The Giglio Imbroglio — The Public Inauguration of a New Moral McCarthyism

Al Mohler, Thursday, January 10, 2013

A new chapter in America’s moral revolution came today as Atlanta pastor Louie Giglio withdrew from giving the benediction at President Obama’s second inaugural ceremony. In a statement released to the White House and the Presidential Inaugural Committee, Giglio said that he withdrew because of the furor that emerged yesterday after a liberal watchdog group revealed that almost twenty years ago he had preached a sermon in which he had stated that homosexuality is a sin and that the “only way out of a homosexual lifestyle … is through the healing power of Jesus.”

In other words, a Christian pastor has been effectively disinvited from delivering an inaugural prayer because he believes and teaches Christian truth.

The fact that Giglio was actually disinvited was made clear in a statement from Addie Whisenant of the Presidential Inaugural Committee:

 “We were not aware of Pastor Giglio’s past comments at the time of his selection, and they don’t reflect our desire to celebrate the strength and diversity of our country at this inaugural. Pastor Giglio was asked to deliver the benediction in large part because of his leadership in combating human trafficking around the world. As we now work to select someone to deliver the benediction, we will ensure their beliefs reflect this administration’s vision of inclusion and acceptance for all Americans.”

That statement is, in effect, an embarrassed apology for having invited Louie Giglio in the first place. Whisenant’s statement apologizes for the Presidential Inaugural Committee’s failure to make certain that their selection had never, at any time, for any reason, believed that homosexuality is less than a perfectly acceptable lifestyle. The committee then promised to repent and learn from their failure, committing to select a replacement who would “reflect this administration’s vision of inclusion and acceptance.”

The imbroglio over Louie Giglio is the clearest evidence of the new Moral McCarthyism of our sexually “tolerant” age. During the infamous McCarthy hearings, witnesses would be asked, “Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party?”

In the version now to be employed by the Presidential Inaugural Committee, the question will be: “Are you now or have you ever been one who believes that homosexuality (or bisexuality, or transsexualism, etc.) is anything less than morally acceptable and worthy of celebration?”

Louie Giglio, pastor of Atlanta’s Passion City Church, is also founder of the Passion movement that brings tens of thousands of Christian young people together to hear Giglio, along with speakers such as John Piper. They urge a rising generation of young Christians to make a passionate commitment to Christ. In recent years, the movement has also sought to raise awareness and activism among young Christians on the issue of sex trafficking. It was that activism that caught the attention of both President Obama and the Presidential Inaugural Committee.

Note carefully that both the White House and the committee were ready to celebrate Giglio’s activism on sex trafficking, but all that was swept away by the Moral McCarthyism on the question of homosexuality.

Two other dimensions of this story also demand attention. First, we should note that Louie Giglio has not been known lately for taking any stand on the issue of homosexuality. To the contrary, Giglio’s own statement withdrawing from the invitation made this clear:

“Due to a message of mine that has surfaced from 15-20 years ago, it is likely that my participation, and the prayer I would offer, will be dwarfed by those seeking to make their agenda the focal point of the inauguration. Clearly, speaking on this issue has not been in the range of my priorities in the past fifteen years. Instead, my aim has been to call people to ultimate significance as we make much of Jesus Christ.”

A fair-minded reading of that statement indicates that Pastor Giglio has strategically avoided any confrontation with the issue of homosexuality for at least fifteen years. The issue “has not been in the range of my priorities,” he said. Given the Bible’s insistance that sexual morality is inseparable from our “ultimate significance as we make much of Jesus Christ,” this must have been a difficult strategy. It is also a strategy that is very attractive to those who want to avoid being castigated as intolerant or homophobic. As this controversy makes abundantly clear, it is a failed strategy. Louie Giglio was cast out of the circle of the acceptable simply because a liberal watchdog group found one sermon he preached almost twenty years ago. If a preacher has ever taken a stand on biblical conviction, he risks being exposed decades after the fact. Anyone who teaches at any time, to any degree, that homosexual behavior is a sin is now to be cast out.

Second, we should note that Pastor Giglio’s sermon was, as we would expect and hope, filled with grace and the promise of the Gospel. Giglio did not just state that homosexuals are sinners — he made clear that every single human being is a sinner, in need of the redemption that is found only in Jesus Christ. “We’ve got to say to the homosexuals, the same thing that I say to you and that you would say to me … It’s not easy to change, but it’s possible to change,” he preached. He pointed his congregation, gay and straight, to “the healing power of Jesus.” He called his entire congregation to repent and come to Christ by faith.

That is the quintessential Christian Gospel. That is undiluted biblical truth. Those words are the consensus of the Church for over 2,000 years, and the firm belief held by the vast majority of Christians around the world today.

The Presidential Inaugural Committee and the White House have now declared historic, biblical Christianity to be out of bounds, casting it off the inaugural program as an embarrassment. By its newly articulated standard, any preacher who holds to the faith of the church for the last 2,000 years is persona non grata. By this standard, no Roman Catholic prelate or priest can participate in the ceremony. No Evangelical who holds to biblical orthodoxy is welcome. The vast majority of Christians around the world have been disinvited. Mormons, and the rabbis of Orthodox Judaism are out. Any Muslim imam who could walk freely in Cairo would be denied a place on the inaugural program. Billy Graham, who participated in at least ten presidential inaugurations is welcome no more. Rick Warren, who incited a similar controversy when he prayed at President Obama’s first inauguration, is way out of bounds. In the span of just four years, the rules are fully changed.

The gauntlet was thrown down yesterday, and the axe fell today. Wayne Besen, founder of the activist group Truth Wins Out, told The New York Times yesterday: “It is imperative that Giglio clarify his remarks and explain whether he has evolved on gay rights, like so many other faith and political leaders. It would be a shame to select a preacher with backward views on LBGT people at a moment when the nation is rapidly moving forward on our issues.”

