The ‘Deeds Not Creeds’ mantra that seems to try and relegate doctrine to the dustbin of history, is itself ‘doctrine’! Think about it.
Author Archives: Dan C.
“Steel Trap” Minds
“A mind like a steel trap” usually means either:
1. The ability to remember absolutely everything.
2. A characteristic of the mind akin to being ‘rusted shut’.
The former is commendable for the most part but extremely rare. The latter is much more prevalent in the ranks of fallen human beings and a significant hindrance to intelligent dialogue.
Augustine and Pelagius
by R. C. Sproul
"It is Augustine who gave us the Reformation." So wrote B. B. Warfield in his assessment of the influence of Augustine on church history. It is not only that Luther was an Augustinian monk, or that Calvin quoted Augustine more than any other theologian that provoked Warfield’s remark. Rather, it was that the Reformation witnessed the ultimate triumph of Augustine’s doctrine of grace over the legacy of the Pelagian view of man.
Humanism, in all its subtle forms, recapitulates the unvarnished Pelagianism against which Augustine struggled. Though Pelagius was condemned as a heretic by Rome, and its modified form, Semi-Pelagianism was likewise condemned by the Council of Orange in 529, the basic assumptions of this view persisted throughout church history to reappear in Medieval Catholicism, Renaissance Humanism, Socinianism, Arminianism, and modern Liberalism. The seminal thought of Pelagius survives today not as a trace or tangential influence but is pervasive in the modern church. Indeed, the modern church is held captive by it.
What was the core issue between Augustine and Pelagius? The heart of the debate centered on the doctrine of original sin, particularly with respect to the question of the extent to which the will of fallen man is "free." Adolph Harnack said:
There has never, perhaps, been another crisis of equal importance in church history in which the opponents have expressed the principles at issue so clearly and abstractly. The Arian dispute before the Nicene Council can alone be compared with it. (History of Agmer V/IV/3)
The controversy began when the British monk, Pelagius, opposed at Rome Augustine’s famous prayer: "Grant what Thou commandest, and command what Thou dost desire." Pelagius recoiled in horror at the idea that a divine gift (grace) is necessary to perform what God commands. For Pelagius and his followers responsibility always implies ability. If man has the moral responsibility to obey the law of God, he must also have the moral ability to do it.
Harnack summarizes Pelagian thought:
Nature, free-will, virtue and law, these strictly defined and made independent of the notion of God – were the catch-words of Pelagianism: self-acquired virtue is the supreme good which is followed by reward. Religion and morality lie in the sphere of the free spirit; they are at any moment by man’s own effort.
The difference between Pelagianism and Semi-Pelagianism is more a difference of degree than of kind. To be sure, on the surface there seems like there is a huge difference between the two, particularly with respect to original sin and to the sinner’s dependence upon grace. Pelagius categorically denied the doctrine of original sin, arguing that Adam’s sin affected Adam alone and that infants at birth are in the same state as Adam was before the Fall. Pelagius also argued that though grace may facilitate the achieving of righteousness, it is not necessary to that end. Also, he insisted that the constituent nature of humanity is not convertible; it is indestructively good.
Over against Pelagius, Semi-Pelagianism does have a doctrine of original sin whereby mankind is considered fallen. Consequently grace not only facilitates virtue, it is necessary for virtue to ensue. Man’s nature can be changed and has been changed by the Fall.
However, in Semi-Pelagianism there remains a moral ability within man that is unaffected by the Fall. We call this an "island of righteousness" by which the fallen sinner still has the inherent ability to incline or move himself to cooperate with God’s grace. Grace is necessary but not necessarily effective. Its effect always depends upon the sinner’s cooperation with it by virtue of the exercise of the will.
It is not by accident that Martin Luther considered The Bondage of the Will to be his most important book. He saw in Erasmus a man who, despite his protests to the contrary, was a Pelagian in Catholic clothing. Luther saw that lurking beneath the controversy of merit and grace, and faith and works was the issue of to what degree the human will is enslaved by sin and to what degree we are dependent upon grace for our liberation. Luther argued from the Bible that the flesh profits nothing and that this "nothing" is not a little "something."
Augustine’s view of the Fall was opposed to both Pelagianism and Semi-Pelagianism. He said that mankind is a massa peccati, a "mess of sin," incapable of raising itself from spiritual death. For Augustine man can no more move or incline himself to God than an empty glass can fill itself. For Augustine the initial work of divine grace by which the soul is liberated from the bondage of sin is sovereign and operative. To be sure we cooperate with this grace, but only after the initial divine work of liberation.
