Needs of the Times!

Posted by Dan C. on May 19, 2012

by J.C. Ryle (1816—1900)

“Men who had understanding of the times” 1 Chronicles 12:32

These words were written about the tribe of Issachar, in the days when David first began to reign over Israel. It seems that after Saul’s unhappy death, some of the tribes of Israel were undecided what to do. “Under which king?” was the question of the day in Palestine. Men doubted whether they should cling to the family of Saul, or accept David as their king. Some hung back, and would not commit themselves; others came forward boldly, and declared for David. Among these last were many of the children of Issachar; and the Holy Spirit gives them a special word of praise. He says, “They were men who had understanding of the times.”

I cannot doubt that this sentence, like every sentence in Scripture, was written for our learning. These men of Issachar are set before us as a pattern to be imitated, and an example to be followed; for it is a most important thing to understand the times in which we live, and to know what those times require. The wise men in the court of Ahasuerus knew the times (Esther 1:13). Our Lord Jesus Christ blames the Jews, because they “knew not the time of their visitation,” and did not “discern the signs of the times” (Luke 19:44; Matthew 16:3). Let us take heed lest we fall into the same sin. The man who is content to sit ignorantly by his own fireside, wrapped up in his own private affairs, and has no public eye for what is going on in the church and the world — is a miserable citizen, and a poor style of Christian. Next to our Bibles and our own hearts — our Lord would have us study our own times.

1. First and foremost, the times require a bold and unflinching maintenance of the entire truth of Christianity, and the divine authority of the Bible.

Our lot is cast in an age of abounding unbelief, skepticism and, I fear I must add, infidelity. Never, perhaps, since the days of Celsus, Porphyry and Julian, was the truth of revealed religion so openly and unblushingly assailed — and never was the assault so speciously and plausibly conducted. The words which Bishop Butler wrote in 1736 are curiously applicable to our own days “It is come to be taken for granted by many people, that Christianity is not even a subject of inquiry, but that it is now at length assumed to be fictitious. And accordingly they treat it as if, in the present age, this was an agreed point among all people of discernment, and nothing remained but to set it up as a principal subject of mirth and ridicule, for its having so long interrupted the pleasures of the world.” I often wonder what the good bishop would have now said, if he had lived in 1879!

In reviews, magazines, newspapers, lectures, essays and sometimes even in sermons — scores of clever writers are incessantly waging war against the very foundations of Christianity. Reason, science, geology, anthropology, modern discoveries, free thought — are all boldly asserted to be on their side. No educated person, we are constantly told nowadays — can really believe Christianity, or the plenary inspiration of the Bible, or the possibility of miracles. Such ancient doctrines as the Trinity, the deity of Christ, the personality of the Holy Spirit, the atonement, the necessity and efficacy of prayer, the existence of the devil and the reality of future eternal punishment — are quietly put on the shelf as useless old almanacs, or contemptuously thrown overboard as lumber! And all this is done so cleverly, and with such an appearance of candor and liberality, and with such compliments to the capacity and nobility of human nature — that multitudes of unstable Christians are carried away as by a flood, and become partially unsettled, if they do not make complete shipwreck of faith.

The existence of this plague of unbelief must not surprise us for a moment. It is only an old enemy in a new dress — an old disease in a new form. Since the day when Adam and Eve fell, the devil has never ceased to tempt men not to believe God, and has said, directly or indirectly, “You shall not die — even if you do not believe.” In the latter days especially, we have warrant of Scripture for expecting an abundant crop of unbelief, “When the Son of man comes, shall He find faith on the earth?” “Evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse,” “There shall come in the last days scoffers” (Luke 18:8; 2 Timothy 3:13; 2 Peter 3:3). Here in England, skepticism is that natural rebound from semi-popery and superstition which many wise men have long predicted and expected. It is precisely that swing of the pendulum which far-sighted students of human nature looked for; and it has come.

But as I tell you not to be surprised at the widespread skepticism of the times, so also I must urge you not to be shaken in mind by it, or moved from your steadfastness. There is no real cause for alarm. The ark of God is not in danger, though the oxen seem to shake it. Christianity has survived the attacks of Hume and Hobbes and Tindal, of Collins and Woolston and Bolingbroke and Chubb, of Voltaire and Payne and Holyoake. These men made a great noise in their day, and frightened weak people — but they produced no more effect than idle travelers produce by scratching their names on the great pyramid of Egypt.

Depend on it, Christianity in like manner will survive the attacks of the clever writers of these times. The startling novelty of many modern objections to revelation, no doubt, makes them seem more weighty than they really are. It does not follow, however, that hard knots cannot be untied, because our clumsy fingers cannot untie them — or formidable difficulties cannot be explained, because our eyes cannot see through or explain them. When you cannot answer a skeptic, be content to wait for more light; but never forsake a great Scriptural principle. In religion, as in many scientific questions, said Faraday, “The highest philosophy, is often a judicious suspense of judgment.” He who believes shall not make haste — he can afford to wait.

When skeptics and infidels have said all they can, we must not forget that there are three great broad facts which they have never explained away, and I am convinced they never can, and never will. Let me tell you briefly what they are. They are very simple facts, and any plain man can understand them.

a. The first fact is Jesus Christ Himself. If Christianity is a mere invention of man, and the Bible is not from God — how can infidels explain Jesus Christ? His existence in history they cannot deny. How is it that without force or bribery, without arms or money — He has made such an immensely deep mark on the world as He certainly has? Who was He? What was He? Where did He come from? How is it that there never has been one like Him, neither before nor after, since the beginning of historical times? They cannot explain it. Nothing can explain it but the great foundation principle of revealed religion, that Jesus Christ is God, and His gospel is all true.

b. The second fact is the Bible itself. If Christianity is a mere invention of man, and the Bible is of no more authority than any other uninspired volume — then how is it that the book is what it is? How is it that a book written by a few Jews in a remote corner of the earth, written at distant periods without consort or collusion among the writers; written by members of a nation which, compared to Greeks and Romans, did nothing for literature — how is it that this book stands entirely alone, and there is nothing that even approaches it . . .

for high views of God,
for true views of man,
for solemnity of thought,
for grandeur of doctrine, and
for purity of morality?

What account can the infidel give of this book — so deep, so simple, so wise, so free from defects? He cannot explain its existence and nature, on his principles. We only can do that, who hold that the book is supernatural and of God.

c. The third fact is the effect which Christianity has produced on the world. If Christianity is a mere invention of man, and not a supernatural, divine revelation — then how is it that it has wrought such a complete alteration in the state of man kind? Any well-read man knows that the moral difference between the condition of the world before Christianity was planted and since Christianity took root — is the difference between night and day, the kingdom of Heaven and the kingdom of the devil.

Whenever you are tempted to be alarmed at the progress of infidelity, look at the three facts I have just mentioned, and cast your fears away. Take up your position boldly behind the ramparts of these three facts, and you may safely defy the utmost efforts of modern skeptics. They may often ask you a hundred questions you cannot answer, and start ingenious problems about various readings, or inspiration, or geology, or the origin of man, or the age of the world, which you cannot solve. They may vex and irritate you with wild speculations and theories, of which at the time you cannot prove the fallacy, though you feel it. But be calm and fear not. Remember the three great facts I have named, and boldly challenge skeptics to explain them away. The difficulties of Christianity no doubt are great; but, depend on it, they are nothing compared to the difficulties of infidelity!

2. The times require distinct and decided views of Christian doctrine. I cannot withhold my conviction that the professing church is as much damaged by laxity and indistinctness about matters of doctrine within — as it is by skeptics and unbelievers without. Myriads of professing Christians nowadays seem utterly unable to distinguish things that differ. Like people afflicted with color blindness — they are incapable of discerning what is true and what is false, what is sound and what is unsound. If a preacher of religion is only clever and eloquent and earnest — they appear to think that he is all right, however strange and heterogeneous his sermons may be. They are destitute of spiritual sense, apparently, and cannot detect error. Popery or Protestantism, an atonement or no atonement, a personal Holy Spirit or no Holy Spirit, future punishment or no future punishment, “high” church or “low” church or “broad” church, Trinitarianism, Arianism, or Unitarianism — nothing comes amiss to them: they can swallow all, if they cannot digest it!

Carried away by a imagined liberality and charity, they seem to think that . . .
everybody is right — and nobody is wrong,
every clergyman is sound — and none are unsound,
everybody is going to be saved — and nobody is going to be lost.

They dislike all doctrinal distinctness, and think that all extreme and decided and positive views, are very naughty and very wrong!

These people live in a kind of mist or fog. They see nothing clearly, and do not know what they believe. They have not made up their minds about any great point in the gospel, and seem content to be honorary members of all schools of thought. For their lives they could not tell you what they think is truth about justification or regeneration or sanctification or the Lord’s Supper or baptism or faith or conversion or inspiration or the future state. They are eaten up with a morbid dread of controversy and an ignorant dislike of “party spirit,” and yet they really cannot define what they mean by these phrases. The only point you can make out, is that they admire earnestness and cleverness and charity — and cannot believe that any clever, earnest, charitable man can ever be in the wrong! And so they live on undecided; and too often undecided they drift down to the grave, without comfort in their religion and, I am afraid, often without hope.

The explanation of this boneless, nerveless, jellyfish condition of soul is not difficult to find. To begin with, the heart of man is naturally in the dark about religion, has no intuitive sense of truth — and really needs instruction and illumination. Beside this, the natural heart in most men hates exertion in religion, and cordially dislikes patient painstaking inquiry. Above all, the natural heart generally likes the praise of others, shrinks from collision, and loves to be thought charitable and liberal. The whole result is that a kind of broad religious “agnosticism” just suits an immense number of people, and specially suits young people. They are content to shovel aside all disputed points as rubbish; and if you charge them with indecision, they will tell you, “I do not pretend to understand controversy; I decline to examine controverted points. I dare say it is all the same in the long run.” Who does not know that such people swarm and abound everywhere?