And there you have it — anyone who has ever believed that homosexuality is morally problematic in any way must now offer public repentance and evidence of having “evolved” on the question. This is the language that President Obama used of his own “evolving” position on same-sex marriage. This is what is now openly demanded of Christians today. If you want to avoid being thrown off the program, you had better learn to evolve fast, and repent in public.

This is precisely what biblical Christians cannot do. While seeking to be gentle in spirit and ruthlessly Gospel-centered in speaking of any sin, we cannot cease to speak of sin as sin. To do so is not only to deny the authority of Scripture, not only to reject the moral consensus of the saints, but it undermines the Gospel itself. The Gospel makes no sense, and is robbed of its saving power, if sin is denied as sin.

An imbroglio is a painful and embarrassing conflict. The imbroglio surrounding Louie Giglio is not only painful, it is revealing. We now see the new Moral McCarthyism in its undisguised and unvarnished reality. If you are a Christian, get ready for the question you will now undoubtedly face: “Do you now or have you ever believed that homosexuality is a sin?” There is nowhere to hide.

Albert Mohler

The major festivals of the Christian year often prompt major cover stories in the nation’s weekly news magazines. Time, Newsweek, and US News & World Report all regularly feature major articles timed for Christmas and Easter. The days of these cover articles may soon be over, however, since US News & World Report is no longer publishing a print edition, and Newsweek’s final print edition will be dated December 31, 2012.

In years past, these cover articles had featured the work of reporters who interviewed a range of scholars and authorities from several theological perspectives. More recently, both Time and Newsweek have instead featured essays written by a single author.

Timed for this Christmas, Newsweek just released a cover essay by Bart D. Ehrman, who is well-known for his belief that the New Testament is largely historical fiction. “Who is Jesus?” is the question on the cover. “The Myths of Jesus” is the headline on the essay itself.

Newsweek’s agenda is clear, and it has chosen to feature a cover article denying the historical basis of Christmas as one of its last print editions.

Ehrman begins, predictably, by reviewing the controversy concerning the so-called “Gospel of Jesus’ Wife” that emerged earlier this year when Professor Karen King of Harvard University claimed a tiny papyrus fragment to be a monumental discovery. Even as she insisted that the fragment did not prove in any sense that Jesus had a wife, she fueled the confusion in carefully-staged media appearances in which she referred to the fragment as “The Gospel of Jesus’ Wife.”

A professor at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, Ehrman’s academic specialization is in the history of the New Testament and its times. As such, he dismissed the papyrus fragment as either irrelevant or a hoax. He writes, “As it turns out, most experts on early Christianity have come to think the fragment is a hoax, a forgery produced in recent years by an amateur who, unlike King and scholars of her stature, was not well versed in the niceties of Coptic grammar and so was unable to cover up the traces of his own deceit.”

A close look at that statement reveals a strong critique of Professor King who, according to Ehrman’s logic, should have been able to detect problems with a papyrus fragment probably manufactured by an amateur.

Ehrman cites that controversy, however, in order to make the point that there were hundreds of “proto-gospels” about Jesus floating about in the first few centuries of the Christian church, and that much of what modern people think they know about Christmas is actually not to be found in the New Testament.

He rightly states:

“As Christians around the world now prepare to celebrate Jesus’ birth, it is worth considering that much of the ‘common knowledge’ about the babe in Bethlehem cannot be found in any scriptural authority, but is either a modern myth or based on Gospel accounts from outside the sacred bounds of Christian Scripture.”

Of course, that is profoundly true. The New Testament tells us that Jesus was born in unusual circumstances and placed in a manger because “there was no room in the inn.” There is no innkeeper in the New Testament, however. There is no record of the number of the magi, no reference to December 25 as the date of Christ’s birth, and no mention of barnyard animals, much less a little drummer boy.

Beyond these rather familiar issues, Ehrman also points to a host of claims about Jesus, Mary, Joseph, and the larger Christmas story that amount to “legends and fabrications” that are rightly recognized as implausible and untrue.

Ehrman then turns to press his case on the New Testament itself. After reviewing a number of traditions and non-biblical accounts he asks, “Are the stories about Jesus’ birth that are in the New Testament any less unbelievable?”

He then says that the answer to that question “depends on whom you ask.” To leave no doubt, Ehrman answers the question directly in his essay. The New Testament writings “are not historically reliable descriptions of what really happened when Jesus was born,” he asserts.

Ehrman juxtaposes those who are “interested in affirming the narratives of Scripture” and those who are more interested in “knowing what actually happened in the past.”

He then explains:

“And there is indeed a very wide swath of scholars — Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, agnostic, and others — who have a very different view of the accounts of Jesus’ birth in the New Testament and who realize that there are problems with the traditional stories as they are recounted for us in Matthew and Luke, the only two Gospels that contain infancy narratives. However valuable these writings may be for theological reflection on the meaning and importance of Jesus — and why should anyone deny that they are tremendously valuable for that? — they are not the sorts of historical sources that we might hope for if we are seriously engaged in trying to reconstruct the events of history.”

In other words, Ehrman argues that Matthew and Luke simply can’t be trusted to convey historical truth. He points to what he insists are inconsistencies and erroneous historical claims, arguing that though some attempt to explain these questions in an attempt to affirm the veracity of the gospels, it is better just to abandon them altogether if you are “seriously engaged in trying to reconstruct the events of history.”

Just as a practical matter, a reading of Bart Ehrman’s many books, along with similar efforts, reveals that those who claim to abandon the New Testament in order to “reconstruct the events of history” find themselves coming back to the New Testament again and again. The reason for this is simple — there are no comparable sources.

Ehrman reveals his real agenda in the sentence that follows his denial of the historical truthfulness of the New Testament. He asserts, “For some Christian believers that is a problem; for others, it is a liberation, as it frees the believer from having to base faith on the uncertainties provided by the imperfect historical record and the fallible historians who study it.”

In Ehrman’s view, liberation comes in freeing the believer from a faith based in the claims of the New Testament, or in any historical record, for that matter.

