God's Greatness, Man's Inadequacy

Should Christians Observe the Lord's Supper at Home?

Teaching Mark in 2020: What Has Changed?

I am preparing to teach the Gospel of Mark again. I have taught that particular book of the Bible more than any other, and I will confess I am very nervous. I used to teach the book frequently, in as many as 6 (or more) different classes every week. I never used notes in those days. Why would I? I was constantly teaching the book. The biggest challenge was not remembering what I needed to say in each passage but trying to remember where each group was in the book on any given week. But I have been away from the book for awhile, not as a reader, but as a teacher. I still read the book often, but I haven’t taught through the book in quite awhile. I taught it on Wednesday nights soon after my arrival in Arizona, and I taught through the book at a community Bible study from March 2016-February 2017. The recordings of those classes are still online. But I don’t think I have taught through the entire book since. I went back to listen to the first lesson of that last series, and I winced through much of it--and not only because my southern accent was so strong and I constantly used the word “right” as an audible pause. I knew my thinking on the book had continued to mature since the period of near constant teaching from 2004-2017. I am sure going through the book again will reveal more places than I know now where my thinking has changed and, I hope, improved. But before beginning this new series, it might be helpful to briefly reflect on what has changed.

The Gospel of Mark has not changed at all since I last taught the book, but I have. I hope those changes are mostly for the better. I hope they are the result of spiritual growth in grace and greater knowledge, understanding, and sensitivity to the Word of God. Time will tell. But certain differences are immediately apparent.

First, my understanding of Reformed theology has continued to mature. It was largely through teaching Mark and other books of the Bible that God crushed my confidence in my own good works and opened my eyes to justification by grace. I continued to teach Mark long after I became Reformed in my thinking, and I became a minister in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church during that last teaching series. But I continue to learn and grow in my appreciation of how a Reformed understanding of creation, covenant, redemption, and renewal permeates every page of Scripture. I hope I will continue to grow in this awareness. If I ever think I have seen all there is to see in that regard, I can be sure my growth has stagnated and that I am a fool.

Second, I have spent a lot more time reading, studying, and seeking to understand the Greek language since those early years of teaching Mark. I often consulted the Greek text of Mark in my earlier attempts to teach the book, but I am much better acquainted with the Greek of Mark’s Gospel than I was even three years ago, and I think (hope) my competence with the language has improved and allows me greater access to the Gospel in its original language this time through than any prior survey.

Third, I have learned far more about textual criticism than I knew when last I taught Mark. I had taken classes on textual criticism in seminary and was certainly conversant with the textual issues relating to Mark’s Gospel during my earlier surveys, but my understanding of the data involved in certain debates has vastly increased, leading to different conclusions about some of the textual variants. That will be more apparent as I work through passages that are contested by some scholars.

Fourth, it is a minor point, but I am nervous because for the first time I will begin teaching Mark to an empty room for the sake of recording. Much of my teaching in Mark over thirteen years of intense exposition relied in part upon the energy, eagerness, and inquiries of the students I had with me. Some of those students would later accompany me to other classes and hear me work through the same portions of the book multiple times, yet they claimed there was always something more they had not seen or some additional insight that became clear in a later gathering that had not been apparent before. The proper response to this concern is to remind myself that it has always been the truth of Mark’s Gospel and the power of the Holy Spirit that invested any teaching of it with power. Nevertheless, like the father in Mark 9, I cry out: “Lord, I believe! Help my unbelief!”

Fifth, I have much less appreciation for modern critical scholarship today than I ever have before. This is not to say I have not continued to read and profit from scholars, both evangelical and not, but time has increased my caution and frustration with much that goes by the name of biblical “scholarship” today. Moreover, I am less awed by the input of these experts, and though I hope I am humble enough to still sit at their feet to listen and learn, I do so with more skepticism and reserve than in previous years. At the same time, I have found more value in classic and traditional works of exegetical, homiletical, and devotional content than at any earlier point in my ministry. Perhaps I was too wise to give them much credit before, but thankfully I have become foolish enough to do so.

Sixth and finally, I have spent the last four years preaching through the Gospel of John, and that is certain to inform and further shape how I read Mark’s Gospel. Even though I had both taught and preached through John in previous years, I have a much deeper awareness and appreciation for the presentation of Christ’s life in that account and its relationship to Mark (and the other Synoptic writers) than ever before. The more we read and study the Scriptures, or any portion of them, such as the Gospels, the better able we are to perceive, understand, and appreciate the nuance, style, and profundity of those texts.