Augustine did not deny that fallen man still has a will and that the will is capable of making choices. He argued that fallen man still has a free will (liberium arbitrium) but has lost his moral liberty (libertas). The state of original sin leaves us in the wretched condition of being unable to refrain from sinning. We still are able to choose what we desire, but our desires remain chained by our evil impulses. He argued that the freedom that remains in the will always leads to sin. Thus in the flesh we are free only to sin, a hollow freedom indeed. It is freedom without liberty, a real moral bondage. True liberty can only come from without, from the work of God on the soul. Therefore we are not only partly dependent upon grace for our conversion but totally dependent upon grace.
Modern Evangelicalism sprung from the Reformation whose roots were planted by Augustine. But today the Reformational and Augustinian view of grace is all but eclipsed in Evangelicalism. Where Luther triumphed in the sixteenth century, subsequent generations gave the nod to Erasmus.
Modern evangelicals repudiate unvarnished Pelagianism and frequently Semi-Pelagianism as well. It is insisted that grace is necessary for salvation and that man is fallen. The will is acknowledged to be severely weakened even to the point of being "99 percent" dependent upon grace for its liberation. But that one percent of unaffected moral ability or spiritual power which becomes the decisive difference between salvation and perdition is the link that preserves the chain to Pelagius. We have not broken free from the Pelagian captivity of the church.
That one percent is the "little something" Luther sought to demolish because it removes the sola from sola gratia and ultimately the sola from sola fide. The irony may be that though modern Evangelicalism loudly and repeatedly denounces Humanism as the mortal enemy of Christianity, it entertains a Humanistic view of man and of the will at its deepest core.
We need an Augustine or a Luther to speak to us anew lest the light of God’s grace be not only over-shadowed but be obliterated in our time.
R. C. Sproul is now the distinguished visiting professor of systematic theology and apologetics at Knox Theological Seminary.
Used by permission of Ligonier Ministries, copyright 1996. Review postings to a discussion forum on this article’s subject at Ligonier Ministries’ previous Web site location: http://www1.gospelcom.net/HyperNews/get/tt/ttsubrc-06-96.html.
English Grammar: Use of Conditional Expressions
Here’s an example of a ‘conditional (hypothetical) expression:
“If I were to ‘feel’ judged by something said that was a general observation/comment that was not personally directed to, or specifically about me by name, “I have a problem”.
To those who have been schooled in the use of the English language, the above is known as a hypothetical, or conditional statement/expression. One purpose of such expressions is to facilitate objective and profitable dialogue. An additional benefit of using ‘hypothetials’ is to try and prevent discussion participants from ‘feeling bad’ because they think they have been personally accused of something or are being judged.
The statement at the top of this post was made in response to a comment implying that it was rude to say something that might cause another person to ‘feel’ judged, even if that something was not directed toward a specific individual. The “IF I” hypothetical was intentionally inserted to express exactly how I would feel about myself under a certain ‘condition’. so that there would be no possibility of my having been judgmental of anyone other than me.
Sad to say, my use of the ‘conditional’ was not received well. Either it was not understood, or the intended receiver of my comment thought I was being intentionally sarcastic. Perhaps both. Anyway, I see only a few options from this point in time
1. Continue trying to explain the use of ‘conditional’ expressions.
2. Express myself using monosyllabic words/terms that are more easily understood. (Kind of a ‘read my lips’ thing. Whoops….do I smell real sarcasm?)
3. Refrain from saying anything that could even remotely result in someone ‘feeling’ judged.
4. Shake the dust off my shoes and move on down the road.
Any suggestions out there?
Eisegesis Unplugged – 1 Thessalonians 5:21
Exegesis and eisegesis are two conflicting approaches in Bible study. Exegesis is the exposition or explanation of a text based on a careful, objective analysis. The word exegesis literally means “to lead out of.” That means that the interpreter is led to his conclusions by following the text.
The opposite approach to Scripture is eisegesis, which is the interpretation of a passage based on a subjective, non-analytical reading. The word eisegesis literally means “to lead into,” which means the interpreter injects his own ideas into the text, making it mean whatever he wants.
Obviously, only exegesis does justice to the text. Eisegesis is a mishandling of the text and often leads to a misinterpretation. Exegesis is concerned with discovering the true meaning of the text, respecting its grammar, syntax, and setting. Eisegesis is concerned only with making a point, even at the expense of the meaning of words.