The interesting point about Ehrman’s proposed path of liberation for Christian believers is the fact that Ehrman is himself no longer a believer. He was once a conservative evangelical, but now describes himself as an agnostic who has left the church.

Like many others, Ehrman tries to argue that the New Testament is still useful for “theological reflection on the meaning and importance of Jesus.” He asks, “And why should anyone deny that they are tremendously valuable for that?”

But the New Testament does not present itself merely for the purpose of theological reflection. It makes unvarnished historical claims and direct statements of fact. Ehrman attempts to sideswipe this truth, stating that the New Testament contains writings identified as “gospels” rather than “histories.” But the word “history” in that sense is a fairly modern invention. The gospels do contain interpretation and theological elaboration, but all four gospels, including Matthew and Luke, contain explicit and pervasive historical material — the bedrock historical claims of Christianity itself.

Christianity stands or falls on the truth concerning Jesus, and thus it also stands or falls on the authority and truthfulness of the Bible. What you believe about historical truth defines what you believe about Jesus Christ. Without the revealed truths of the New Testament, there is no Christianity, just superstitions and fantasies about Jesus.

Interestingly, Bart Ehrman does believe that Jesus existed. In a recent book he debunks those who dismiss all claims about Christ as mere myth. He believes Jesus to have been a Jewish apocalyptic prophet, but not God incarnate in human flesh.

The cover article in the magazine, timed for maximum publicity at Christmas, was a premeditated act. Securing Bart Ehrman to write the essay set the course, and the cover art is intended to sell the magazine.

So, in the waning days of Newsweek as a print magazine, the editors decided to take on the New Testament. Readers should note carefully that it is Newsweek, and not the New Testament, that is going out of print.

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

Publication date: December 12, 2012

Focus on the Family ‘hiding behind compromise’

Prominent Dobson supporter chastises ministry’s new leadership

SEATTLE – As evangelical Christian defenders of traditional marriage evaluate their November election losses, disagreements that have developed in the broader movement over how to engage society have been accentuated.

The divide is exemplified in the change in rhetoric coming from the new CEO of the highly influential Focus on the Family ministry, whose political action wing, CitizenLink, fought a losing battle against same-sex marriage in Maryland, Maine, Minnesota and Washington state.

Jim Daly, who succeeded Focus on the Family founder James Dobson as president in 2005 and took over as host of the radio show in 2010, struck a conciliatory tone in the aftermath of the Nov. 6 election in an interview with the Los Angeles Times. The interview reflected Daly’s emphasis on a more bipartisan appeal, stressing the good works of Christians, rather than their condemnation of sinful behavior, and maintaining civil discourse with opponents.

Daly said conservative Christians have lost the fight against same-sex marriage in part because they’re on the losing side of the cultural paradigm and have not reached out to people with whom they have disagreements to find common ground, according to the Times.

In an interview with WND, Rev. Ken Hutcherson, a longtime Dobson ally who was at the forefront of opposition to the same-sex marriage initiative in Washington state, summed up his response to Daly’s Times interview with an allusion to Jesus’ sheep and wolves metaphor in the Gospel of John, chapter 10.

“Those who are supposed to be shepherds of the flock end up being just hirelings. And when the wolf comes and things get tough, they run and hide behind compromise,” Hutcherson said.

He said Daly’s evaluation is “absolutely wrong.”

“I think what we’ve lost is we’ve moved away from the base of our conservative constituents and values voters and tried to win the moderates,” he told WND. “We’ve tried to show them a more loving and more inclusive way by backing off a little bit and not seeming so harsh in our views.”

Hutcherson believes all four of the marriage battles were lost “because the value-voting Christians didn’t show up.”

Dobson and Daly declined to be interviewed for this story.

Winning moderates

Hutcherson – senior pastor of Antioch Bible Church in the Seattle suburb of Kirkland, Wash., and a former NFL linebacker – noted supporters of same-sex marriage in his state raised $7 million compared to $2.4 million for opponents, yet won by just four percentage points.

“What does that tell us?” Hutcherson asked.

“If the church would have been unified and stuck together the way we started off being unified, until these national organizations came out here, we would have won this fight,” he said.

He thinks the result would have been the same in other states as well.

“But we are bending over too far trying to win the moderate instead of securing our base and giving them something to come out and vote for,” he said.

Hutcherson said that if Daly were sent to talk to Israel about its conflict with Hamas, he would be “telling Israel that you just need to act more friendly toward Hamas and prove yourself a friend to get things turned around.”

“It won’t work for Hamas,” he said. “It won’t work for those that are living in sin.”

Hutcherson isn’t new to the political battle over marriage, both on a state and national level. He organized a “Mayday for Marriage” rally in Seattle in 2004 that drew 20,000 participants and spearheaded a similar event in Washington, D.C., later that year that attracted 140,000.

Winsome Jesus

In the Los Angeles Times interview, Daly said the evangelical right is “fighting an uphill battle of demographics” on homosexual rights. In his recently published book, “ReFocus: Living a Life that Reflects God’s Heart,” Daly said Christian conservatives should have confidence they will ultimately prevail, but in the meantime must “engage the culture with winsomeness and with great patience and confidence.”

Responding to Daly, Hutcherson noted many regard Jesus as “the most winsome of all characters in the world” but pointed out that he, nevertheless, was rejected and killed.

“He never ever, ever gave people the opportunity to be comfortable in their sin and never ever took his winsomeness and tried to make them friends without repentance,” Hutcherson said.

The pastor noted political consultant Frank Schubert, who had led successful efforts to defend traditional marriage in other states, including California in 2008, was paid more than $1.9 million to run the campaign in Washington.

“What did we get for it? A more loving, easy, don’t make people mad, don’t make them feel like they are not understood” approach, Hutcherson said.

“That doesn’t work when you’re dealing with those that are living in sin,” he insisted, “because you’re trying to have darkness see light without the Holy Spirit.”

Hutcherson said the emphasis should be on “righteousness and sharing Jesus with these people.”

“Give them Jesus, man. Give them Jesus. That’s what we’re called to do. And what is giving them Jesus? Showing them the difference between darkness and light.”

