “…if the universe can be compared to a clock, the fact that the clock is continually running down leads to the conclusion that there was a time when the clock was fully wound up. The universe originated with its full supply of energy, and that is the fund that has been dissipating ever since.”2

So the universe began to exist, and we consider the cause God. So the question remains, who created God? If another super being created God, then who created the super being that created God? And who created that being, and on we go, spiraling backward into an infinite number of causes.

That does not work, because if time always existed we would never have reached today. High Ross in his book, Why The Universe Is The Way It Is wrote, “…the universe was brought into existence by a causal Agent with the capacity to operate before, beyond, unlimited by, and transcendent to all cosmic matter, energy, space, and time.”3

In other words, God created time, space, and matter. He is not limited to his creation. He is a transcendent uncreated being. He has no creator and has no need of one, because He created time as we know it. A hard concept to wrap your mind around, but that is the answer to the question, “Who created God?” No one. He never began to exist, unlike our universe.

Scripture confirms this belief. Deuteronomy 33:27 talks of God being eternal. Job 36:26 says his years can’t be discovered. Psalm 103:17 says He is everlasting to everlasting. John 1:1-3 says that all things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made. There are other verses in Scripture that attribute God for having made all that exists and that He is eternal.

Ross also wrote, “Such complete freedom to compress or expand time is only possible for a Being who is completely free to operate beyond, or transcendent to time.”4

Finally, in his book Surprised By Meaning, Alister E. McGrath explained how the Christian World view fits nicely to our current observations of the natural world. Christians have never had to adjust to a created universe, or a uncreated Being. “Yet it must be emphasized that Christian theology has never seen itself as charged with the task of inventing an explanation for these observations; rather, they fit within, and resonate with, an existing way of thinking, which proves capable of satisfactorily incorporating such observations.”5

 

 

Sources:
1. “What Will Happen to Earth When the Sun Dies?” livescience.com. Live Science, 1 December 2010. Web. 18 August 2015
2. D’Souza, Dinesh. What’s So Great About Christianity. Carol Stream: Tyndale House, 2007. Print.
3. Ross, Hugh. Why The Universe Is The Way It Is. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2008.
4. Ibid.
5. McGrath, Alister E. Surprised by Meaning. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2011.

 

 

Creative Commons License
If God created the universe, who created God? by James Glazier is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Based on a work at http://www.dev.christianapologetics.blog/.

What About Rape and Incest?

What About Rape and Incest?

Reading Time: 11 minutes

Above Image by Snap_it from Pixabay

This is the only comment like this I will ever make: I am not going to tell a woman who is pregnant by rape that she has to have the child. Great if she wants to, but I refuse to force her. Or a girl pregnant by incest. Or a woman who may die with another pregnancy. Or someone who doesn’t want a child. And no, I will not reply to or even read comments about my comment. Yes, it’s a rotten way to do it. I wish there were no abortions, but women – not me, not you, not our churches – have to make this decision.

This was a recent post in a Facebook thread I had been following. On the surface, it would seem difficult, if not uncomfortable for the Christian to respond to. Certainly playing the rape or incest card is a common tactic that pro abortion advocates pull, which leaves many stumped on how to respond. It is these kinds of posts or “drive by” comments that fuel my apologetic fire.

I say “drive by” because like the drive by shootings, the shooter, like this poster, does not want to stick around for a response. In fact, it reminds me of the child who squeezes his eyes shut, plugs his ears, and begins to sing or hum loudly so they don’t hear your reply to something they just said. Childish behavior, yes.

Also in light of the Planned Parenthood videos that have been released, I felt it was going to be a worth while post for some who struggle with the issue of abortion. Let’s break this down and consider all that she wrote.
This is the only comment like this I will ever make: I am not going to tell a woman who is pregnant by rape that she has to have the child. Great if she wants to, but I refuse to force her. Or a girl pregnant by incest. …Or someone who doesn’t want a child.