The Passage
“test everything; hold fast what is good.” (1 Thessalonians 5:21 )
In recent weeks, in a ‘bologospheric’ encounter concerning a current issue in the church, I was told that the above passage authorizes, if not commands believers to examine everything going on in the church and expose all of the ‘dirt’ we find using whatever means we have, including the blogosphere.
While the ‘current issue’ being discussed is very real and the need for justice great, it’s not the issue of this little article, nor will it be named. Rather, we need to find out exactly what the above passage really says about testing/proving things. For that, we need to look at the context.
First of all, our ‘out of context’ passage is part of a larger thought beginning in verse 20:
20 Do not despise prophecies, 21 but test everything (prove all things-KJV); hold fast what is good.” (ESV)
Sometimes the chapter and verse numbers men inserted into the text(s) hinder the best understanding of passages in the Bible. This might be one of those times. If we take out the verse numbers, we are left with:
“Do not despise prophecies, but test everything; hold fast what is good.”
Note that we are talking specifically about ‘prophecies’ (and not to despise them), then told to test ‘everything’. To what does ‘everything’ refer?
From a couple of good commentaries concerning ‘prophecies’:
“…the prophecies of the Old Testament concerning the first coming of Christ, concerning his person, office, and work, his obedience, sufferings, and death, his resurrection from the dead, ascension and session at God’s right hand…there are many prophecies which regard things to be done, and yet to be done under the Gospel dispensation, …also the predictions of Christ concerning his own sufferings and death, and resurrection from the dead,… the prophecies of private men, such as Agabus, and others, in the apostle’s time… the explanation of Scripture, and the preaching of the word”[i]
“…whether exercised in inspired teaching, or in predicting the future. “Despised” by some as beneath “tongues,” which seemed most miraculous…”[ii]
The above interpretations are just a few of the many similar commentary notes concerning our passage that clearly limit ‘prophesies’ to biblical topics and spiritual matters. Therefore , the ‘everything’ following the ‘but’ is contextually limited to biblical topics and spiritual matters.
But what if we remove the ‘but’? Would that change the interpretation of ‘everything’?
We offer that it probably doesn’t change the intended meaning, and here’s why. The letter was written by Paul to believers in the Thessalonian church, sometime after he and Silas had spent some time there, in order to encourage them to spiritual growth/sanctification, address some eschatological issues, and how to properly respond to ‘prophesies’.
Also, if we look at the post-resurrection NT letters and writings for other examples of ‘testing’/’proving’ things, they seem to always concern biblically discerning the truthfulness and trustworthiness of what we are being taught by spiritual leaders. Perhaps the best example is the account of Berean believers examining the teachings of the Apostle Paul under the light of Scripture that was available to them (See Acts 17). A secondary purpose of examining what we are being taught is being able to identify wolves hanging out in the sheep pens.
Conclusion
Whatever ‘test everything’ means, it is NOT a directive to believers to air the ‘dirty laundry of the church’ in the public square. Our chief role in the public square is to present the crucified and resurrected Christ as the atoning sacrifice for the sins of men. As for ‘doing our laundry’, we have sufficient guidance for that also within the pages of Scripture. That however, is a discussion all its own.
[i] John Gill’s Exposition of the Bible Commentary
[ii] Commentary, Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible, Jamison, Fausset and Brown
No Compromise
There are a couple of great conversations located at No Compromise Radio (http://www.nocompromiseradio.com/no-co-ever/ ). The participants are Phil Johnson, Dr. James White, Dr. Carl Trueman, and the host, Pastor Mike Abendroth. The topics discussed revolve around compromises being made in today’s evangelical church.
On the Behavior of Believers
How is it that Christians should behave/respond in various situations in which we find ourselves?
If you answer “Depends of the situation” you would be absolutely correct. It is also extremely advantageous and profitable for us that we have’s ‘book of standards’ that helps us along the way – our Bibles.
The question that follows is this: “What about those situations for which there is no specific command, or answer that is ‘caveman’ plain to guide our behavior?
Well, I’m glad you asked that question! I am happy to announce that we are even given guidance for the tough situations! Consider the following:
First, we have the very first teaching point found in the Westminster Shorter Catechism that, while not specific to any particular situation, asks and answers one of the greatest questions known to all men everywhere, in every language, tribe, and nation, across all time.