So as I prepare to embark on another survey of Mark’s Gospel, I am nervous. Nervous that I will forget and neglect to propound rich and salient points I never would have overlooked before. Nervous that I will too easily retread the same ground and fail to critically re-examine and reverently expound passages that ought to bring new delight and insight every time we return to them. Nervous, as I always am at the beginning of a new expository series, that I will be unequal to the task, that the teaching will disappoint, that I will fail to adequately expose, expound, and exalt the wonders of the God who has made himself known in the works of creation, providence, revelation, and redemption. Indeed, I am nervous on this last point every time I turn to chapter one of a new book in order to teach it, because I know for certain that I am unequal to the task, that my work will be inadequate, and that my best efforts cannot do other than fail to properly magnify the God of our salvation. But ministers are called to teach, despite our insurmountable shortcomings, so with a heart simultaneously full of both fear and faith, I will dare to begin.

--JME (March 2020)

Some Thoughts on Suspending Worship During a Pandemic

There is a popular expression, attributed to an unidentified and apocryphal Chinese curse, which malignantly wishes: “May you live in interesting times.” We find ourselves living in such times. Churches around the world are making decisions in response to COVID-19 which has been named a pandemic by the World Health Organization, a national emergency by the American President, and a state/public health emergency by all 50 states in the US. We are living in the midst of a public health scare on a scale unseen since the 1918 Spanish Flu. No doubt many of the popular responses to this crisis are hysterical, ill-informed, and unhelpful. Some of the recommendations from our civil authorities may prove in time to have been overly cautious and unnecessary. But as those to whom Christ has committed spiritual authority and the care of souls in local congregations, church leaders cannot afford to simply ignore these recommendations and risk the safety and welfare of our members and the church’s public witness.

When our elders met Tuesday evening and decided to suspend all corporate, in-person gatherings of our church, including worship on the Lord’s Day, for the next two weeks, we did so with heavy hearts. Several of us voiced our intent coming into the meeting to cancel everything except the morning worship on the Lord’s Day, but after praying for wisdom, reviewing the data, and discussing our options, we all came to consensus that a two week, voluntary quarantine was wise and appropriate. We knew this decision would disappoint many, frustrate others, and be met with scorn by some of our brethren, especially outside our congregation. This was unavoidable. Such responses can never be a major factor in decision-making, if they are ever an appropriate factor at all. If we had decided to continue holding public worship services, as we did on the last two Lord’s Days despite encouragement from many sectors to cancel, that decision too would have been met with disappointment, frustration, and scorn.

Advocates of big government and opponents of religious and personal liberty will always use crises to expand their agenda and influence, and I have no doubt it will be so in this case. Western society may, and likely will, be permanently affected by the measures taken to address the Corona virus, for good or ill. But the recommendations of government leaders and public health agencies at this time are neither an explicit nor implicit attack upon religious liberty or our spiritual obligations. If the government were forbidding churches to ever assemble with more than 10 persons present, the visible Church would have an obligation to defy and disobey that order. But this is not the case. We should be concerned to maintain and uphold our biblical duties and civil liberties, but we should not fight the wrong battle or choose the wrong hill to die upon. Remember Peter’s eagerness to fight and die in the garden, but his lack of preparedness and failure of faith and courage when tested in the courtyard. Zeal without knowledge is neither commendable nor useful.

Are churches sinning who decide not to meet for worship on the Lord’s Day during this crisis? They certainly could be. If the decision is made because men desire to “take a break” from church and religious obligation, then it is certainly contemptible and an offense against God. But is this likely the reason most churches are suspending their assemblies? If the decision is made from irrational fear due to the dangers of illness or potential death, this also is a motive unworthy of Christ and the people of God. If the decision is based on the fear of man and a readiness to submit every activity of the church to civil authorities or popular opinion and pressure, then this too is an unfaithful and wicked position to adopt. But not every concern about public health and safety is irrational, not every decision to submit to the recommendations of civil authorities about public assemblies is an unbiblical capitulation, and not every choice to remain home rather than gathering with the saints for worship on the Lord’s Day is sin.