My impression is that she is uncomfortable making such a strong comment. It could be she expects some push back by family and friends who are pro-life, and has no desire to debate her stand. This is made very clear when a couple of lines down she adds…
And no, I will not reply to or even read comments about my comment. Yes, it’s a rotten way to do it.

So let’s take this at face value and not put any words in her mouth. She voices her opinion, but is completely unwilling to even listen to or consider other reasoned replies. This is a called intolerance, something Christians are accused of quite often. She recognizes and acknowledges that it is a ‘rotten’ way to behave, but does so anyway.

It could be she has had some personal experience with abortion, which would explain to a large degree her posture; I have no way of knowing. If not a personal experience, it could be she had a daughter or sister that experienced the tragedy of an abortion, but whether is was a personal experience, or close family member or friend, it needs to be handled with gentleness and compassion. Yet, as painful as the truth is, you can’t ignore it and it should be brought to light.

Having said that, the purpose of this post is not to point a finger at anyone who has had an abortion, but to take a brief, careful look at the most common arguments Christians encounter for a pro-choice stand.

She stated she was not going to tell a woman who is pregnant by rape that she has to have the child. So if she is not going to force a woman to have the child, then she is allowing the woman to kill her child. These are the words she used. When a woman is having an abortion, she is killing her own child. Pro-abortionists will coin other phrases to soften what is really going on. For example, my wife shared with me the other day that she heard someone use “a product of conception”, referring to the unborn. Really? A product of conception? How about just calling it what it is – a baby.

But, no matter what we call the unborn, there is no getting around the fact that rape could result, and has, (though very rarely), in an unwanted pregnancy.

Bioethicist Andrew Varga, who wrote a book about bioethics, states abortionists explain it this way, “It is argued that in these tragic cases the great value of the mental health of a woman who becomes pregnant as a result of rape or incest can best be safe-guarded by abortion. It is also said that a pregnancy caused by rape or incest is the result of a grave injustice and that the victim should not be obliged to carry the fetus to viability. This would keep reminding her for nine months of the violence committed against her and would just increase her mental anguish.” 1

Francis Beckwith, a Christian philosopher and apologist, wrote in his article subtitled, The Appeal to Pity, “It is the rapist who is the aggressor. The unborn entity is just as much an innocent victim as its mother. Hence abortion cannot be justified on the basis that the unborn is an aggressor.”2

The pro-choice movement says the woman has a right to have an abortion for any reason. Our culture, and even supposed conservative Republicans, are quick to denounce abortion, but when pressed they bend to popular opinion, especially when the rape and incest card is pulled. Then, almost without fail, they yield to the pro-choice crowd. Yet abortion is wrong in any instance, even in the very rare cases of rape and incest that result, as some pro-choice advocates call it, in a product of conception. They will call it anything but what it is – a human life.

By and large, abortions occur for reasons of convenience. In a detailed study by the Guttmacher Institute, the most common reasons (nearly 75%) were:
-They could not afford the child
-The child would interfere with school or employment
-Concerns of being a single mother and relationship problems 3
According to the Guttmacher Institute, there were 1.2 million abortions in 2008. To put that in a different perspective, roughly 2% of women between the ages of 15-44 had an abortion. Less than 1% of those 1.2 million abortions were due to rape or incest. 4

So less than 1% of all abortions are what some call ‘hard cases’, those due to rape or incest, yet many will argue that because of those hard cases, abortion on demand is by far the rule of law. What sense of this can we make? I have heard it put this way: in the first six months of a pregnancy, a woman can have an abortion for no reason. In the last three months, a woman can have an abortion for any reason.

