How Precious Is Your Steadfast Love

[TO THE CHOIRMASTER. OF DAVID, THE SERVANT OF THE LORD.]

            Transgression speaks to the wicked deep in his heart; there is no fear of God before his eyes.

            For he flatters himself in his own eyes that his iniquity cannot be found out and hated.

            The words of his mouth are trouble and deceit; he has ceased to act wisely and do good.

            He plots trouble while on his bed; he sets himself in a way that is not good; he does not reject evil.

            Your steadfast love, O LORD, extends to the heavens, your faithfulness to the clouds.

            Your righteousness is like the mountains of God; your judgments are like the great deep; man and beast you save, O LORD.

            How precious is your steadfast love, O God!

            The children of mankind take refuge in the shadow of your wings.

            They feast on the abundance of your house, and you give them drink from the river of your delights.

            For with you is the fountain of life; in your light do we see light.

            Oh, continue your steadfast love to those who know you, and your righteousness to the upright of heart!

            Let not the foot of arrogance come upon me, nor the hand of the wicked drive me away.

            There the evildoers lie fallen; they are thrust down, unable to rise.

(Psalm 36 ESV)

"Is there such a thing as absolute truth / universal truth?"

In order to understand absolute or universal truth, we must begin by defining truth. Truth, according to the dictionary, is “conformity to fact or actuality; a statement proven to be or accepted as true.” Some people would say that there is no true reality, only perceptions and opinions. Others would argue that there must be some absolute reality or truth.

One view says that there are no absolutes that define reality. Those who hold this view believe everything is relative to something else, and thus there can be no actual reality. Because of that, there are ultimately no moral absolutes, no authority for deciding if an action is positive or negative, right or wrong. This view leads to “situational ethics,” the belief that what is right or wrong is relative to the situation. There is no right or wrong; therefore, whatever feels or seems right at the time and in that situation is right. Of course, situational ethics leads to a subjective, “whatever feels good” mentality and lifestyle, which has a devastating effect on society and individuals. This is postmodernism, creating a society that regards all values, beliefs, lifestyles, and truth claims as equally valid.

The other view holds that there are indeed absolute realities and standards that define what is true and what is not. Therefore, actions can be determined to be either right or wrong by how they measure up to those absolute standards. If there are no absolutes, no reality, chaos ensues. Take the law of gravity, for instance. If it were not an absolute, we could not be certain we could stand or sit in one place until we decided to move. Or if two plus two did not always equal four, the effects on civilization would be disastrous. Laws of science and physics would be irrelevant, and commerce would be impossible. What a mess that would be! Thankfully, two plus two does equal four. There is absolute truth, and it can be found and understood.

To make the statement that there is no absolute truth is illogical. Yet, today, many people are embracing a cultural relativism that denies any type of absolute truth. A good question to ask people who say, “There is no absolute truth” is this: “Are you absolutely sure of that?” If they say “yes,” they have made an absolute statement—which itself implies the existence of absolutes. They are saying that the very fact there is no absolute truth is the one and only absolute truth.

Beside the problem of self-contradiction, there are several other logical problems one must overcome to believe that there are no absolute or universal truths. One is that all humans have limited knowledge and finite minds and, therefore, cannot logically make absolute negative statements. A person cannot logically say, “There is no God” (even though many do so), because, in order to make such a statement, he would need to have absolute knowledge of the entire universe from beginning to end. Since that is impossible, the most anyone can logically say is “With the limited knowledge I have, I do not believe there is a God.”

Another problem with the denial of absolute truth/universal truth is that it fails to live up to what we know to be true in our own consciences, our own experiences, and what we see in the real world. If there is no such thing as absolute truth, then there is nothing ultimately right or wrong about anything. What might be “right” for you does not mean it is “right” for me. While on the surface this type of relativism seems to be appealing, what it means is that everybody sets his own rules to live by and does what he thinks is right. Inevitably, one person’s sense of right will soon clash with another’s. What happens if it is “right” for me to ignore traffic lights, even when they are red? I put many lives at risk. Or I might think it is right to steal from you, and you might think it is not right. Clearly, our standards of right and wrong are in conflict. If there is no absolute truth, no standard of right and wrong that we are all accountable to, then we can never be sure of anything. People would be free to do whatever they want—murder, rape, steal, lie, cheat, etc., and no one could say those things would be wrong. There could be no government, no laws, and no justice, because one could not even say that the majority of the people have the right to make and enforce standards upon the minority. A world without absolutes would be the most horrible world imaginable.

From a spiritual standpoint, this type of relativism results in religious confusion, with no one true religion and no way of having a right relationship with God. All religions would therefore be false because they all make absolute claims regarding the afterlife. It is not uncommon today for people to believe that two diametrically opposed religions could both be equally “true,” even though both religions claim to have the only way to heaven or teach two totally opposite “truths.” People who do not believe in absolute truth ignore these claims and embrace a more tolerant universalism that teaches all religions are equal and all roads lead to heaven. People who embrace this worldview vehemently oppose evangelical Christians who believe the Bible when it says that Jesus is “the way, and the truth, and the life” and that He is the ultimate manifestation of truth and the only way one can get to heaven (John 14:6).

Tolerance has become the one cardinal virtue of the postmodern society, the one absolute, and, therefore, intolerance is the only evil. Any dogmatic belief—especially a belief in absolute truth—is viewed as intolerance, the ultimate sin. Those who deny absolute truth will often say that it is all right to believe what you want, as long as you do not try to impose your beliefs on others. But this view itself is a belief about what is right and wrong, and those who hold this view most definitely do try to impose it on others. They set up a standard of behavior which they insist others follow, thereby violating the very thing they claim to uphold—another self-contradicting position. Those who hold such a belief simply do not want to be accountable for their actions. If there is absolute truth, then there are absolute standards of right and wrong, and we are accountable to those standards. This accountability is what people are really rejecting when they reject absolute truth.

