When the Saints

There are many songs that reach my heart. Recently I came across this one from a CD that my wife owns (Tell Me What You Know by Sara Groves). The name of the song is When the Saints. Every single time I hear this song I cry. No joke. Though it is not just in the lyrics, but how the lyrics combine with her voice and the instruments. If you have not heard this song, find it. Now.

As is my tradition on this site, if I really like a song, I need to break it down. So here is the break down of When the Saints:

Verse 1:
Lord I have such a heavy burden of all I've seen and known
It's more than I can handle
But Your word is burning like a fire shut up in my bones
And I can't let it go

Both verses are rather simple, though the rhyming scheme is horribly complex, if one can even call it a scheme. The rhythm of the whole song is very jazzy and offbeat, though the tone is more subtle. The rhymes are not only mostly off-rhymes (such as known and bones), but there is almost a suggestion of rhyme throughout most of it. Like with the word fire, it feels like she is going to say candle, but doesn't. The verse almost flows like a river with phonetic undercurrents, rather than a literal scheme. This will be true of the rest of the song, though I doubt you can tell from the text alone.

As far as the content, it is very simple. She is speaking about a heavy burden that she has. I don't believe this burden to be a specific problem in her life, but more the struggles of her life as a whole ("All I've seen and known"). Indeed, if I have to give it a name, I would refer to it as her calling: the difficult tasks in life that God has called her to. But this is based off of the rest of the song. In either case, this burden is beyond her and only believing in the promises of God keep her going and giving her strength and energy.

Bridge
And when I'm weary and overwrought
With so many battles left unfought

Refrain:
I think of Paul and Silas in the prison yard
I hear their song of freedom, rising to the stars

And when the saints go marching iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-in
I want to be one of them

Here we come to the true theme of the song: the example of the saints of the past inspire her to keep going. When she thinks of them, she wants to be like them, and this pushes her on.

It is important to point out the first couplet in the refrain. When I refer to a couplet in the rest of this post, I am pointing to this particular feature of the song: a two line description of a saint. In the first refrain, there is one complet followed by "And when the saints... etc." In the second refrain there are two couplets followed by "and when the saints". Then she goes into a long list of these couplets. Each of these couplets points to a particular example of a saint or saints from which she draws inspiration.

The first example that she gives (for she gives many) is important because A) it is the first and B) it is the only one that is repeated. This is the example of Paul and Silas in the Philippian prison (Acts 16: 12-40, focusing on verse 25.) Like all of the couplets that will eventually follow, she briefly suggests an example of great saints of faith in a way that denotes power to the event, without divulging precisely what happened. This is somewhat the true beauty of the song, since it's power comes in the form of suggestion.

Let us take this first example. The details include the exorcising of a girl on the streets, a panic that ensues from it, Paul and Silas being beaten and imprisoned, an earthquake destroying the prison, Paul and Silas remaining to spare the life of the jailer as well as the shear confidence in their being justified, the conversion of the jailer and his whole family, and ending with them being released by the magistrates of the city in person. That's a long and powerful story.

And yet she merely focuses on one snippet, that while these two men were in prison, they chose to worship God and sing songs of praise to His name. I also don't think her wording is accidental. "Songs of freedom rising to the stars" points to the eventual earthquake, releasing them of their shackles, suggesting that it was their songs of praise to their God which set them free. She pinpoints the power of their faith within that jail, not the mere fact of it. If they could overcome their imprisonment through faith in God, then why am I anxious...

Verse 2:
Lord it's all that I can't carry and cannot leave behind
It all can overwhelm me
But when I think of all who've gone before
And lived a faithful life
Their courage compels me

Here is the point of the song expressed simply, to the point where I do not believe it needs explanation.

Bridge:
And when I'm weary and overwrought
With so many battles left unfought

Refrain:
I think of Paul and Silas in the prison yard
I hear their song of freedom rising to the stars

I see the shepherd Moses in the Pharaoh's court
I hear his call for freedom for the people of the Lord!

And when the saints go marching iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-in
I want to be one of them.

In this refrain we see two couplets. The first is once again Paul and Silas, and retains all of the same power that it held before. Her choice for the second one here to compare Paul and Silas to is interesting, for Moses is one of the largest, if not the largest, figure in the Old Testament. I wonder if she was intentionally pairing the NT example of Paul and Silas with an OT one.

