What's a "Cadenza?"

What's a "Cadenza"?

I've heard this question more than a few times about the name of this weekly column. (I've also heard, "What's a 'credenza'?" from a handful of people.) Perhaps it would be good to explain the term and the idea behind it.

First of all, a "credenza" is a piece of furniture, and is a more familiar term to us than "cadenza." It would make for a very odd column title indeed - what's a piece of furniture have to do with this column in a church newsletter? However, the term we're using here is a less familiar term "cadenza."

A "cadenza" is a musical term. Perhaps you've noticed a consistent theme in Grace Notes using musical terminology. "Grace Notes" itself is a musical term (a notation in printed music to describe "ornamented" notes). "New Notes" is the section for all the latest-breaking news. "Your Cue" lists opportunities for ministry and service. "Parent Beat" is the column for parenting issues. "A Tempo" (which means "back to the regular speed") is for listing events coming up. "Reprise" (which means to do something again) lists those items that have been in previous issues of Grace Notes.

So, the reason for using the word "cadenza" is thematic. And now to the meaning...

The word "cadenza" refers to a part of a song that is a solo, and usually a solo with a tempo set by the musician rather than a regular beat. So, you could call this column "off-beat stuff where the pastor is way out there by himself"!

I use the Cadenza column as a platform to play around with some ideas out loud. Sometimes it's a reflection on Scripture or a theological topic. Sometimes it's just having some fun. And still other times I want to draw attention to happenings within the church (locally and globally).

There have been a few times where someone expressed some disagreement with what I wrote, and that's perfectly fine with me. A musician doesn't always perform every "solo" well, and I know in advance that I will make a few mistakes (and I try to correct the more serious ones). Or, perhaps we just have a difference of opinion, which is going to happen in a healthy church. But you have always been full of grace, which I appreciate and want to extend back to you in return.

Thanks for your feedback - I welcome it! I pray that at least some of the articles are helpful and interesting to you. Thanks to Christina (and Ashley during the summer) for putting Grace Notes together every week. It's not always an easy task, and I truly appreciate the effort. I hope you do, too.

One final note (to stick with the musical theme), I want to publicly thank Damon Jasperson for the fantastic series of "Parent Beat" articles recenly. Every one of them has been thought-provoking (and I am jealous of his writing style). We weren't sure we'd continue the quality of articles that Susan Harrison had been submitting, but Damon has allayed those concerns. Thanks, Damon. We'll take as many as you've got within you!

License, Legalism, Love

Last Sunday, I added a last-minute thought to the message which 1) was a much bigger thought than I gave it room for, 2) may have been distracting to the main message, 3) was not thought through fully, and 4) the one thing some people really latched onto. I still haven't decided if it was a good addition or not!

The idea was that in Christ, we have three possible paths to tread: License, Legalism, or Love. When we went through Galatians over a year ago, we talked about License, Legalism, and Liberty, which is a theologically accurate list, but I like the focus of Love more than that of Liberty.

License is the idea that because I have my sins forgiven by grace, I can live as I please, do whatever my flesh desires. Hey, it's all going to be forgiven, right? Sure, it might be disrespectful to the Cross, but if it's covered, it's covered. Paul repeated teaches against this view, especially in Galatians.

Legalism is the idea that our righteousness and our standing before God is dependent on how well we adhere to a certain moral code. There are plenty of non-Christian religions that are blatantly legalistic. Although it's relatively rare to find an evangelical church that teaches this outright (there are some!), this more often finds its way into church by stealth. A church can believe in grace and teach grace, but still end up with teachings and sermons that boil down to "try harder, do it right, it's all on your shoulders." We can inadvertently create an attitude of legalism while preaching grace.

Liberty is the idea that in Christ, we finally have the freedom and ability to obey Him. We have been set free from sin and death and set free for following Him from our heart. The bonds are gone, but we are also enabled for the first time to actually obey, which we choose to do freely.

But I prefer the third element to be labeled Love. Not because Liberty is inaccurate in any way, but because Love encompasses Liberty and so much more.