The denial of absolute truth/universal truth and the cultural relativism that comes with it are the logical result of a society that has embraced the theory of evolution as the explanation for life. If naturalistic evolution is true, then life has no meaning, we have no purpose, and there cannot be any absolute right or wrong. Man is then free to live as he pleases and is accountable to no one for his actions. Yet no matter how much sinful men deny the existence of God and absolute truth, they still will someday stand before Him in judgment. The Bible declares that “…what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools” (Romans 1:19-22).

Is there any evidence for the existence of absolute truth? Yes. First, there is the human conscience, that certain “something” within us that tells us the world should be a certain way, that some things are right and some are wrong. Our conscience convinces us there is something wrong with suffering, starvation, rape, pain, and evil, and it makes us aware that love, generosity, compassion, and peace are positive things for which we should strive. This is universally true in all cultures in all times. The Bible describes the role of the human conscience in Romans 2:14-16: “Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them. This will take place on the day when God will judge men’s secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares.”

The second evidence for the existence of absolute truth is science. Science is simply the pursuit of knowledge, the study of what we know and the quest to know more. Therefore, all scientific study must by necessity be founded upon the belief that there are objective realities existing in the world and these realities can be discovered and proven. Without absolutes, what would there be to study? How could one know that the findings of science are real? In fact, the very laws of science are founded on the existence of absolute truth.

The third evidence for the existence of absolute truth/universal truth is religion. All the religions of the world attempt to give meaning and definition to life. They are born out of mankind’s desire for something more than simple existence. Through religion, humans seek God, hope for the future, forgiveness of sins, peace in the midst of struggle, and answers to our deepest questions. Religion is really evidence that mankind is more than just a highly evolved animal. It is evidence of a higher purpose and of the existence of a personal and purposeful Creator who implanted in man the desire to know Him. And if there is indeed a Creator, then He becomes the standard for absolute truth, and it is His authority that establishes that truth.
Fortunately, there is such a Creator, and He has revealed His truth to us through His Word, the Bible. Knowing absolute truth/universal truth is only possible through a personal relationship with the One who claims to be the Truth—Jesus Christ. Jesus claimed to be the only way, the only truth, the only life and the only path to God (John 14:6). The fact that absolute truth does exist points us to the truth that there is a sovereign God who created the heavens and the earth and who has revealed Himself to us in order that we might know Him personally through His Son Jesus Christ. That is the absolute truth.

Recommended Resource: True Truth: Defending Absolute Truth in a Relativistic World by Art Lindsley.

Dr. Arthur Lindsley has been a Scholar-in-Residence at the C.S. Lewis Institute in Annandale, Virginia since 1987. He holds a B.A. degree from Seattle Pacific University, a M.Div. Degree from Pittsburgh Theological Seminary, and a Ph.D. from the University of Pittsburgh.

He is co-author of Classical Apologetics with R.C. Sproul. Dr. Lindsley is on the staff of Fourth Presbyterian Church in Metropolitan Washington, D.C. where he teaches classes. He has also taught at the National Presbyterian Church. He teaches preparation classes for Young Life each year and speaks at conferences throughout the United States and the world.

Your Own Personal Jesus

by Michael S. Horton, Modern Reformation Magazine

Citing examples from TV, pop music, and best-selling books, an article in Entertainment Weekly noted that "pop culture is going gaga for spirituality." However,

[S]eekers of the day are apt to peel away the tough theological stuff and pluck out the most dulcet elements of faith, coming up with a soothing sampler of Judeo-Christian imagery, Eastern mediation, self-help lingo, a vaguely conservative craving for ‘virtue,’ and a loopy New Age pursuit of ‘peace.’ This happy free-for-all, appealing to Baptists and stargazers alike, comes off more like Forest Gump’s ubiquitous ‘boxa chocolates’ than like any real system of belief. You never know what you’re going to get. (1)

The "search for the sacred" has become a recurring cover story for national news magazines for some time now; but is a revival of "spirituality" and interest in the "sacred" really any more encouraging than the extravagant idolatry that Paul witnessed in Athens (Acts 17)?

Not only historians and sociologists but novelists are writing about the "Gnostic" character of the soup that we call spirituality in the United States today. In a recent article in Harper’s, Curtis White describes our situation pretty well. When we assert, "This is my belief," says White, we are invoking our right to have our own private conviction, no matter how ridiculous, not only tolerated politically but respected by others. "It says, ‘I’ve invested a lot of emotional energy in this belief, and in a way I’ve staked the credibility of my life on it. So if you ridicule it, you can expect a fight." In this kind of culture, "Yahweh and Baal-my God and yours-stroll arm-in-arm, as if to do so were the model of virtue itself."

What we require of belief is not that it make sense but that it be sincere….Clearly, this is not the spirituality of a centralized orthodoxy. It is a sort of workshop spiritu-ality that you can get with a cereal-box top and five dollars….There is an obvious problem with this form of spirituality: it takes place in isolation. Each of us sits at our computer terminal tapping out our convictions….Consequently, it’s difficult to avoid the conclusion that our truest belief is the credo of heresy itself. It is heresy without an orthodoxy. It is heresy as an orthodoxy. (2)

While European nihilism denied only God, "American nihilism is something different. Our nihilism is our capacity to believe in everything and anything all at once. It’s all good!" All that’s left is for belief to become "a culture-commodity."

We shop among competing options for our belief. Once reduced to the status of a commodity, our anything-goes, do-it-yourself spirituality cannot have very much to say about the more directly nihilistic conviction that we should all be free to do whatever we like as well, each of us pursuing our right to our isolated happiness. (3)

Like Nietzsche himself, who said that truth is made rather than discovered and was described by Karl Barth as "the man of azure isolation," Americans just want to be left alone to create their own private Idaho. While evangelicals talk a lot about truth, their witness, worship, and spirituality seem in many ways more like their Mormon, New Age, and liberal nemeses than anything like historical Christianity.