We have traffic laws against speeding, and we have moral laws against killing persons. In rare circumstances, (say, rushing a child to the hospital), we may justifiably break the law. Finding an exception to the law, (speeding to rush a child to the hospital), does not mean we should do away with all of our posted speed limits. Finding what some consider an exception, (which it is not), rape and incest, does not justify abortion on demand. The unborn is just as innocent as the mother in the case of rape. It is the rapist who is the aggressor, not the child. The murder of one person can never be justified to relieve emotional distress. 5

Serrin M. Foster, president of Feminists for Life, shared a story about when she was lecturing at U.C. Berkeley. A grad student who was a “product of conception” by rape was attending the lectures and her pro-choice peers pulled out the rape card. The grad student said she had a right to be here. They were shocked and replied, “We didn’t mean you!” She made it clear their pro-choice statements included her.6 Should we ever rank the value of human life on how they were conceived?

Rebecca Wasser Kiessling is an attorney who sees helping women and unborn children as a mission through her law practice. Why? She was adopted as an infant, met her birth mother at 19, and found out she was conceived by a serial rapist. Kiessling wrote, “One of the greatest things I’ve learned is that the rapist is NOT my creator, as some people would have me believe.”7 She can’t count the number of times she heard people say what this woman on Facebook wrote,
I am not going to tell a woman who is pregnant by rape that she has to have the child. Great if she wants to, but I refuse to force her.

The question is, force her to do what? By not allowing a women to have an abortion we are forcing, restraining, stopping her, phrase it how ever you want, we are preventing her from killing her own child, taking the life of another human.

Francis Beckwith wrote in the Christian Research Journal, “Although such a judgment is indeed anguishing, we must not forget that the same innocent unborn entity that the career-oriented woman will abort in order to avoid interference with a job promotion is biologically and morally indistinguishable from the unborn entity that results from an act of rape or incest. And since abortion for career advancement cannot be justified if the unborn entity is fully human, abortion cannot be justified in the cases of rape and incest. In both cases, abortion results in the death of an innocent human life.”8

I wish there were no abortions, but women – not me, not you, not our churches – have to make this decision.
What is this decision she is referring to? The decision to have an abortion, which is the taking of a human life. Many pro-abortionists will argue it is not a child, baby, or even a person, but in the early stages simply a mass of tissue. If the pro-choice advocates are correct, then having an abortion is of no consequence and the ethical considerations of abortions cease to matter. But what if an abortion is the taking of a human life, no matter what stage of development?

Let’s consider for four states that can help us define what the unborn is – size, development, environment, and dependence.

Starting with size – equating the value of a person on how large or small they are is silly. I don’t think anyone would dispute this. Are basketball players more valuable due to their size? Are parents more valuable than their children? How many of you remember William Perry, aka The Refrigerator, who played for Chicago Bears? In high school, he played at 295 pounds! Was he more valuable than the cheerleaders of his team? Height or size has nothing to do with the inherent value of a person.

Does the value of a human being lessen because of their level of development? Is a 16 year old boy more valuable than a 6 year old boy? If the level of development matters, then anyone prior to puberty would have less value than someone past puberty. Same would be true from an infant to a toddler, and a toddler to a teenager. Does a fetus in the first trimester have less value than one in the 3rd trimester? Some might argue that point, but if that is true, then we should be able to apply that to everyone, not just the unborn. Level of development cannot determine the value of a human being.

What about environment, or location? Does your value increase or decrease depending on where you are located? Do you have more or less value because you are at work, home, in your car? Do you have more value on the left side of your sofa than on the right side of your sofa? How about those in another country? Do those who live in third world countries have less value than those in developed countries? Does the value of an astronaut change if he is orbiting the earth or walking on the moon? Does your value change when you have traveled from mother’s uterus, though the birth-canal, to the hands of a waiting physician? Absolutely not. Value cannot be placed on a person depending on where they are.

Finally, we have the degree of dependency which again is a point some might argue. If you look at this issue sensibly, then you will see it has nothing to do with the value of a person. Does the young adult who is pro-active and finds a job right out of high school have greater value than another who has not found a job? As a children grow and mature, do they have greater value as the months pass and they become less and less dependent? If a small child falls in a pool, do we not rescue them because they are dependent on us for life?