We all recognize, or should, that the saints have an obligation to gather with the church for corporate worship on the Lord’s Day. But we also recognize that sometimes neglect of this obligation is not only not sinful but prudential. Would we gather with the saints for worship if we were seriously ill? No, most of us decide that if we are sick and likely to infect others, we should stay at home. Most of us have missed corporate worship to care for a sick child or to minister to those who are in crisis, whether physical, mental, emotional, or spiritual. So what do we do when the entire community is “sick” and in crisis? That is the situation we find ourselves in. This is not a permanent situation, and if it were, at some point we would simply have to go on and gather for worship knowing that doing so brings a much greater risk for some of us. But is there not a place for wisdom and care in the midst of crisis, to attempt to safeguard the vulnerable and love our neighbors by helping to contain and cut down on public exposure and further infection? Yes, and we should not sit in judgment of those seeking to act with discretion and in faith in these times.

Many churches have chosen to suspend corporate gatherings for a time. Some have no choice because they are in countries or communities which have ordered lockdowns of the population. Others have voluntarily done so in submission to the recommendations of civil authorities and in respect for public health. Some may have taken this course for sinful reasons. They may be driven by irrational fear, be surrendering spiritual authority to civil agencies, or be acting from concern for public opinion rather than biblical wisdom. But you and I cannot know that, at least, not conclusively in most cases. We do not know any man’s heart, and we are not to judge the motives that remain hidden there.

Some churches will continue to meet, and whether wise or not, this remains their right to do. Could that decision be sinful? Certainly, if made for proud, self-righteous, or contentious reasons. The person who is determined to display his piety by attending worship while highly contagious is not only an arrogant man but a fool. But not every decision to maintain public worship assemblies can be so judged, and some of those quick to do so are just as guilty of sinful condemnation as those who are judging the ones who have decided to stay home. Let each be convinced in his own mind and not judge his brother.

These are certainly interesting times, days I never imagined or desired to see, but this is not the end of the story. The Lord calls us to walk by faith, not in fear. The COVID-19 virus is not the first, and is far from the worst, pandemic to sweep across the face of the globe. We take comfort in the promise of our Lord: “I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it” (Matt. 16:18b). Christ did not need our help to build His church, and no virus or public health crisis or civil disturbance can undo what He has done. “Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword?” (Rom. 8:35). Not even COVID-19, widespread quarantines, and global efforts to contain the virus shall be able to separate us from the love of God. Sing the psalms joyfully, read the Scriptures reverently, pray boldly and humbly. This crisis will pass, and when it does, the Church will still be standing righteous in Christ. Do not fear. Be strong and courageous. The God of Jacob will defend, uphold, and sustain His people.

--Joel M. Ellis, Jr. (March 2020)

Why I Am Not an Exclusive Psalmodist

I have a great love and appreciation for psalm-singing and advocate for inclusive and preeminent psalm-singing in Christian worship, both public and private. But my great fondness and preference for singing the Psalms of David may prompt some to wonder why I am not a proponent of exclusive psalmody. On several occasions I have tried to convince myself to embrace the view. It frees the church from foolish and often divisive conversations about which specific songs, styles, and methods of music will be used in worship. But despite reading and listening to many arguments for exclusive psalmody over the years, I remain unconvinced of the biblical merits of the position; in fact, Scripture convinces me otherwise. I believe the Bible grants positive authority for the use of uninspired songs and Scriptural hymns outside of those found in the Psalter. While more complete defenses are readily available, here I wish to briefly summarize my own reasons for remaining an inclusive psalmodist.

I am not a proponent of exclusive psalmody because the OT saints (Ex. 15; Deut. 32; Jdg. 5; 1Sam. 2; Hab. 3), the NT saints (Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16; 1Tim. 3:16), the glorified saints (Rev. 4:8, 11; 5:9-10; 11:16-18; 14:3; 15:3-4; 19:1-5), and the vast majority of Christians throughout Church history were not nor is there any command or clear indication that Christians in the present age ought to be. The Scriptures approve the saints singing songs of worship, including psalms, that are not included in the Book of Psalms. The NT commands the singing of “psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs” (Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16). This certainly includes the 150 psalms in the Psalter, but there is not a sufficient reason to believe it is limited only to these. There is no command which requires the Church only to sing the OT Psalms or even to restrict itself to inspired words of praise. We might believe it is wise to do so. Choosing to do so might prevent the introduction of carnal modes of worship or unbiblical ideas communicated through song. But wisdom and practical advantage do not make exclusive psalmody or the singing of only inspired words a law of God. Just as we pray without required forms of inspired prayer, so too there is positive authority for the Church to sing new songs in praising the Lamb of God just as we will do in heaven. 