We would prefer to be left alone, warmed by our beliefs-that-make-no-sense, whether they are the quotidian platitudes of ordinary Americans, the magical thinking of evangelicals, the mystical thinking of New Age Gnostics, the teary-eyed patriotism of social conservatives, or the perfervid loyalty of the rich to their free-market Mammon. We are thus the congregation of the Church of the Infinitely Fractured, splendidly alone together. And apparently that’s how we like it. Our pluralism of belief says both to ourselves and to others, ‘Keep your distance.’ And yet isn’t this all strangely familiar? Aren’t these all the false gods that Isaiah and Jeremiah confronted, the cults of the ‘hot air gods’? The gods that couldn’t scare birds from a cucumber patch? Belief of every kind and cult, self-indulgence and self-aggrandizement of every degree, all flourish. And yet God is abandoned. (4)

As far back as the early eighteenth century, the French commentator Alexis de Tocqueville observed the distinctly American craving "to escape from imposed systems" and "to seek by themselves and in themselves for the only reason for things, looking to results without getting entangled in the means toward them." He concluded, "So each man is narrowly shut up in himself and from that basis makes the pretension to judge the world." Americans do not need books or any other external authorities in order to find the truth, "having found it in themselves." (5) American Transcendentalist Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803-1882) announced that "whatever hold the public worship held on us is gone or going," prophesying the day when Americans would recognize that they are "part and parcel of God," requiring no mediator or ecclesiastical means of grace. Walt Whitman’s "Song of Myself" captured the unabashed narcissism of American romanticism that plagues our culture from talk shows to the church.

During this same period, the message and methods of American churches also felt the impact of this romantic narcissism. It can be recognized in a host of sermons and hymns from the period, such as C. Austin Miles’ hymn, "In the Garden":

I come to the garden alone, while the dew is still on the roses;
And the voice I hear, falling on my ear, the Son of God discloses.
And he walks with me, and He talks with me, and He tells me I am His own,
And the joy we share as we tarry there, none other has ever known.

The focus of such piety is on a personal relationship with Jesus that is individualistic, inward, and immediate. One comes alone and experiences a joy that "none other has ever known." How can any external orthodoxy tell me I’m wrong? My personal relationship with Jesus is mine. I do not share it with the church. Creeds, confessions, pastors, and teachers-not even the Bible-can shake my confidence in the unique experiences that I have alone with Jesus.

A Perfect Storm

If moralism represents a drift toward the Pelagian (or at least semi-Pelagian) heresy, "enthusiasm" is an expression of the heresy known as Gnosticism. A second-century movement that seriously threatened the ancient churches, Gnosticism tried to blend Greek philosophy and Christianity. The result was an eclectic spirituality that regarded the material world as the prison-house of divine spirits and the creation of an evil god (YAHWEH). Their goal was to return to the spiritual, heavenly, and divine unity of which their inner self is a spark, away from the realm of earthly time, space, and bodies. With little interest in questions of history or doctrine, the Gnostics set off on a quest to ascend the ladder of mysticism. The institutional church, with its ordained ministry, creeds, preaching, sacraments, and discipline, was alienating-like the body, it was the prison-house of the individual soul.

Pelagianism and Gnosticism are different versions of what Gerhard Forde called the "glory story." Following Luther’s Heidelberg Disputation, which was following Romans 10 and 1 Corinthians 1, the Reformation contrasted the theology of glory with the theology of the cross. As Forde explains,

The most common overarching story we tell about ourselves is what we will call the glory story. We came from glory and are bound for glory. Of course, in between we seem somehow to have gotten derailed-whether by design or accident we don’t quite know-but that is only a temporary inconvenience to be fixed by proper religious effort. What we need is to get back on ‘the glory road.’ The story is told in countless variations. Usually the subject of the story is ‘the soul’…what Paul Ricoeur has called ‘the myth of the exiled soul.’ (6)

In neither version does one need to be rescued. Assisted, directed, enlightened perhaps, but not rescued-at least not through a bloody cross.

Both versions of the "glory story" drive us deeper into ourselves, identifying God with the inner self, instead of calling us outside of ourselves. The "cross story" and the "glory story" represent not merely different emphases, but entirely different religions, as J. Gresham Machen pointed out in his controversial book, Christianity and Liberalism.

Pelagianism leads to Christless Christianity because we do not need a Savior, but a good example. Gnosticism’s route to Christless Christianity is by driving us deeper inside ourselves rather than outside to the incarnate God who rescued us from the guilt, tyranny, and penalty of our sins. Pelagianism and Gnosticism combine to keep us looking to ourselves and within ourselves. We’re a self-help people and we like our gods inside of us where we can manage them. Together, these heresies have created the perfect storm: the American Religion.

Gnosticism as the American Religion?

Contemporary descriptions in news periodicals and polling data consistently reveal that the ever-popular "search for the sacred" in American culture shares a lot of similarities with Gnosticism. Of course, in the most popular versions there may be no explicit awareness of this connection or any direct dependence on such sources.

There is an explicit revival of Gnosticism in our day, however, in both the academy and popular culture, from Harvard Divinity School seminars to Dan Brown’s The Da Vinci Code. The "Gnosticism" aisle in the average bookstore chain (next to religion and spirituality) is evidence of renewed interest in pagan spiritualities. Matthew Fox, repeating the warning of self-described Gnostic psychologist Carl Jung, expresses this sentiment well: "One way to kill the soul is to worship a God outside you." (7) Other writers in this issue focus on this revival of explicit, full-strength Gnosticism, so I will focus on the "Gnosticism Lite" that pervades the American spirituality today.

This watered-down Gnosticism does not require any explicit awareness of, much less attachment to, the esoteric myth of creation and redemption-by-enlightenment. The opposition, however, between inner divinity and enlightenment and redemption, an external God, the external Word, an external redemption in Christ, and an institutional church offers a striking parallel to America’s search for the sacred.

In the American Religion, as in ancient Gnosticism, there is almost no sense of God’s difference from us-in other words, his majesty, sovereignty, self-existence, and holiness. God is my buddy or my inmost experience, or the power-source for living my best life now. God is not strange (i.e., holy)-and is certainly not a judge. He does not evoke fear, awe, or a sense of terrifying and disorienting beauty. Furthermore, all the focus on making atonement through a bloody sacrifice seems crude and unspiritual to Gnostics when, after all, the point of salvation is to escape the physical realm. All of this is too "Jewish," according to Gnostics from Marcion to Schleiermacher to the "Re-Imagining Conference" of mainline Protestant leaders (especially radical feminists) who explicitly appealed to Gnosticism in their screeds against "men hanging on crosses with blood dripping and all that gory stuff." The god of Gnosticism is not the one before whom Isaiah said, "Woe to me, for I am undone!" or Peter said, "Depart from me, for I am a sinful man." To borrow a nice phrase from William Placher, it represents "the domestication of transcendence." God is no longer a problem for us.