Q. 1. What is the chief end of man?
A. Man’s chief end is to glorify God, [a] and to enjoy him for ever. [b][a]. Ps. 86:9; Isa. 60:21; Rom. 11:36; I Cor. 6:20; 10:31; Rev. 4:11
[b]. Ps. 16:5-11; 144:15; Isa. 12:2; Luke 2:10; Phil. 4:4; Rev. 21:3-4
I invite you to consider both the Q&A and the scriptural support. After doing that you think it’s a wrong answer, contact me.
Then we have at least one preacher (there have been many more) that took the first premise (man’s chief end) to an even broader conclusion:
“Christianity says, “the end of all being is the glory of God.” Humanism says, “the end of all being is the happiness of men.” And one was born in hell – the deification of man. And one was born in heaven – the glorification of God.” – From a 1964 sermon by Paris Reidhead “Ten Shekels and a Shirt”
If you are still not convinced we have a passage from the Apostle Paul to the believers in Thessalonica that closes any loopholes we think we may have uncovered from the words of mere men:
31 So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God. 32 Give no offense to Jews or to Greeks or to the church of God.. – 1 Cor 10:31-32
The context of that passage had to do with idol feasts and partaking of the Lord’s Supper, and the ‘whatever you do’ is the loophole closer, and an airtight one at that.
“Whatever you do, do ALL to the glory of God.”
When we are unsure of how to behave or how to respond to situations around us, we can always ask ourselves “Does this behavior/response Glorify God?”
Another question we might ask is: “How does my behavior/response help or hinder the proclamation of the Gospel to a lost and dying world?”
Bear in mind that those who are still in bondage to their sin are by nature rebels and enemies of God, looking for any excuse whatsoever to continue running from the God they know exists. Poor Christian behavior in the marketplace/public square by a professing believer will always provide a reason to keep running away from God (suppress the truth –[See Rom 1]). Non-believers, although they excuse certain behavior of other non-believers at times, have an uncanny knack for knowing how we ought to behave and calling us on it, all the while putting the ‘pedal to the metal’ in their flight from the truth that can save them from Hell and a Christless eternity.
There you have it. A bit of behavioral guidance for professing believers. How do we apply that guidance to our daily lives? Simple. Just ask yourself a couple of questions and let the answer guide your behavior.
______________________
Food for thought on a Sunday afternoon.
A bit of wisdom in a difficult situation. . .
The following article was written by Tim Challies, an outsider to the issues surrounding Sovereign Grace Ministries. At least one ‘Christian’ blogger has thrown the author under the bus, where C.J. Mahaney has been has already been tossed, along with anyone any everyone who has not already pronounced judgment, by many who claim to be doing God’s work of ‘discernment’. We are talking about professing believers passing judgment here, Anyway, I think it is a well written article from an ‘outsider’ – at least it expresses my own thoughts about the situation.
Thinking Biblically About C.J. Mahaney and Sovereign Grace Ministries
by Tim Challies
These have been troubling days for C.J. Mahaney and everyone associated with Sovereign Grace Ministries. Once a thriving and growing group of churches, SGM has recently seen many of its key churches and leaders disassociate themselves, including the flagship Covenant Life Church under the leadership of Joshua Harris. This turbulence has followed allegations that C.J. Mahaney has proven to be unqualified as a leader, having damaged many important relationships through pride, judgmentalism and deceit. These charges forced a leave of absence, decisions about church governance, discussions about the jurisdiction of denominational leaders, and so much more. As churches have separated, friendships have been disrupted and long-time working relationships severed. In the midst of all of this, SGM’s ministry headquarters relocated from Gaithersburg, Maryland to Louisville, Kentucky, where C.J. has planted Sovereign Grace Church of Louisville.
More recently, the ministry has faced allegations that many years ago there was significant sexual abuse within Covenant Life Church and its associated school. Though none of the current SGM leaders have been implicated in this abuse, a lawsuit that will soon go before the courts alleges that they responded unwisely when it was reported to them and that they failed to take sufficient action on behalf of victims. National media outlets have taken up the story. SGM has sought dismissal of the suit on the basis of the First Amendment and on the basis of unclear allegations.
Today I want to explore how we can think about all of this in what I hope is a distinctly Christian way. Some have heard bits of information through blogs or word of mouth. Some have read stories in the Christian or mainstream media. Most of us struggle to think well and wisely about it. I have no more information than you do, so will be relying on what has already been made public through media new and old.