Love is more than an idea ... it's a relationship, it's a motive, it's a mode, it's an attachment, it's so many things. Rather than freely disobeying God (License) or obeying God in bondage (Legalism), it is freely obeying God drenched by love in every way. We obey Christ because we love, love is our attitude while following Him, we love Him by obeying Him, and we even love by obeying the command to love. We have been freed because of love, Christ's will has been revealed to us because of love, and His will is how He provides for us a way to love Him.

"Liberty" describes the freedom and enablement we have because of Christ. "Love" describes the what, the why, and the how to exercise that freedom and enablement.

It's easy to slip back into legalism, where we try to create a set of rules. It's even easier to slip into license - just do whatever we desire to do, whether or not it is Christ's will. Loving relationships are not the easiest routes, but they are clearly the best ones, because love is the only path of the three that reflects Christ's character.

Anxiety Because We Forget

Psalm 139 is one of the church's favorite psalms of comfort. God's presence is everywhere, and even if we tried to escape it, we will never find a place where He is not. He knows everything about us, and He knew all of it before we were even born. He's the one who "knit" us together. In this psalm, we see God as sovereign, engaged, caring, and protective. It's no mystery why we love this psalm.

Just look at a sampling of the things God does in this psalm: examine, know, understand, observe, be aware, be thoroughly aware, squeeze, place His hand upon me, have knowledge, be present, be there, never too dark for Him to see, make, perform awesome and amazing deeds, know beforehand, see, and ordain. And after everything is said and done, we still have to contend with Him. Shew!

I am overwhelmed by the completeness of His attributes: to every extent and in every way, to any height or depth, far away and nearby, He is thoroughly God. Because He is our creator, He knows all these things, does all these things, exists in all these contexts and places. Even if we were to list, catalog, analyze, study, and write comprehensive theses about all this, still - there He is, with us, there for us to contend with. His existence is even beyond the sum of His attributes and actions.

My study of my Creator cannot be confined to an analysis of His effects. My creator is there for me to have a relationship with. He knows everything about me, He made me, He already exists in every place I will ever go. He’s there and he knows everything about the me who is there, too.

Many times when we are anxious, it is because we don't know what God knows, and we forget that what God know is ... everything.

Psalm 46:10 He says, “Stop your striving and recognize that I am God! I will be exalted over the nations! I will be exalted over the earth!”

Forgive me, Lord, for my whining, as if You didn’t know everything, as if You weren’t absolutely there in this specific space, as if Your hand was not upon me, as if You did not create me.

Does My Effort Matter?

God is sovereign. Completely. Everything is under His control, nothing happens unless He at least allows to happen, if not directly makes it happen. He has guaranteed the final score before the first pitch. The Bible says that it's not just that God knows what's going to happen, but that He's the one who will make it happen.

So, does my effort matter? I can't thwart God's plan. I can't change the outcome (can I?). I certainly can't alter God's eternal plan. The Bible seems to care a lot about whether or not I do certain things, but does it really matter, since I can't alter the final score that's been fixed from before the world began?

Among theologians, these questions are part of a much larger debate which (sadly) can cause division among brothers in Christ. But in real life for normal people, it really comes down to the very practical question: Does my effort matter? And if it does, how so? And if not, then why bother?

Does my effort matter? You probably anticipated this answer: yes and no.

In one sense, no, your effort doesn't matter. Sorry, but God's plan is not so fragile as to teeter on whether or not you do something. He's completely, totally, effectively, conclusively sovereign, and He will execute His eternal plan no matter what you do. His confidence for the outcome of His plan is not merely based on the fact that He knows how it all turns out - His confidence comes from the fact that He is God, and because He is God, there is no other possible outcome than His plan.