Instead of God’s free decision to make his home with us in the world that he created, for the Gnostic we are at home with God already, in the stillness of our inner self and away from all entanglements in space and time. As the second-century church father Irenaeus pointed out, Gnostics simply do not care about the unfolding plan of redemption in history because they do not care about history. Time and space are alien to the innermost divine self. To mystics and radical Anabaptists like Thomas Müntzer who made even the external Word of Scripture and preaching subservient to an alleged inner word of personal revelation, Luther and Calvin said that this was the essence of "enthusiasm" (literally, God-within-ism). As Luther put it, this is the attempt to ascend the ladder from matter and history to spirit and the eternal vision of "the naked God." Yet, apart from the incarnate Word, this dazzling god we encounter at the top of that ladder is really the devil, who "disguises himself as an angel of light" (2 Cor. 11:14).

This characteristically American approach to religion, in which the direct relationship of the soul to God generates an almost romantic encounter with the sacred, makes inner experience the measure of spiritual genuineness. We are more concerned that our spiritual leaders exude "vulnerability," "authenticity," and the familiar spontaneity that tells us that they too really do have a personal relationship with Jesus than that they faithfully interpret Scripture and are sent by Christ through the official ordination of his church. Everything perceived as external to the self-the church, the gospel, Word and sacrament, the world, and even God-must either be marginalized or, in more radical versions, rejected as that which would alienate the soul from its immediacy to the divine.

It is therefore not surprising that today the "search for the sacred" continues to generate a proliferation of sects. In fact, sociologist Robert Bellah has coined the term "Sheilaism" to describe American spirituality, based on one interview in which a woman named Sheila said that she just follows her own inner voice. "Your Own Personal Jesus," parodying the title of a Depeche Mode song, seems to be the informal but intense spirituality of many American Christians as well.

Philip Lee’s Against the Protestant Gnostics (Oxford, 1987) and Harold Bloom’s The American Religion (Simon and Schuster, 1992) point out with great insight the connections between this popular spirituality and Gnosticism. It is especially worth pondering Harold Bloom’s learned ruminations here because, as he himself observes, Philip Lee laments the Gnosticism of American Religion while Bloom celebrates it. (8)

Hailed as America’s most distinguished literary critic, Bloom displays a sophisticated grasp of the varieties of ancient Gnosticism as well as its successive eruptions in the West to the present day. First of all, says Bloom, "freedom, in the context of the American Religion, means being alone with God or with Jesus, the American God or the American Christ." (9) This unwritten creed is as evident in the history of American evangelicalism as it is in Emerson.

As a religious critic, I remain startled by and obsessed with the revivalistic element in our religious experience. Revivalism, in America, tends to be the perpetual shock of the individual discovering yet again what she and he always have known, which is that God loves her and him on an absolutely personal and indeed intimate basis. (10)

Second, as extreme as it at first appears, Bloom suggests that whatever the stated doctrinal positions that evangelicalism shares with historic Christianity,

Mormons and Southern Baptists call themselves Christians, but like most Americans they are closer to ancient Gnostics than to early Christians….The American Religion is pervasive and overwhelming, however, it is masked, and even our secularists, indeed even our professed atheists, are more Gnostic than humanist in their ultimate presuppositions. We are a religiously made culture, furiously searching for the spirit, but each of us is subject and object of the one quest, which must be for the original self, a spark or breath in us that we are convinced goes back to before the Creation. (11)

"The Christ of the twentieth century" is no longer really even a distinct historical person, but "has become a personal experience for the American Christian, quite clearly for the Evangelicals." (12) In this scheme, history is no longer the sphere of Christianity. The focus of faith and practice is not so much Christ’s objective person and work for us, outside of us, as it is a "personal relationship" that is defined chiefly in terms of inner experience.

Although he may at times overstate his thesis, Bloom draws on numerous primary and secondary sources from the history of particular movements to build his case. In one chapter, Bloom explores the enthusiastic revivalism of Barton Stone, who broke away from Presbyterianism to found what he regarded as the finally and fully restored apostolic church: the Church of Christ (Disciples). According to his memoirs, Stone wrote, "Calvinism is among the heaviest clogs on Christianity in the world," even from the very beginning of its assumptions: "Its first link is total depravity." (13)

A full generation before Emerson came to his spiritual maturity, the frontier people experienced their giant epiphany of Gnosis at Cane Ridge. Their ecstasy was no more communal than the rapture at Woodstock; each barking Kentuckian or prancing yippie barked and pranced for himself alone…. American ecstasy is solitary, even when it requires the presence of others for the self’s glory. (14)

"What was missing in all this quite private luminosity," Bloom adds, "was simply most of historic Christianity."

I hasten to add that I am celebrating, not deploring, when I make that observation. So far as I can tell, the Southern Jesus, which is to say the American Jesus, is not so much an agent of redemption as he is an imparter of knowledge, which returns us to the analysis of an American Gnosis in my previous chapter. Jesus is not so much an event in history for the American Religionist as he is a knower of the secrets of God who in return can be known by the individual. Hidden in this process is a sense that depravity is only a lack of saving knowledge. (15)

This intuitive, direct, and immediate knowledge is set over against the historically mediated forms of knowledge. What an American knows in his or her heart is more certain than the law of gravity.

"A pragmatic exploiter of his own charisma," Charles Finney was a formative influence in the American Religion, notes Bloom. (16) So the "deeds, not creeds" orientation of American revivalism is driven not only by a preference for works over faith (i.e., Pelagianism), but by the Gnostic preference for a private, mystical, and inward "personal relationship with Jesus" in opposition to everything public, doctrinal, and external to the individual soul. Religion is formal, ordered, corporate, and visible; spirituality is informal, spontaneous, individual, and invisible.