Before I begin, it may be useful for me to explain the nature of my relationship with C.J. Mahaney and Sovereign Grace Ministries, though there is actually very little to explain. I recall meeting Mahaney only one time and for no more than two or three minutes. To my knowledge we have never corresponded by email or any other media. He and I have never shared a speaking platform and I have never spoken at a SGM event (though I did liveblog a couple of them several years ago). All this to say that I write as an outside observer rather than as a personal friend and write this article primarily for the benefit of other outside observers.
Now, let me share how I have been thinking about it.
There Are Implications
Obviously the situation carries far-reaching implications for Mahaney and for SGM. But there are implications for you and me as well. The Bible is clear that a distinguishing characteristic of Christians is to be our love for one another. John 13:35 says it plainly: "By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another." Love for other Christians is the great test of our commitment to Christ and our likeness to him. This love is put to the test in a unique way in the midst of trouble and disagreement.
This situation is unfolding before a watching world that loves nothing more than to see Christians in disunity, accusing one another, fighting one another, making a mockery of the gospel that brings peace. You and I are responsible to do well here, to be above reproach in our thoughts, words and actions. We are responsible to be marked by love whether evaluating a difficult situation or taking appropriate action. We can make the gospel look great or we can make it look insignificant.
Believe and Hope All Things
The great theme of the Bible is God’s unfailing love. In 1 Corinthians 13 Paul explains some of the implications of this love, saying that it "believes all things, hopes all things and endures all things" (v7). This is not a call to be naive or to deny the obvious, but an instruction to maintain a hopeful attitude toward others, even, and perhaps especially, those who have been accused. The Christian’s attitude toward others, especially in difficult times, is to be one of optimism rather than pessimism, hope rather than doubt. We, of all people, should be slow to put aside hope and belief. This means that I owe it to C.J. Mahaney, to SGM and to those who have levelled allegations to believe the best about them, to hope all things for them.
As it pertains to the sexual abuse lawsuit I do not take this to mean that I necessarily presume innocence until guilt is proven (since, after all, there are professed Christians as both accusers and defenders) but rather that I am to do my best to withhold judgment until the God-ordained civil authorities have been able to do their work. It is for them to evaluate the case and to pass judgment, it is for me to withhold judgment until that time, especially so since these are, by their very nature, allegations and not yet proven facts.
As it pertains to the other charges and to the rift between SGM and the former SGM churches, I am also being deliberate to hold back judgment, believing that both the SGM leadership and those who are leaving are doing what they believe is right before the Lord. This sinful world is such that this happens, that believers, churches and associations of churches are at times driven away from one another. Even Paul and Barnabas had to go their separate ways for a time. Sometimes this happens when a deliberately divisive person disrupts unity; other times it happens when Christians can no longer agree. It is always sad but also a fact of life in a sinful world where we are all opposed by an enemy who is bent on our destruction. Because I am not a part of SGM I am not forced to take a side and, therefore, will not.
The One Who States His Case First
I have been careful to keep in mind Proverbs 18:17 which says, "The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him." It is so simple, but so consistently and demonstrably true. There are always two sides to a disagreement and often one side chooses to speak loudly and boldly and the other to remain silent. This is particularly true when one side is acting on the counsel of legal advisors who will almost always insist upon withholding evidence until formal legal proceedings have begun. We tend to believe that the side that is slow or hesitant to release information must be in the wrong, that their silence is an admission of guilt. Keep in mind, though, that Jesus did not protest his innocence and that people took this as a sign of his guilt, though he, of all men, was completely innocent.
If I am going to believe and hope all things, if I am going to be slow to pass judgment, then I also need to understand that neither side has publicized all of the facts. These things may be known in time and I do well to wait for that time if it comes.
Consider What I Need to Know
This is an issue of greater urgency to some than others. The way each of us thinks through it will depend on the extent to which we are stakeholders, to our relational proximity to those involved and even geographic proximity. If you are a member at a SGM church this issue is very urgent, and particularly so if your church is considering withdrawing from the association. However, the majority of us are far on the outside with very little at stake. For this reason many of us simply do not need to have an opinion.
The farther we are from being stakeholders, the less the likelihood that we are equipped to helpfully evaluate the facts and that we can do anything helpful with the information we learn. The farther we are from being close to those involved, the greater the likelihood that we are drawn more to the scandal of it all than any noble purpose. Not all knowledge builds us up; not all knowledge helps us; not all knowledge helps us love God and love one another in deeper ways. The fact that today’s media allows us to have access to facts, does not necessarily give license to avail ourselves of them.