Now I do beseech all who read this message, to beware of this undecided state of mind in religion. It is a pestilence which walks in darkness, and a destruction that kills in noonday. It is a lazy, idle frame of soul which, doubtless, saves men the trouble of thought and investigation; but it is a frame of soul for which there is no warrant in the Bible. For your own soul’s sake, dare to make up your mind what you believe, and dare to have positive distinct views of truth and error. Never, never be afraid to hold decided doctrinal opinions; and let no fear of man and no morbid dread of being thought party-spirited, narrow or controversial — make you rest contented with a bloodless, boneless, tasteless, colorless, lukewarm, undogmatic Christianity.

Mark what I say. If you want to do good in these times — you must throw aside indecision, and take up a distinct, sharply cut, doctrinal religion. If you believe little, those to whom you try to do good will believe nothing. The victories of Christianity, wherever they have been won, have been won by distinct doctrinal theology, by telling men roundly of Christ’s vicarious death and sacrifice, by showing them Christ’s substitution on the cross and His precious blood, by teaching them justification by faith and bidding them believe on a crucified Savior by preaching . . .

ruin by sin,
redemption by Christ,
regeneration by the Spirit,

· by lifting up the bronze serpent, by telling men to look and live, to believe, repent and be converted. This, this is the only teaching which for eighteen centuries God has honored with success, and is honoring at the present day both at home and abroad. Let the clever advocates of a broad and undogmatic theology — the preachers of the gospel of earnestness and sincerity and cold morality — let them, I say, show us at this day any English village or parish or city or town or district, which has been evangelized without sound doctrine,” by their principles. They cannot do it, and they never will.

Christianity without distinct doctrine is a powerless thing. It may be beautiful to some minds, but it is childless and barren. There is no getting over facts. The good that is done in the earth may be comparatively small. Evil may abound and ignorant impatience may murmur, and cry out that Christianity has failed. But, depend on it, if we want to “do good” and shake the world — we must fight with the old apostolic weapons, and stick to sound doctrine. No sound doctrine — no fruits! No positive evangelical doctrine, no evangelization!

Mark once more what I say. The men who have done most for the Church of England, and made the deepest mark on their day and generation have always been men of most decided and distinct doctrinal views. It is the bold, decided outspoken man, like Capel Molyneux, or our grand old Protestant champion Hugh McNeile, who makes a deep impression, and sets people thinking, and “turns the world upside down”. It was sound doctrine in the apostolic ages, which emptied the heathen temples, and shook Greece and Rome. It was sound doctrine which awoke Christendom from its slumbers at the time of the Reformation, and spoiled the pope of one third of his subjects. It was sound doctrine which one hundred years ago revived the Church of England in the days of Whitefield, Wesley, Venn and Romaine, and blew up our dying Christianity into a burning flame! It is sound doctrine at this moment, which gives power to every successful mission, whether at home or abroad. It is doctrine — doctrine, clear ringing doctrine — which, like the ram’s horns at Jericho, casts down the opposition of the devil and sin. Let us cling to decided doctrinal views, whatever some may please to say in these times, and we shall do well for ourselves, well for others, well for the Church of England, and well for Christ’s cause in the world.

3. The times require a higher standard of personal holiness, and an increased attention to practical religion in daily life.

I must honestly declare my conviction that, since the days of the Reformation, there never has been . . .

so much profession of religion — without practice,
so much talking about God — without walking with Him,
so much hearing God’s Words — without doing them,
as there is at this present date.

Never were there so many empty tubs and tinkling cymbals!

Never was there so much formality — and so little reality!

The whole tone of men’s minds on what constitutes practical Christianity seems lowered. The old golden standard of the behavior which befits a Christian man or woman, appears debased and degenerated. You may see scores of religious people (so-called) continually doing things which in days gone by would have been thought utterly inconsistent with vital Christianity! They see no harm in such things as theater-going, dancing, incessant novel reading — and they cannot in the least understand what you mean by objecting to them! The ancient tenderness of conscience about such things seems dying away and becoming extinct, like the dodo-bird.

And when you venture to remonstrate with those who indulge in them, they only stare at you as an old-fashioned, narrow-minded, fossilized person, and say, “What is the harm?” In short, laxity and levity are the common characteristics of the rising generation of Christian professors.

Now in saying all this I would not be mistaken. I disclaim the slightest wish to recommend an ascetic religion. Monasteries, nunneries, complete retirement from the world, and refusal to do our duty in it — all these I hold to be unscriptural and mischievous panaceas. Nor can I ever see my way clear to urging on men an ideal standard of perfection for which I find no warrant in God’s Word, a standard which is unattainable in this life, and hands over the management of the affairs of society to the devil and the wicked. No, I always wish to promote a genial, cheerful, manly religion — such as men may carry everywhere, and yet glorify Christ.

The pathway to a higher standard of holiness, which I commend to the attention of my readers, is a very simple one, so simple that I can imagine many smiling at it with disdain. But, simple as it is, it is a path sadly neglected and overgrown with weeds, and it is high time to direct men into it. We need then to examine more closely our good old friends — the Ten Commandments. Beaten out, and properly developed as they were by the Puritans — the two tables of God’s law are a perfect mine of practical religion. I think it an evil sign of our day, that many clergymen neglect to have the commandments put up in their churches, and coolly tell you, “They are not needed now!” I believe they never were needed so much!

We need to examine more closely, such portions of our Lord Jesus Christ’s teaching, as the sermon on the mount. How rich is that wonderful discourse in food for thought! What a striking sentence that is, “Except your righteousness exceed, the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you shall never enter the kingdom of Heaven!” (Matthew 5:20). Alas, that text is rarely used.

Last, but not least, we need to study more closely the latter part of nearly all Paul’s Epistles to the churches. They are far too much slurred over and neglected. Scores of Bible readers, I am afraid, are well acquainted with the first eleven chapters of the Epistle to the Romans, but know comparatively little of the five last. When Thomas Scott expounded the Epistle to the Ephesians at the old Lock Chapel, he remarked that the congregations became much smaller when he reached the practical part of that blessed book! Once more I say that you may think my recommendations very simple. I do not hesitate to affirm that attention to them would, by God’s blessing, be most useful to Christ’s cause. I believe it would raise the standard of English Christianity about such matters as . . .

home religion,
separation from the world,
diligence in the discharge of relative duties,
unselfishness, good temper,
and general spiritual-mindedness — to a pitch which it seldom attains now.

There is a common complaint in these latter days that there is a lack of power in modern Christianity, and that the true church of Christ, the body of which He is the Head, does not shake the world in the nineteenth century as it used to do in former years. Shall I tell you in plain words what is the reason? It is the low tone of life which is so sadly prevalent among professing believers. We need more men and women who walk with God and before God, like Enoch and Abraham. Though our numbers at this date far exceed those of our evangelical forefathers, I believe we fall far short of them in our standard of Christian practice. Where is

the self-denial,
the redemption of time,
the absence of luxury and self-indulgence,
the unmistakable separation from earthly things,
the manifest air of being always about our Master’s business,
the singleness of eye,
the simplicity of home life,
the high tone of conversation in society,
the patience, the humility, the universal love — which marked Christians seventy or eighty years ago?

Yes, where is it indeed? We have inherited their principles and we wear their armor, but I fear we have not inherited their practice!

The Holy Spirit sees it, and is grieved; and the world sees it, and despises us.

The world sees it, and cares little for our testimony. It is life, life — a heavenly, godly, Christ-like life — depend on it, which influences the world.

Let us resolve, by God’s blessing, to shake off this reproach. Let us awake to a clear view of what the times require of us in this matter. Let us aim at a much higher standard of practice. Let the time past suffice us to have been content with a half-and-half holiness. For the time to come — let us endeavor to walk with God, to be thorough, and unmistakable in our daily life — and to silence, if we cannot convert, a sneering world.

4. Finally, the times require more regular and steady perseverance in the old ways of getting good for our souls.

I think no intelligent Englishman can fail to see that there has been of late years, an immense increase of what I must call, for lack of a better phrase — public religion in the land. Services of all sorts are strangely multiplied. Places of worship are thrown open for prayer and preaching and administration of the Lord’s Supper, at least ten times as much as they were fifty years ago. Services in cathedral naves, meetings in large public rooms, mission services carried on day after day and evening after evening — all these have become common and familiar things. They are, in fact, established institutions of the day, and the crowds who attend them supply plain proof that they are popular. In short, we find ourselves face to face with the undeniable fact, that the last quarter of the nineteenth century is an age of an immense amount of public religion.

Now I am not going to find fault with this. Let no one suppose that for a moment. On the contrary, I thank God for revival of the old apostolic plan of “aggressiveness” in religion, and the evident spread of a desire “by all means to save some” (1 Corinthians 9:22). I thank God for shortened services, home missions and evangelistic movements like that of Moody and Sankey. Anything is better than torpor, apathy and inaction. If Christ is preached — I rejoice, yes, and will rejoice (Phil. 1:18). Prophets and righteous men in England once desired to see these things, and never saw them. If Whitefield and Wesley had been told in their day, that a time would come when English archbishops and bishops would not only sanction mission services, but take an active part in them — I can hardly think they would have believed it. Rather, I suspect, they would have been tempted to say, like the Samaritan nobleman in Elisha’s time, “if the Lord would make windows in heaven — might this thing be?” (2 Kings 7:2).

But while we are thankful for the increase of public religion — we must never forget that, unless it is accompanied by private religion, it is of no real solid value, and may even produce most mischievous effects. Incessant running after sensational preachers, incessant attendance at hot crowded meetings protracted to late hours, incessant craving after fresh excitement and highly spiced pulpit novelties — all this kind of thing is calculated to produce a very unhealthy style of Christianity and, in many cases I am afraid, the end is utter ruin of soul. For, unhappily, those who make public religion everything, are often led away by mere temporary emotions, after some grand display of ecclesiastical oratory, into professing far more than they really feel. After this, they can only be kept up to the mark, which they imagine they have reached, by a constant succession of religious excitements. By and by, as with opium-eaters and dram-drinkers, there comes a time when their dose loses its power, and a feeling of exhaustion and discontent begins to creep over their minds. Too often, I fear, the conclusion of the whole matter is a relapse into utter deadness and unbelief, and a complete return to the world! And all results from having nothing but a public religion! Oh, that people would remember that it was not the wind, or the fire, or the earthquake, which showed Elijah the presence of God, but “the still small voice” (1 Kings 19:12).