What Daly is trying to do, Hutcherson argued, is “to win the enemy to win elections.”

“It’s not going to work.”

Dobson pushed out?

Daly told the Times he believes evangelicals need to win over friends, not make more enemies, and that the results of the election underlined the need to reach out to people with whom they have disagreements and seek common ground.

That includes President Obama.

“Maybe we’ve been looking in the wrong direction and we’ve got to be more ecumenical,” Daly said, adding that for years, evangelical conservatives were content to persuade the Republican Party to adopt their principles on social issues.

“I guess that’s all good, except when you don’t win elections,” he said.

Daly told the Times it would be “foolhardy not to recognize that the culture is moving more” in the direction of support for same-sex marriage.

He also signaled a willingness to work with abortion-rights groups to find common ground on adoption.

Hutcherson commented that Daly’s approach is a sharp departure from Dobson’s and thinks the founder was moved aside at Focus on the Family, because leadership wanted to move in a more conciliatory direction.

As WND reported, Hutcherson asserted in March 2010 that Dobson was “pushed” out of his 33-year-old radio program as part of Focus on the Family’s alleged effort to become more acceptable to mainstream society.

Focus on the Family denied Hutcherson’s claim, but he told WND he’s even more convinced now.

“Back then I thought it was 100 percent he was edged out,” he said. “Now it’s 400 percent I think he was edged out.”

Hutcherson explained that Dobson “never would say word for word he was pushed out.” But based on conversations with the Focus on the Family founder, Hutcherson said it was his impression “that he was helped out, because they wanted to go in this direction.”

Spiritual warfare

Daly, in the Times interview, said the Christian community needs to be “far more humble … and not call it a war, a culture war.”

Hutcherson responded that evangelicals are not in a culture war.

 “It’s a spiritual war,” he said. ‘Why are we afraid to say that? It is a simple spiritual war, where we are not going to be loved on earth. We are visitors here. This isn’t our home.”

Christians, he said, are “for holding people accountable, as the Bible says, for what is right and wrong.”

“Yeah, we got a war, it’s a right and wrong war, not a left and right war,” he said.

“And for him to want to jump on the culture – culture has never ever been a part of what the church is to be about,” Hutcherson said of Daly. ‘If you are married to the culture, you soon will be a widower.”

Hutcherson emphasized “it’s about what God says is right and wrong, and I don’t know why we, as evangelicals, are afraid to call sin, sin.”

“We think it’s too harsh today,” he said. “And that’s why we lose so many of these fights.”

Christians, he said, some five or 10 years ago “were stronger together and stood in unity and said it’s about sin, not skin; it’s about sin, not what’s in; it’s about sin, and God said it’s wrong.”

Christians must take a stand, he said “regardless of whether it’s good or bad for the children, it’s good or bad for society.”

“That is God’s point of view that we stand on,” Hutcherson said, “and we’re not going to bend on that.”

The election is over and it looks like we’re in for a continuation of the last four years. What are we (Christians who voted for the side that lost) to do? Do we continue to fight a war to ‘redeem’ culture, or do we give up and concede defeat in the culture wars?

In trying to answer that, I want to begin by asking a different question. Should Christians be battling for the culture, or warring for souls? Where in New testament scripture do we have a single example of believers ‘warring’ for the culture?  

I don’t know about anyone else reading this, but what I find in the NT witness of the early church is that 1) Christ will continue to build His church until he comes back and 2) the reason believers remain here instead of being teleported to heaven when they embrace Christ is to spread the message of the Gospel – to proclaim the good news that Christ died for the sins of God’s people.

Face it, the ‘culture’ we would like to see change is part and parcel of the current ‘world’ system and under the control of the evil one (1 John 5:19), who has blinded the minds of all unbelievers (2 Cor 4:4).

Therefore, the only way to change the overall culture is for ‘blind minds’ to be opened, the bondage of sin to be broken, resulting in the majority of voters heading toward ballot boxes being Christians voting for Biblical values.

Even then, it’s not guaranteed that we will ever see an overwhelming ‘Christian’ culture in our land. In the last days (which we’ve been in since before the resurrection) lawlessness will abound, according to eschatologists of all flavors and stripes. We also cannot find a lot concerning the role of the good old U.S. of A just before the 2^nd Coming, unless we engage in a bit of eisegetical interpretation, reading our nation ‘into’ the pages of scripture.

With that uncertainty in view, as ambassadors entrusted with the precious gospel of Christ, we can still do as much as we ever could to change the cultured by merely being faithful to the ‘evangel’ and proclaiming Good News throughout our various ‘areas of influence’, be they our homes, our neighborhoods, our schools, our workplaces and even in our churches.

Who knows, perhaps if we had been busier proclaiming the Good News of Christ instead trying to ‘save the culture’, the outcome of this past election might have been different.

God didn’t call us to a ‘culture war’, but to battle for the souls of lost men.

Just sayin’. . . . 

by Michael S. Horton

 Antinomianism has referred historically more to theory than to practice. For the most part, few of those suspected of this heresy have been charged with dissolute lives, although the concern is that an error in doctrine will inevitably work itself out practically.

During a time of intense controversy and division within Reformed ranks, the English Puritan Richard Sibbes said that “factions breed factions.” We are called to the peace and purity of the church, but when is the concern for peace a crutch for compromise, and when does our appeal to the church’s purity become a cloak for own pride and dogmatism?

Of course, we all say that we should find our unity around primary truth, but I know of no historical debate in which a partisan advocated schism in the name of “secondary matters.” Repeatedly these days, I hear church leaders dismiss important age-old debates because they are not “gospel issues,” as if we had not been commanded by our Lord to “teach them everything I have commanded you.” At the same time, some of the most divisive issues in our churches today concern matters not addressed clearly in God’s Word.