If it is true that I am called to love other Christians, that I am called to believe and hope all things, that I am far outside this situation, then I think I do well to learn less rather than more. I need to know only enough to understand that I don’t need to know anything more! For example, when the leaders of a church call a members’ meeting knowing that there may be someone there transcribing the meeting with a view to making it public, and when that church’s pastor specifically asks outsiders not to read the meeting’s proceedings, I, as an outside observer, do well to honor that request as a show of love and respect to a brother in Christ. When thousands of pages of documentation appear on web sites, I do not benefit from reading and studying every word.
For this reason I have deliberately avoided learning too much. I have had to question my motives, especially since I have repeatedly been on the receiving end of scathing criticism for not using my platform to speak out against Mahaney. I have chosen to read the news stories, to understand the basic facts, but conscience compels me to stop there. To do more may not be spiritually beneficial, it may not reflect good time management, and it may not be loving toward those who are involved.
Conclusion
In a situation as difficult as this one, especially in a situation as difficult as this one, the Lord calls me, he calls each of his people, to pursue peace and love and unity. I take this as a call to consider carefully what information I learn, to keep in mind that none of us has access to all of the facts, that I am to believe and hope all things of every believer, and that there are important and wide-reaching implications for each one of us.
Kentucky High School Graduates Ignore Objections, Pray at Ceremony
A Kentucky high school continued its tradition of having a student lead a prayer during graduation ceremonies, despite objections by at least six students, Fox News reports. Jonathan Hardwick, class of 2013 president at Lincoln County High School in Stanford, was given a standing ovation after he delivered a prayer during Friday’s commencement. A video of Hardwick’s prayer quickly hit social media, with most online comments supporting his decision. "Thank you for helping us get here safely today, Lord, and thank you for the many blessings you have given us," Hardwick said as part of the prayer. Lincoln High principal Tim Godbey acknowledged that six students — including at least one atheist — had asked him not to allow a student-led prayer at the ceremony. Godbey, who is Christian, said under separation of church and state laws, faculty members have never been able to pray publicly on school grounds or during school-sponsored events, but he noted that the U.S. Constitution does not prohibit students from praying as long as they are not disrupted. Ricky Smith, an atheist who has been lobbying for a "moment of silence" to replace prayer during government meetings in the area, said he intended to notify the American Civil Liberties Union and the Freedom From Religion Foundation about Lincoln’s public prayer, which he feels violated the civil rights of students who are not Christians. (Online Source)
While I heartily commend those who take a positive stance for prayer, I think there are several common threads in these situations:
1. The false interpretation of ‘church/state separation’ is always a factor. It was about the state establishing a state religion such as was in England.
2. The protesters’ objections aren’t, at the deepest level, about prayer. They have ‘God’ issues. No one’s civil rights are really violated when there are public expressions of faith, any more than the civil rights of believers are violated when the world around them slanders and blasphemes their God.
3. Freedom ‘from’ religion cannot be obtained via institutions of men. We are all ‘religious’ by nature (Romans 1). The best that can be obtained is ‘outside’ reminders being removed from the minds of those who suppress truth they inherently know.
4. Christians can be a bit over the top in their ‘celebrations’ , whether it’s thunderous applause for the one who actually prayed in public (as in the video clip), or viral social media ‘idolizing’ the individual who prayed. It might be better to just humbly added an ‘Amen!’ to the prayer instead of displaying the ‘us v. them’ aspects of the issue.
_____________________
Food for thought on a Friday morning.
No Truth Without Love, No Love Without Truth: The Church’s Great Challenge
No Truth Without Love, No Love Without Truth: The Church’s Great Challenge
Al Mohler, May 30, 2013
The church’s engagement with the culture involves a host of issues, controversies, and decisions–but no issue defines our current cultural crisis as clearly as homosexuality. Some churches and denominations have capitulated to the demands of the homosexual rights movement, and now accept homosexuality as a fully valid lifestyle.
Other denominations are tottering on the brink, and without a massive conservative resistance, they are almost certain to abandon biblical truth and bless what the Bible condemns. Within a few short years, a major dividing line has become evident–with those churches endorsing homosexuality on one side, and those stubbornly resisting the cultural tide on the other.