Now I desire to lift up a warning voice on this subject. I want to see no decrease of public religion, remember; but I do want to promote an increase of that religion which is private — private between each man and his God. The root of a plant or tree makes no show above ground. If you dig down to it and examine it, it is a poor, dirty, coarse-looking thing and not nearly so beautiful to the eye as the fruit or leaf or flower. But that despised root, nevertheless, is the true source of all the life, health, vigor and fertility which your eyes see, and without it the plant or tree would soon die. Now private religion is the root of all vital Christianity. Without it — we may make a brave show in the meeting or on the platform, and sing loud, and shed many tears, and have a name to live, and the praise of man. But without it — we have no wedding garment, and are “dead before God”. I tell my readers plainly, that the times require of us all more attention to our private religion.

a. Let us pray more heartily in private, and throw our whole souls more into our prayers. There are live prayers — and there are dead prayers. There are prayers that cost us nothing — and prayers which often cost us strong crying and tears. What are yours? When great professors backslide in public, and the church is surprised and shocked — but the truth is, that they had long ago backslidden on their knees! They had neglected the throne of grace.

b. Let us read our Bibles in private more, and with more pains and diligence. Ignorance of Scripture is the root of all error, and makes a man helpless in the hand of the devil. There is less private Bible reading, I suspect, than there was fifty years ago. I never can believe that so many English men and women would have been “tossed to and fro with every wind of doctrine,” some falling into skepticism, some rushing into the wildest fanaticism, and some going over to Rome — if there had not grown up a habit of lazy, superficial, careless, perfunctory reading of God’s Word. “You are in error — not knowing the Scriptures” (Matthew 22:29). The Bible in the pulpit — must never supersede the Bible at home.

c. Let us cultivate the habit of keeping up more private meditation and communion with Christ. Let us resolutely make time for getting alone occasionally, for talking with our own souls like David, for pouring out our hearts to our great High Priest, Advocate, and Confessor at the right hand of God. We need more confession — but not to man. The confessional we need is not in a box in the vestry, but the throne of grace. I see some professing Christians always running about after spiritual food, always in public, and always out of breath and in a hurry, and never allowing themselves leisure to sit down quietly to digest, and take stock of their spiritual condition. I am never surprised if such Christians have a dwarfish, stunted religion, and do not grow; and if, like Pharaoh’s lean cows, they look no better for their public religious feasting, but rather worse. Spiritual prosperity depends immensely on our private religion — and private religion cannot flourish unless we determine that by God’s help we will make time, whatever trouble it may cost us . . .

for meditation,
for prayer,
for the Bible, and
for private communion with Christ.

Alas! That saying of our Master is sadly overlooked: “Enter into your closet and shut the door” (Matthew 6:6).

Our evangelical forefathers had far fewer means and opportunities than we have. Full religious meetings and crowds, except occasionally at a church or in a field, when such men as Whitefield or Wesley or Rowlands preached — these were things of which they knew nothing. Their proceedings were neither fashionable nor popular, and often brought on them more persecution and abuse than praise. But the few weapons they used — they used well. With less noise and applause from man — they made a far deeper mark for God on their generation than we do — with all our conferences, and meetings, and mission rooms, and halls, and multiplied religious appliances. Their converts, I suspect, like the old-fashioned cloths and linens, wore better, and lasted longer, and faded less, and kept color, and were more stable and rooted and grounded — than many of the newborn babes of this day. And what was the reason of all this? Simply, I believe, because they gave more attention to private religion, than we generally do. They walked closely with God and honored Him in private — and so He honored them in public. Oh, let us follow them — as they followed Christ! Let us go and do likewise.

Let me now conclude this message with a few words of practical application.

1. Do you want to understand what the times require of you in reference to your own soul? Listen, and I will tell you. You live in times of peculiar spiritual danger. Never perhaps were there more traps and pitfalls in the way to Heaven. Never certainly were those traps so skillfully baited, and those pitfalls so ingeniously made. Mind what you are about. Look well to your goings. Ponder the paths of your feet. Take heed lest you come to eternal grief, and ruin your own soul.

Beware of practical infidelity under the specious name of free thought. Beware of a helpless state of indecision about doctrinal truth under the plausible idea of not being party-spirited, and under the baneful influence of so-called liberality and charity. Beware of frittering away life in wishing and meaning and hoping for the day of decision, until the door is shut, and you are given over to a dead conscience, and die without hope. Awake to a sense of your danger. Arise and give diligence to make your calling and election sure, whatever else you leave uncertain.

The kingdom of God is very near. Christ the almighty Savior, Christ the sinner’s Friend, Christ and eternal life, are ready for you — if you will only come to Christ. Arise and cast away excuses; this very day Christ calls you. Wait not for company, if you cannot have it; wait for nobody. The times, I repeat, are desperately dangerous. If only few are in the narrow way of life — resolve that by God’s help you at any rate will be among the few.

2. Do you want to understand what the times require of all Christians in reference to the souls of others? Listen, and I will tell you. You live in times of great liberty and abounding opportunities of doing good. Never were there so many open doors of usefulness, so many fields white to the harvest. Mind that you use those open doors, and try to reap those fields. Try to do a little good before you die. Strive to be useful. Determine that by God’s help, you will leave the world a better world in the day of your burial — than it was in the day you were born. Remember the souls of relatives, friends and companions; remember that God often works by weak instruments, and try with holy ingenuity to lead them to Christ. The time is short, and the sand is running out of the hour-glass of this old world; then redeem the time, and endeavor not to go to Heaven alone.

No doubt you cannot command success. It is not certain that your efforts to do good will always do good to others, but it is quite certain that they will always do good to yourself. Exercise, exercise, is one grand secret of health — both for body and soul. “He who waters — shall be watered himself” (Proverbs 11:25). It is a deep and golden saying of our Master’s, but seldom understood in its full meaning, “It is more blessed to give, than to receive” (Acts 20:35).

3. In the last place, would you understand what the times require of you in reference to the Church of England? Listen to me, and I will tell you. No doubt you live in days when our time-honored church is in a very perilous, distressing and critical position. Her rowers have brought her into troubled waters. Her very existence is endangered by papists, infidels, and liberationists without. Her life-blood is drained away by the behavior of traitors, false friends and timid officers within. Nevertheless, so long as the Church of England sticks firmly to the Bible, the Articles, and the principles of the Protestant Reformation — so long I advise you strongly to stick to the church. When the Articles are thrown overboard, and the old flag is hauled down — then, and not until then, it will be time for you and me to launch the boats and leave the wreck. At present, let us stick to the old ship!

Inerrancy Means Freedom

Posted by Dan C. on May 17, 2012

“Any degree of skepticism about the portrait of Christ, the promises of God, the principles of godliness, and the power of the Holy Spirit, as biblically presented, has the effect of enslaving us to our own alternative ideas about these things, and thus we miss something of the freedom, joy, and vitality that the real Christ bestows. God is very patient and merciful, and I do not suggest that those who fall short here thereby forfeit all knowledge of Christ, though I recognize that when one sits loose to Scripture this may indeed happen. But I do maintain most emphatically that one cannot doubt the Bible without far-reaching loss, both in fullness of truth and of fullness of life. If therefore we have at heart spiritual renewal for society, for churches and for our own lives, we shall make much of the entire trustworthiness–that is, the inerrancy–of Holy Scripture as the inspired and liberating Word of God.” (Truth and Power, 55) – J. I. Packer

A Sure & Certain Promise

Posted by Dan C. on May 16, 2012

“If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love you as its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you.” (John 15:18-19 ESV)

John 15 is probably best known as the chapter about Jesus as the true vine and his followers as the branches, with ‘abiding in the vine’ as its main theme. I Googled ‘abiding in the vine’ and received 995,000 results. I scanned 50 pages (10 entries per page) of results and it appeared that nearly every link pointed to John 15.

However, near the end of the chapter we have the above verses, spoken to his closest disciples as He was preparing them for his departure and their subsequent mission of spreading the message of the gospel. I can’t remember the last time I heard a sermon built around the certain promise of persecution to the followers of Christ. If they did it would clash with the previous ones about the grand, wonderful purpose God has for each of us, along with the promises of our best lives now.

Perhaps some think that the promise of persecution just pertained to the disciples about to be commissioned by Jesus to proclaim the gospel, but not followers today. That doesn’t hold much water however, since spreading the message of the gospel has been given to all believers for all time, and the character of the ‘world’ in our text has not changed.

With that in mind, let’s take a closer look at the text, break it into smaller pieces with an eye to application in today’s ‘world’.

“If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love you as its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you.” (John 15:18-29 ESV)

“If the world hates you…”

At first glance, the presence of the hypothetical ‘if’ let’s us off the hook. An ‘if’ is not a certainty; therefore it’s not a certainty that the world will hate the genuine follower of Christ. Not yet. We’ll get to that in a bit.

What is meant by the ‘world’ (kosmos) in these verses? Literally, it means “orderly arrangement, that is, decoration; by implication the world (in a wide or narrow sense, including its inhabitants, literally or figuratively [morally]): – adorning, world.” (Strong’s G2889). Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon expands inhabitants to specifically mean “the ungodly multitude; the whole mass of men alienated from God, and therefore hostile to the cause of Christ”.

That definition of world definitely fits the context of our passages. The inanimate world cannot hate, but its inhabitants can, as we are told in verse 18 that the ‘world’ in fact hated Christ. As further proof we have the accounts of certain ‘inhabitants’ of Jesus’ world who sought to capture and kill him. (See John 7 & 11).

“If you were of the world…”

Here again we have the big ‘if’ and a hypothetical that seems to let us off the hook. Here again we have the term ‘world’ meaning the fallen world system set against God and his Son, and the phrase ‘of the world’, or belonging to that world system. You could easily ask “Aren’t we all ‘of the world’ since we are born into it?” The answer would be yes, and as our passage tells us, as long as we are ‘of’ the world the world the world’s inhabitants will love us

Now for the BIG question.