How about economic dependence? Do those who collect welfare have less value than those contributing to our tax base and have full time work? How about those who need dialysis or heart medication on a weekly basis; is their value less due to the medication they need? Obviously, the answer to this is no, and to suggest the value of a person is dependent on their level of dependency is foolish.

After hearing these reasons, someone might respond, “So what? I agree with all this, but you still should not take away a woman’s right to choose.” I would respond, “Choose what?” Think about it, a woman’s right to choose what? Do women have the right to choose to kill an innocent human being? No, they don’t and neither does anyone else, because if size, level of development, environment, and level of dependence does not make a difference in the value of a person, then abortion is the killing of innocent human beings.

The same holds true if there has been an incident of rape or incest which created life. This life is innocent and has the same value as any other human.
Someone might respond, “So you believe even in the case of rape, you would take away a woman’s right to choose?” Again I would ask, “A right to choose what? Because a woman was raped, does that give her the right to kill an innocent human being?” Ray Comfort asked, “Which is worse, rape or murder?” 9

Greg Koukl puts it this way, “Let me put the issue plainly. If the unborn is not a human person, no justification for abortion is necessary. However, if the unborn is a human person, no justification for abortion is adequate.” 10

In researching this post, one of the more interesting and significant finds was a study by the Elliot Institute which asked women, who were victims of rape and incest, what they did. They found that 80% of those who had an abortion felt it was the wrong solution. On the flip side, they found that 80% of those that carried their babies to term were happy with their decision and didn’t regret giving birth to their child. 11 You will never hear this from the main-stream media.

A pro-life group wrote an open letter to Congress. They were 38 women who were victims of rape and incest, “Our experiences are varied. Many of us carried our pregnancies to term. Some of us raised or are raising our children, while others placed our children in adoptive homes. Others of us had abortions. In many cases, we felt pressured to abort by family members, social workers, and doctors who insisted that abortion was the “best” solution. For many the abortion caused physical and emotional trauma equal to or exceeding the trauma of the sexual assault that our abortions were supposed to ‘cure.’”12

Or a woman who may die with another pregnancy.
I believe what she means is, a woman’s life is threatened by the pregnancy. My first question is, what does this extremely rare condition have to do with abortion on demand? Nothing. These three issues, (rape, incest, threat to the mother), in my opinion are in part, responsible for the abortion on demand laws we have today, because of the difficulty law makers, Christians, and pro-lifers have in responding to them.

Of the three, a threat to the mother’s life is the most difficult. As rare as it is, (a fraction of 1%), it does occur. We have two innocent parties and have to decide which to safeguard. There could be odds involved for the unborn and the mother. I remember many years ago watching a T.V. movie that was about a women who was pregnant, but if she carried the child to term, she would likely lose her life. Rarely does Hollywood produce anything that resembles real life, but it is an issue that some have had to face. It is a decision that the husband and wife would have to make, supported and advised by family, friends, and physicians.

According to Worldmeters there are approximately 125,000 abortions taking place every day. That would be 40 to 50 million a year.13 Abortion on demand for matters of convenience is a modern day genocide, but not a wholesale carnage due to someone’s skin color, someone’s ethnic background, or religion. It is an athocide, (innocent killing) on a scale that dwarfs the slaughter’s of Stalin, Mao, Hitler, and Lenin combined.