But in another sense, yes, your effort does matter. Consider:

• We can participate in God's plan: Technically, everyone is always participating in God's plan, either for it or against, either wittingly or unwittingly, because no one is exempt from God's comprehensive plan. But we have the opportunity to be willing participants working for God's purpose rather than against it. That's a privilege! When the end comes, we will have either been active participants in what God accomplished, or non-participants, or even antagonists. Personally, I really like the first of those three options.
• We can be the kind of person God is making us to be. By participating actively in God's purpose, we are being what God wants. To be a believer in Jesus Christ, but inactive in God's plan, is to be a living contradiction. Even though I can't change the final score, I can either live consistently with His plan or live inconsistently with His plan. What kind of people does God want us to be - those who live in concert with His purpose and plan or those who clash with them?
• We can glorify God. By living a life that reflects what God is doing in the world, we bring Him glory. God is glorified by whatever reflects His character. Applying ourselves to His purpose reflects His character, and therefore glorifies Him. Don't tell me that doesn't matter.
• We can be how God executes His plan. Yes, God is completely sovereign and will accomplish His purpose, but God accomplishes a lot of His purpose through people. His sovereign plan that existed before the world began includes those through whom He will accomplish His plan. Our actions matter because our actions are part of what God sovereignly uses to execute His plan.

Part of our problem with this question is that we have a very Western mindset, which is focused on results. Actions are meaningful only if they produce the desired results. We look at God's sovereignty and how He will get His results no matter what we do, and we conclude our actions don't matter. However, our Western way is not the only way to discover what's meaningful. Meaning is also found in being. By being a certain kind of people (who do certain things because of who we are), we have meaning in God's economy. In other words, God has value for us not only in what we accomplish, but in who we are. Being completely willing  participants in His plan is valuable, no matter how it may affect the outcome.

Boycotts, Agendas, and the Public Square

There's been an interesting reversal these last two weeks - rather than a group of Christians rallying to boycott something, a group of folks have called for a boycott of a fast food restaurant because the head of the company publicly shared his personal view on a moral issue.

I don't intend to say who's right or who's wrong on the myriad of related issues here - that's not my point, and I don't intend to stir up the debate. I don't intend to answer the question of whether or not we should boycott at all. My only goal is to offer some ideas for Christians to consider as they exercise their right to engage in the public arena.

Our model, of course, is Jesus. I also see other useful examples in Scripture.

As you engage with friends, neighbors, coworkers, and cyberfriends, please consider:

• Jesus affiliated with the sinners, loved them, and yet never pretended that sin wasn't sin. The only people who felt really uncomfortable with Him were the religious hypocrites and those who wanted to remain in sin. All others, including the "vilest offenders," felt welcome in His presence (even though He would say things like, "Go and sin no more"). Would a sinner have every reason to feel comfortable in my presence by the loving way I stand for God's ways?
• In Acts 4-5, the disciples were unfairly arrested, but did not raise a huge protest over being mistreated, misunderstood, or violated. They did not make their personal rights the main issue, even though they were treated illegally. They did, however, plainly and clearly state the core truth of the Gospel, and then extended an offer for others to believe. Am I speaking to truly advance the Gospel or to advance my personal feelings and agenda?
• Because these disciples were mistreated, they were able to explain the claims of Christ to people they otherwise would never have had a chance to. Do I see opposition to my views as opportunities to share Christ in a winsome way?
• Their deciding factor, it seems, was that they would do whatever they could to give the Gospel its best possible hearing. They let their own rights be denied, they displayed respect, they chose to shut up or speak boldly, everything for the apparent purpose of not interfering with the Gospel. If they had loudly (and legally) demanded their rights, adopted a combative attitude, or spoke out of turn, they would have damaged the appeal of the Gospel. Do I treat my own freedom, safety, and rights as secondary to the Gospel?
• Paul did assert his rights at times, such as appealing to Caesar - which, as a result, put him in the court system in Rome, where he spoke about the Gospel (more than about his own rights) to those in the Roman government. Do I understand the system well enough to negotiate it wisely?
• Joseph and Daniel are two Old Testament characters in captivity to two different pagan kings. They both had their rights and freedoms denied. They were both treated unfairly. And they both used the gifts and talents God gave them to make their immoral kings very successful. Both made a stronger argument for the God of Israel by doing so. Do I bring value to others, or merely arguments and demands, forcing them into a defensive position?

There is a time to make a stand and endure conflict. When justice is systemically denied, when the defenseless are oppressed, when the moneychangers turn a space dedicated to God into a den of thieves.

But always, always, always, our actions in the public square should be dictated by advancing the Gospel, not mere religiosity. And the manner of our engagement must also reflect the nature of the Gospel itself, or we cancel out our own message.