As sweeping as it may first appear, there are clear similarities between fundamentalism and Pentecostalism on the one hand and Protestant liberalism on the other. In fact, one reason that these forms of religion have survived modernity, against all expectations to the contrary, is that they not only can accommodate modernity’s privatization of faith as an inner experience but they actually thrive in this atmosphere. Repeatedly in the past few centuries, we have seen how easily an inner-directed pietism and revivalism turns to the vinegar of liberalism. One example is Wilhelm Herrmann, a liberal pietist, whose statement early in the twentieth century could be heard in many evangelical circles then as now: "To fix doctrines…into a system is the last thing the Christian Church should undertake….But if, on the other hand, we keep our attention fixed on what God is producing in the Christian’s inner life, then the manifoldness of the thoughts which spring from faith will not confuse us, but give us cause for joy." (17)

So it is not surprising when today’s fundamentalists eventually become tomorrow’s liberals, in recurring cycles that pass through stages of intense controversy. Bloom follows a similar narrative in relation to Gnosticism. For all of their obvious differences, fundamentalists and liberals, Quakers and Roman Catholics, Presbyterians and Mormons, New Agers and Southern Baptists sound a lot alike when it comes to how we in America approach religious truth.

While Luther, Calvin, and their heirs sought to reform the church, the more radical Protestant movements have often seen the church as an obstacle to the individual’s personal relationship with God. (Evangelical George Barna, a guru of the church growth movement, has recently written three books arguing that the era of the local church is over, soon to be replaced by Internet resources for personal piety.) Where the Reformers pointed to the external ministry of the church, centering on Word and sacrament, as the place where God promised to meet his people, "enthusiasm" was suspicious of everything external. Similarly, Quakers gave up the formal ministry, including preaching and sacrament, in favor of group sharing of personal revelations. Even when evangelicals retain these public means appointed by Christ, they often become assim-ilated to self-expression and techniques for self-trans-formation: means of our experience and activity more than God’s means of grace. Ultimately, it’s what I do alone with God that matters, not what God does for me together with his covenant people through public, earthly, material means that he has appointed.

In the history of American (and to some extent British) evangelicalism, the fear of sacraments (as opposed to ordinances) has often been defended as a defense against the perpetual threat of Romanism. In all likelihood, however, a deeper (perhaps unwitting) source of such unease is that evangelicalism has listed toward Gnosticism: Nothing can be allowed to get in the way of my personal and utterly unique relationship with Jesus. Southern Baptist theologian E. Y. Mullins was not saying anything that was not already elaborated by American Transcen-dentalists when he wrote, "That which we know most indubitably are the facts of inner experience." (18) The individual believer, alone with his or her Bible, was all that was necessary for a vital Christian experience. Bloom quotes Mullins’ axiom, "Religion is a personal matter between the soul and God." (19) However heterodox this assumption may be by the standards of historic Christianity, it is surely the orthodoxy of American Religion.

Furthermore, Bloom observes, triumphalism-the inability to face the depravity of the inner self even at its best-marks the Gnostic spirit. "Triumphalism is the only mode," says Bloom, in which Mullins and American religionists generally "read Romans," moving quickly through the body of Paul’s epistle to chapter 8: "In all these things we are more than conquerors through him that loved us." (20)

Indeed, Gnostics are allergic to any talk about the reality of sin and death. It was in nineteenth-century America that Mary Baker Eddy founded Christian Science, whose explicitly Gnostic enthusiasms introduced into the vocabulary of Christians the euphemism "passing away" for death and resurrection.

For Bloom, two outstanding exceptions to this Gnostic trajectory are Swiss theologian Karl Barth and Princeton scholar (and founder of Westminster Seminary) J. Gresham Machen. "Barth knows the difference between the Reformed faith and Gnosis," says Bloom, pointing out the critical divergence: the subjective experience of the self over God’s objective word and work. (21)

What we call fundamentalists, says Bloom, are really Gnostics of an anti-intellectual variety. If there were a possibility of an anti-Gnostic version of fundamentalism, says Bloom, such proponents "would find their archetype in the formidable J. Gresham Machen, a remarkable Presbyterian New Testament scholar at Princeton, who published a vehement defense of traditional Christianity in 1923, with the aggressive title Christianity and Liberalism." Bloom adds, "I have just read my way through this, with distaste and discomfort but with reluctant and growing admiration for Machen’s mind. I have never seen a stronger case made for the argument that institutional Christianity must regard cultural liberalism as an enemy to faith." (22) In contrast to this defense of traditional Christianity, those who came to be called fundamentalists are more like "the Spanish Fascism of Franco…heirs of Franco’s crusade against the mind, and not the legatees of Machen." (23)

In short, "the Calvinist deity, first brought to America by the Puritans, has remarkably little in common with the versions of God now apprehended by what calls itself Protestantism in the United States." Again, as Bloom himself points out, Philip Lee’s Against the Protestant Gnostics makes almost the same arguments, with many of the same historical examples. What makes Bloom’s account a little more interesting is that he champions the American Religion and hopes for even greater gains for Gnosticism in the future. According to Bloom, a "revival of Continental Reformed Protestantism is precisely what we do not need." (24) Like ancient Gnosticism, contemporary American approaches to spirituality-however different conservative and liberal versions may appear on the surface-typically underscore the inner spirit as the locus of a personal relationship. As conservative Calvary Chapel founder Chuck Smith expresses it, "We meet God in the realm of our spirit." (25) This view is so commonplace that it seems odd to hear it challenged. Nevertheless, the church fathers, Protestant Reformers, and orthodox theologians have always directed us with the Scriptures, outside of ourselves, where God has chosen to meet with and to reconcile strangers.

Philip Lee’s contrast between Gnosticism and Calvin can be just as accurately documented from a wide variety of Christians through the ages:

Whereas classical Calvinism had held that the Christian’s assurance of salvation was guaranteed only through Christ and his Church, with his means of grace, now assurance could be found only in the personal experience of having been born again. This was a radical shift, for Calvin had considered any attempt to put ‘conversion in the power of man himself’ to be gross popery. (26)

In fact, for the Reformers, adds Lee, the new birth was the opposite of "rebirth into a new and more acceptable self," but the death of the old self and its rebirth in Christ. (27)

Like ancient Gnosticism, American spirituality uses God or the divine as something akin to an energy source. Through various formulae, steps, procedures, or techniques, one may "access" this source on one’s own. Such spiritual technology could be employed without any need for the office of preaching, administering baptism or the Supper, or membership in a visible church, submitting to its communal admonitions, encouragements, teaching, and practices.