Sources:
1. Varga, Andrew C. The Main Issues in Bioethics. Costa Mesa: Paulist Press, 1980. Print
2. Beckwith, Francis J. “Answering The Arguments For Abortion Rights (Part One): The Appeal to Pity.” equipsources.org. Christian Research Institute, 1990, Web. 8 August 2015.
3. Finer, Lawrence B, et al. “Reasons U.S. Women Have Abortions: Quantitative and Qualitative Perspectives.” guttmacher.org. Guttmacher Institute, 2005. Web. 11 August 2015.
4. Ibid.
5. “Is abortion justifiable in cases of rape or incest?” christiansanswers.net. Christian Answers Network, 1998. Web. 10 August 2015.
6. Foster, Serrin M. “Pro-Woman Answers to Pro-Choice Questions” feministsforlife.org. Feminists For Life, n.d., Web. 11 August 2015.
7. Kiessling, Rebecca. “Rebecca’s Story.” rebeccakiessling.com. Rebecca Kiessling. n.d., Web. 13 August 2015.
8. Beckwith, Francis J. “Answering The Arguments For Abortion Rights (Part One): The Appeal to Pity.” equipsources.org. Christian Research Institute, 1990, Web. 8 August 2015
9. Comfort, Ray. “180 Movie” YouTube Video. YouTube. 21 September. 2011. Web. 25 July. 2013.
10. Koukl, Greg. “Abortion: One Key Issue” str.org. Stand To Reason, 30 March. 2013. Web. 20 July. 2013.
11. Crouse, Janice. “Rape, Incest, and Abortion: Women Victims Want Their Voice Heard.” cwfa.org. Concerned Women For America, 11 October 2012. Web. 9 August 2015.
12. Ibid.
13. “Abortions Worldwide This Year. worldometers.info. Worldmeters, n.d., Web. 13 August 2015.

Creative Commons License
What about rape and incest? by James Glazier is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Based on a work at http://www.dev.christianapologetics.blog/.

In But Not Of

Reading Time: 4 minutes

I am reading a book titled, “In, But Not Of – A guide to Christian Ambition and the desire to Influence the World” by Hugh Hewitt. It is full of short vignettes of advice given to the young Christian. It is written for the young Christian, but certainly has wisdom that even old Christians can embrace.

Dietrich Bonhoeffer shared with his sister that if he saw a madman driving a car into a group of innocent bystanders, he could not simply stand by, then comfort the wounded and bury the dead afterwards. He would have to physically attempt to stop him. Bonhoeffer was trying to explain why he joined the plot to assassinate Adolf Hitler.1

Francis of Assisi was a young man of great wealth gave it all up to serve the poor and convert souls. He lived in a time of the 2nd and 3rd Crusades, Richard the ‘Lionheart’, and efforts of some to translate the works of Aristotle. Francis famously wrote, “What a man is in the sight of God, so much he is and no more.”2

William Wilberforce had a profound conversion in 1786, and spent his life campaigning against the slave trade in England. After 18 years, he was successful and then began a world wide effort to end slavery.3

William Cameron Townsend traveled to Guatemala to sell Bibles. He found one of the few tribes who did not speak Spanish, and quickly realized that this was one tribe, and language, that did not have a Bible in their native tongue. He spent the next 10 years learning their language and then translated the Bible for them. Later, he founded Wycliffe Bible Translators who have now translated over 1,300 New Testaments, and over 500 complete Bibles for cultures around the world. 4

The above men were all in the world, but not of the world. They choose a mission within their Christian world view and dedicated their lives, or a large portion of it, to accomplish that mission.

Four verses, and probably others, mention a world view: John 15:19, John 17:14, James 1:27, 1John 2:15 and James 4:4.

These verses make it clear we are not to be of the world, though we live in it. Easier said than done when we are surrounded by a culture extremely counter to a Christian world view. These passages also tell us that if we become of the world, we will be an enemy of God.

My wife and I decided a while back to send three of our four children to Summit Ministries. Our youngest will attend when she is a few years older. Last Sunday, we drove them to the Sacramento airport and from there they flew to Denver, Colorado, to be picked up by one of my oldest friends who drove them to Colorado Springs. They will spend the next two weeks being immersed by the Christian world view, but also exploring other world views/religions. For teens and young adults, this is the premier apologetic conference someone could attend.

When I went to the market today where my son works, I was asked by three different co-workers where he was and what he was doing. I told them about Summit Ministries, and that it was a two week apologetic conference. I also explained that apologetics was defending your faith, or your Christian world view. None of the three had ever heard of such a thing, and replied with, “That is cool.” or “That sounds neat.” It was a busy time, so we did not have time to chat more if they had more questions. My impression was they never thought about having a world view, yet everyone does, whether they know it or not.