One issue, however, that is clearly addressed in Scripture is sanctification: the work of the Spirit through his Word in uniting us to Christ and giving us the grace to grow up into Christ, bearing the fruit of the Spirit. Given the centrality of justification to the Reformation debate, it is not surprising that Reformed, Lutheran, and other evangelical bodies are crystal clear on this point in their confessions and catechisms. In some circles, though, it is wrongly assumed in practice that our confessions aren’t quite as clear or as emphatic on sanctification. Reformation theology is great at defining the gospel, but when it comes to the Christian life, we need to supplement it with healthy doses of more “spiritual” or “practical” writers such as Thomas à Kempis, the Pietist Philipp Jacob Spener, John Wesley, or their contemporary voices.

In my view, this would be a tragic conclusion to draw. Before I make that case, however, it’s important to define the elephant in the room: antinomianism. After all, it’s one of those labels often thrown around carelessly today, as in previous eras. After defining it, I’ll offer some contemporary reflections by drawing on the rich summary of Reformed teaching on sanctification in the Reformed and Lutheran confessions. In conclusion, I will discuss sanctification and its relationship to the gospel.

Defining Antinomianism(s)

Literally “against law,” antinomianism is the view that the moral law summarized in the Ten Commandments is no longer binding on Christians. More generally, antinomianism may be seen as characteristic of human rebellion against any external authority. In this sense, ironically, we are by nature antinomians and legalists since the Fall: rejecting God’s command, while seeking to justify ourselves by our own criteria. The modern age is especially identified by the demand for freedom from all constraints. “Be true to yourself” is the modern creed. The rejection of any authority above the self, including obvious biblical norms, is as evident in some denominations as in the wider culture. Antinomianism may also be understood in relation to its opposite, neonomianism, which is the view that the gospel is basically just a new law presenting new requirements for the Christian life, even necessary to win God’s favor.

In technical terms, however, antinomianism has referred historically more to theory than to practice. For the most part, few of those suspected of this heresy have been charged with dissolute lives, although the concern is that an error in doctrine will inevitably work itself out practically.

Antinomianism and Reformation Confessions

While there have been some true-blue antinomians in church history, the charge is often made by those tilting in a more neonomian direction against faithful, apostolic, evangelical preaching. For example, despite the fact that Lutheran and Reformed churches have gone on record against antinomianism in no uncertain terms, that has not kept them from being accused of holding at least implicitly to antinomian tenets. It is therefore important to appeal directly to the Reformation confessions of faith.

The Lutheran Confession

In his Small Catechism, Luther begins with the Ten Commandments, concluding, “God threatens to punish all that transgress these commandments. Therefore we should dread His wrath and not act contrary to these commandments. But He promises grace and every blessing to all that keep these commandments. Therefore we should also love and trust in Him, and gladly do [zealously and diligently order our whole life] according to His commandments.” Settling the controversies in its own circles, the Lutherans confess in the Formula of Concord (1577):

For especially in these last times it is no less needful to admonish men to Christian discipline [to the way of living aright and godly] and good works, and remind them how necessary it is that they exercise themselves in good works as a declaration of their faith and gratitude to God, than that the works be not mingled in the article of justification; because men may be damned by an Epicurean delusion concerning faith, as well as by papistic and Pharisaic confidence in their own works and merits. (IV.2)

After affirming the civil use of the law that curbs public vice, and the “elenctic” use of the law (viz., the law that drives sinners to Christ), Lutherans confessing the Formula of Concord defend the “third use”: Even after regeneration, Christians are not left to themselves but have the law as a fixed rule to regulate and direct their lives (VI.1). The following conclusions are worth quoting at length:

We believe, teach, and confess that, although men truly believing [in Christ] and truly converted to God have been freed and exempted from the curse and coercion of the Law, they nevertheless are not on this account without Law, but have been redeemed by the Son of God in order that they should exercise themselves in it day and night [that they should meditate upon God’s Law day and night, and constantly exercise themselves in its observance, Ps. 1:2], Ps. 119. . . . We believe, teach, and confess that the preaching of the Law is to be urged with diligence, not only upon the unbelieving and impenitent, but also upon true believers, who are truly converted, regenerate, and justified by faith (VI.2–3).

For although they are regenerate and renewed in the spirit of their mind, yet in the present life this regeneration and renewal is not complete, but only begun, and . . . [on account of this] it is needful that the Law of the Lord always shine before them, in order that they may not from human devotion institute wanton and self-elected cults [that they may frame nothing in a matter of religion from the desire of private devotion, and may not choose divine services not instituted by God’s Word]; likewise, that the old Adam also may not employ his own will, but may be subdued against his will, not only by the admonition and threatening of the Law, but also by punishments and blows, so that he may follow and surrender himself captive to the Spirit, 1 Cor. 9:27; Rom. 6:12; Gal. 6:14; Ps. 119:1ff ; Heb. 13:21 (Heb. 12:1) (VI.4).

Therefore, though it is sometimes alleged in evangelical circles that Lutherans do not believe in the “third use” of the law to guide the Christian life, the formula that shapes Lutheran theology and preaching rejects as an “error injurious to, and conflicting with, Christian discipline and true godliness” the view that this law is “not to be urged upon Christians and true believers” (VI.8).

The Reformed Confession

In the earlier Reformed confessions, the primary goal is to clear the evangelical doctrine of justification from the Roman Catholic (and Anabaptist) charge that it rejects any place for good works, rather than any direct threat of antinomianism within the ranks.

The Heidelberg Catechism begins its “Gratitude” section by asking why we should still do good works if we are justified by grace alone in Christ alone through faith alone. We do so “because Christ by his Spirit is also renewing us to be like himself, so that in all our living we may show that we are thankful to God for all he has done for us, and so that he may be praised through us. And we do good so that we may be assured of our faith by its fruits, and so that by our godly living our neighbors may be won over to Christ” (Q. 86). Conversion involves repentance as well as faith: dying to the old self and living to Christ (Q. 87–90). What, then, defines a “good work”? “Only that which arises out of true faith, conforms to God’s law, and is done for his glory; and not that which is based on what we think is right or on established human tradition” (Q. 91).