Are we ‘of’ the world?

“…because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you.”

Not only did Jesus tell his disciples (and us) that they were not of the world, he told them why they were not of the world, that he had chosen them out of the world, or from among the world’s mass of fallen humanity. And because they were not of the world, the world hated them and it will hate all those who profess Christ and proclaim the gospel. The ‘world’ has not changed and neither has the message of the gospel. Yes, there were a couple of ‘ifs’ in our text, but there also was and is a certain and sure promise of persecution for all those who have been chosen out of the world for the cause of Christ.

What does it all mean?

First of all we can draw from our short text that the world hates Christ, and therefore it hates Christians, then and now. We also might have cause for concern if the ‘world’ loves us. What does that mean? How do we know if the ‘world’ loves us? For the answer to that, all we need do is consider verse 20 in the same Chapter of John:

“Remember the word that I said to you: ‘A servant is not greater than his master.’ If they persecuted me, they will also persecute you.” (John 15:20 ESV)

Just as Jesus was persecuted for just being himself (the Son of God), his followers will be persecuted because of whom they are as believers in Christ and messengers of the gospel. No obnoxiousness required – just be a faithful messenger of the gospel message and a lot of them will run away. They will either run away or avoid you like the plague because to them you are the fragrance of death, reminding them of God and judgment. (See 2 Cor 2:15-16)

A. W. Tozer summed up the situation and our responsibility as believers quite nicely:

“Those first believers turned to Christ with the full understanding that they were espousing an unpopular cause that could cost them everything. Shortly after Pentecost some were jailed, many lost all their earthly goods, a few were slain, hundreds were ‘scattered abroad.’ They could have escaped all this by the simple expedient of denying their faith and turning back to the world. This they steadfastly refused to do.

To make converts, we are tempted to play down the difficulties and play up the peace of mind and worldly success enjoyed by those who accept Christ. We will never be completely honest with our hearers until we tell them the blunt truth that, as members of a race of moral rebels, they are in a serious jam, and one they will not get out of easily. If they refuse to repent and believe on Christ, they will most surely perish. If they do turn to Him, the same enemies that crucified Him will try to crucify them”.

At the same time, there are those who will not run away or avoid you. They are those in whom God has begun a work of grace and to whom you are a fragrance of life. ”

“For we are the aroma of Christ to God among those who are being saved and among those who are perishing, to one a fragrance from death to death, to the other a fragrance from life to life.” (2 Cor 2:15-16)

What are we to do?

First, don’t invite persecution from the ‘world’, but don’t try to avoid it either. It comes with the territory and it might in fact be a good and true testimony that you are being who you should be as a believer abiding in Christ.

Second and equally important, continue to be faithful in spreading the message of the gospel that includes the topic of sin and the need to ‘repent and believe’.

Finally, remember Paul’s words in the matter:

“For the sake of Christ, then, I am content with weaknesses, insults, hardships, persecutions, and calamities. For when I am weak, then I am strong.” (2 Cor 12:10)

May God richly bless you as you as you labor for the cause of the Gospel!

What Evangelism Is Not

Posted by Dan C. on May 14, 2012

By Dr. Kevin Schrum

The Great Commission Resurgence proposals within the Southern Baptist Convention have reminded us of the high priority of evangelism and local/global missions. The same is true of many denominations across the theological spectrum of beliefs as Christian leaders worldwide seek to regain strongholds of spiritual influence in North America and Europe. However, unless we’re cautious and clear, a sloppy, imprecise definition of missions and evangelism will destroy renewal efforts. Let’s define evangelism by what it is not and then by what it is.

Evangelism is not…

1. Evangelism is not denominational renewal, reconstruction, or even deconstruction.

Sometimes, these are necessary to advance the cause of evangelism, but they are not evangelism. Denominations and ecclesiastical structures need occasional, healthy upheaval. But unless we’re careful, we may end up thinking that one more meeting and a new way of doing things constitutes evangelism. Structural reorganizations may end up being commensurate with rearranging chairs on the deck of the Titanic.

2. Evangelism is not inviting people to church or an evangelistic event.

Inviting people to events is important, but it’s not evangelism — it is pre-evangelism.

3. Evangelism is not imposing our will or beliefs on another person.

We make no apologies for attempting to persuasively make the case for Christianity. But in the end, only God can change the human heart.

4. Evangelism is not personal testimony.

A personal testimony does not save a sinner. The Gospel does. It’s quite right to support a Gospel presentation with what the Gospel has done in one’s life. Yet, we must never confuse the Gospel itself with a personal testimony.

5. Evangelism is not social work/justice or political involvement.

There’s absolutely nothing wrong with seeking social justice, feeding the homeless, clothing the naked, and addressing institutional-political injustices. But social justice, food in a hungry belly, and a jacket on the back of a homeless man do not prepare that soul for eternity. Good deeds complement the Gospel enterprise; they do not replace it.

6. Evangelism is not doing apologetics in order to win an argument.

Apologetics is a necessary part of the Christian mission. Apologetics can help answer questions and remove intellectual objections, but only the Gospel of Jesus Christ can change the heart.

7. Evangelism is not the results of evangelism.

It is very easy to get caught up in numbers in the church business. And numbers are important. Even Jesus told three successive stories involving numbers in Luke 15 — one lost sheep, one lost coin, and two lost sons. But souls are not notches in our belt or numbers on our denominational charts. "One" represents a precious soul for whom Christ died. This means that we are to communicate the Gospel regardless of the results — God alone takes care of the results.

8. Evangelism is not church planting.

Church planting is biblical and necessary. Many church plants succeed at a higher rate of growth than already established churches. But it’s not because of the magical words — "church plant." The reason church plants grow fast for a season is because the believers of that new church have been reminded of the basics of one person sharing the Good News with another person.

Evangelism is…

So what is evangelism? Evangelism is a believer sharing the person/claims of the Gospel of Jesus Christ with a person who has yet to believe the claims of the Gospel or trust the person at the center of the Gospel — Jesus Christ. The Gospel is "that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures." (1 Corinthians 15:3-4; Romans 10:9-13) The Gospel is clearly stating what God has done in Christ for the sinner, calling for repentance and belief. To fail to do this is to fail at evangelism. All the other dimensions of church life are but outgrowths and/or complements to the Gospel itself.

___________

Dr. Kevin Shrum has been in ministry for 29 years, currently pastors Inglewood Baptist Church in Nashville, Tennessee, and is an Adjunct Professor of Theology for Union University in Jackson, Tennessee.

Evolution’s End? President Obama Calls for Same-Sex Marriage

Posted by Dan C. on May 10, 2012

Al Mohler – Thursday, May 10, 2012

Is President Obama’s “evolution” on same sex marriage finally complete? His call for the legalization of same-sex marriage yesterday is an historic and tragic milestone. An incumbent President of the United States has now called for a transformation of civilization’s central institution. And yet, no observer of this president could be surprised. The arrival of this announcement was only a matter of time.

The White House confirmed this within hours of the President’s announcement. As The New York Times reported on May 10, “Advisers say now that Mr. Obama had intended since early this year to define his position sometime before Democrats nominate him for re-election in September.”

Previous news reports indicated that the 2012 platform for the Democratic Party would likely include a call for same-sex marriage. The pressure was on the White House, with the President caught in an awkward and embarrassing situation in which major figures on both sides of the controversy believed that his public position did not reflect his true convictions.

In December of 2010, the President told Jake Tapper of ABC News, “My feelings about this are constantly evolving.” Last October, he told George Stephanopoulos, “I’m still working on it.” As Dan Amira of New York magazine summarized that comment, “President Obama won’t say if he’ll stop pretending to oppose gay marriage before the election.”

In August of 2008, running for the White House, President Obama had said: “I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Now, for me as a Christian — for me — for me as a Christian, it is also a sacred union. God’s in the mix.”

In February of 1996, running for state office in Illinois, Obama signed a letter to a homosexual newspaper in Chicago that included the statement, “I favor legalizing same-sex marriages, and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages.” So, his statement today puts him back where he was on the record as recently as 1996 — calling for the legalization of same-sex marriage.

The President’s position since 2008 has been untenable. Having endorsed same-sex marriage when running for office in 1996, he evidently changed his position as he ran for the U. S. Senate in 2004 and for president in 2008. Since then, his language and his actions have been contradictory. He has said that he opposes same-sex marriage, but he ordered his Attorney General not to defend the Defense of Marriage Act. Officials in his administration openly advocated same-sex marriage, even as the President dropped hint after hint that he did as well. The President found himself facing the fact that he would have to declare himself one way or the other on the question as the 2012 election unfolded — so now we know.

Why now? The Washington Post reports that he was under intense pressure from many Democrats, including his major campaign fundraisers. According to the paper’s report, one in six of the President’s major “bundlers,” or fundraisers, is a self-identified homosexual.

The immediate pressure came after Vice President Joe Biden said last Sunday that he was “completely comfortable” with same-sex marriage. The Vice President’s statement on the issue delivered full support for same-sex marriage. On Monday, Secretary of Education Arne Duncan followed Biden’s lead.

The President was under intense pressure within his party, but the issue quickly turned to an issue of presidential character. No one made this point more directly than Ruth Marcus of The Washington Post, in a column that ran yesterday morning. “Same-sex marriage is turning into a test of character and leadership for President Obama,” she wrote, “Does he favor it, or doesn’t he? In the wake of Vice President Biden’s remarks supportive of marriage equality, the continued presidential equivocation makes Obama look weak and evasive”

She wasn’t finished. “The longer Obama waits, the worse he looks. The president’s first stall tactic, that he is ‘evolving’ on the issue, doesn’t cut it anymore. Even Darwin would have lost patience by now. His second approach, the not-gonna-make-news-for-you-today cop-out, has also worn thin. If you wonder whether the president actually opposes same-sex marriage, doesn’t evolution imply change? And if you think perhaps he’s still conflicted — well, that’s hardly an advertisement to be leader of the free world. At this point, Obama’s reticence is looking cowardly.”

The President could probably survive that kind of criticism from conservatives, but not from liberals. Clearly, he had to clarify his position.