The homosexual rights movement understands that the evangelical church is one of the last resistance movements committed to a biblical morality. Because of this, the movement has adopted a strategy of isolating Christian opposition, and forcing change by political action and cultural pressure.
Can we count on evangelicals to remain steadfastly biblical on this issue? Not hardly. Scientific surveys and informal observation reveal that we have experienced a significant loss of conviction among youth and young adults. No moral revolution can succeed without shaping and changing the minds of young people and children.
Inevitably, the schools have become crucial battlegrounds for the culture war. The Christian worldview has been undermined by pervasive curricula that teach moral relativism, reduce moral commandments to personal values, and promote homosexuality as a legitimate and attractive lifestyle option.
Our churches must teach the basics of biblical morality to Christians who will otherwise never know that the Bible prescribes a model for sexual relationships. Young people must be told the truth about homosexuality–and taught to esteem marriage as God’s intention for human sexual relatedness.
The times demand Christian courage. These days, courage means that preachers and Christian leaders must set an agenda for biblical confrontation, and not shrink from dealing with the full range of issues related to homosexuality. We must talk about what the Bible teaches about gender–what it means to be a man or a woman. We must talk about God’s gift of sex and the covenant of marriage. And we must talk honestly about what homosexuality is, and why God has condemned this sin as an abomination in His sight.
Courage is far too rare in many Christian circles. This explains the surrender of so many denominations, seminaries, and churches to the homosexual agenda. But no surrender on this issue would have been possible, if the authority of Scripture had not already been undermined. And yet, even as courage is required, the times call for another Christian virtue as well–compassion.
The tragic fact is that every congregation is almost certain to include persons struggling with homosexual desire or even involved in homosexual acts. Outside the walls of the church, homosexuals are waiting to see if the Christian church has anything more to say, after we declare that homosexuality is a sin. Liberal churches have redefined compassion to mean that the church changes its message to meet modern demands.
They argue that to tell a homosexual he is a sinner is uncompassionate and intolerant. This is like arguing that a physician is intolerant because he tells a patient she has cancer. But, in the culture of political correctness, this argument holds a powerful attraction. Biblical Christians know that compassion requires telling the truth, and refusing to call sin something sinless. To hide or deny the sinfulness of sin is to lie, and there is no compassion in such a deadly deception.
True compassion demands speaking the truth in love–and there is the problem. Far too often, our courage is more evident than our compassion. In far too many cases, the options seem reduced to these–liberal churches preaching love without truth, and conservative churches preaching truth without love.
Evangelical Christians must ask ourselves some very hard questions, but the hardest may be this: Why is it that we have been so ineffective in reaching persons trapped in this particular pattern of sin? The Gospel is for sinners–and for homosexual sinners just as much as for heterosexual sinners. As Paul explained to the Corinthian church, “Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God” [1 Corinthians 5:11].
I believe that we are failing the test of compassion. If the first requirement of compassion is that we tell the truth, the second requirement must surely be that we reach out to homosexuals with the Gospel. This means that we must develop caring ministries to make that concern concrete, and learn how to help homosexuals escape the powerful bonds of that sin–even as we help others to escape their own bonds by grace.
If we are really a Gospel people; if we really love homosexuals as other sinners; then we must reach out to them with a sincerity that makes that love tangible. We have not even approached that requirement until we are ready to say to homosexuals, “We want you to know the fullness of God’s plan for you, to know the forgiveness of sins and the mercy of God, to receive the salvation that comes by faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, to know the healing God works in sinners saved by grace, and to join us as fellow disciples of Jesus Christ, living out our obedience and growing in grace together.”
Such were some of you . . . The church is not a place where sinners are welcomed to remain in their sin. To the contrary, it is the Body of Christ, made up of sinners transformed by grace. Not one of us deserves to be accepted within the beloved. It is all of grace, and each one of us has come out of sin.
We sin if we call homosexuality something other than sin. We also sin if we act as if this sin cannot be forgiven. We cannot settle for truth without love nor love without truth. The Gospel settles the issue once and for all. This great moral crisis is a Gospel crisis.
The genuine Body of Christ will reveal itself by courageous compassion, and compassionate courage. We will see this realized only when men and women freed by God’s grace from bondage to homosexuality feel free to stand up in our churches and declare their testimony–and when we are ready to welcome them as fellow disciples. Millions of hurting people are waiting to see if we mean what we preach.
The Battle Cry 