According to the studies of sociologist Wade Clark Roof, "The distinction between ‘spirit’ and ‘institution’ is of major importance" to spiritual seekers today. (28) "Spirit is the inner, experiential aspect of religion; institution is the outer, established form of religion." (29) He adds, "Direct experience is always more trustworthy, if for no other reason than because of its ‘inwardness’ and ‘withinness’-two qualities that have come to be much appreciated in a highly expressive, narcissistic culture." (30)

The way many evangelicals today speak of "accessing" and "connecting" with God underscores this point, in sharp contrast with the biblical emphasis on God’s descent to us in the incarnation. Profoundly aware of our difference from God not only as creatures but as sinners as well, biblical faith underscores the need for mediation. God finds us by using his own creation as his "mask" behind which he hides so that he can serve us. The Gnostic, by contrast, needs no mediation. God is not external to the self; in fact, the human spirit and the divine Spirit are already a unity. We cannot be judged-but, then, this also means that we cannot be justified.

To the extent that churches in America today feel compelled to accommodate their message and methods to these dominant forms of spirituality (dominant also in-perhaps even first in-American evangelicalism itself), they will lend evidence to the thesis that Christianity is not news based on historical events but just another therapeutic illusion.

The Flight of the Lonely Soul vs. the Journey of the Pilgrim

Longing for Christ’s return, the Christian is world-weary because "this age" lies under the power of sin and death. As the firstfruits of the new creation, Jesus Christ has conquered these powers. It is only a matter of time before the restoration of redeemed creation at the end of history. In the meantime, the believer groans along with the rest of creation for this liberation (Rom. 8:18-25). So the Christian is longing for the final liberation of creation, not from creation. Precisely because the believer is rooted in the age to come, of which the Spirit’s indwelling presence is the down payment, there is a simultaneous groaning in the face of the status quo and confidence in God’s promise to make all things new.

By contrast, the Gnostic self is rootless, restless, weary of the world not because of its bondage to sin but because it is worldly, longing not for its sharing in the liberation of the children of God but in its freedom at last from creation’s company; not the transformation of our times and places, but the transcendence of all times and places. "Taking no root," wrote nineteenth-century American novelist Nathaniel Hawthorne, "I soon weary of any soil in which I may be temporarily deposited. The same impatience I feel, or conceive of, as regards this earthly life." (31) Add to this philosophical orientation the practical transience of contemporary life that keeps us blowing like tumbleweed across the desert, and Gnosticism can be easily seen to jive with our everyday experience. Uprooted, we rarely live anywhere long enough even to be transplanted. Flitting like a bumble bee from flower to flower of religious, spiritual, moral, psychic, and even familial and sexual identities, our generation actually finds it plausible that there can be genuine communities (including "churches") on the Internet.

But the "glory story" is not all it’s cracked up to be. Bearing the weight of self-salvation or self-deification on our shoulders is as foolish as it is cruel. The search for the sacred leads to hell rather than heaven, to death rather than life, to ourselves (or Satan) rather than to the God who has descended to us in Jesus Christ, veiling his blinding majesty in our frail flesh. In this foolishness God outsmarts us, and in this weakness he conquered the powers of death and hell. The truth that Jesus proclaims-and the truth that Jesus is-remains for all ages, even for Americans, "the power of God unto salvation for everyone who believes" (Rom. 1:16).


1 Jeff Gordinier, Entertainment Weekly (7 October 1994).
2 Curtis White, "Hot Air Gods," Harper’s vol. 315/no. 1891 (December 2007), p. 13.
3 White, pp. 13-14.
4 White, p. 14.
5 Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America (New York: 1898), vol. 1, p. 66.
6 Gerhard O. Forde, On Being a Theologian of the Cross: Reflections on Luther’s Heidelberg Disputation, 1518 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), p. 5.
7 Cited in Wade Clark Roof, A Generation of Seekers: The Spiritual Journeys of the Baby Boom Generation (San Francisco: HarperCollins, 1993), p. 75.
8 Harold Bloom, The American Religion: The Emergence of the Post-Christian Nation (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1992), pp. 26-27.
9 Bloom, p. 15.
10 Bloom, p. 17.
11 Bloom, p. 22.
12 Bloom, p. 25.
13 Quoted by Bloom, p. 60.
14 Bloom, p. 264.
15 Bloom, p. 65.
16 Bloom, p. 73.
17 Wilhelm Herrmann, Communion with God (New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1913), p. 16.
18 Cited by Bloom, p. 204, from E. Y. Mullins, The Christian Religion (1910), p. 73.
19 Cited by Bloom, p. 213, from E. Y. Mullins, The Axioms of Religion (1908), pp. 53-54.
20 Bloom, p. 213.
21 Bloom, p. 213.
22 Bloom, p. 228.
23 Bloom, p. 229.
24 Bloom, p. 259.
25 Chuck Smith, New Testament Study Guide (Costa Mesa: The Word for Today, 1982), p. 113.
26 Philip Lee, Against the Protestant Gnostics (New York: Oxford University Press, 1987), p. 144.
27 Lee, p. 255.
28 Roof, p. 23.
29 Roof, p. 30.
30 Roof, p. 67.
31 Cited in Vernon L. Parrington, "The Romantic Revolution in America," vol. 2 of Main Currents in American Thought (New York: Harcourt Brace, 1959), pp. 441-442.

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: "The New Spiritualities" May/June 2008 Vol. 17 No. 3 Page number(s): 14-20

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.

Was Jesus Always Nice?

Matthew 23, Luke 19:41-44            

John MacArthur

The Great Shepherd Himself was never far from open controversy with the most conspicuously religious inhabitants in all of Israel. Almost every chapter of the Gospels makes some reference to His running battle with the chief hypocrites of His day, and He made no effort whatsoever to be winsome in His encounters with them. He did not invite them to dialogue or engage in a friendly exchange of ideas.