The President chose to make his statement in an interview with ABC. His statement was really not a serious argument for the legalization of same-sex marriage, however. He spoke of the issue as if it is a matter of personal taste.He told ABC’s Robin Roberts that “at a certain point I’ve just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same-sex couples should be able to get married.”

He made his statement the day after voters in North Carolina voted overwhelmingly in support of defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman — the 30th state to have taken such action.

Honesty is the best policy, and the President has now made his position clear. He is again for what he was until today against, but that was only after he was for it before. The American people will have to unravel that as an issue of character. He is hardly the first politician to find himself holding to an “evolving” position on an issue of fundamental importance. Most politicians, however, do their best to avoid the kind of situation in which the President found himself on this issue.

In any event, the fact remains that the President of the United States has now put himself publicly on the line for the radical redefinition of marriage, subverting society’s most central institution.

This is a sad day for America, but the President’s statement was not a surprise. Given the political context he faced, the only question was when the President would make his public statement of endorsement for the legalization of same-sex marriage. We now know the answer to that question.

This is a sad day for marriage, but now we know the truth.

I am always glad to hear from readers. Write me at mail@albertmohler.com. Follow regular updates on Twitter at www.twitter.com/AlbertMohler

Ruth Marcus, “Obama’s Moment on Gay Marriage,” The Washington Post, Wednesday, May 9, 2012. In the newspaper’s print edition, the column was headlined, “Gay Marriage Cowardice.” http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/obamas-moment-on-gay-marriage/2012/05/08/gIQAjACUBU_story.html

Transcript, Presidential Candidates Forum, Saddleback Community Church, CNN, August 17, 2008. http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0808/17/se.01.html

Devin Dwyer, “Timeline of Obama’s ‘Evolving’ on Same-Sex Marriage,” ABC News, Wednesday, May 9, 2012. http://gma.yahoo.com/timeline-obamas-evolving-same-sex-marriage-162626930–abc-news-politics.html

Dan Amira, “President Obama Won’t Say if He’ll Stop Pretending to Oppose Gay Marriage Before the Election,” New York, October 3, 2011. http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2011/10/president_obama_wont_say_wheth.html

Dan Eggen, “Same-Sex Marriage Issue Shows Importance of Gay Fundraisers, “The Influence Industry,” The Washington Post, Wednesday, May 9, 2012. http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/same-sex-marriage-debate-many-of-obamas-top-fundraisers-are-gay/2012/05/09/gIQASJYSDU_story.html

Do nothing. . .

Posted by Dan C. on May 10, 2012

“Do nothing that you would not like God to see. Say nothing you would not like God to hear. Go no place where you would not like God to find you. Never spend your time in such a way that you would not like God to say, ‘What are you doing?'” ~ J.C. Ryle

Authentic Religion – by J. C. Ryle (1816-1900)

Posted by Dan C. on May 9, 2012

"Rejected silver" (Jeremiah 6:30)

"Nothing but leaves" (Mark 11:13)

"Let us not love with words or tongue but with actions and in truth" (1 John 3:18).

"You have a reputation of being alive, but you are dead" (Revelation 3:1)

If we profess to have any religion at all, let us be careful that it is authentic. I say it emphatically, and I repeat the saying: Let us be careful that our religion is authentic.

What do I mean when I use the word "authentic." I mean that which is genuine, and sincere, and honest, and thorough. I mean that which is not inferior, and hollow, and formal, and false, and counterfeit, and sham, and nominal. "Authentic" religion is not mere show, and pretense, and skin-deep feeling, and temporary profession, and works only on the outside. It is something inward, solid, substantial, intrinsic, living, lasting. We know the difference between counterfeit and authentic money–between solid gold and tinsel–between plated metal and silver–between authentic stone and plaster imitation. Let us think of these things as we consider the subject of this paper. What is the character of our religion? Is it authentic? It may be weak, and feeble, and mingled with many defects. That is not the point before us today. Is our religion authentic? Is it true?

The times in which we live demand attention to this subject. A want of authenticity is a striking feature of a vast amount of religion in the present day. Poets have sometimes told us that the world has passed through four different states or conditions. We have had a golden age, and a silver age, a brass age, and an iron age. How far this is true, I do not stop to inquire. But I fear there is little doubt as to the character of the age in which we live. It is universally an age of cheap metal and alloy. If we measure the religion of the age by its apparent quantity, there is much of it. But if we measure it by its quality, there is indeed very little. On every side we want MORE AUTHENTICITY.

I ask your attention, while I try to bring home to men’s consciences the question of this paper. There are two things which I propose to do:

I. In the first place, I will show the "importance of authenticity in religion."

II. In the second place, I will supply "some tests by which we may prove whether our own religion is authentic."

Does any reader of this paper have any desire to go to heaven when he dies? Do you wish to have a religion which will comfort you in life, give you good hope in death, and survive the judgment of God at the last day? Then, do not turn away from the subject before you. Sit down, and consider calmly, whether your Christianity is authentic and true, or counterfeit and hollow.

I. I have to show "the importance of authenticity in religion."

The point is one which, at first sight, may seem to require very few remarks to establish it. All men, I am told, are fully convinced of the importance of authenticity. But is this true? Can it indeed be said that authenticity is rightly judged among Christians? I deny it entirely. The greater part of people who profess to admire authenticity, seem to think that everyone possesses it! "They tell us that all have got good hearts," and that all are sincere and true for the most part, though they may make mistakes. They call us unchristian, and harsh, and censorious, if we doubt anybody’s goodness of heart. In short, they destroy the value of authenticity by regarding it as a thing, which almost every one has.

This widespread delusion is precisely one of the causes why I take up this subject. I want men to understand that "authenticity" is a far more rare and uncommon thing than is commonly supposed. I want men to see that "unreality" is one of the great dangers of which Christians ought to beware.

What does the Scripture say? This is the only judge that can try the subject. Let us turn to our Bibles, and examine them fairly, and then deny, if we can, the importance of authenticity in religion, and the danger of not being authentic.

(1) Let us look then, for one thing, at the parables spoken by our Lord Jesus Christ. Observe how many of them are intended to put in strong contrast the true believer and the mere nominal disciple (in name only). The parables of the sower, of the weeds, of the net, of the two sons, of the wedding garment, of the ten virgins, of the talents, of the great banquet, of the ten minas, of the two builders, all have one great point in common. They all bring out in striking colors the difference between authenticity and unreality in religion. They all show the uselessness and danger of any Christianity which is not authentic, thorough, and true.

(2) Let us look, for another thing, at the language of our Lord Jesus Christ about the scribes and the Pharisees. Eight times in one chapter we find Him denouncing them as "hypocrites," in words of almost fearful severity–"You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell?" (Matthew 23:33). What can we learn from these tremendously strong expressions? How is it that our gracious and merciful Savior used such cutting words about people who at any rate were more moral and decent than the tax collectors and prostitutes? It is meant to teach us the exceeding detestableness of false profession and mere outward religion in God’s sight. Open wickedness and willful submission to fleshly lusts are no doubt ruinous sins, if not given up. But there seems nothing which is so displeasing to Christ as hypocrisy and unreality.

(3) Let us also look at the startling fact, that there is hardly a grace in the character of a true Christian of which you will not find a counterfeit described in the Word of God. There is not a feature in a believer’s countenance of which there is not an imitation. Give me your attention, and I will show you this in a few examples.

Is there not a false "repentance?" Without a doubt there is. Saul and Ahab, and Herod, and Judas Iscariot had many feelings of sorrow about sin. But they never really repented unto salvation.

Is there not a false "faith?" Without a doubt there is. It is written of Simon Magus, at Samaria, that he "believed," and yet his heart was not right in the sight of God. It is even written of the devils that they "believe and shudder" (Acts 8:13; James 2:19).

Is there not a false "holiness." Without a doubt there is. Joash, king of Judah, appeared to everyone very holy and good, so long as Jehoiada the priest lived. But as soon as he died the religion of Joash died at the same time (2 Chronicles 24:2). Judas Iscariot’s outward life was as correct as that of any of the apostles up to the time that he betrayed his Master. There was nothing suspicious about him. Yet in reality he was "a thief" and a traitor (John 12:6).

Is there not a false "love and kindness?" Without a doubt there is. There is a love which consists in words and tender expressions, and a great show of affection, and calling other people "dear brethren," while the heart does not love at all. It is not for nothing that John says, "Let us not love with words or tongue but with actions and in truth."

It was not without cause that Paul said: "Love must be sincere." (1 John 3:18; Romans 12:19).

Is there not a false "humility?" Without a doubt there is. There is a pretended meekness of demeanor, which often covers over a very proud heart. Paul warns us against a "forced humility," and speaks of "having an appearance of wisdom, with their self-imposed worship, their false humility" (Colossians 2:18, 23).

Is there not a false "praying?" Without a doubt there is. Our Lord denounces it as one of the special sins of the Pharisees–that for a "show make lengthy prayers" (Matthew 23:14). He does not charge them with not praying, or with praying short prayers. Their sin lay in this, that their prayers were not authentic.

Is there not a false "worship?" Without a doubt there is. Our Lord said of the Jews: "These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me" (Matthew 15:8). They had plenty of formal services in their temples and their synagogues. But the fatal defect about them was want of authenticity and heart.

Is there not a lot of false "talking" about religion? Without a doubt there is. Ezekiel describes some professing Jews who talked and spoke like God’s people "but their hearts are greedy for unjust gain" (Ezekiel 33:31). Paul tells us that we may "speak in the tongues of men and of angels," and yet be no better than a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. (1 Corinthians 13:1).

What shall we say about these things? To say the least they ought to set us thinking. To my own mind they seem to lead to only one conclusion. They show clearly the immense importance which Scripture attaches to authenticity in religion. They show clearly we need to be careful lest our Christianity turn out to be merely nominal, formal, unreal, and inferior.

The subject is of deep importance in every age. There has never been a time, since the Church of Jesus Christ was founded, when there has not been a vast amount of trivial and mere nominal religion among professing Christians. I am sure it is the case in the present day. Wherever I turn my eyes I see abundant cause for the warning, "Beware of inferior religion. Be genuine. Be thorough. Be authentic. Be true."