This sets the stage for the catechism’s treatment of the Ten Commandments (Q. 92–113). “In this life even the holiest have only a small beginning of this obedience. Nevertheless, with all seriousness of purpose, they do begin to live according to all, not only some, of God’s commandments” (Q. 114). The law must still be preached in the church for two reasons: “First, so that the longer we live the more we may come to know our sinfulness and the more eagerly look to Christ for forgiveness of sins and righteousness. Second, so that, while praying to God for the grace of the Holy Spirit, we may never stop striving to be renewed more and more after God’s image, until after this life we reach our goal: perfection” (Q. 115).

The same view is found in articles 15–18 of the Church of England’s Thirty-Nine Articles. However, the debates of subsequent decades brought refinement to the Reformed confession and finally appeared in sophisticated form in the Westminster Standards of Faith in 1647.

In the Westminster Confession we find the most mature reflection of Reformed churches on these questions. After a remarkably clear statement of justification, the confession treats sanctification, faith, repentance, and good works in chapters 13–16. Again, the Pauline emphasis on sanctification arising necessarily from election, effectual calling, justification, and adoption is evident.

Christ, “by his Word and Spirit,” destroys the dominion of sin, weakening and mortifying its desires while quickening and strengthening the new creature in “the practice of true holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord” (13.1). Though “imperfect in this life,” there arises “a continual and irreconcilable war, the flesh lusting against the Spirit and the Spirit against the flesh.” Nevertheless, by God’s grace the saints will prevail (13.2–3).

Good works are those done according to God’s law, not human authority, zeal, or pious intention (16.1). They are “the fruits and evidences of a true and lively faith” (16.2). Yet believers’ good works are by grace in Christ, through his Word and Spirit, “not at all of themselves” (16.3).

We cannot by our best works merit pardon or sin, or eternal life at the hand of God… [since even the best works of believers are still] defiled, and mixed with so much weakness and imperfection, that they cannot endure the severity of God’s judgment. Notwithstanding, the persons of believers being accepted through Christ, their good works are also accepted in him; not as though they were in this life wholly unblamable and unreprovable in God’s sight; but that he, looking upon them in his Son, is pleased to accept and reward that which is sincere, although accompanied with many weaknesses and imperfections. (16.5–7)

Chapter 19, “Of the Law of God,” distinguishes clearly between the way the law functions in a covenant of works (promising life for obedience and threatening death for disobedience) and in the covenant of grace.

Although true believers be not under the law, as a covenant of works, to be thereby justified, or condemned; yet it is of great use to them, as well as to others; in that, as a rule of life informing them of the will of God, and their duty, it directs and binds them to walk accordingly; discovering also the sinful pollution of their nature, hearts, and lives; so as, examining themselves thereby, they may come to further conviction of, humiliation for, and hatred against sin, together with a clearer sight of the need they have of Christ, and the perfection of his obedience. (19.6)

Expanding on the law/gospel distinction that grounds it, the federal scheme (covenant of works/covenant of grace) is crucial for avoiding legalism as well as antinomianism.

Confessional Wisdom for Contemporary Debates

I have quoted Lutheran and Reformed confessions at length on this question, at least in part because I sense that in some circles today there is a dangerous tendency to rally around people, forming tribes around particular flags. Unchecked, this leads—as church history teaches us—to slander and schism.

There are several dangers to point out regarding this temptation to follow persons rather than to confess the faith together with saints across various times and places. There are personal idiosyncrasies attached to individuals, no matter how great their insight into God’s Word. With a clear conscience, Paul could tell the Ephesian elders that he had fulfilled his office, declaring to them “the whole counsel of God” (Acts 20:27). This is our goal, too. Paul’s message came directly from the ascended Christ, and yet his letters reflect the particular controversies, strengths, and weaknesses of the churches he served. His personality and emphases differed at times from those of other apostles, even Peter and James—sometimes to the point of sharp confrontations. Nevertheless, the Spirit brought a sweet unity to the apostolic church as it gathered in a representative synod of “apostles and elders.” In solemn assembly in Jerusalem, the whole church received its marching orders for the proper view and treatment of Gentile believers.

How much more, after the death of the apostles, is our Lord’s wisdom evident in the representative assemblies of his body? It’s interesting that at the Council of Jerusalem not even Peter was given precedence over the body. Not even Athanasius’s writings were made binding at Nicaea, and Reformed churches do not subscribe to anything written by Calvin. Jonathan Edwards did not sit at the Westminster Assembly. We are not obliged today to these confessions because of great persons, but because they are great summaries of God’s Word.

It can be as difficult for their followers as for prominent preachers and theologians themselves to submit to the consensus of a whole body rather than to promote their own distinctive teachings, emphases, and corrections. Those who were raised in more legalistic and Arminian backgrounds may be prone to confuse every call to obedience as a threat to newly discovered doctrines of grace. The zeal of those who are converted from a life of debauchery or perhaps from a liberal denomination may boil over into legalistic fervor. As at the Jerusalem Council, representatives came to Nicaea, Chalcedon, Torgau, Dort, and Westminster with idiosyncrasies. Yet they had to make their case, participate in restrained debate, and talk to each other in a deliberative assembly, rather than about each other on blogs and in conversations with their circle of followers. Muting personal idiosyncrasies in favor of a consensus on the teaching of God’s Word, these assemblies give us an enduring testimony for our own time. Nothing has changed with respect to how sinners are justified and sanctified. There has been no alteration of God’s covenantal law or gospel.

If the growing charges and countercharges of antinomianism and legalism continue to mount in our own circles, may God give us good and godly sense to recover the wisdom of our confessions as faithful summaries of biblical faith and practice. And may the Spirit direct us to the fraternal fellowship of the church’s representative assemblies for mutual encouragement and correction.