Jesus’ public ministry was barely underway when He invaded what they thought was their turf—the temple grounds in Jerusalem—and went on a righteous rampage against their mercenary control of Israel’s worship. He did the same things again during the final week before His crucifixion, immediately after His triumphal entry into the city. One of His last major public discourses was the solemn pronunciation of seven woes against the scribes and Pharisees. These were formal curses against them. That sermon was the farthest thing from a friendly dialogue. But it is a perfect summary of Jesus’ dealings with the Pharisees. It is blistering denunciation—a candid diatribe about the seriousness of their error. There is no conversation, no collegiality, no dialogue, and no cooperation. Only confrontation, condemnation, and (as Matthew 23 records) curses against them.

Jesus’ compassion is certainly evident in two facts that bracket this declamation. First, Luke says that as He drew near the city and observed its full panorama for this final time, He paused and wept over it (Luke 19:41-44). And second, Matthew records a similar lament at the end of the seven woes (23:37). So we can be absolutely certain that as Jesus delivered this diatribe, His heart was full of compassion.

Yet that compassion is directed at the victims of the false teaching, not the false teachers themselves. There is no hint of sympathy, no proposal of clemency, no trace of kindness, no effort on Jesus’ part to be “nice” toward the Pharisees. Indeed, with these words Jesus formally and resoundingly pronounced their doom and then held them up publicly as a warning to others.

This is the polar opposite of any invitation to dialogue. He doesn’t say, “They’re basically good guys. They have pious intentions. They have some valid spiritual insights. Let’s have a conversation with them.” Instead, He says, “Keep your distance. Be on guard against their lifestyle and their influence. Follow them, and you are headed for the same condemnation they are.”

This approach would surely have earned Jesus a resounding outpouring of loud disapproval from today’s guardians of evangelical protocol. In fact, His approach to the Pharisees utterly debunks the cardinal points of conventional wisdom among modern and post-modern evangelicals—the neo-evangelical fondness for eternal collegiality, and the Emerging infatuation with engaging all points of view in endless conversation. By today’s standards, Jesus’ words about the Pharisees and His treatment of them are breathtakingly severe.

Excerpted from The Jesus You Can’t Ignore.
© 2009 by John MacArthur.

I think you really handled the topic of ‘boasting’ really well! I can’t tell you how many times I have brought that subject up in conversations. If I think my decision for Christ was all on my own I indeed have reason to boast. Another argument I have received many times, and because the topic of predestination cannot be refuted, is that God only predestined a plan, but not His people.

gracewriterrandy's avatarTruth Unchanging

This morning I had the unhappy experience of watching and listening to a YouTube video in which the speaker was trying to “refute Calvinism” by his “exegesis” of Romans 9.  Apart from his deplorable communication skills, and his ignoring of the context in which we find this passage, (an error of which he accused his opponents) the Pelagian speaker* actually said many things with which most Calvinists would probably agree.  In fact, I confess I became impatient as I listened waiting for him to state something that would not be obvious to a poorly educated third grader.  Finally, he came to points of difference.  His primary argument seemed to be that God is sovereign in choosing and rejecting nations but is not sovereign in the salvation of sinners.  The truth is, God is sovereign everywhere, or he is not sovereign anywhere.  And, if he is not sovereign everywhere, he simply…

View original post 1,354 more words

‘Tension exists’ because of military gay policy

Posted on Jun 7, 2012 | by Tom Strode

WASHINGTON (BP) — The military’s revised policy on homosexuality has definitely produced stress for chaplains and service members, Southern Baptists’ lead chaplain told a Washington, D.C., audience.

An increasing intolerance toward religion appears to be a by-product of the ongoing controversy over religious expression in the armed services, said Douglas Carver, executive director of chaplaincy services for the North American Mission Board.

Speaking at a conference sponsored by the American Religious Freedom Program, Carver addressed the effect on freedom of religion and conscience brought about by the lifting of the ban on open homosexuality in the military.

“I can assure you that a tension exists in this area,” Carver told participants. “For example, the Department of Defense no longer considers homosexuality a moral issue. [To the department,] it is an amoral issue. To them, it’s a concern of human dignity, respect, discipline and professionalism. However, a number of our chaplains and troops believe that homosexuality is a moral issue.”

The policy change has increased tensions, he said, regarding:

–“Governmental authority versus religious authority and sacred scriptures.
— Religious diversity and religious practices.”

One of the results, Carver said, has been “a confusion, especially among some of our commanders, over religious freedom protocol.”

He added, “There is a growing concern over political correctness and how it may inhibit freedom of religious expression, especially while in uniform.

“Due to the negative press on religious issues, there appears to be a growing intolerance to even discussing religion at all — an intolerance to religion,” said Carver, who retired in September as the Army Chief of Chaplains after 38 years in the service. “And perhaps that is one of the greatest threats that we are all facing — intolerance to religion which can lead to the absence of religion in the public market place, which can lead to silencing our voices about religious issues, which can lead to prejudice and violence, etcetera.”

That intolerance, or inhibition of religious free exercise, has manifested itself in several ways. Ron Crews, executive director of the Chaplain Alliance for Religious Liberty, cited some examples at the conference:

— Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff at the time, briefed special forces soldiers at Fort Bragg in North Carolina after President Obama announced his intention in 2010 to repeal the military ban, which was known as Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (DADT). Based on what was shared by witnesses, Crews said, a young chaplain asked Mullen, “Sir, if this policy is repealed, will those of us who hold biblical views that homosexuality is a sin still be protected to express those views?” Mullen pointed a finger toward him and said, “Chaplain, if you cannot get in line with this policy, resign your commission.”

— Lt. Gen. Thomas Bostick, the Army’s deputy chief of staff for personnel, provided a September 2010 briefing on DADT for troops at European Command headquarters in Stuttgart, Germany. According to The Washington Times, Bostick said, “Unfortunately, we have a minority of service members who are still racists and bigoted and you will never be able to get rid of all of them. But these people opposing this new policy will need to get with the program, and if they can’t they need to get out.”