Abdu Murray wrote the book, Grand Central Question, where he explores world views. He wrote, “Any worldview worth believing should also be internally consistent as it answers…questions. In other words, a worldview’s answers to one set of questions, (say, answers to questions about human origins), should not contradict its answers to another set of questions, (say, answers to questions about meaning and purpose).”5

If you have explored apologetics in much depth, you realize that if our human origins are founded in Darwinian evolution, then that worldview has no answer for meaning and purpose. Christianity is the one worldview that can answer various sets of questions and still maintain a coherent and consistent test for truth.

Do you have questions about your world view? If you are a Christian, or an atheist, or anything in between, you owe it to yourself to find the answers. Like it or not, your worldview will have eternal consequences.

yourworldview3

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sources:
1. Hewitt, Hugh. In But Not Of-A Guide to Christian Ambition and the Desire to Influence the World. Nashville, 2012. Print.
2. Robinson, Paschal. “The Writings of St. Francis of Assisi.” Sacred Texts. Sacred-texts.com, n.d. Web. 3 August 2015
3. Hewitt, Hugh. In But Not Of-A Guide to Christian Ambition and the Desire to Influence the World. Nashville, 2012. Print.
4. Ibid.
5. Murray, Abdu. Grand Central Question-Answering the Critical Concerns of the Major Worldviews. Downers Grove: IVP Books, 2014. Print.

 

 

Creative Commons License
In But Not Of by James Glazier is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Based on a work at http://www.dev.christianapologetics.blog.

Worship?

Reading Time: 2 minutes

Freedom, by Eddie James, was a song we sang in worship the other day.

Maybe I am getting old, but recently I am finding a hollowness in some songs that have a focus on personal pronouns. Too many me/we/I’s.

Don’t get me wrong. I thoroughly enjoyed the song, clapping my hands, tapping my foot, and was taken up in the spirit of the song, but my question is, what was the spirit of the song? Where was the ‘worship’?

What does worship mean? I heard someone say worship is to ascribe worth. According to Merriam Webster it is:
– the act of showing respect and love for a god…
– excessive admiration for someone.

According to Mounce’s dictionary it is the verb hāwâ, which means to bow down. An action that can be directed to person, human or God. It could simply be a greeting, but can be submission or adoration. Mounce wrote, “It is the external action of an internal attitude.” 1

The lyrics are below

I wanna clap a little louder than before
I wanna sing a little louder higher than before
I wanna jump higher than before
I wanna shout a little louder than before

Freedom, freedom, freedom, freedom
Freedom, freedom, freedom, freedom

I wanna clap a little louder than before
I wanna sing a little louder
I wanna spin wilder than before
I wanna shout louder

Songs like Freedom inspire me, get my engine revved up, but not much more than that. Other songs that have words of adoration, to He who is worthy, naturally bring me to a place of worship, or ascribing worth to the King of Kings. The songs that have words of worth toward the Lord of the universe motivate me to do something. Worship, an external action of an internal attitude. Standing, raise my hands or sitting with my head bowed, I am worshiping the One True God.

Next time you are worshiping, consider the words. Are they pointing out what you are doing or what He is doing? Is the song about what you are capable of with the help of God, or is it about what God is capable of? Is it about you, or is it about Him?

In a world flooded with ‘selfies’, the number of likes in a Facebook post, or how many views you had in a Youtube video, it is not surprising to have our worship songs reflect that aspect of our culture. If you take a moment to consider some of the lyrics of your favorite worship songs, you might be surprised how many have lyrics that focus on you, your relationship with Him, what he does for you, and what you are able to do with His help.

It is not about God’s plan in your life, but your life in God’s plan.

 

Sources:
1. Mounce, William D. Mounce’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2006. Print.

 

 

Creative Commons License
Worship? by James Glazier is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Based on a work at http://www.dev.christianapologetics.blog.

Pin It on Pinterest