For now, the prescribed method of carrying the ark is in my heart. I am to let go and let the I AM do His will.

Well God in the law prescribed the method for how to carry the ark, Israel did not follow the law in the method of ark bearing and a guy died in the process I don't think it takes much to connect the dots. As for your point 2 actually there has been debate whether for the fourth commandment that 6 days of working was required in the commandment so some would say it is sin to be off more than one day a week, although if it is to honor God that is to be done 7 days a week.




As for the concept "Where the bible is silent we need to be" I am beginning to question its use (although I agree in right context). But it can be used for anything ex: The bible does not say anything about smoking pot therefore I can, or the bible does not say anything about rocking out to heavy metal music therfore there is nothing wrong with it. I just don't know I think there are basic principals of morality laid out like "be not like the world" which need to be applied to our lives. Therefore the bible does not need to specifically address pot smoking

Not trying to hash out this discusion, but you are right. Those verses were the only ones that I found that seems like it supports your view. But consideer this.




1) it is correct that these verses give guidance in how to carry the ark.





2) But is this approach the only way to honor God with carrying the ark? This is what I mean: Obviously, an Israelite would follow the Sabbath. but suppose a faithful Jew wants to also take Wednesday off to honor God. So this Jew takes two Sabbaths off a week. is that sinful, because God said the last day a week should be God's day. Does that make sense?





3) Our text does not say "the nation sinned by moving the ark in a wrong way and God was angered." The specifics of our text does not say this so I believe that I need to follow the principle of where the Bible is silent I should be silent. I think if the nation sinned against God, I believe it would have been in the text. casey

Casey,

hey not offended at all, although I am not an organ only guy (I actually used to be charismatic free for all guy). Firstly with the ark issue, the bible states:


"And you shall put the poles into the rings on the sides of the ark to carry the ark by them." (Ex 25:14)





"At that time the LORD set apart the tribe of Levi to carry the ark of the covenant of the LORD to stand before the LORD to minister to him and to bless in his name, to this day.:" (Deut 10:8)





And Numbers 4 explains that not just any Levite carries the ark and utensils (lamps stand and other tabernacle stuff) but the sons of Kohath (sub clan in Levi) are set apart for this purpose. All of this to say that to transport the ark on a cart was not only copying the Philistine method (1 Sam 6:1-11) but also was going against the prescribed method for transporting the ark in the law. From this I concluded that we shouldn't copy the world when it comes to worship...now I am thinking about this more espescially in light of what brad/Driscoll had to say. I am trying to find a right perspective of not being like the world yet in an understandable fashion (so the world can come into the church easier) that's hard for me to say because it seems so pragmatic.





Anyway, as for the Jesus Seminar revisited yes I was totally being satirical that is basically how these Jesus Seminar guys handle the bible except the opposite (nixing the verses about judgement and hell and leaving a kind of law light based upon the beatitudes calling this "Christianity").

"The touching of the ark is a secondary cause the ark not being carried in the manner prescribed in the law is the first. So he died because they did not worship God in the manner prescribed in the law." I think you are half way right, but I think you might be missing something too.




The text never hints or claims that God is mad at any except Uzzah, because he touched the ark. No where (either in 2 Sam.6 or 1 chronicles) does it state that God is mad at anyone's worship style. When the anger of the Lord comes it only focuses on Uzzah and not the thirty thousand men who were there, hence David names that place Perez Uzzah (focus is still on Uzzah's sin, not the people).





If we wanted to say that Uzzah'sin is secondary, then what is the primary sin. I don't believe it can be the way the people were worshipping God, because of two reasons:





1) they were not punished...nor is the text hinting at anything that they did that would make God mad (besides Uzzah)





2) of the 219 times "ark" is in the Bible, I never found one command from God that stated what the people were doing was wrong. I thought maybe something in Exodus or Lev. would enlighten me to understand your position, but I found nothing. I might have missed something (and I would not be surprised if I did). But looking at how God wanted the Ark to be made and the laws commanding how it is to be treated--I did not find anything that supported your view of the people doing something wrong by how they worshipped. (feel free to show me scripture, I indeed might have missed it).casey





Puritanbob...side note, i was reading you website "Puritan's Sword" and was wondering about the Jesus Seminary comments. Satire or do you personal believe in the Jesus Seminarys? I was just really intriqued by your post and thought I would ask you. I just do not know many "puritan, calvinistic, organ singing only brothers" who use satire. I hope those labels do not annoy you, i meant them to be funny not offensive.