Those comments from Mullen and Bostick formed a “chilling effect” on the religious liberty of chaplains and troops, said Crews, who served 28 years as an Army chaplain.

Shortly after Congress and President Obama enacted repeal of DADT in December 2010, the president announced his administration would no longer defend the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which defines marriage as a union of a man and a woman in federal law. In September 2011, the Pentagon announced same-sex ceremonies could be conducted on armed services bases by military chaplains.

Service members who have come out as homosexuals since DADT’s reversal often are quoted in news stories, but those who hold views opposed to the repeal are not permitted to speak to reporters, Crews said.
Members of Congress have reminded the Pentagon that DOMA still is federal law, and they have sought to provide protections for the religious freedom of chaplains and troops without success.

An Army chaplain conducted the first same-sex ceremony on a military base in May at Fort Polk in Louisiana, CNS News reported June 6. Same-sex marriage is illegal in Louisiana. An Army official said the ceremony for two lesbian soldiers was a religious, not a legal, ceremony, according to the Associated Press.

“The issue of religious liberties, rights of conscience for chaplains and those they serve is real,” Crews told the audience at the May 24 conference.

“We must not allow political correctness or a particular political agenda to put restrictions on their conscience, because … no American — especially those who wear the uniform — should be denied their religious convictions as they serve to protect your religious freedom.”

The Ethics and Public Policy Center, a Washington-based organization that seeks to apply Judeo-Christian values to policy issues, started the American Religious Freedom Program last year for the purpose of helping strengthen religious liberty.
________________
Tom Strode is Washington bureau chief for Baptist Press. Get Baptist Press headlines and breaking news on Twitter (@BaptistPress), Facebook (Facebook.com/BaptistPress) and in your email (baptistpress.com/SubscribeBP.asp).

Source

Share

Warriors For Christ

Picture4

United States Army Special Forces soldiers, who to carry on an active witness for Christ within their units have worn this patch, sometimes sewed into the lining of their Green Berets, in the same spirit of devotion to Christ as the Roman soldiers depicted in this story.

Forty good warriors for Christ they were! All were from Cappadocia, and all were members of the vaunted Twelfth or “Thundering” Legion of Rome’s imperial army. For three centuries, this elite command had maintained an unmatched record in the art of war.

An edict came down from Licinius, the Ceasar in the East: Civil servants, including soldiers, were to lose their appointments if they refused to offer sacrifice on pagan altars before the local deities. And civil servants included the troops!

At the time (midwinter of 320A.D.) the 40 Cappadocians were stationed with the Twelfth Legion at Sebaste, a city of Lesser Armenia south of the Pontus Euxinus, (Black Sea). In command was the captain, Agricolas, a seasoned veteran. Upon receiving the edict he assembled the troops and read out the instructions.

“Men of the Twelfth Legion”, he shouted, “you have shown your valor and unity in battle in a way that has brought victory after victory over the enemy’s forces. Now I am calling upon you to demonstrate once again your support of our imperial Caesar, Valerius Licinius, and your obedience to his laws. It is most important, because of a new threat to our armies, that we desire a favorable issue out of this campaign by making appropriate sacrifice to the gods. The ceremony will be tomorrow.”

Two spokesmen for the Cappadocians informed Agricolas that there were 40 Christians in the ranks of the Legion who would have nothing to do with the proposed ritual of sacrifice.

“Inform the troops”, replied Agricolas, and with some heat, “that two choices lie before them. If they take part in the sacrifice they will be eligible for promotion and honor. If they do not, their armor and their military status will be taken away from them.

“If it rests with us,” said Kandidas, one of the spokesmen, “we have made our choice. We shall devote our love to God.”

They were taken to a place of confinement to await trial before a Roman tribunal.

A week later, before the tribunal that demanded they recant their faith and offer pagan sacrifices, Kandidas again spoke for the 40 men and delivered their final answer to the court.
“You can have our armor, and our bodies as well. We prefer Christ.”

At 9 o’clock the following morning, they reported to Agricolas and he pronounced the command sentence. Their arms were to be bound, ropes were to be placed over their necks, and they were to be led to the shore of a nearby frozen lake.

A bitter wind whipped over the lake’s surface as the men of Cappadocia were driven out shivering in the dusk. Guards were posted on the shore, and the military jailer, Aglaios, stood by with arms folded, watching.
“Forty good soldiers for Christ: We shall not depart from You as long as you give us life. We shall call upon Your Name whom all creation praises: fire and hail, snow and wind and storm. On You we have hoped and we were not ashamed!”

Their songs grew more feeble at the day passed and midnight approached. Then a strange thing occurred. On of the forty was seen emerging from the darkness of the lake, staggering towards the shore. He fell to his knees and began crawling towards the bath house. The guards posted there were dozing. Only the jailer, Aglaios, was awake, his eyes peering into the blackness, his ears straining to catch the mumbled prayers of the doomed Christians.

“Thirty nine good soldiers for Christ!” came a thin quivering note from the distance. Aglaios watched the man enter the bathhouse then emerge quickly, apparently overcome by the heat. He saw the man collapse on the ground and lie still.

At that moment, something happened in the heart of Aglaios the jailer. What it was, only he and God will ever know, but the guards reported hearing a great shout that jerked them awake. Rubbing their eyes, they watched him wrench off his armor and girdle and dash to the edge of the lake. There, after lifting his right hand and crying, “Forty good soldiers for Christ!” he disappeared over the ice and into the darkness.

_______________

I first received that patch in the late 70’s. More recently, in the late 90’s, I had the opportunity to share that patch and the story with one of the Chaplains of the 10th Special Forces Group at Ft. Carson, Colorado. As a result, the 10th SF Chaplain who gave me my original patch provided a contact through whom I could have more produced, which I gave the 10th Gp chaplains. They in turn had some made that were much smaller, green and black, that could be worn on the shoulders of their uniforms. Some of the soldiers of the 10th have worn those patches in combat, as symbols for their ‘first’ allegiance.

Needs of the Times!

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!

Share

Inerrancy Means Freedom

“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

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

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