We who preach the gospel must not think of ourselves as public relations agents sent to establish good will between Christ and the world. We must not imagine ourselves commissioned to make Christ acceptable to big business, the press, the world of sports or modern education. We are not diplomats but prophets, and our message is not a compromise but an ultimatum. A.W. Tozer
Therefore let God-inspired Scripture decide between us; and on whichever side be found doctrines in harmony with the word of God, in favor of that side will be cast the vote of truth. --Basil of Caesarea
Once you learn to discern, there's no going back. You will begin to spot the lie everywhere it appears.

I thank Christ Jesus our Lord, who has strengthened me, because He considered me faithful, putting me into service. 1 Timothy 1:12

Friday, August 11, 2017

Some Good Stuff — No Bad or Ugly

We’ve been doing a lot of traveling this past week or so, with band practice, visiting friends, and a 600-mile round trip to an aviation museum.  And we have a parade tomorrow.

I’ve been getting rid of more books, as some of you know by being the first claimants.  When you see a post for a book giveaway, be sure to look at the comments section where I respond to comments not posted — that’s how I communicate with the recipient if they don’t email me.  With this past one I wasn’t able to take it down for over 24 hrs due to the trip, but I had already posted a comment to the “winner” and another comment to the second in line letting them know they missed it, yet many hours later someone requested the book.  So be sure to look at the comments first.  Of course there may be a few requests in my inbox which I haven’t gotten to because I’m away from home, so then the post will be still up without comments.  Just have patience.  And be watching — I have five more already selected but since I won’t be able to respond and/or mail for a couple days, I’ll wait for posting.

Okay, let’s look at the good stuff I’ve been reading:

Fake news about early Christianity.

About that “slain in the spirit” nonsense.

Protecting your assembly from false teaching.

An evaluation of Muslim dreams and visions of Isa (Jesus):  Part 1 and Part 2

How did the canon of Scripture come to be?

Chris Tomlin — we don’t need your new choruses for old hymns.  I’ve pointed this out many times.

Thus Saith Rome — an excellent article about Roman Catholicism.  From a 2007 Midwest Christian Outreach Journal now available on the ‘net.

And finally, a great quote!
A worship leader serves his congregation best when he chooses songs they can sing and sing well. He is highly attuned to their ability. He prioritizes the singability of songs over their newness or oldness or author or theological density. He gauges his success not by his own worship, but by theirs. His question is not “how did the band feel?” but “how did the congregation sing?” When he steps back and hears his church singing—really singing—, his joy is complete.  Tim Challies


Jesse said...

Hi Glenn,

In the end, the Church of Rome's claim that it is responsible for giving us the Bible amounts to nothing more than the claim that we should accept the Roman Catholic canon of Scripture "because they said so".

Anonymous said...

Thank you for the post on Tomlin's constant hymn-hijacking. I agree with the author's position. These altered hymns detract from the original, more doctrinally substantial lyrics, they are often difficult for congregations to sing, and they practically constitute plagiarism.

Frankly, my husband and I are so sick of this trend. Sadly, one cannot seem to escape it, no matter where one worships. EVERY church we have ever attended, or visited, seems to prefer these hijacked hymns to the real ones. So, when they sing those butchered hymns at church, we (husband and I) sing the original lyrics, and go silent during the Tomlinized sections.

I'll add this... regarding the article, Tomlin's destruction of "O Worship the King" not only has a bizarre meter, but look up the original hymn lyrics. Then look up Tomlin's weird, almost pantheistic lyrics. Compare.

Hence one reason (of many) I quit "music ministry". Being a nobody in the pew gives me the freedom to choose to refrain from singing/participating in the song choices that result from the poor discernment of the leadership.

And hence one reason I appreciate blogs such as yours.


Anonymous said...

PS: Tomlin is no Isaac Watts. Tomlin is no Fanny Crosby. TRUE! He's not a Wesley either. Tomlin really is a poor lyricist.


Glenn E. Chatfield said...