Michael Horton is the J. Gresham Machen professor of apologetics and systematic theology at Westminster Seminary California (Escondido, California), host of the White Horse Inn, national radio broadcast, and editor-in-chief of Modern Reformation magazine. He is author of many books, including The Gospel-Driven Life, Christless Christianity, People and Place, Putting Amazing Back Into Grace, The Christian Faith, and For Calvinism.

Issue: “Soli Deo Gloria” Nov./Dec. 2012 Vol. 21 No. 6 Page number(s): 7-12

Permissions: You are permitted and encouraged to reproduce and distribute this material in any format provided that you do not alter the wording in any way, you do not charge a fee beyond the cost of reproduction, and you do not make more than 500 physical copies. For web posting, a link to this document on our website is preferred. Any exceptions to the above must be explicitly approved by Modern Reformation.

 Copyright © 2012 White Horse Inn.

by Joel Richardson

In light of President Obama’s re-election, it is essential to briefly detail some of the reasons why Christians should rise above the depression and hopelessness that has gripped so many American conservatives.

In the afterglow of Obama’s victory, Ayman al-Zawahiri, Ayatollah Khamenei, Vladimir Putin and Chris Matthews, as well as millions of pot-heads, sodomites, pro-aborts and all common moochers, are sharing a collective thrill. The American people by a clear majority have rejected fiscal responsibility, energy independence, national security, border security, traditional family values, and worst of all, standing with the most defenseless and innocent among us. Barack Obama’s re-election is a complete political, economic, moral, social and spiritual catastrophe.

But despite the very real implications of America’s downfall, Christians have far more substantial hope and reason to remain joyful.

In pondering which portions of Scripture might be encouraging for American Christians at this moment, I was immediately reminded of Hebrews 11, where believers today are encouraged to consider the lives of several faithful saints of old. Some of these men and woman lived very blessed lives and experienced great prosperity. Others suffered terrible hardships. What they all shared, however, was a vision, a hope of “a better country,” a heavenly “city.” Consider what the Bible has to say concerning Abraham:

“By faith he made his home in the promised land like a stranger in a foreign country; he lived in tents, as did Isaac and Jacob, who were heirs with him of the same promise. For he was looking forward to the city with foundations, whose architect and builder is God.” [Hebrews 11:9-10]

As sad as it is to watch this great country take such a harsh turn into irresponsibility and outright godlessness, we are reminded that our ultimate and even eternal citizenship is not here. Christians are to live within this corrupt and perverse age as mere aliens, foreigners, whose eyes are ever fixed on our true and eternal home, as we imitate these saints of old:

“They admitted that they were aliens and strangers on earth. People who say such things show that they are looking for a country of their own. If they had been thinking of the country they had left, they would have had opportunity to return. Instead, they were longing for a better country – a heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for he has prepared a city for them.” [Hebrews 11:13-16]

Before the election, I sometimes wondered if it might be good for American Christian to get just a slight taste of what it is like for so many of their brothers and sisters who live in nations where they are a minority, where persecution and overt hatred of Christians is common. This is after all, how life was for the early Church. Perhaps our hope has been too focused on this life, on our stuff, on our comforts. Perhaps if we are made a bit more uncomfortable, we might shift our eyes to the heavenly city, to the country that God is preparing for us. Who knows? Perhaps there is a providential and redemptive purpose behind this catastrophe.

What else will the coming of this new messianic kingdom entail?

In one of the most well-known prophetic messianic psalms, we read the following description of what Jesus will accomplish when he returns:

“The LORD will extend your mighty scepter from Zion; you will rule in the midst of your enemies. … The LORD has sworn and will not change his mind: ‘You are a priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek. The Lord is at your right hand; he will crush kings on the day of his wrath. He will judge the nations, heaping up the dead and crushing the rulers of the whole earth.’” [Psalm 110:2, 4-6]

That’s right, one of the primary events that will accompany the return of Jesus as he establishes his messianic kingdom over the earth from Jerusalem is the judgment of the many unrighteous, self-serving and corrupt politicians throughout the whole earth. As the psalm states, when Jesus returns, before he establishes his kingdom, he will “crush kings on the day of his wrath.” While some may understandably feel uneasy with this point, personally, I take great comfort in this. Who among us doesn’t truly grieve at the degree of corruption, character assassination, slander, lies and deceit that so many politicians use to acquire and maintain power? The Lord will not allow this to remain unpunished. There is a day of justice.

For now, my country is governed by a man many of us feel is a truly unrighteous individual, a race-baiter, a divider, a liar, a destroyer. And while I would not suppose to truly know anyone’s heart, I do take great comfort in the fact that there is one who knows the hearts of all people and who has promised a day of justice for all of the earth. So while I will continue to stand and fight for this great nation, even believing that there is yet hope for repentance, revival and restoration, as I watch this beautiful country slip away and devolve into something almost unrecognizable, I take great comfort in knowing that a heavenly country lies ahead. I have been promised a kingdom, and it is on this kingdom the eyes of my heart are fixed. And even more than the coming kingdom, my eyes of hope are fixed entirely on the coming King. And for this reason, the present man in office will never have control over my emotions and will do nothing to steal my joy.

“May the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace as you trust in him, so that you may overflow with hope by the power of the Holy Spirit.” [Romans 15:13]

Joel Richardson is the co-author of “God’s War on Terror.” His blog is www.Joelstrumpet.com.

Online Source

Aftermath: Lessons from the 2012 Election

Wednesday, November 7, 2012

The 2012 U.S. election is over, and more than 100 million Americans participated in the great exercise of democracy — fulfilling the franchise of the vote. Even with some votes not yet counted and some issues as yet clarified, a general picture of the election is clearly in view, and the impact of this election will be both massive and enduring.

Several lessons emerge in the immediate aftermath of the election and Christians should consider them carefully.

A Decisive Victory

First, we must recognize that President Barack Obama won a decisive and clear victory, surging to over 300 votes in the Electoral College before midnight. Against the expectations of many, the President held his 2008 coalition together. Voting intensity among younger Americans, African-Americans, Hispanics, and other crucial constituencies held firm. Once the election results started coming in, an Obama victory came quickly into view.