The Psalms themselves teach us to sing of God’s mighty deeds, but since the psalms were originally written, the Only Begotten Son of God became Incarnate, fulfilled the Law, suffered, died, was buried, arose, and ascended to the Father’s right hand. All of these events are anticipated and preemptively celebrated in the Psalter, but the fullest and most explicit expression of the Church’s praise of these acts is not found in the OT but in the Book of Revelation. The suggestion that inspired songs outside of the Psalter were only for temporary use is belied by the presence of so many songs in Revelation which the Church sings in eternity! This is not an argument that the Psalter is inadequate for the worship of God. It is simply an observation that the rule of exclusive psalmody is unbiblical. The Bible does not require worship to be so circumscribed; therefore, neither should we.

Exclusive psalmody is a beautiful, practical, and powerful tradition. It is also too late to be apostolic and has been the conviction of only an extreme minority of Christians in Church history. History is not determinative for faith and practice, but if we believe in the catholicity of the Church, not only globally but historically, then the witness of history carries weight in our consideration of tradition. The early, medieval, and Reformation era churches sang mostly psalms, but not only psalms. Later second generation Reformers introduced exclusive psalmody in a sincere attempt to follow the Regulative Principle of Worship. But exclusive psalmody was not a recovery of worship in the NT and early Church. It was the creation of a tradition that went significantly beyond the regulations of the NT.

It is not wise, biblical, or appropriate to make laws where God has not. If exclusive psalmody is a matter of personal conscience or preference, then it is unobjectionable. Personally, I prefer singing the psalms to any uninspired hymns and would gladly participate without objection and would not make any effort to change a congregation with that tradition. But I cannot state such a position as my own conviction or affirm that it is required by Scripture. To do so is to go beyond Scripture. The Pharisees’ tradition of handwashing was perfectly acceptable as a matter of private practice and beautifully portrayed the need for cleanliness in receiving God’s good gifts. But it was unacceptable when made a requirement of faith and a test for judging others. So too should it be with exclusive psalmody.

--Joel M. Ellis, Jr. (June 2019)

A Pastoral Letter to the Members of ROPC (AZ) regarding COVID-19

Brothers and sisters,

Many of you have had questions over the last two weeks about the “Corona virus” (COVID-19) and what, if anything, our congregation may do about it. I am not writing today on behalf of the Session, though this letter is being sent with their knowledge and blessing. We have not made any formal decisions about what the WHO has named a pandemic and our President has declared a national emergency, but we are discussing what, if any, changes will be made, especially in relation to our observance of the Lord’s Supper. But today I am simply sharing a few thoughts as your pastor in the hopes of assuaging the fears which are being exaggerated and exacerbated by coverage of the virus in the media and online.

I am not a doctor or an infectious disease expert. I am a pastor. I hear the same reports from the media that you do: that there are (only) 10 confirmed cases of the virus in Arizona so far, but there certainly will be more; that this virus is not life-threatening or dangerous to the (vast) majority of people who contract it, but that it has a higher risk of mortality for the elderly and immuno-compromised individuals than the regular flu; that the best way to prevent interpersonal contamination is not to hoard medical masks, hand sanitizer, and toilet paper, but simply to wash your hands frequently, cover your mouth when you cough, don’t touch your face, and avoid large gatherings in confined spaces; that it is already too late to contain the virus since it has spread too far, but the recommendations of health officials aim to “flatten the curve” of new cases so as not to overwhelm critical care facilities. What we are being told is that COVID-19 is more serious than the common cold or a seasonal flu, and it is less serious than Bubonic plague, less contagious than measles, and less devastating in the largest percentage of sufferers than polio.

Health officials have recommended people stay home as much as possible. Universities and colleges are telling students not to return to campus or the classroom and transitioning the rest of the semester online. Some school systems are cancelling classes. Sporting events are being cancelled, postponed, or played in front of empty arenas. And synagogues, churches, and the Mormon organization are cancelling religious services and telling parishioners to stay home. Even among Reformed churches we hear congregations are cancelling gatherings or abstaining from the Lord’s Supper.

So what does ROPC plan to do? As I said at the beginning, I am not speaking for the Session. I am only one voice within the governing body of our congregation, but my recommendation to our ruling elders and to all of you is: do not fear, but trust the Sovereign God who made and sustains us. What does Scripture say to us in such a season?