You are so very right! OF course that "because they said so" goes for the majority of their teachings.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...


You are among the few of us who recognized this hymn-stealing. That's why I've examined some of Tomlin's work on this blog -- he leaves out important verses which really destroys the thought process of the author. But, hey, it gets him money, and money is what it is all about, isn't it?

Martha said...

Many of us choose to sing the Psalms in praise of our LORD. Since these lyrics were inspired by God, the Holy Spirit, a believer can't go wrong in singing these songs of worship. The Psalms sure have ministered to me in times of thanksgiving, rejoicing, dancing, and praising and honoring our Father, as well as in times of failure, trials and tribulations, during persecutions, and when my soul seems to have lost most of its hope, the Psalms show me exactly Who my Hope is, Jesus, my LORD and Savior.

No arguments or division, nor reviling when pointing souls, both saved and the lost, to God's Holy Word, per the Psalms.


Anonymous said...


I agree. The Psalms have ministered to my family in profound ways.

I believe it is a blessing to have songs of praise chosen directly from the written word, rightly divided. I'd add that any Scriptures can be used, including (especially) NT passages!


Joe said...

I wanted to add one more good: a surprise in my mail box. Thank you so much for the Hebrews commentary! That will be a good resource for my upcoming How to Study the Bible lesson. And just so you know, I visit your site almost every day and love your comments, your links and your approach. I don't comment often, because I'm almost always headed to work, headed to bed or headed to church. But I love the blog.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Hi Joe,

You are quite welcome.

Thank you for your kind words. I follow your blog too, but it has been silent for so long I was wondering if you were doing okay.

Alex A. Guggenheim said...

I have provided a rebuttal to the "Sex is Spiritual" blog post at my blog. Some fundamental problems appear unmoveable with the concept being sound.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

I think you misrepresent the entire thesis of that article. For example, you say: In other words (in this case), because sex is so rapturous, at times I suppose, and/or deeply personal and intimate, then it must be spiritual. This seems to be the line she somewhat follows.

I don’t see this implication at all. What I see is that we are spiritual creatures, and the uniting of two spiritual creatures is a spiritual act. However, if the two are not initially united as one (i.e., not married) then it cannot be a spiritual act, rather it is just a physical act of pleasure, as with the joining with a prostitute.

The unsaved are still spiritual beings, so sex within the confines of marriage is a spiritual union.

Marshal Art said...


love the final quote. To hear an entire congregation letting it out must be incredible for the pastor. It is for me.


I have a big problem with tying sex to spirituality. In my opinion, Scriptural teachings on sex are not about sex being spiritual. Not in the least. It is merely a behavioral thing, and/or an attitudinal thing. That is to say, how must I regard sex with my spouse? Is it about me, or about my spouse? It's certainly more the latter, but one could even say, it's about what God wants with regard to dealing with our carnal nature. That nature drives us to engage in sexual activity...because it's fun and feels good. It becomes putting the self first. God's teaching (mostly through Paul, I would say) is about putting the spouse first. And that requires being married first. It really doesn't go farther than that in my opinion.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...


Well, as I pointed out in the above comment, we are spiritual beings. I think the proper union of two spiritual beings (i.e. in marriage) is definitely a spiritual experience. Not so much a religious spiritual experience, but spiritual in that we are of a spiritual nature whether or not we are Christians. The total unity of two people.

Marshal Art said...

The fact that we are spiritual beings does not make our every action a spiritual one. This is particularly true if our actions are meant to please ourselves alone or exclusively. Frankly, I simply don't think in such terms...whether or not a physical action is spiritual---unless it is, like praying...but merely whether or not it is pleasing or displeasing to God. That is, when I take the time to consider such things in the first place.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

I think we're looking at two different aspects of spirituality. I'm suggest NOT a theological/religious spiritual aspect with sex (although I think there could very well be some sort), rather my point is that we are spiritual beings and our spirits are tied in a unity as much as our bodies are tied in a unity.