Barack Obama avoided the ignominy of an electoral repudiation and may also have won the popular vote. The decisive nature of his win spared the nation the agonies of the 2000 election and points to a major political realignment. Other issues also became clear. The election returns and voting data indicate that President Obama’s “evolution” on the issue of same-sex marriage cost him nothing. That probably surprised both sides in that controversy

Christians must now pray for our President. As the Apostle Paul instructs us, “First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people, for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way.” (1 Timothy 2:1-2 ESV) We should eagerly and urgently pray for our President. We should pray for his health and his family, for his stamina and his character. We should even pray that he and his administration will be remembered as one of the greatest of our nation’s history, measured even by the convictions that are most important to us.

We are rightly and deeply concerned. We must pray that God will change President Obama’s heart on a host of issues, ranging from the sanctity of unborn life to the integrity of marriage. We must push back against his contraception mandate that tramples upon religious liberty. Given the trajectory of his first term in office, we are urgently concerned about a second term, knowing that the President will never again face the electorate.

As the President acknowledged in his speech last night, our nation faces huge challenges. We must pray that President Obama will lead in a spirit of national unity and mutual respect, bringing Americans together to resolve these ominous problems. Incredible responsibility now rests on his shoulders. He has won a second term, now he must rightly lead.

A Divided Electorate

As morning dawned, the election of 2012 looms as one of the closest in American history. At 2:00 a.m., only 240,000 votes out of more than 103 million cast separated President Obama and Gov. Mitt Romney. That is a margin of .3% and would rank the election as the third closest, falling behind the slim margins of the 1960 election between John F. Kennedy and Richard M. Nixon and the 1880 election between James Garfield and Winfield S. Hancock.

The margin in the Electoral College is significant, but the popular vote reveals a deeply divided nation. The nation is divided politically, but that divide points to a division at the level of worldview. The 2012 election makes clear that Americans are divided over fundamental questions. Americans are divided into camps that define and see the world in fundamentally different terms. The election did not cause this division, it merely revealed it. This deep division at the level of worldview presents President Obama with a daunting political challenge, but a worldview crisis is an even greater challenge for the church.

A Changed and Changing Electorate

Fundamental changes to the American electorate also became evident. Vast demographic changes mean that the electorate is far more ethnically, culturally, and ideologically diverse. The electorate is becoming more secular. Recent studies have indicated that the single greatest predictor of voting patterns is the frequency of church attendance. Far fewer Americans now attend church, and a recent study indicated that fully 20% of all Americans identify with no religious preference at all. The secularizing of the electorate will have monumental consequences.

America is becoming more urbanized, and this also changes voting patterns. Younger voters are disproportionately identified in ethnic terms, pointing to long-term electoral shifts. Fewer Americans are married and fewer have children in the home. This, too, changes voting habits. These are just a few of the factors pointing to a fundamental change in the nation.

The Demise of the Republican Coalition

Though many Republicans will draw encouragement from the popular vote, the Electoral College now confronts the Republican Party as a massive problem. The map just does not add up for Republicans in terms of the present reality, much less the shape of the future. Put simply, the Republican Party cannot win unless it becomes the party of aspiration for younger Americans and Hispanic Americans. Otherwise, it will soon become a retirement community for aging conservatives. The party’s position on immigration is disastrous, and it is at odds with the party’s own values.

No party can win if it is seen as heartless. No party can win if it appeals only to white and older Americans. No party can win if it looks more like the way to the past than the way to the future. The Republican Party could not defeat a sitting President with a weak economy and catastrophic unemployment. As columnist George Will has said, a party that cannot win under these circumstances might need to look for another line of work.

The Republican Party will surely enter into a period of intense self-examination and a struggle for the future shape and direction of the party. That fight will be necessary, and it will be important to those of us who are concerned about a range of issues

A Catastrophe on Moral Issues

Evangelical Christians must see the 2012 election as a catastrophe for crucial moral concerns. The election of President Obama returns a radically pro-abortion President to the White House, soon after he had endorsed same-sex marriage. President Obama is likely to have the opportunity to appoint one or more justices to the U.S. Supreme Court, and they are almost sure to agree with his constitutional philosophy.

Furthermore, at least two states, Maine and Maryland, legalized same-sex marriage last night. Washington State is likely to join them once the votes there are counted. An effort to pass a constitutional amendment preventing same-sex marriage went down to defeat in Minnesota. These came after 33 states had passed some measure defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman. After 33 victories, last night brought multiple defeats. Maine and Maryland (and probably Washington State) became the first states in the union to legalize same-sex marriage by action of the voters. There is no discounting the moral shift that momentous development represents.

Other states considered issues ranging from abortion and marijuana to assisted suicide. While not all were lost, the moral shift was evident in the voting patterns.

Clearly, we face a new moral landscape in America, and huge challenge to those of us who care passionately about these issues. We face a worldview challenge that is far greater than any political challenge, as we must learn how to winsomely convince Americans to share our moral convictions about marriage, sex, the sanctity of life, and a range of moral issues. This will not be easy. It is, however, an urgent call to action..

More than the Presidency Was at Stake

Scores of other offices were at stake in the 2012 election, and at every level. The lack of complete election results leaves many unanswered questions this morning, but one big fact is known — the U.S. Senate will remain in Democratic hands. As a matter of fact, this election may well point to a liberal shift in that body. The election of Elizabeth Warren (MA) and Tammy Baldwin (WI) and the re-election of Sherrod Brown (OH) point in this direction. Tammy Baldwin becomes the first openly-gay candidate elected to the U.S. Senate.

It’s Not Really About Politics

Christians must never see political action as an end, but only as a means. We can never seek salvation through the voting booth, and we must never look for a political messiah. Nevertheless, Christians do bear a political responsibility, established in love of God and love of neighbor. We are rightly concerned about this world, but only to a limited extent. Our main concern is the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Being in the world but not of the world has never been easy. The 2012 election underlines the challenges we now face and the responsibilities we dare not neglect.