How much religion among some members of the Church consists of "nothing but churchmanship!" They belong to the Established Church. They are baptized in her baptistery, married in her sanctuary, preached to on Sundays by her ministers. But the great doctrines and truths preached from her pulpits have no place in their hearts, and no influence on their lives. They neither think, nor feel, nor care, nor know anything about them. And is the religion of these people authentic Christianity? It is nothing of the kind. It is a cheap imitation. It is not the Christianity of Peter, and James, and John, and Paul. It is "Churchianity," and no more.

How much religion among some Independents consists of "nothing but disagreement!" They pride themselves on having nothing to do with the formal denomination church. They rejoice in having no ritual, no forms, no bishops. They glory in the exercise of their private judgment, and the absence of everything ceremonial in their public worship. But all this time they have neither grace, nor faith, nor repentance, nor holiness, nor spirituality of conduct or conversation. The experimental and practical piety of the old Separatist is a thing of which they are utterly destitute. Their Christianity is as sapless and fruitless as a dead tree, and as dry and marrowless as an old bone. And is the Christianity of these people authentic? It is nothing of the kind. It is cheap imitation. It is not the Christianity of the Reformers of the past. It is "Nonconformity" and nothing more.

How much Ritualistic religion is utterly false! You will sometimes see men boiling over with zeal about outward expressions of worship such as church music and order of service, while their hearts are manifestly in the world. Of the inward work of the Holy Spirit–of living faith in the Lord Jesus–of delight in the Bible and religious conversation–of separation from worldly silliness and entertainment–of zeal for the conversion of souls to Christ–of all these things they are profoundly ignorant. And is this kind of Christianity authentic? It is nothing of the kind. It is a mere name.

How much Evangelical religion is completely make believe? You will sometimes see men professing great affection for the pure "Gospel," while they are, practically speaking, inflicting on it the greatest injury. They will talk loudly of soundness in the faith, and have a keen nose for heresy. They will run eagerly after popular preachers, and applaud evangelical speakers at public meetings. They are familiar with all the phrases of evangelical religion, and can converse fluently about its leading doctrines. To see their faces at public meetings, or in church, you would think they were eminently godly. To hear them talk you would suppose their lives were tied up all kinds of religious activity. And yet these people in private will sometimes do things of which even some heathens would be ashamed. They are neither truthful, nor sincere, nor honest, nor just, nor good-tempered, nor unselfish, nor merciful, nor humble, nor kind! And is such Christianity as this authentic? It is not. It is a worthless fake, a wretched cheat and farce.

How much Revivalist religion in the present day is utterly false! You will find a crowd of false believers bringing discredit on the work of God wherever the Holy Spirit is poured out. How many people today will profess to be suddenly convinced of sin, to find peace in Jesus–to be overwhelmed with joys and ecstasies of soul–while in authenticity of religion they have no grace at all. Like the "rocky-soil" hearers, they endure but for a short time. "In the time of testing they fall away" (Luke 8:13). As soon as the first excitement has passed, they return to their old ways, and resume their former sins. Their religion is like Jonah’s gourd, which came up in a night and perished in a night. They have neither root nor vitality. They only injure God’s cause and give occasion to God’s enemies to blaspheme. And is Christianity like this authentic? It is nothing of the kind. It is a cheap imitation from the devil’s mint, and is worthless in God’s sight.

I write these things with sorrow. I have no desire to bring any section of the Church of Christ into contempt. I have no wish to cast any slur on any movement which begins with the Spirit of God. But the times demand very plain speaking about some points in the prevailing Christianity of our day. And one point, I am quite sure demands attention, is the abounding lack of authenticity which is to be seen on every side.

No reader, at any rate, can deny that the subject of the paper before him is of vast importance.

II. I pass on now to the second thing which I propose to do. "I will supply some tests by which we may try the reality of our religion."

In approaching this part of my subject, I ask every reader of this paper to deal fairly, honestly, and reasonably with his soul. Dismiss from your mind the common idea–that of course all is right if you go to church. Cast away such vain notions forever. You must look further, higher, and deeper than this, if you would find out the truth. Listen to me, and I will give you a few hints. Believe me, it is no light matter. It is your life.

(1) If you want to know whether your religion is authentic, try it by "the place it occupies" in your inner man.

It is not enough that it is in your "head." You may know the truth, and assent to the truth, and believe the truth, and yet be wrong in God’s sight. It is not enough that it is on your "lips." You may say "Amen" to public prayer in church, and yet have nothing more than an outward religion. It is not enough that it is in your "feelings." You may weep under preaching one day, and be lifted to the third heaven by joyous excitement another day, and yet be dead to God. Your religion, if it is authentic, and given by the Holy Spirit, must be in your heart. It must hold the reins. It must sway the affections. It must lead the will. It must direct the tastes. It must influence the choices and decisions. It must fill the deepest, lowest, inmost seat in your soul. Is this your religion? If not, you may have good reason to doubt whether it is "authentic" and true. (Acts 8:21; Romans 10:10)

(2) If you want to know whether your religion is authentic, try it by the "feelings towards sin" which it produces.

The Christianity which is from the Holy Spirit will always have a very deep view of the sinfulness of sin. It will not merely regard sin as a blemish and misfortune, which makes men and women objects of pity, and compassion. It will see in sin the abominable thing which God hates, the thing which makes man guilty and lost in his Maker’s sight, the thing which deserves God’s wrath and condemnation. It will look on sin as the cause of all sorrow and unhappiness, of strife and wars, of quarrels and contentions, of sickness and death–the curse which cursed God’s beautiful creation, the cursed thing which makes the whole earth groan and struggle in pain. Above all, it will see in sin the thing which will ruin us eternally, unless we can find a ransom,–lead us captive, except we can get its chains broken,–and destroy our happiness, both here and hereafter, except we fight against it, even unto death. Is this your religion? Are these your feelings about sin? If not, you should doubt whether your religion is "authentic."

(3) If you want to know whether your religion is authentic, try it by the "feelings toward Christ" which it produces.

Nominal religion may believe that such a person as Christ existed, and was a great helper to mankind. It may show Him some external respect, attend the celebration of the Lord’s Supper, and bow the head at His name. But it will go no further. Authentic religion will make a man glory in Christ, as the Redeemer, the Deliverer, the Priest, the Friend, without whom he would have no hope at all. It will produce confidence in Him, love towards Him delight in Him, comfort in Him, as the mediator, the food, the light, the life, the peace of the soul. Is this your religion? Do you know anything of feelings like these toward Jesus Christ? If not, you have every reason to doubt whether your religion is "authentic."

(4) If you want to know whether your religion is authentic, try it by "the fruit it bears in your heart and life."

The Christianity which is from above will always be known by its fruits. It will produce in the man who has it repentance, faith, hope, love, humility, spirituality, kindness, self-denial, unselfishness, forgiving spirit, moderation, truthfulness, hospitality, and patience.

The degree in which these various graces appear may vary in different believers. The germ and seeds of them will be found in all who are the children of God. By their fruits they will be known. Is this your religion? If not, you should doubt whether it is "authentic."

(5) If you want to know whether your religion is authentic, try it by "your feelings and habits about means of grace."

Prove it by the Sunday. Is that day a time of fatigue and pressure, or a delight and refreshment, and a sweet anticipation of the rest to come in heaven? Prove it by the public means of grace. What are your feelings about public prayer and public praise, about the public preaching of God’s Word, and the administration of the Lord’s Supper? Are they things to which you give a cold assent, and tolerate them as proper and correct? Or, are they things in which you take pleasure, and without which you could not be happy? Prove it, finally, by your feelings about private means of grace. Do you find it essential to your comfort to read the Bible regularly in private, and to speak to God in prayer? Or, do you find these practices boring, and either slight them, or neglect them altogether? These questions deserve your attention. If means of grace, whether public or private, are not as necessary to your soul as food and drink are to your body, you may well doubt whether your religion is "authentic."

I press on the attention of all my readers the five points which I have just named. There is nothing like coming to particulars about these matters. If you want to know whether your religion is "authentic," genuine, and true, measure it by the five particulars which I have now named. Measure it fairly: test it honestly. If your heart is right in the sight of God, you have no cause to flinch from examination. If it is wrong, the sooner you find it out the better.

And now I have done what I proposed to do. I have shown from Scripture the unspeakable importance of authenticity in religion, and the danger in which many stand of being lost forever, for want of it. I have given five plain tests, by which a man may find out whether his Christianity is authentic. I will conclude all by a direct application of the whole subject to the souls of all who read this paper. I will draw my bow and trust that God will bring an arrow home to the hearts and consciences of many.

(1) My first word of application will be "a question."

Is your own religion authentic or false? genuine or fake? I do not ask what you think about others. Perhaps you may see many hypocrites around you. You may be able to point to many who have no "authenticity" at all. This is not the question. You may be right in your opinion about others. But I want to know about yourself. Is your own Christianity authentic and true? or nominal and counterfeit?

If you love life, do not turn away from the question which is now before you. The time must come when the whole truth will be known. The judgment day will reveal every man’s religion, of what sort it is. The parable of the wedding-clothes will receive an awful fulfillment. Surely it is a thousand times better to find out "now" your condition, and to repent, than to find it out too late in the next world, when there will be no opportunity for repentance. If you have common sense, reason, and judgment, consider what I say. Sit down quietly this day, and examine yourself. Find out the authentic character of your religion. With the Bible in your hand, and honesty in your heart, the thing may be known. Then resolve to find out.

(2) My second word of application will be a "warning."

I address it to all who know, in their own consciences, that their religion is not authentic. I ask them to remember the greatness of their danger, and their exceeding guilt in the sight of God.

A false Christianity is especially offensive to that Great God with whom we have to deal. He is continually spoken of in Scripture as the God of Truth. Truth is absolutely one of His attributes. Can you doubt for a moment that He detests everything that is not genuine and true? Better, I firmly believe it is better to be found an ignorant heathen at the last day, than to be found with nothing better than a nominal religion. If your religion is of this sort, beware!