The touching of the ark is a secondary cause the ark not being carried in the manner prescribed in the law is the first. So he died because they did not worship God in the manner prescribed in the law.

Friendly Bob,

I read and reread your text that you tried to use to support God being anger with certain styles of worship (mainly, the how the Israelites acted like pagan worshippers).





But friend, that is not in the text at all. The reason why Uzzah died was not because of sinful worshipping like pagans but because he touched the ARK. And God was not mad at the people for their worship, only at Uzzah "The LORD's anger burned against Uzzah, and he struck him down because he had put his hand on the ark." I do not think this text in any way supports the theory that we need to be anti-relevant in how we worship and act as Christians who are in this world but not of it.

what do you mean by relativism?

Brad said:

"The Bible does not siphon out worship 'styles' that are acceptable or are not acceptable. Period."





Well I don't know...I gave the example in Chronicals previously to show that the Lord is not to be worshiped in any old way. In the example the problem was clear...Israel chose to transport the ark like the Philistines and their worship though it was "with all their might" was unacceptable to God. Like wise we can see that God repeatedly was angered by the fact that Israel would sacrifice to Him on the pagan altars. We see in John 4 Jesus correct the samaratan women saying "We worship what we know for salvation is of the Jews." The samaratans it seems (up until Jesus) worshiped in a way that was not salvific. So I don't know I really think HOW we worship matters, does this apply to music? I think so.





As for being like the world I think it is a shabby comparison to say "we use electricity like the world so should we stop that too?" Um sure. I think it is clear that being like the world means imitating the world in how we live and morally walk...worship is part of that. The way you treated "be not like the world" really renders it a useless passage and blurred everything so it is meaningless.





I'm not trying to be mean...MAINLY I am trying to fight relativim in worship. Doug Wilson points out that we as Christians want to have a 2/3 war on realativism...we want to fight for absolute truth and absolute morality, yet when it comes to aesthetics there is no absolutes for beauty...this spills over into how we view worship and worship becomes a "everyone did what was right in their own eyes" book of Judges flashback. So I don't know I hear the opposition to what I am saying (I once said the same stuff) but I think we need to strive to be pilgrims and imitate secularism.





That is my main bone to pick with these relativistic views of worship...so much of worship is a cut and dry imitation of the way the world does music. I am not saying no guitars but I am saying lets be the Church and be "unspotted from the world" as James says.

I think I know what puritanbob is trying to say, but...




Where the Bible is silent, we have freedom. Where the Bible is clear, we must follow its commands.





The Bible does not siphon out worship 'styles' that are acceptable or are not acceptable. Period.





What we are given is adjectives and nouns, 'fitting and orderly,' 'psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs,' etc.





The reason is that God, in his infinite wisdom, knew that the Bible would need to fit into various cultures in the future.





So I would disagree with the contention that being like the world is unbiblical. That is a generalization to demonize certain aspects of modern culture.





Aren't we all reaping the benefits of electricity as we type on computers using the internet. These are all 'things of the world' but are they inherently evil? No.





I think we need to look our 'being in but not of' interaction with the world in three categories:





Adoption: Some parts of culture are value positive





Adaptation: Some parts of culture are value neutral but can be changed/redeemed





Rejection: Some parts of culture are value negative





Music styles, in my opinion, fit into the 'adaption' category.





Just as Jesus, through his incarnation, became 'flesh' to be 'contextual' to his place and time, we are called to do the same, even with worship. If not, we border on cultural elitism.





In other words, only a certain style from a certain period is deemed 'fitting.'





We need to be careful to put limitations on that which the Bible give us freedom.

I agree and disagree with the view of music/worship. I agree that all music forms have cultural overtones. This however is a far cry from a need to adopt the relativistic view of worship many have today. Some music is fitting for worship: (ie it calls for participation from all the congregation [not a performance] and it has distinguished itself as being music set apart to the LORD) other music is not fitting. I think it is unfitting to play Queen's "We will Rock You" at a worship service. To keep from being relativistic I have to say this is not my opinion but a standard for acceptability in worship. As I laid out be3fore scripturaly we are not to blatantly immitate the way the world does worship (music). Christians have such a hard time accepting this today, we really want to be like the world in all that we do it seems, how weirdly unbiblical.




So I am getting to I disagree music is NOT inherently amoral. Punk and Gangta thug rap are not amoral, they are angry rebellious forms of music. Certain music styles convey certain messages, some is very sensual, some angry and so on. Ultimatly we really need to lay down our personal preferences and be conformed to God's standard of what is acceptable worship