In that day this song will be sung in the land of Judah:
“We have a strong city;
God will appoint salvation for walls and bulwarks.
Open the gates,
That the righteous nation which keeps the truth may enter in.
You will keep him in perfect peace,
Whose mind is stayed on You,
Because he trusts in You.
Trust in the Lord forever,
For in Yah, the Lord, is everlasting strength.
(Isaiah 26:1-4)

Rejoice in the Lord always. Again I will say, rejoice!
Let your gentleness be known to all men. The Lord is at hand.
Be anxious for nothing, but in everything by prayer and supplication, with thanksgiving, let your requests be made known to God; and the peace of God, which surpasses all understanding, will guard your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus.
Finally, brethren, whatever things are true, whatever things are noble, whatever things are just, whatever things are pure, whatever things are lovely, whatever things are of good report, if there is any virtue and if there is anything praiseworthy—meditate on these things. (Philippians 4:4-8)

Inasmuch then as the children have partaken of flesh and blood, He Himself likewise shared in the same, that through death He might destroy him who had the power of death, that is, the devil, and release those who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage. (Hebrews 2:14-15)

We have talked many times about living with reverent abandon. This is not to be confused with reckless abandon. We are not to be foolish and irresponsible as the people of God. But we are not to live in fear, and that is exactly what many people in our community, country, and around the world are doing right now. I hope we do not cancel worship services or the Lord’s Supper. I do not see the need to do so. We can still take reasonable precautions and limit our exposure in other ways. But the saints need more opportunities to worship, pray, and be encouraged by their brethren in a time of crisis and fear, not less.

If you are sick, please stay at home. COVID-19 is not the only illness that can be shared in a religious assembly, and we do not want your germs or to share ours with you. If you are coughing, please cover your mouth. Consider fist-bumping your brethren when you greet them on the Lord’s Day instead of shaking hands. It is what all the cool kids do anyway. If you are severely immuno-compromised, please be careful and consider limiting your exposure to others for a while, even if it means you decide to stay at home for a few Sundays. If you are sick or unable to attend, both Calvin OPC (Phoenix) and Redeemer OPC (Atlanta) livestream their services every Lord’s Day.

But everyone of us needs to remember certain truths. The God who made us wrote every day of our lives in a book before the first day began, and our times are in His hand (Psa. 139:16; 31:15). Whether we live or die, we are the Lord’s, and because Jesus died and rose again, the redeemed are delivered from the fear of death (Rom. 14:8; Heb. 2:15). God calls us to walk by faith, not by sight (which is limited and easily misinformed), and certainly not by fear (2Cor. 5:7). Will some of us die from COVID-19? Statistically that seems unlikely, but it is certainly possible. Far more of us will die from heart attacks, cancer, stroke, or in a car crash at a time we did not anticipate. But is fixation and anxiety on the hour and nature of our death helpful to our sanctification and service to God? Hardly. “Teach us to number our days,” not so that we may be gripped by fear or despair, but so “that we may gain a heart of wisdom” (Psa. 90:12).

I will leave you with a quote from C. S. Lewis which has been circulating and is eminently suitable to our present crisis. Matt Smethurst shared it on the Gospel Coalition site a couple of days ago, and I have seen it shared in other places. You will easily recognize the applicability of Lewis’s observations to our present circumstances.

In one way we think a great deal too much of the atomic bomb. “How are we to live in an atomic age?” I am tempted to reply: “Why, as you would have lived in the sixteenth century when the plague visited London almost every year, or as you would have lived in a Viking age when raiders from Scandinavia might land and cut your throat any night; or indeed, as you are already living in an age of cancer, an age of syphilis, an age of paralysis, an age of air raids, an age of railway accidents, an age of motor accidents.”

In other words, do not let us begin by exaggerating the novelty of our situation. Believe me, dear sir or madam, you and all whom you love were already sentenced to death before the atomic bomb was invented: and quite a high percentage of us were going to die in unpleasant ways. We had, indeed, one very great advantage over our ancestors—anesthetics; but we have that still. It is perfectly ridiculous to go about whimpering and drawing long faces because the scientists have added one more chance of painful and premature death to a world which already bristled with such chances and in which death itself was not a chance at all, but a certainty.

This is the first point to be made: and the first action to be taken is to pull ourselves together. If we are all going to be destroyed by an atomic bomb, let that bomb when it comes find us doing sensible and human things—praying, working, teaching, reading, listening to music, bathing the children, playing tennis, chatting to our friends over a pint and a game of darts—not huddled together like frightened sheep and thinking about bombs. They may break our bodies (a microbe can do that) but they need not dominate our minds.

— “On Living in an Atomic Age” (1948) in Present Concerns: Journalistic Essays

Your servant in the kingdom, peace, and joy of our Lord,

Pastor Joel