A false Christianity is sure to fail a man in the end. It will wear out; it will break down; it will leave its possessor like a wreck on a sandbank, high and dry and forsaken by the tide; it will supply no comfort in the hour when comfort is most needed–in the time of affliction, and on the bed of death. If you want a religion to be of any use to your soul, beware of false Christianity! If you want to avoid being comfortless in death, and hopeless in the judgment day, be genuine, be authentic, be true.

(3) My third word of application will be "advice."

I offer it to all who feel pricked in their conscience by the subject of this paper. I advise them to cease from all dawdling and playing with religion, and to become honest, wholehearted followers of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Cry out without delay to the Lord Jesus, and ask Him to become your Savior, your Physician, your Priest, and your Friend. Let not the thought of your unworthiness keep you away: do not let the remembrance of your sins prevent your petition. Never, never forget that Christ can cleanse you from any quantity of sins, if you only commit your soul to Him. But one thing He does ask of those who come to Him: He asks them to be authentic, honest, and true.

Let authenticity be one great mark of your approach to Christ, and there is everything to give you hope. Your repentance may be feeble, but let it be authentic; your faith may be weak, but let it be authentic; your desires after holiness may be mingled with much weakness, but let them be authentic. Let there be nothing of coldness, of double-dealing, of dishonesty, of sham, of counterfeit, in your Christianity. Never be content to wear a cloak of religion. Be all that you profess. Though you may sin, be authentic. Though you may stumble, be true. Keep this principle continually before your eyes, and it will be well with your soul throughout your journey from grace to glory.

(4) My last word of application will be "encouragement."

I address it to all who have courageously taken up the cross, and are honestly following Christ. I exhort them to persevere, and not to be moved by difficulties and opposition.

You may often find few with you, and many against you. You may often hear cruel things said of you. You may often be told that you go too far, and that you are extreme. Don’t listen to it. Turn a deaf ear to remarks of this kind. Press on.

If there is anything which a man ought to do thoroughly, authentically, truly, honestly, and with all of his heart, it is the business of his soul. If there is any work which he ought never to slight, and do in a careless fashion, it is the great work of "working out his own salvation" (Philippians 2:12). Believer in Christ, remember this! Whatever you do in religion, do it well. Be authentic. Be thorough. Be honest. Be true.

If there is anything in the world of which a man need not be ashamed, it is the service to Jesus Christ. Of sin, of worldliness, of flippancy, of frivolousness, of time-wasting, of pleasure-seeking, of bad temper, of pride, of making an idol of money, clothes, hunting, sports, card-

playing, novel-reading, and the like–of all this a man should be ashamed. Living after this fashion he makes the angels sorrow, and the devils rejoice. But of living for his soul–caring for his soul–thinking of his soul–providing for his soul–making his soul’s salvation the principal and chief thing in his daily life–of all this a man has no cause to be ashamed at all. Believer in Christ, remember this! Remember it in your Bible-reading, and your private praying. Remember it on Sundays. Remember it in your worship of God. In all these things never be ashamed of being wholehearted, authentic, thorough, and true.

The years of our life are fast passing away. Who knows but this year may be the last in his life? Who can tell but that he may be called this very year to meet his God? If you would be found ready, be an authentic and true Christian. Do not be cheap imitation.

The time is fast coming when nothing but authenticity will stand the fire. Authentic repentance towards God–authentic faith towards our Lord Jesus Christ–authentic holiness of heart and life–these, these are the things which will alone stand the judgment at the last day. It is a solemn saying of our Lord Jesus Christ, "Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?’ Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’" (Matthew 7:22-23)

English updated and transcribed by:
Tony Capoccia
Bible Bulletin Board
Box 314
Columbus, NJ, USA 08022
Website: www.biblebb.com
Email: tony@biblebb.com
online since July 1986

It was just a question. . .a good question.

Posted by Dan C. on May 6, 2012

A few days ago,Pastor Rick Warren of Saddleback Church posted on twitter the following:

Pastor warren was referring to a 1 May article Dr. Mohler posted online 1 May asking the question “Is the Megachurch the New Liberalism?”

I read the article the day it was posted to Dr. Mohler’s blog and found it both insightful and thought provoking. A brief summary of the megachurch movement highlighted many positive contributions of conservative megachurches before it presented two issues that illustrate how liberalism in American society has affected some churches; the issues of divorce and homosexuality.

Concerning divorce, Dr. Mohler has this to say:

By and large, the story of evangelical Christianity in the United States since the advent of legal no-fault divorce has been near total capitulation. This is certainly true of the megachurches, but it is unfair to single them out in this failure. The reality is that the “Old First Church” and smaller congregational models were fully complicit — and for the same basic reason. Holding to strict biblical teachings on divorce is extremely costly. For the megachurches, the threat was being called judgmental, and the perceived danger of failing to reach the burgeoning numbers of divorced persons inhabiting metropolitan areas. For smaller churches the issue was the same, though usually more intimate. Divorced persons were more likely to have family members and friends within the congregation who were reluctant to confront the issue openly. Church discipline disappeared and personal autonomy reigned triumphant.

He then asked whether the same thing is happening concerning the issue of homosexuality, using as an example a recently delivered sermon at a church in Alpharetta, GA. In Dr. Mohler’s own words:

A shot now reverberating around the evangelical world was fired by Atlanta megachurch pastor Andy Stanley in recent days. Preaching at North Point Community Church, in a sermon series known as “Christian,” Stanley preached a message titled “When Gracie Met Truthy” on April 15, 2012. With reference to John 1:14, Stanley described the challenge of affirming grace and truth in full measure. He spoke of grace and truth as a tension, warning that “if you resolve it, you give up something important.”

. . .in the most intense part of his message, Stanley told the congregation an account meant to illustrate his message. He told of a couple with a young daughter who divorced when the wife discovered that the husband was in a sexual relationship with another man. The woman then insisted that her former husband and his gay partner move to another congregation. They did move, but to another North Point location, where they volunteered together as part of a “host team.”

The story took a strange turn when Stanley then explained that he had learned that the former husband’s gay partner was still married. Stanley then explained that the partner was actually committing adultery, and that the adultery was incompatible with his service on a host team. Stanley told the two men that they could not serve on the host team so long as the one man was still married. He later told of the former wife’s decision not to live in bitterness, and of her initiative to bring the whole new family structure to a Christmas service. This included the woman, her daughter, her former husband, his gay partner, and his daughter. Stanley celebrated this new “modern family” as an expression of forgiveness.

The inescapable impression left by the account was that the sin of concern was adultery, but not homosexuality. Stanley clearly and repeatedly stressed the sin of adultery, but then left the reality of the homosexual relationship between the two men unaddressed as sin. To the contrary, he seemed to normalize their relationship.

That’s the ‘shot heard round the world’ and the indication that the current liberal view of homosexuality invading American culture had penetrated this particular megachurch. Sadly, this is not the only church that no longer takes a Biblical stance concerning the issue of homosexuality, much as many no longer hold to a Biblical stance concerning marriage, it’s sanctity and the protection thereof.

You see, Dr. Mohler indeed asked an important question. He in no way questioned the orthodoxy of megachurches in general because of their size, as Rick Warren alleged in his Twitter tweet. I’d say that it’s Rick Warren who might owe an apology to Dr. Mohler! I also would have thought an allegation so spurious, and easily seen so by an intelligent reader, beneath such a renowned Pastor. I’m confident that there are quite a few megachurches who share Rick Warren’s sentiment, but it would be far better if they would perhaps undergo a bit of Biblical self-examination, and certainly much more profitable for the church.

I would highly recommend reading Dr. Mohler’s post, whether or not you give credence to Rick Warren’s demand for an unnecessary apology. In fact, as far as I’m concerned it’s an urgent must read. When extending grace means compromising truth, the church is in serious trouble.

It’s Everywhere. . .

Posted by Dan C. on May 3, 2012

Is the Megachurch the New Liberalism?

Posted by Dan C. on May 2, 2012

Al Mohler, Tuesday, May 1, 2012

The emergence of the megachurch as a model of metropolitan ministry is one of the defining marks of evangelical Christianity in the United States. Megachurches — huge congregations that attract thousands of worshipers — arrived on the scene in the 1970s and quickly became engines of ministry development and energy.

Over the last 40 years, the megachurch has made its presence known, often dominating the Christian landscape within the nation’s metropolitan regions. The megachurch came into dominance at the same time that massive shopping malls became the landmarks of suburban consumer life. Sociologists can easily trace the rise of megachurches within the context of America’s suburban explosion and the development of the technologies and transportation systems that made both the mall and the megachurch possible.

On the international scene, huge congregations can be found in many African nations and in nations such as Brazil, South Korea, and Australia. In London, where the megachurch can trace its roots back in the 19th century to massive urban congregations such as Charles Spurgeon’s Metropolitan Tabernacle, a few modern megachurches can be found. For the most part, however, the suburban evangelical megachurch is an American phenomenon.

Theologically, most megachurches are conservative in orientation, at least in a general sense. In America, a large number of megachurches are associated with the charismatic movement and denominations such as the Assemblies of God. Many are independent, though often loosely associated with other churches. The largest number of megachurches within one denomination is found within the Southern Baptist Convention, the nation’s largest non-Catholic denomination.

The emergence of the megachurch was noted by sociologists and church researchers attempting to understand the massive shifts that were taking place in the last decades of the 20th century. Researchers such as Dean M. Kelley of the National Council of Churches traced the decline of the liberal denominations that once constituted the old Protestant “mainline.” This decline was contrasted with remarkable growth among more conservative denominations and churches — a pattern traced in Kelley’s 1973 landmark book, Why Conservative Churches Are Growing. Kelley argued that conservative churches were growing precisely because of their strict doctrine and moral teachings. The early megachurches were the leading edge of the growth among conservative churches, especially in metropolitan and suburban settings.

The megachurches were not without their critics. Theologian David Wells leveled a massive critique of the doctrinal minimalism, methodological pragmatism, and managerial culture of many megachurches. Os Guiness accused the megachurch movement of “flirting with modernity” to a degree that put the Christian identity of the massive congregations at risk.