And like the first one, in this couplet we find the tale of Moses poetically understated. I do not think that it is wise for me to try and divulge all of the complexities of the story of the Exodus (besides, if you don't know it, stop reading this right now and read the book of Exodus).

What is fascinating about what Sara Groves does with it is what she chooses to highlight: namely the image of a lowly shepherd making demands to the king of the greatest empire on the earth in the midst of the king's throne. That is a powerful image. It is a statement that with faith in the Almighty God, we have the right and power to contend with kings! And look at what God was able to accomplish through Moses!

Again, we are left to consider, if Moses could face that kind of challenge, then why am I so anxious...

The rest of the song is essentially a list of couplets which flow as follows:

I see the long quiet walk along the underground railroad
I see the slave awakening to the value of her soul

Many of us have forgotten that the core of the underground railroad was Evangelical Christians. Here Sara somewhat reminds us of that, but her heart is on the result: the love and value of each human soul, and how that great ministry demonstrated that to so many. She personalizes it by focusing in on one unnamed women, who mentally shifts from being someone's property to being a human being made in the image of God. The way she shapes these words, though they are brief and simple, paints a clear image of the secrecy, fear, and triumph of that path to freedom and life.

This makes evident something which the couplets have been saying all along: faith is not there to get us through the hard times, but it is there to compel us into the deep dark places of the world to bring God's life and power. How we waste God's power on promotions and cars when there are souls being deprived of their God intended glory.

I see the young missionary and the angry spear
I see his family returning with no trace of fear

The story of the conversion of the Huaorani tribe is legendary. Five missionaries by the names of Jim Elliot, Nate Saint, Ed McCully, Peter Fleming, and Roger Youderian came to the Ecuador for to reach this tribe for Christ. Due to the disingenuousness of a native all five were killed. However, shortly there after Jim's wife Elizabeth and Saint's sister Rachel returned. Due to their efforts, most of the tribe is now Christian.

As Sara Groves sings this couplet, we first feel a sense of sorrow in the first line, but for the second she dramatically changes her tone. The emphasis is more on the returning of the family, and how nothing should be able to stop the faithful. They did not seek revenge, but instead sought to bring these people to Christ. Their heart was the same heart as those sacrificed, and the power of forgiveness and mercy won the hearts of this people.

I see the long hard shadows of Calcutta nights
I see the sister standing by the dying man's side

This is a reference to Mother Theresa and her hospice work in India. I find the concept of "long hard shadows" interesting. A long shadow assumes sunset, essentially. The concept of a hard shadow refers to the lines of the shadow being crisp. The smaller or farther away the light source is, the harder the shadow. Also the fewer the light sources, the harder the shadow. Thus, "the long hard shadows" suggest that the sun was the only source of light, and that it was fading away at sunset.

This is a rather beautiful image. I wonder whether Sara meant anything symbolic by it, but, for now, I'm just going to assume it. She is painting a death scene with her words, with Mother Theresa standing by a man's side as he lays dying, with the window open, and the sun setting in the distance. In film, such scenes are often at sunset, referring to the sun setting on the person's life.

However, the point of the couplet isn't just to be a beautiful scene, but to point to the accomplishments of Mother Theresa. From Wikipedia, I gathered this stat: "At the time of her death, Mother Teresa's Missionaries of Charity had over 4,000 sisters, an associated brotherhood of 300 members, and over 100,000 lay volunteers, operating 610 missions in 123 countries." Recognize that this was a woman who sacrificed everything she had for the sick and dying in this world, and look at what she managed to accomplish! And it wasn't easy for her either. Mother Theresa is simply another example of a Christian saint who was willing to push through her limitations and make a mark on the world for Christ.

I see the young girl huddled on the brothel floor
I see the man with a passion come kicking down that door

I had a lot of trouble figuring out this couplet until I found an article about Sara Groves that referenced this song (this was after I was about half way through writing this post). The main reason why it was difficult to identify is that this couplet is dealing with someone who Sara knows personally.

Sara has become involved with a group called International Justice Mission (or IJM). IJM is a ministry committed to reaching out into the world for the sake of manifesting God's justice on earth. A major ministry of theirs is dealing with sex trafficking which actually involves sending teams out to brothels to stop them.

The couplet is about a particular Southeastern Asian girl named Elizabeth (see the Today's Christian article referenced above, and look under "The gospel in a brothel"). Elizabeth was a poor girl saving up to go to Bible College who was then captured and sold to a brothel. By focusing on the Psalms, she maintained her faith, and hoped in her salvation from prostitution. Meeting Elizabeth was an impetus for much of the passion that Sara has throughout this CD.

This couplet again employs an oversimplification of a complex story, but the difference here is the obscurity of it. Few people have heard of IJM (I never had before), and fewer have ever heard of Elizabeth before. There is something important in that obscurity, for it is not fame or global influence that defines the effectiveness of a move of God, or the faithfulness God's servants. Instead, it is the compassion, love, and desire to see God's will here on earth that defines them. Indeed, there is great value in obscurity, for God blesses the humble.

A further point here is the faith of the victim. Much of the song has been focused on the power behind a person of faith as they stand for the principles of heaven. That is here too with IJM. But much of this also has to do with the enduring faith of Elizabeth herself, who clung to the Word of God, even in the lowest place that humanity has invented.

As the song goes on, we see clearer and clearer that a desire to be one of the saints is not simply about going to church on Sundays, and doing your daily devotions. This is because faith is not merely the assent of beliefs and doctrines. Faith is trust in God Himself as a mover in this world, and requires action to be genuine. My pastor always says that the indicators that your faith is genuine is that it affects your daily planner and your wallet. Faith is life, and whether you have it is whether you live it.

I see the Man of Sorrows and His long troubled road
I see the world on His shoulders and my easy load

And when the saints come marching iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-in
I want to be one of them

It is at this point in the song that I always cry. Jesus has many titles in Scripture, but the Man of Sorrows is one that we often forget. Indeed, it was the one the Pharisees and the Zealots didn't see coming.

This is of course a look to Calvary. There, Christ died for our sins. Often songs tell of this important moment in history that stands at the center of our relationship with God. It is a defining moment of God's love and the foundation of our justification before the Holy King of the cosmos. These songs speak of the unending gratitude that we have to our King, and the joy and life that He has brought to our lives.

Yet this is not what Sara is doing here. She is referring to the greatest saint in history, not in as an act of gratitude, but as another example, indeed the greatest example, of what it means to live by faith. It is the action of Christ that is her focus.

This is brought home, not by describing the affects of His actions like she did in the past couplets, but by comparing His burden to her own, implying that we should do the same.

This is significant since this is wrapping up the dilemma of the verses. The verses sang of Sara's burden, and how impossible it is. Yet at the conclusion of the song, after considering the faith and strength of all the saints, she not only feels compelled by their courage, but her load has been dwarfed. How can we complain about our struggles and excuses in life when Christ bore the weight of the whole world? Who are we to be idle because our credit card bills are too high? Or because we "don't have enough time"? Where there's faith, there's a way.

I think if you were able to go to Sara Groves and give her your reaction to this song, she would not want to know how it made you feel. Instead, she would want to know what it made you do. That is how I hope you walk away from this post. I often feel frustrated because I am in a time of preparation. I want to be out their doing something for the Kingdom, and right now I'm waiting. But I am also acting, for I am preparing. My question to you is what does your faith make you do?

Tract Evangelism at the Gas Station

On my way home from work, I stopped by the gas station because my car was quite hungry. As I was pumping the gas, I noticed a folded-up piece of paper stuck into a grove in the pump. On it I could partly make out the title. I could catch, "The Ultimate... Eternal".

Then I thought to myself, "Self, you know what this could mean."

To which myself replied, "Hmmm... it appears to be tract evangelism, though this seems to me more of a flier."

"Indeed. Unfortunately, I feel rather skeptical about this kind of technique."

"Well, with some of the ridiculous tracts out there, why wouldn't you? Especially when they are left as a tip in a restaurant! However, there is nothing unethical about leaving it here. As long as the content is OK, then you should leave it alone."

I replied, "That's good thinking self, though that would require an examination of said content. Hmmmm... "

These are the kinds of conversations I have with myself. We have a great deal of respect for one another. Upon the conclusion of these thoughts, I proceeded to pick up the flier.

The title in fact read:

The Ultimate Question
Eternal Life - Is It Real?

I was not shocked to find the flier to answer this in the affirmative. Indeed, I expect that few would be. I then proceeded to skim the flier for any mention of works, Hell, reprobate, salvation, committment, relationship, or any other key words that would tell me the theology behind the flyer. I quickly found "living by God's standard's" which worried me, but shortly there after I found "Do you know the 10 Commandments?" Ah, Ray Comfort, we meet again!

After skimming a bit more to confirm that this was the Ray Comfort method (which ended up including a colorful presentation of the 10 Commandments on the back in KJV) also known as the Way of the Master, I then gave the flier a C (just passing), returned it to its position, got into my car, and drove off.

Reflection

I am indeed one of those Christians that believes that evangelism is a moral prerogative of the Christian faith. I believe this is quite evident in Scripture. However, I recognize that it is not always wise to evangelize simply for the sake of doing it. I believe doing the right thing the wrong way is always the wrong thing to do.

One thing that really annoys me sometimes is tract evangelism. Leaving a simple document for an unbeliever to find isn't really wrong mind you. It allows you reach people you never meet. This has some obvious benefits.

However, for many, it is merely laziness. It is a way of saying that you have evangelized without the messy business of meeting people, or being isolated at school. Evangelism without risk isn't really evangelism. It is especially bad if you give a tract to someone who you know! And the worst, is the tip technique mentioned above, which is also an excuse to be cheap. (Now leaving a tract with a 50% tip: that's evangelism!)

It is also not very effective. Most people will not notice the tract. Out of the few who do, most of them will ignore it, or even throw it out. Additionally, written text is less persuasive then spoken word. One reason is spoken word has far more nuance. Additionally, in a conversation, one has the ability to qualify a misunderstood statement.

Then there are the actual content. Some of the tracts that people actually think would be affective is absolutely astounding! There is one brand, which I won't mention here, that really annoys me since it often insults the person it is supposed to be reaching.

Evangelism isn't just about "getting the message out there" or something like that. It is about changing someone's life. It is about actually convincing them. The rhetorical incompetence that I find in most "evangelists" that I meet is staggering. This is because they are not concerned about changing someone's heart, but in acting out there inner desire to be important. It frustrates me.

OK, done ranting.

Submitting to Authorities

This is not going to be a well thought out post. Indeed, most that I write in this time period in my life won't be. I don't really have the time to organize when I write right now. Still, there have been some things circling in my mind in relation to authority.

In the 1970s and 1980s, there was a movement known as the "Shepherding Movement" of the "Discipleship Movement" that affected many charismatic churches. Because I currently reside within charismatic circles, I am dealing with the aftermath of this movement. I don't really know much about the movement myself (I knew no one who was a part of it while it was still going on), but I notice that many around me place a strong emphasis on authority in their teachings.

Considering that we live in a rebellious culture, indeed a rebellious nation, it is difficult to assess the validity of my resistance to this tendency. I recognize that many in our culture use the concept of freedom is a means of licentiousness, and part of the Christian life is moral living.

Personally though, I have no real problem with the concept of authority itself, because I don't trust myself that much. I want to be ordained under a denomination to protect myself from myself. The issue is when it comes to doctrine.

Submitting to Teaching

I believe that it is much easier to submit to someone else's wisdom than it is to submit to someone else's teaching, at least for me. I can say that I trust this person's wisdom more than my own, because they are living a more successful life than I am. But what do I do if someone is teaching something I don't agree with.

If I'm merely a member in the congregation this is easy. I disagree. If they make it a point of membership, then I leave. Simple. But what if I am a teacher? If I am a teacher, than I must teach it, or at least not disagree with it. I now have a measure of authority myself, and if I disagree with the church on a doctrine, and I undermining what the church is saying.

Quite frankly, I already have this problem. When I speak on doctrinal matters, most people tend to listen and believe. It is part of my gifts. Besides, I do know a bit about that stuff. So I watch what I say.

But it is not like I can simply believe something that I don't believe. As Martin Luther can tell you, that's not really possible: "Unless I shall be convinced by the testimonies of the Scriptures or by clear reason ... I neither can nor will make any retraction, since it is neither safe nor honourable to act against conscience." Can I just shut my brain off and accept? Not really.

Assemblies of God

A big reason for dealing with this is because I am planning on being ordained. Part of being ordained is that I must adhere to the "16 Fundamental Truths". Personally, I don't like the name because of my disdain for Fundamentalism, but that's not the point of it. They are essentially the working doctrinal creed of AG, and I have no issue with that. They are as follows:

1. The Infallibility of Scripture
2. Monotheism
3. Deity of Christ
4. Human Depravity
5. Salvation by Faith
6. Credobaptism/ Zwinglianism
7. Baptism of the Holy Spirit
8. Speaking in Tongues as the Initial Evidence of Baptism in the Holy Spirit
9. Sanctification
10. Classic Protestant Ecclesiology
11. Ordination
12. Divine Healing
13. Eventual Resurrection for all believers
14. Millennial Reign of Christ
15. Final Judgment: Eternal Life or Hell
16. A New Heavens and a New Earth

Now I don't really have a problem with most of these. I'm not strictly a premillennialist, but I have not objection to it, and there are a few things that I disagree with a some finer points, but agree with the basic concept. On really good on those ideas.

Then there's number 8. Now, I do believe that there is such a thing a speaking in tongues. If you disagree, I would be happy to explain to you why. But the idea that it is thee initial evidence of being baptized in the Spirit is another matter.

Some qualification is in order real quick. In the Assemblies of God, Baptism of the Holy Spirit is not seen to happen at salvation. It is an event which occurs after salvation (maybe moments, maybe years) where the Holy Spirit anoints you with power to enable you to do the ministry of the Church. Associated with this is the presence of the miraculous. But this is not the same thing as salvation. It is a separate event. Assemblies does not teach that you need to speak in tongues to be saved.

What it does teach if that if you do not speak in tongues then you were not baptized by the Spirit. Now I just don't believe that.

My pastor says that they believe that speaking in tongues is the initial evidence because there is always a sign that one is baptized. With regular baptism, it is being wet. In spirit baptism it is speaking in tongues.

But that doesn't make sense. When you are baptized in water, the sign is that you have water on you! Thus, if you are baptized in the Spirit, the sign is that you have the Spirit on you. And what is the evidence of the Spirit? Well, first of all love. Additionally, there should be joy. And one would probably also expect peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Isn't that the evidence of the Spirit? Shouldn't those manifesting be the "initial sign"?

My experience also goes against this. There was a moment when I felt the Spirit overwhelm me, and I was filled with an impulse to do the will of God. And I possessed by the heart of the Lord. There is no other name I can call that experience than baptism, since I felt my self "immersed" in the Spirit. Yet I did not speak in tongues. 3 years later, I first spoke in tongues, and I barely felt the Spirit at all. Yet, according to my pastor, it was the 2nd of these two experiences that was the Baptism. That is completely illogical to me.

Viewing the history of the Pentecostal/charismatic movement in Gary McGee's book People of the Spirit, history doesn't really agree either. Minnie F. Abrams and Pandita Ramabai, who had powerful manifestations of the Spirit, moved in the Spirit long before they had any instances of speaking in tongues. Besides, there is no place in the Bible that insists on this either. All that is there is that speaking in tongues was a common manifestation of the Spirit in the book of Acts.

So, Dealing with my Disagreement

So, since I really disagree with Assemblies on this, how do I approach it? Do I merely consider myself wrong? Do I start to search elsewhere? Neither of these sits well with me. The first, as Martin Luther pointed out, is neither honorable or safe.
The latter is impractical. As a theologian, I will always find things that I disagree about.

There do exist some things that I am willing to part company on, like the Trinity, baptism, and certain soteriological ideas. However, I don't really care enough on this issue to do that. At the same time, I can't just simply accept it either.

Instead, I intend to employ a lesson that I learned from Star Trek: never disagree with the captain in front of the crew. When ever Riker disagreed with Picard, he followed through with the order anyway, but felt free to have some choice (though respectful) words with the captain in the ready room. This is what I intend to do. I am perfectly willing to teach this as official AG teaching, but in the meantime, write lots and lots of letters to those above me on the subject of changing it.

Now I ask anyone out there whether or not you think this is a reasonable course of action. What do you think?