On the other hand, there is evidence that the megachurches have also helped to anchor conservative Christianity within the social cauldron of the United States in recent decades. The evangelistic energies of most megachurches cannot be separated from a deep commitment to conversionist theology and conservative doctrinal affirmations. Within the Southern Baptist Convention, megachurches played an essential role in what became known as the Conservative Resurgence — the movement to return the Convention and its institutions to an affirmation of biblical inerrancy. The most intense years of this controversy (1979-1990) saw the Convention elect an unbroken stream of conservative megachurch pastors as SBC president. In the main, the megachurches provided the platform leadership for the movement, even as the churches themselves became symbols of denominational aspiration.

Sociologically, the megachurch model faces real challenges in the present and even greater challenges in the future. The vast suburban belts that fueled megachurch growth in the last few decades are no longer the population engines they once were. Furthermore, cultural changes, demographic realities, and technological innovations have led to the development of megachurch modifications such as churches with multiple locations and sermons by video transmission. From the beginning, the megachurches led in the embrace of new technologies, and these now include the full array of digital and social media.

What about theology? This question requires a look at the massive shifts in worldview now evident within American culture. Trends foreseen by researchers such as James Davison Hunter of the University of Virginia and others can now be seen in full flower. The larger culture has turned increasingly hostile to exclusivist truth claims such as the belief that faith in Christ is necessary for salvation. One megachurch pastor in Florida recently told me that the megachurches in his area were abandoning concern for biblical gender roles on a wholesale basis. As one pastor told him, you cannot grow a church and teach biblical complementarianism. Even greater pressure is now exerted by the sexual revolution in general, and, more particularly, the question of homosexuality.

The homosexuality question was preceded by the challenge of divorce. By and large, the story of evangelical Christianity in the United States since the advent of legal no-fault divorce has been near total capitulation. This is certainly true of the megachurches, but it is unfair to single them out in this failure. The reality is that the “Old First Church” and smaller congregational models were fully complicit — and for the same basic reason. Holding to strict biblical teachings on divorce is extremely costly. For the megachurches, the threat was being called judgmental, and the perceived danger of failing to reach the burgeoning numbers of divorced persons inhabiting metropolitan areas. For smaller churches the issue was the same, though usually more intimate. Divorced persons were more likely to have family members and friends within the congregation who were reluctant to confront the issue openly. Church discipline disappeared and personal autonomy reigned triumphant.

Is the same pattern now threatening on the issue of homosexuality? No congregation will escape this question, but the megachurches are, once again, on the leading edge. The challenge is hauntingly similar to that posed by divorce. Some churches are openly considering how they can minister most faithfully, even as the public and private challenge of homosexuality and alternative sexual lifestyles has radically transformed the cultural landscape. Other churches, both large and small, are renegotiating their stance on the issue without drawing attention to the changes.

A shot now reverberating around the evangelical world was fired by Atlanta megachurch pastor Andy Stanley in recent days. Preaching at North Point Community Church, in a sermon series known as “Christian,” Stanley preached a message titled “When Gracie Met Truthy” on April 15, 2012. With reference to John 1:14, Stanley described the challenge of affirming grace and truth in full measure. He spoke of grace and truth as a tension, warning that “if you resolve it, you give up something important.”

The message was insightful and winsome, and Andy Stanley is a master communicator. Early in the message he spoke of homosexuals in attendance, mentioning that some had shared with him that they had come to North Point because they were tired of messages in gay-affirming churches that did nothing but affirm homosexuality.

Then, in the most intense part of his message, Stanley told the congregation an account meant to illustrate his message. He told of a couple with a young daughter who divorced when the wife discovered that the husband was in a sexual relationship with another man. The woman then insisted that her former husband and his gay partner move to another congregation. They did move, but to another North Point location, where they volunteered together as part of a “host team.” The woman later told Andy Stanley that her former husband and his partner were now involved as volunteers in the other congregational location.

The story took a strange turn when Stanley then explained that he had learned that the former husband’s gay partner was still married. Stanley then explained that the partner was actually committing adultery, and that the adultery was incompatible with his service on a host team. Stanley told the two men that they could not serve on the host team so long as the one man was still married. He later told of the former wife’s decision not to live in bitterness, and of her initiative to bring the whole new family structure to a Christmas service. This included the woman, her daughter, her former husband, his gay partner, and his daughter. Stanley celebrated this new “modern family” as an expression of forgiveness.

He concluded by telling of Christ’s death for sinners and told the congregation that Jesus does not condemn them, even if they cannot or do not leave their life of sin.

Declaring the death of Christ as atonement for sin is orthodox Christianity and this declaration is essential to the Gospel of Christ. The problem was that Stanley never mentioned faith or repentance — which are equally essential to the Gospel. There is indeed no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, but this defines those who have acted in repentance toward God and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ (Acts 20:21). As for those who are not in Christ, they stand condemned already (John 3:18).

The most puzzling and shocking part of the message was the illustration and the account of the homosexual couple, however. The inescapable impression left by the account was that the sin of concern was adultery, but not homosexuality. Stanley clearly and repeatedly stressed the sin of adultery, but then left the reality of the homosexual relationship between the two men unaddressed as sin. To the contrary, he seemed to normalize their relationship. They would be allowed to serve on the host team if both were divorced. The moral status of their relationship seemed to be questioned only in terms of adultery, with no moral judgment on their homosexuality.

Was this intended as a salvo of sorts? The story was so well told and the message so well constructed that there can be little doubt of its meaning. Does this signal the normalization of homosexuality at North Point Community Church? This hardly seems possible, but it appeared to be the implication of the message. Given the volatility of this issue, ambiguity will be replaced by clarity one way or the other, and likely sooner than later.

We can only hope that Andy Stanley and the church will clarify and affirm the biblical declaration of the sinfulness of homosexual behavior, even as he preaches the forgiveness of sin in any form through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. His affirmation of grace and truth in full measure is exactly right, but grace and truth are not actually in tension. The only tension is our finite ability to act in full faithfulness. The knowledge of our sin is, in truth, a gift of grace. And grace is only grace because of the truth of what God has done for us in Christ.

And yet, even as we know this is true, we also know that the Christian church has often failed miserably in demonstrating grace to those who struggle with same-sex attractions and those who are involved in homosexual behaviors. We have treated them as a special class of sinners and we have assured ourselves of our moral superiority. The Gospel of Jesus Christ destroys that pretension and calls for us to reach out to all sinners with the message of the Gospel, declaring the forgiveness of sins in Christ and calling them to faith and repentance.

The Gospel is robbed of its power if any sinner or any sin is declared outside its saving power. But the Gospel is also robbed of its power if sin — any sin — is minimized to any degree.

What does Andy Stanley now believe about homosexuality and the church’s witness? We must pray that he will clarify the issues so graphically raised in his message, and that he will do so in a way the unambiguously affirms the Bible’s clear teachings — and that he will do so precisely because he loves sinners enough to tell them the truth — all the truth — about both our sin and God’s provision in Christ. Biblical faithfulness simply does not allow for the normalization of homosexuality. We desperately want all persons to feel welcome to hear the Gospel and, responding in faith and repentance, to join with us in mutual obedience to Christ. But we cannot allow anyone, ourselves included, to come to Christ — or to church — on our own terms.

The current cultural context creates barriers to the Gospel even as it offers temptations. One of those temptations is to use to use the argument that our message has to change in order to reach people. This was the impetus of theological liberalism’s origin. Liberals such as Harry Emerson Fosdick claimed that the Christian message would have to change or the church would lose all intellectual credibility in the modern world. Fosdick ended up denying the Gospel and transforming the message of the Cross into psychology. Norman Vincent Peale came along and made this transformation even more appealing to a mass audience. Fosdick and Peale have no shortage of modern heirs.

Theological liberalism did not set out to destroy Christianity, but to save it from itself. Is the same temptation now evident? The Great Commission, we must remind ourselves, is not a command merely to reach people, but to make disciples. And disciples are only made when the church teaches all that Christ has commanded, as the Great Commission makes clear.

The megachurches are once again on the leading edge of these questions, but they are not alone. The urgency to reach people with the Gospel can, if the church is not faithful and watchful, tempt us to subvert the Gospel by redefining its terms. We are not honest if we do not admit that the current cultural context raises the cost of declaring the Gospel on its own terms.

Given their size and influence, the megachurches have an outsize responsibility. I am a member and a teaching pastor in a megachurch, and I am thankful for its faithfulness. I know a host of faithful megachurch pastors who are prepared to pay whatever cost may come for the sake of the Gospel. I know that my own denomination was regained for biblical fidelity under the leadership of brave megachurch pastors who used their pulpits to defend the truth. We desperately need these churches as both theological anchors and missiological laboratories.

The times now demand our most careful and biblical thinking, and they demand our clearest conviction matched to a missiological drive to reach the world with the Gospel. We must embrace the truth with the humility of a sinner saved only by grace, but we must embrace it fully.

Once again, the megachurches are on the leading edge. We must pray that they will lead into faithfulness, and not into a new liberalism.

Online source.

	Dan C. on The Plot that Failed!
	Chris on The Plot that Failed!
	SLIMJIM on Book Review – Remedies f…
	Dan C. on Book Review – Remedies f…
	Chris on Book Review – Remedies f…

The Battle Cry

Author Archives: Dan C.

Needs of the Times!

Inerrancy Means Freedom

A Sure & Certain Promise

What Evangelism Is Not

5. Evangelism is not social work/justice or political involvement.

6. Evangelism is not doing apologetics in order to win an argument.

7. Evangelism is not the results of evangelism.

8. Evangelism is not church planting.

Evangelism is…

Evolution’s End? President Obama Calls for Same-Sex Marriage

Do nothing. . .

Authentic Religion – by J. C. Ryle (1816-1900)

It was just a question. . .a good question.

It’s Everywhere. . .

Is the Megachurch the New Liberalism?

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

5. Evangelism is not social work/justice or political involvement.

6. Evangelism is not doing apologetics in order to win an argument.

7. Evangelism is not the results of evangelism.

8. Evangelism is not church planting.

Evangelism is…

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: