The Cost of Free Grace

“What must I do to be saved?” (Acts 16:30) What does salvation cost? (Luke 14:28) Such questions are at the heart of the gospel of reconciliation but are also central to daily Christian life. Our answers will determine our lives, both eternal and temporal, so it is hard to imagine more important ideas to consider. So we come back to our question: what does salvation cost? Nothing… and everything.

In the first place, we affirm that salvation is of the Lord. That it is He who conceives, plans, works, and completes our salvation. Salvation is found in Christ alone. He earned our salvation through His righteousness, He purchased it with His blood, He works it in us through His Spirit and His word, and He will bring it to completion in the last day through His might. There is nothing that we can do to be reconciled to God. There is nothing we have done to merit His favor. There is nothing we could ever do to deserve redemption. Yet, Christ has done what we could not. It is His merit which matters.

“The wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.” (Romans 6:23) “It is done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give to the one who thirsts from the spring of the water of life without cost.” (Revelation 21:6) Scripture is clear. We are saved by grace through faith in Christ alone. It is a gift, given without cost to all who believe. We are saved by God’s free grace. We must never forget, however, the extraordinary cost of such grace: Christ paid for it with His blood. We are saved by purchased grace. Such grace cost us nothing, but cost Jesus the glory of heaven for the suffering of earth even unto death on a cross.

It is unfortunate that we often stop here. But you might ask, what more needs to be said? Surely nothing can be added to the magnificent work of Christ? Indeed, Christ’s work needs no addition. But we have not yet seen all of Christ’s work. Consider Romans 6:22, “But now having been freed from sin and enslaved to God, you derive your benefit, resulting in sanctification, and the outcome, eternal life.” Consider also Revelation 21:7, “He who overcomes will inherit these things, and I will be his God and he will be My son.” We are slaves of God. We inherit the promises of grace if we overcome. That does not sound like a free gift. But notice that such demands are put in proximity to great gifts, for they too are gifts of Christ’s purchased grace. It is Christ in us which makes us overcome. Do not set conversion and godliness in opposition. We have been saved (justification), we are being saved (sanctification), and in the end we finally will be saved (glorification), all by the purchased grace of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

This brings us to the second half of the answer. We have seen that salvation is the free gift of God. Our salvation costs us nothing! Yet alongside of this great truth, we must also affirm that salvation costs us everything. Not in the sense of what must be paid to merit God’s grace. Instead, God’s grace costs everything we have and everything we are. Jesus instructs us to count the cost of discipleship (Luke 14). So let us heed the word of the Lord and examine the cost to us in God’s free gift.

First, God’s grace will cost us our love of sin. Everyone is born in sin and all people are sinners. Our problem is not simply that we sin, but that we love sin. If we are to be reconciled to God we must realign ourselves with truth and righteousness; we must abandon our sins and love Christ. Often we think of resisting sin as forcing ourselves to not do something we really want to do (or doing something we really don’t feel like). However, the truth is much deeper. We must learn to hate sin, to hate it with such passion that we weep over our weakness and sin. We must learn to love righteousness such that obedience is never a burden or an attempt at manipulation but is our greatest pleasure. Do not be deceived, you cannot love Christ and love your sins. You cannot turn to Christ and yet say, I love evil (perhaps even blaming Christ for not having removed your sinful lusts). The one who says, “I have come to know Him,” and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him; (1 John 2:4) If we do not recognize and lament our sins, and if we do not long for and love righteousness, we have not tasted of God’s grace. If we have not repented of our sins, indeed if we do not continue to repent of our sins, then there is yet a cost for God’s free gift.

Second, God’s grace will cost us our love of ease. We love leisure. We plan for retirement, we work for the weekend, we long for vacation, we ensure that we have personal time. Yet God’s gracious gift will cost us even this seemingly innocent love. How much of our time is ours? None of it. We have been called for a purpose, God’s purpose, not ours. Do not misunderstand. This is not condemning rest and relaxation nor suggesting that vacations are evil. In fact, rest is a vital and commanded part of the Christian life. We should rejoice in opportunities to rest and recreate. We should intentionally plan for rest such that we are able to remain healthy, productive, and joyous. Rest in this world, however, must never be our primary goal. The Christian life is one of labor and struggle (Whoever does not carry his own cross and come after Me cannot be My disciple. Luke 14:27).

Consider the work of holiness. Is there ever a time to not strive for holiness? Every moment of every day is spent in this task. Sin is crouching at the door (Gen 4:7) ready for us to let down our guard. If you believe that such vigilance is either easy or unnecessary then take care lest you lose your soul. Until death relieves us of this duty or Christ completes His kingdom at His return, we must labor at the work of taming our own hearts. (1 Peter 1:15f) We must continue in the means of sanctification: scripture, prayer, sacraments, worship, community, service, etc. Rest is good and necessary, vacations are blessings, but we must never rest even for a moment from the work of holiness.

Consider too the work of worship. Worship, in both the general sense of giving glory to God and in the particular sense of corporate worship, is an activity never to be rested from. Worship is work. There is nothing passive in a worship service. It is not a performance. It is not for our consumption. It is the active, conscious, purposeful honoring of the God who alone deserves your affection and attention. Work at worship; work to worship from the heart, work to worship as He commands, work to be changed by worship. There will be no rest from this task for those who love the Lord; we will worship for all eternity. Glory be to God for such a gift, for it is our greatest joy to honor Christ.

Third, God’s grace will cost us our love of self. We as Americans are focused on the self; we believe individualism is a virtue. We are wrong. Let us here draw a distinction between two ideas: individuality vs. individualism. Individuality is the belief that people have value apart from any corporate entity. Individualism, on the other hand, is the pursuit of personal goals (such as happiness) rather than corporate goals. Further, it is the belief that institutions (family, church, state) exist to benefit the individual. We have come to adopt this philosophy so thoroughly that we border on narcissism, both inside and outside the church. Such a view of the self, such pride and self-centeredness, stands in opposition to God’s grace in Christ. The loss of such ideas is yet another cost of God’s free gift. As we proclaim this as error, it is important to not deny individuality. God knows each person as an individual (Ps 139), has gifted each person individually (Rom 12, 1 Cor 12), calls us and works all things for our good (Romans 8:28).

Consider the nature of the church. We shop for churches and seek to find which one best “serves my needs.” We are called to the Christian life for the glory of our Lord, the benefit of His church, and the salvation of the lost. Life is not about me! How many people do you know who chose a church based on what the church needed? Do you know of even one? Churches design worship around its entertainment and emotional value, trying to attract those very people who ask what the church does for them. Do you not see the problem? The church ought not to be a purveyor of individualism. The Christian life is a call to service, a denial of self. We live in the midst of a consumerist culture, a “me” culture, a culture which knows not the grace of Christ.

Consider also the place of authority. How do you view authority? Parents, elders & pastors, and politicians are all types of authority for a Christian. To which do we submit? We gladly submit to all those who make us feel good; so too with all who benefit us. But what about those who challenge us? What about those who displease us? As believers in individualism, we grumble under such authorities, or we outright reject them. Do we dare believe that we are able to submit to a God who calls us to come and die when we find it so unpleasant to submit to an authority who demands something far less?

Fourth, God’s grace will cost us our love of stuff. “Go and sell all you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me.” (Mark 10:21) While it is true that Jesus did not here intend a general prohibition against possessions, it is also true that we underestimate the extreme nature of His statement. We are to abandon our love for possessions. As I look at my own heart I realize just how deeply I love many of the things of this world. If you are honest, you will admit that you struggle with this as well. The problem which is so dangerous, so insidious, is that we fail to recognize our obsession with stuff as a sin. Remember, we live in a consumerist culture which teaches that it a virtue to consume and accumulate for the benefit of the individual. We hear from many so called Christians that God wants to make you healthy and wealthy. And we want to believe it. So we work, and save, and accumulate, and hoard, and then act as though it were a virtue. We must learn to take our Lord’s words more seriously. If we love stuff more than Him, then we love Him not at all. Remember, Jesus did not speak amiss when he said that it was easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Beware your own heart’s obsession with stuff. Repent and fight the temptation and you will know the grace of God.

Fifth and finally, God’s grace will cost us our love of favor. We all want to be loved. Many of us also desire to be respected. We desire influence and attention. Herein lies the problem: if we follow Christ, the world will hate us (just as it hated Him). Sooner or later, God’s grace will cost us the respect we so desire from other people. Sooner or later, God’s grace will cost us the affection of the world we hold so dear. If your greatest good is your reputation, if it is your popularity, if it is your influence in whatever sphere, follow another god. The grace of God will cost us dearly in this world, though one day the truth will be made manifest and we will receive our reward.

Hear the word of God through the Apostle Paul: Fight the good fight of faith; take hold of the eternal life to which you were called, and you made the good confession in the presence of many witnesses. I charge you in the presence of God, who gives life to all things, and of Christ Jesus, who testified the good confession before Pontius Pilate, that you keep the commandment without stain or reproach until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ, which He will bring about at the proper time– He who is the blessed and only Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord of lords, who alone possesses immortality and dwells in unapproachable light, whom no man has seen or can see. To Him be honor and eternal dominion! Amen. (1Timothy 6:12-16) While the cost of God’s grace could not be higher (after all who could give more than everything), the reward is greater still. Imagine the wonder of that day when we appear before our King, our Judge, our Savior, and he says “well done, good and faithful servant, you were faithful…”

The Gospel, the Whole Gospel, and Nothing But the Gospel? (Part 4 – Depravity a virtue to be embraced?)

Introduction

This is Part 4 in a series of essays which are an attempt to get down at the root cause of a particular line of thought in the church – a particular line of thought that is gaining more and more of a footing in Reformed circles. In the previous posts, we examined the following interrelated questions:
Part 1 – The Gospel of Justification?
Part 2 – Exclusive Redemptive-Historical Preaching?
Part 3 – The same message, no matter the text?

In this essay, we take up the question: Is depravity a virtue to be embraced? At first glance, you might consider this to be a silly question. Maybe we ought to embrace the doctrine of depravity, but depravity itself as a virtue? And one that we ought to embrace, no less? That’s just strange! Well, yes, it is strange, but the notion that depravity is a virtue to be embraced is becoming more common.

Defining Our Terms

But, first, let’s define our terms. The doctrine of depravity is the understanding that men and women are born with original sin, the sin of Adam. This original sin, along with the actual sins that we commit, is what comprises our depravity. Depravity is simply the sinful condition of every human being who is descended from Adam by ordinary generation (that means Jesus is exempt). The fact that we are depraved means that this sin permeates and touches all parts of our being and all parts of our actions. Nothing that we are or do is free from the effects or tainting of our sin and depravity. Of course, God created us in His image and very good – that was the original plan (Genesis 1:26-28, 31). But, all of us – in Adam and then personally – sinned and rebelled and turned against our Creator (Isaiah 53:6).

It is this depravity (or pervasive sin) that cuts us off from our Creator who is holy and just. We are natural-born children of wrath (Ephesians 2:1-3). All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23). It is the doctrine of depravity (the “T” in TULIP – Total Depravity) which makes the love and grace of God more glorious, more astounding: God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us” (Romans 5:8). And, so it follows that understanding our own sin and depravity – our utter hopelessness and helplessness – is essential to understanding the abounding grace of God in rescuing sinners by sending His Son, Jesus Christ.

Most non-Christians, and unfortunately even many professing Christians, no longer understand or believe in depravity. Human beings are generally thought of as good, sweet, innocent; sin and evil is typically blamed on external forces or uncontrollable circumstances and experiences, rather than flowing from the human heart (Genesis 6:5; Matthew 15:19). In the realm of apologetics and evangelism, one must first establish an understanding of a Holy God who demands perfection from His sinful, depraved creatures. Otherwise, when we say, “Jesus saves!” most people will not understand or care, but simply ask, “Jesus saves from what?” And so, we must make a Biblical case for the doctrine of depravity in our efforts to communicate the good news of salvation in Jesus Christ.

The Problem

And now, here’s where things get interesting, and the problem ensues. Those who have formerly not believed in the depravity of man but now do (or those who have come to see that it is a much-denied doctrine in our culture), will often argue and continue arguing for the depravity of man such that it carries over into one’s Christian life and becomes an essential ingredient for pursuing sanctification. In the words of Benjamin Brook, writing in The Lives of the Puritans, “Persons who have embraced sentiments which afterwards appear to them erroneous, often think that they can never remove too far from them and the more remote they go from their former opinions the nearer they come to the truth.”

And so, little by little, in ever so subtle ways, Christians actually come to believe (implicitly, if not explicitly) that depravity is not only a doctrine that must be understood, but that it is actually a virtue that must be embraced! Perhaps you don’t move in the same circles as I do, or perhaps you’ve heard it so much that you don’t even notice how this strange way of thinking is so pervasive.

Some of this inappropriate emphasis on depravity in the post-conversion life of believers comes from a misunderstanding of certain Scriptures, and the avoidance of others. For instance, I have had people assume that even believers cannot do any good works that are acceptable to God based on Isaiah 64:6 – “all of our righteous deeds are like a filthy garment.” Yet, at the same time, Jesus assumes that God’s people will do good works in order to glorify their heavenly Father (Matthew 5:16). When we are reborn, we are recreated in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them (Ephesians 2:10).

Are these good works acceptable to God? Well, we know that without faith it is impossible to please Him (Hebrews 11:6), but what about believers? Are our good works and sacrifices ever made acceptable and pleasing to God? Of course they are! It is precisely because we are part of the spiritual household of faith and holy priesthood of God, that our spiritual sacrifices are acceptable to Him through Jesus Christ (1 Peter 2:4-5). Depending upon the power of the Holy Spirit in us, we seek to imitate God by walking in love, always trying to mimic the love of our Savior; when we do this our offerings and sacrifices to God are a fragrant aroma to Him – well-pleasing to our God (Ephesians 5:1-2; Philippians 4:18).

The Westminster Confession of Faith puts it this way (WCF 16.6):

…the persons of believers being accepted through Christ, their good works also are accepted in Him; not as though they were in this life wholly unblameable and unreprovable in God’s sight; but that He, looking upon them in His Son, is pleased to accept and reward that which is sincere, although accompanied with many weaknesses and imperfections.

Notice how the Confession emphasizes that it is because believers are accepted through Christ, that their good works are also accepted in Him. For example, commenting on Genesis 4:4 – where God accepts Abel and his sacrifice, but does not accept Cain or his sacrifice – John Calvin writes:

God is said to have respect unto the man to whom he vouchsafes his favor. We must, however, notice the order here observed by Moses; for he does not simply state that the worship which Abel had paid was pleasing to God, but he begins with the person of the offerer; by which he signifies, that God will regard no works with favor except those the doer of which is already previously accepted and approved by him.

The Evidence of the Problem

Too many believers fail to see the glorious benefits of the new birth, and how faith in the Lord Jesus Christ does away with both the punishment and the power of sin in our lives – such that we are not only forgiven, but able to now resist sin and live righteously (Titus 2:11-14).

There are other evidences, however, of how the erroneous teaching that depravity is a virtue to be embraced is alive and well. For instance, I have heard believers pray thus, “O Lord, forgive us – for we increase our depravity every day.” Believers sin every day in thought, word, and deed, but if you’re increasing your depravity every day, you might want to examine your heart and life and see if you have true faith!

Or, the most pervasive evidence of this faulty understanding of “depravity as a virtue to be embraced” is in the general call for believers to pursue sanctification by embracing their depravity – sometimes termed “brokenness.” And so, Peter’s three-fold denial of the Lord Jesus (Luke 22:54-62) becomes a paradigm not only for every believer’s conversion experience, but also every believer’s every day sanctificational experience. Understood this way, the only way to grow in Christ is by focusing and dwelling upon what a miserable sinner one is.

Not only is this practically dangerous in that it inevitably stunts the growth of believers, but it is biblically untenable. Instead of embracing – or even focusing on his sin and failures – the Apostle Paul acknowledges his own weakness, but is not satisfied to wallow in the mire of his sinful condition: “Brethren, I do not regard myself as having laid hold of it yet; but one thing I do: forgetting what lies behind and reaching forward to what lies ahead, I press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus” (Philippians 3:13-14). And, his focus is not on who he was in his own sin, but on who he is in Christ Jesus: “Therefore if you have been raised up with Christ, keep seeking the things above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God. Set your mind on the things above, not on the things that are on earth. For you have died and your life is hidden with Christ in God” (Colossians 3:1-3).

There’s a world of difference between acknowledging one’s sin and weakness and embracing one’s sin and weakness. David J. Bosch writes in his excellent book on a theology of missions A Spirituality of the Road (p 77):

When we realize that Christians are weak, we usually react in one of two ways. I use my weakness as an excuse or I reject it and demand strength. If I use weakness as an excuse I am not to blame for what is happening. God has caused me to be as weak as I am, therefore He is to be blamed if things go wrong. In fact, arguing this way, our weakness does not only become an excuse but a virtue. We are grateful for being weak because this relieves us of our responsibility; we may relax with a clear conscience.

Linked with this call to continually embrace one’s brokenness as a means toward sanctification is the refusal to ever compliment or recognize a person for their goodness or good work. In fact, if weakness and depravity are virtues to be embraced, rather than conditions which God remedies by the power of His Holy Spirit, then people are actually to be praised for their weakness and self-awareness of their own depravity. If depravity is a virtue to be embraced, then one could never say of a man, “He is to be honored for the work that he has done for the furtherance of the gospel” (actually, this is a paraphrase of what Paul said of Epaphroditus (Philippians 2:29-30)). Instead, according to this view, one ought to only praise men for their worthlessness! Or, at least praise men for their awareness of their own worthlessness.

If you don’t know what I’m talking about, then keep your eyes open for this sort of “wormology.” It’s out there, I promise. Listen to how people talk about how to progress and grow in the Christian life. Listen to how people talk about others and what is virtuous. I have attended gatherings of Reformed pastors and elders in which every speaker and preacher was introduced the same way (and I’m paraphrasing), “The best thing about Joe is that he understands what a great, big, fat sinner he is.” I recommend two books that help to counter this inappropriate over-emphasis on depravity as a virtue to be embraced: Designed for Dignity by Richard Pratt and The Enemy Within by Kris Lundgaard.

In the early 1940s, C.S. Lewis wrote in The Weight of Glory:

If you asked twenty good men to-day what they thought the highest of the virtues, nineteen of them would reply, Unselfishness. But if you asked almost any of the great Christians of old he would have replied, Love. You see what has happened? A negative term has been substituted for a positive, and this is of more than philological importance. The negative ideal of Unselfishness carries with it the suggestion not primarily of securing good things for others, but of going without them ourselves, as if our abstinence and not their happiness was the important point. I do not think this is the Christian virtue of Love. The New Testament has lots to say about self-denial, but not about self-denial as an end in itself. We are told to deny ourselves and to take up our crosses in order that we may follow Christ; and nearly every description of what we shall ultimately find if we do so contains an appeal to desire.

Thinking about how the positive virtue of Love has been replaced by the negative virtue of Unselfishness, causes me to think about how for many Christians the “pursuit of righteousness” has been replaced by the “denial of self-righteousness.” The New Testament has a lot to say about the denial of self-righteousness, but not about the denial of self-righteousness as an end in itself. We are told to deny or turn from our own self-righteousness and trust in Christ (Galatians 2:16); and nearly every description of what we shall find, if we do examine the Scriptures, contains an appeal to the desires of our new natures and the Holy Spirit within us.

For example, in his letter to the church in Galatia, even as the Apostle Paul condemns works-righteousness and the false notion of obtaining salvation by works of the law, his main exhortations at the end of the letter in chapter 6 are an appeal to sow to the Spirit:

For the one who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption, but the one who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life. Let us not lose heart in doing good, for in due time we will reap if we do not grow weary (Galatians 6:8-9)

But, here’s another thing that strikes me as I think about the quote from C.S. Lewis above: there are Christians today who have so embraced depravity as a virtue that they would deny one of Lewis’ main premises in the above quote. They would deny that there even exist twenty “good men” whom one could ask such questions about virtue. They would argue that having a category of people whom one labeled “great Christians of old” would be inappropriate, prideful idolatry, or at best, humanism. I remember having a discussion with a leader from another church about whether or not a particular action was right or wrong, his dismissive conclusion to our disagreement was this, “Look, all I know is that I’m 100% wrong all the time, you’re 100% wrong all the time, and God is 100% right all the time.” Need I even probe why this line of thinking is illogical, inappropriate, self-refuting, and can only lead to apathy?

Let me conclude this essay with a quote from outside the Reformed tradition from a man who also recognizes the dangers of embracing depravity as a virtue – though he uses slightly different terms. As he points out, one of the dangers of this line of thinking that we have been discussing is that it actually leads to the place that it so desperately wants to avoid: prideful self-aggrandizement in which the mere acknowledgment of our depravity becomes virtuous. Commenting on the Beatitudes of Matthew 5, in his book The Divine Conspiracy (p 103), Dallas Willard writes:

If all we need to be blessed in the kingdom of the heavens is to be humble-minded through recognizing our spiritual poverty, then let’s just do that and we’ve got bliss cornered. We escape the humiliation of spiritual incompetence because, strange to say, we have managed to turn it into spiritual attainment just by acknowledging it. And we escape the embarrassment of receiving pure mercy, for our humble recognition makes blessedness somehow appropriate. We have egg on our face perhaps, but at least we know it – and then can wear it defiantly, even proudly, like a badge of virtue.

The Gospel, the Whole Gospel, and Nothing but the Gospel (Part 3 – The same message, no matter the text?)

Introduction

In Part 1 of this series, we sought to arrive at a more full-orbed, biblically-based understanding of the gospel – over and against the narrow view of those who define the gospel only in terms of justification. In Part 2, we discussed some of the dangers inherent in the abuse of Redemptive-Historical preaching. In this post, we take up in more detail one of the specific claims of an exclusively redemptive-historic philosophy of preaching. That is, should every sermon have the same message no matter the text? Often, this is framed in terms of a narrow view of gospel as speaking only to the justification of the individual believer (see Post #1). Subsequently, then, the erroneous theory is derived that individual believers are sanctified only by hearing “the gospel of justification.”

In a recent book by T. David Gordon, Why Johnny Can’t Preach, something along these lines is proposed, when the author writes:

I believe that as people’s confidence in Christ grows, they do, ordinarily and inevitably, bear fruit that accords with faith. Thus, there is no need for some trade-off here, or some alleged dichotomy suggesting that we need to preach morality if we are to have morality. No; preach Christ, and you will have morality. Fill the sails of your hearers’ souls with the wind of confidence in the Redeemer, and they will trust Him as their Sanctifier, and long to see His fruit in their lives. Fill their minds and imaginations with a vision of the loveliness and perfection of Christ in His person, and the flock will long to be like Him. Impress upon their weak and wavering hearts the utter competence of the mediation of the One who ever lives to make intercession for them, and they will long to serve and comfort others, even as Christ has served and comforted them.

In this post, we will try to explore this issue in more depth. For yes, it is true that when believers are filled with a vision of the loveliness and perfection of Christ in His person, they will long to be like Him. But, there are two questions that we must ask and answer: (1) Is what God has done for us through Christ the only message of the Scripture? (2) Should a preacher preach only this message because it is the only means by which men and women are sanctified? So, there are two arenas for this discussion: theoretical and practical. Theoretically, should a preacher preach the same message (the narrow view of the gospel of justification) from every text? Practically, do the hearers – whether believers or unbelievers – only benefit (in coming to faith, or growing in faith, whatever the case may be) only by hearing about the doctrine of the subsitutionary atonement of Christ?

Theoretical Implications

These are important questions that every preacher wrestles with all of the time – or, at least they ought to. One of the guiding principles, however, of exegetical preaching – preaching through a book verse by verse, chapter by chapter – is that one ought to preach the text before him. This is key and needs to be stated and understood right up front. When this is done – sticking with the doctrinal teaching of a particular text – the Word of God (in all of its variety and emphases) is systematically set before the people of God.

Too often, as is the case for most every new preacher right out of seminary, one’s tendency is to preach all of Scripture in every sermon. One of the reasons for this is because in seminaries, we are trained to think systematically about the Bible and doctrine, and we want to make sure that our hearers understand all of the nuances and caveats in every sermon. The problem is this (to paraphrase a seminary professor of mine): if you try to say everything about something, you will inevitably wind up saying nothing about anything.

For instance, when preaching a passage that emphasizes the importance of diligently applying virtue to one’s faith (e.g. 2 Peter 1:5-15), does one have to caveat every exhortation to supply these various virtues to one’s faith by saying, “Now, remember, there is nothing that you can do to earn or add to the merit of Christ for your salvation”? The answer is simply: No. Of course this is true. Of course it should be stated and stated clearly so as to avoid confusion or misunderstanding. But, that is not the emphasis of the text. The question that we should be asking of a passage of Scripture is not, “What doesn’t this passage teach?” (salvation by works), but, “What does this passage teach?” (the call to press on toward godliness).

There are some basic rhetorical issues at stake here, as well. If the text is an exhortation to pursue holiness, but then the sermon is concluded with – “But, don’t worry about that. Christ died for your sins. That’s all that matters.” While the latter is true as far as it goes, it is not the emphasis or the teaching of that passage. I’ve actually heard proponents of this “same message, no matter the text” theory of preaching, insist that when preaching such a text, one must always “import the ‘gospel’ from another place in the Scriptures, lest your hearers put faith or trust in something other than Christ.” So, according to this philosophy of preaching, if one preaches on the important role of elders from Titus 1:5-9 – after exhorting the congregation and the elders of the church to maintain these criteria for ecclesiastical leadership, one should conclude with something like Jesus’ statement in John 10 where He describes Himself as the only “good shepherd.”

What this does, in practice, is misapply the original meaning of the text, and it also subtly teaches the hearers that all of the imperatives of Scripture are not applicable to them because Christ already fulfilled the demands. Again, of course, it is true that Christ has fulfilled all the demands of the law for those who have placed their faith and trust in Him – for all His elect. Yet, if “all Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work” (2 Timothy 3:16-17), then shouldn’t we preach and apply all Scripture in the various ways that God has purposed for us to benefit from them?

Insights from the Westminster Confession of Faith

Chapters 14 & 15 of the Westminster Confession of Faith deal with faith and repentance, respectively. WCF 15.1 reads: “Repentance unto life is an evangelical grace, the doctrine whereof is to be preached by every minister of the Gospel, as well as that of faith in Christ.” Plain enough – repentance and faith in Christ are to be preached by every minister of the Gospel. Chapter 15 then goes on to define and describe the different aspects of repentance. Chapter 14, though, has a beautiful little nugget that helps to guide and direct preachers and readers of the Word, alike.

Chapter 14 (Of Saving Faith) gives the definition, source, and means of faith (14.1), the effects of saving faith (14.2), and the victory of saving faith (14.3). [1 Peter 1:1-2:12 teaches all of these.] Consider, in more detail, the second paragraph:

By this faith, a Christian believeth to be true whatsoever is revealed in the Word, for the authority of God Himself speaking therein; and acteth differently upon that which each particular passage thereof containeth; yielding obedience to the commands, trembling at the threatenings, and embracing the promises of God for this life and that which is to come. But the principal acts of saving faith are accepting, receiving, and resting upon Christ alone for justification, sanctification, and eternal life, by virtue of the covenant of grace.

Notice the use of the two verbs (believes and acts). By faith, a Christian believes what is revealed in the Word of God because of the authority of God speaking in the Scriptures (one of the discernable marks of saving faith). Then, (and here’s where it gets really interesting and applicable to how a preacher preaches, and how a hearer responds) by faith a Christian acts differently depending on the particular passage and its contents: (1) obeying the commands; (2) trembling at the threatenings; (3) embracing the promises. Finally, the paragraph concludes with the principal act of saving faith: receiving and resting upon Christ alone.

This portion of the Westminster Confession of Faith helps to chart the waters in the debates over what it means “to preach the gospel.” Perhaps we are asking the wrong question. Perhaps, we ought to be asking, “What does it mean to preach the Word of God?” (WLC 159). Which ever question we ask, however, we need to understand WCF 14.2 and the Scriptural basis for preaching the particularities of a passage (commands, threatenings, promises, or a mixture of these). Then, let God work faith (belief and action) in the hearers. In the end, I suppose it comes down to the preacher having faith, himself – as defined in the first sentence of this paragraph – faith in the authority of God speaking in the Word.

Insights from the Scriptures

When the Westminster Confession of Faith teaches that “by faith, a Christian…acts differently upon that which each particular passage thereof containeth; yielding obedience to the commands, trembling at the threatenings, and embracing the promises of God for this life and that which is to come” it does not do so randomly.

Obedience to the Commands

In understanding how a Christian, by faith, responds to God’s commands in His Word with obedience, the Confession draws upon the closing benediction in the book of Romans (16:25-27). There the Apostle Paul declares that his “gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery which has been kept secret for long ages past, but now is manifested, and by the Scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the eternal God, has been made known to all the nations, leading to obedience of faith.”

Even as God called Abraham and introduced the covenant with him and the sign of circumcision, obedience was implicit in the gospel call: “Now when Abram was ninety-nine years old, the LORD appeared to Abram and said to him, ‘I am God Almighty; Walk before Me, and be blameless.’“ (Genesis 17:1). Noah was a “preacher of righteousness” (2 Peter 2:5). Moses recounted the law of God to the people of Israel and they all responded with one voice, “All the words which the LORD has spoken we will do!” (Exodus 24:3). Daniel mourned over the exile of his people because of their want of obedience to the message of the prophets: “we have rebelled against Him; nor have we obeyed the voice of the LORD our God, to walk in His teachings which He set before us through His servants the prophets.” John the Baptist called upon his hearers to “bear fruit in keeping with repentance” (Matthew 3:8). It was the practice of Jesus to call for his hearers to obey His commands – for example, the command to cut off that which causes sin (Matthew 5:29-30). And, in his defense before King Agrippa, Paul summarized a portion of his gospel ministry as a call to “repent and turn to God, performing deeds appropriate to repentance” (Acts 26:19-20).

Trembling at the Threatenings

In understanding how a Christian, by faith, responds to God’s threatenings in His Word with tremblings, the Confession draws upon the words of Isaiah: “Thus says the LORD, “Heaven is My throne and the earth is My footstool. Where then is a house you could build for Me? And where is a place that I may rest?  2 “For My hand made all these things, Thus all these things came into being,” declares the LORD. “But to this one I will look, To him who is humble and contrite of spirit, and who trembles at My word.” (Isaiah 66:1-2).

God looks with favor on the one who is humble and contrite of spirit, and who trembles at His word. One of the clearest places in the Old Testament where we see God use threatenings to bring about repentance is in the book of Jonah. Jonah’s message to the people of Ninevah (the enemies of God’s people) is recorded in the Bible as being a very simple message of threat: “Yet forty days and Nineveh will be overthrown” (Jonah 3:4). This was the gospel according to Jonah – Ninevah will be destroyed! What was their response? “Then the people of Nineveh believed in God; and they called a fast and put on sackcloth from the greatest to the least of them. When the word reached the king of Nineveh, he arose from his throne, laid aside his robe from him, covered himself with sackcloth and sat on the ashes. He issued a proclamation and it said, ‘In Nineveh by the decree of the king and his nobles: Do not let man, beast, herd, or flock taste a thing. Do not let them eat or drink water. But both man and beast must be covered with sackcloth; and let men call on God earnestly that each may turn from his wicked way and from the violence which is in his hands. Who knows, God may turn and relent and withdraw His burning anger so that we will not perish.’“ (Jonah 3:5-9). And, what was God’s response? “When God saw their deeds, that they turned from their wicked way, then God relented concerning the calamity which He had declared He would bring upon them. And He did not do it.” (Jonah 3:10)

It is also illuminating to consider how Paul, near the end of his ministry, talked about faith in Christ Jesus with Felix (the Gentile) and his wife Drusilla (the Jew). Having sent for Paul, Felix and Drusilla “heard him speak about faith in Christ Jesus. But as he was discussing righteousness, self-control and the judgment to come, Felix became frightened and said, ‘Go away for the present, and when I find time I will summon you.’“ (Acts 24:24-25). Paul’s explanation concerning faith in Christ Jesus included righteousness, self-control, and the future judgment (commands and threats, along with promises). Apparently, this went on for two years while Paul was imprisoned (Acts 24:26-27). In the words of Paul, “according to my gospel, God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus” (Romans 2:16).

Embracing the Promises

In understanding how a Christian, by faith, responds to God’s promises in His Word by embracing these promises, the Confession draws upon the two passages. The first is Hebrews 11:13. Having recounted the faith of several people (from Abel to Abraham and Sarah), the writer of Hebrews says, “All these died in faith, without receiving the promises, but having seen them and having welcomed them from a distance, and having confessed that they were strangers and exiles on the earth” (Hebrews 11:13). These early saints who died in faith saw the promises of God from a distance. Though they did not see the fulfillment of those promises which only comes when Christ Jesus inaugurated the Kingdom of God on earth, they welcomed them – by faith, they embraced the promises of God. “And all these, having gained approval through their faith, did not receive what was promised, because God had provided something better for us, so that apart from us they would not be made perfect” (Hebrews 11:39-40). God makes promises to those who may not have been able to experience the fulfillment of them, yet they embraced those promises by faith and desired “a better country, that is, a heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God; for He has prepared a city for them” (Hebrews 11:16).

The second passage that the WCF draws upon to teach how a Christian, by faith, embraces God’s promises in His word is and 1 Timothy 4:8: “for bodily discipline is only of little profit, but godliness is profitable for all things, since it holds promise for the present life and also for the life to come.” God makes promises to those who pursue godliness. The promise of reward is for both this life and the life to come. At the end of Peter’s sermon on the day of Pentecost, the people were pierced to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brethren, what shall we do?” To which, Peter responded with a wonderful promise of the indwelling, regenerative power of the Holy Spirit: “‘Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself.’ And with many other words he solemnly testified and kept on exhorting them, saying, ‘Be saved from this perverse generation!’“ (Acts 2:38-40).

This is probably why the WCF concludes paragraph 2 of chapter 14 with these words: “But the principal acts of saving faith are accepting, receiving, and resting upon Christ alone for justification, sanctification, and eternal life, by virtue of the covenant of grace.” By faith, Christians obey God’s commands, tremble at His threatenings, and embrace His promises. All of these work together as God’s means for the bringing about and building up faith and faithfulness. Yet, saving faith has as its principle act, accepting, receiving, and resting upon Christ alone for justification, sanctification, and eternal life in the covenant of grace.

This is very important because some may read these essays and arrive at the erroneous conclusion that I am making an argument for legalism or works-righteousness. By no means! There is a difference between ends and means that we must keep in mind here. The end is accepting, receiving and resting upon Christ alone for justification, sanctification, and eternal life in the covenant of grace. The means which God uses (within the proclamation of His word) are commands, threats, and promises which God’s people, by faith, obey, tremble at, and embrace.

Practical Implications

This brings us, then, to the practical implications and what this all means for preaching. Understanding the theoretical aspect of preaching – that is, preaching the whole Word of God (commands, threatenings, and promises) defined by the text before us – leads us to consider the practical implications. That is, is it true that believers grow in their faith solely by hearing and meditating upon their justification? Again, this is based on a misunderstanding and a too-narrow a view of the definition of the Gospel. Here it is helpful to gain some insight from a particular teaching in the Canons of Dort.

In response to the teachings of Arminianism, the Synod of Dort (1618-1619) set forth five main points in refutation of the claims of the Remonstrants (the followers of Arminius). These five points have come to be referred to as the TULIP, or the five points of Calvinism: Total Depravity, Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement, Irresistible Grace, and Perseverance of the saints. In the fifth point – the perseverance of the saints – article 14 reads thus:

And, just as it has pleased God to begin this work of grace in us by the proclamation of the gospel, so he preserves, continues, and completes his work by the hearing and reading of the gospel, by meditation on it, by its exhortations, threats, and promises, and also by the use of the sacraments.

What’s interesting here is that the Synod of Dort stated that perseverance in the faith is furthered by hearing and reading the gospel, and also by the use of the sacraments – the ordinary means of grace. But, what’s even more interesting, is that the Synod of Dort stated that the hearing and reading of the gospel is comprised of “its exhortations, threats, and promises” (notice the parallel in the Westminster Confession of Faith, 14.2).

The point is this: not only is the preaching of the emphasis of a particular passage of Scripture (it’s commands, threats, and promises) proper because believers respond by faith to each one differently (obedience, trembling, and embracing), but these aspects of the gospel (!) are that which God uses for the preserving, continuing, and completing of His work in His people.

Conclusion

There is seemingly no end to the debates over what are the proper ways to preach the gospel – how pastors ought to be faithful to the Scriptures in proclaiming His word. The debates can be frustrating, but they are also helpful in that they make ministers and laity alike consider afresh the importance of the preached word. The Westminster Shorter Catechism reminds us of its importance: Q. How is the word made effectual to salvation? A. The Spirit of God maketh the reading, but especially the preaching of the word, an effectual means of convincing and converting sinners, and of building them up in holiness and comfort, through faith, unto salvation. (WSC 89). Hopefully, the debates and discussion, books and articles, in the end will be used of God to make all of Christ’s under-shepherds better and more faithful in their important work.

One such book, that seeks to explain and emphasize the teachings of the Westminster divines on the subject of preaching is Westminster Directory of Public Worship: Discussed by Mark Dever and Sinclair Ferguson. I conclude this post with a quote from page 49 of the book, and the insightful words of pastor, preacher, and author, Mark Dever:

Today, preachers face the twin dangers of Hypocritical Christianity and Hypothetical Theology, which both result in lives unaffected by truths unapplied. Preachers sometimes think it more spiritual only to declare objective realities of the historical work of God through Christ, and not to address the Spirit’s work of application in the hearts of hearers. Some decry such applicatory work as subjectivism, pietism, or the seed bed of legalism and works-righteousness. While such perversion may, in fact, arise, they are nevertheless perversions, and not the simple application itself, the application we see in Scripture. When we oppose application as such, we are certainly separating ourselves from the understanding of the Bible and its truths that the Westminster divines had.

The Gospel, the Whole Gospel, and Nothing but the Gospel (Part 2 – Exclusive Redemptive-Historical Preaching?)

Introduction

In the first post of this series, we considered the dangers of defining “the gospel” in too narrow a fashion. That is, we cannot limit “the gospel” to mean only justification when the Biblical proclamation includes a much more full-orbed understanding (the objective work of Jesus’ birth, life, death, resurrection, ascension, session, and return, as well as the subjective application of that work in the believer’s justification, sanctification, and glorification).

In this post, I would like to push past the definition of the gospel and talk specifically about preaching – particularly, I’d like to talk about the misunderstandings that surround what is usually called “redemptive-historical preaching.” For you see, if one defines “the gospel” only in terms of justification, then in his mind preaching must always be redemptive-historical in nature. Those who argue for exclusive redemptive-historical preaching are actually arguing for a methodology that is an abuse of redemptive historical preaching.

Now, some may be thinking, “Oh no, not again. Hasn’t that topic been written and talked about enough?” Well, yes, there is no shortage of books, essays, articles, and conversations about what it means to preach the gospel. Typically, however, these have been written with pastors and preachers in mind. That’s a good thing. After all the topic is germane to the central calling of the pastor – to faithfully preach the Word of God. My intent here, however, is to try to speak to this topic for the benefit of the hearer – the man and woman in the pew – so that he or she may be better equipped to understand, not merely the intramural debates, but what is going on in the pulpit more clearly.

Defining Redemptive-Historical Preaching

As I said, there are some who argue for exclusive redemptive-historical preaching, but oftentimes, what they are actually arguing for is an abuse of redemptive-historical preaching. So, with that in mind, in this post I want to give a survey of evidences, or things to keep an eye out for in the abuse of redemptive-historical preaching. First a definition. Redemptive-Historical Preaching can simply be defined as “that preaching which seeks to understand a particular passage of Scripture in its context in the history of redemption and then making application in light of the coming of Christ. It is preaching Christ from all of Scripture.” And, all God’s people said, “Amen! What’s the problem?”

Here’s the problem. There are some preachers, as well as parishioners, who have bought into an overly-simplistic style of preaching which they are calling “Redemptive-Historical Preaching” or sometimes simply referred to as “just preaching the gospel.” So, what is being passed off as redemptive-historical preaching is actually an abuse of it.

Evidences of abuse in Redemptive-Historical Preaching

So, without further ado, here are some things to keep an eye out for in the abuse of Redemptive-Historical Preaching (Please recognize that not all of these will be found in every instance of abuse, these are simply potential red-flags, not exhaustive criteria for evaluation):

1. Every sermon has as its main point 2 Corinthians 5:21

“He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him” becomes the final point of every sermon. This certainly is the heart of the gospel message, but it most certainly is not all that the Bible teaches about the Gospel of the Kingdom of God. According to the Bible, the Gospel is, Yes – Jesus was made sin on our behalf and suffered and died for us, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him. But, the Gospel is also, “Bear fruit in keeping with repentance. Turn and deny your sins, and live a holy life, now that Jesus has saved you.” And, the Gospel is also, “One day Jesus is coming back and you will be unable to sin, made perfect in holiness and in righteousness.”

Just as an aside, I recall having a conversation with a woman who had sat under this kind of preaching for a length of time, and she jokingly said, “It got to the point where in my note taking on the sermon, I could actually make out the notes before the sermon was preached. Every sermon had three points: One – You are a sinner; Two – Where you sinned, Christ was obedient; Three – Trust in Christ.” The worst part was that she didn’t see anything wrong with this method. She actually thought that this was a good thing, yet failed to consider that a flattening of the Scriptures in such a way – where every passage says exactly the same thing – obscures the richness of God’s Word and stunts the spiritual growth of God’s people (Hebrews 5:12-6:3).

2. There is a call to believe and have faith (trust in Christ), apart from true repentance (confessing and turning from one’s sins)

Point number is two is connected with point number 1. If the point of every sermon that you hear is: “Jesus died for your sins, therefore all you need to do is trust in Him and have faith” then you are not hearing the right application of all of Scripture, and you are getting only half of the call of the Gospel. The call of the Gospel is “repent and believe” – not just “believe.” The Westminster Confession of Faith teaches that “repentance unto life is an evangelical grace, the doctrine whereof is to be preached by every minister of the Gospel, as well as that of faith in Christ” (WCF 15.1).

When John the Baptist prepared the way for our Lord, preaching to those who claimed to be of the truth faith, central to his message was a call to repentance: “bear fruit in keeping with repentance” (Matthew 3:8). In the statement that most succinctly summarizes Jesus’ message during His earthly ministry, faith and repentance, are tied together: “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel” (Mark 1:15). And, when the Apostle Paul gave testimony before King Agrippa, he asserted that out of obedience to the heavenly vision which he received on the road to Damascus, he kept declaring in Damascus, at Jerusalem, in Judea, and eventually to the Gentiles, “that they should repent and turn to God, performing deeds appropriate to repentance ” (Acts 26:19-20). When one calls for faith apart from repentance, not only is he wrongly dividing the Word of God, he is wrongly dividing the Son of God – subtly implying that you can have Christ as your Priest, even though He may not be your King.

3. The Absence of specific application

Again, this point is connected to points 1 and 2. If the point of every sermon is “just believe the Gospel” and this is the only exhortation of the message, there is actually very little room for application. What more could one say with such a message? I suppose that there is some nuance on how precisely a person should have faith or trust in Christ, rather than, say, your money, your good works, etc. But, in the end, the application is typically very general and singular.

Another reason for the lack of specific application in the abuse of Redemptive-Historical preaching is the inherent emphasis on objectivity. In fact, historically, Redemptive-Historical preaching arose out of a response in Dutch churches to the overly-subjective exemplaristic preaching that had become so common. Right they were to react to such moralistic preaching, but the pendulum swung in the complete and opposite direction to where any kind of specific application was thought anathema.

Again, John the Baptist serves as a good example here. In his preaching as recorded in Luke 3, he made very specific application to “the crowds” (vv 10-11), the tax-collectors (vv 12-13), and the soldiers (v 14). Jesus made much of specific application all the time (in example, see of the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7) or Jesus’ discourse concerning life as His servant in Matthew 18). Far from being manipulative or “legalistic” a pastor who makes useful, specific application is simply being true to his call to shepherd the flock that has been entrusted to him (1 Peter 5:1-3).

4. Creativity without biblical warrant which borders on allegorical interpretation of the Old Testament – aka “Leprechaun Theology”

Redemptive-Historical Preaching really comes alive in preaching from the Old Testament. For many people who have become accustomed to dispensational preaching, or just plain moralistic and exemplaristic preaching, when they see Christ in the Old Testament, it’s thrilling – God’s Word comes alive for them as never before. This is a good thing and a benefit of Redemptive-Historical Preaching. To miss the New Covenant realities of the story of King David, would be to miss the main point of how Jesus is the son of David and the fulfillment of God’s covenant promises concerning God’s preservation of David’s throne.

Yet, just as the Old Testament Scriptures are not only exemplaristic (which they are, see 1 Corinthians 10:1-15), neither are they only typological (which they are, see Romans 5:14 or John 6:49-51). For example, in preaching from the story of Joseph (Genesis 37-50), it is appropriate to see Joseph as a type of Christ – one who literarily foreshadows the Savior of God’s people, as any redemptive-historical preacher should (as Stephen did in his sermon (Acts 7:9-18)). However, it is also appropriate to see Joseph as an example for believers as to how to live faithfully and obediently, even and especially in difficult times (Hebrews 11:21-22).

The problem comes in, however, when interpreters and preachers take their typology too far. Some have half-jokingly called this “Leprechaun theology” – seeing Jesus behind every tree and every rock in the Old Testament. Again, as we mentioned in point number 1 above, this causes an inappropriate and dangerous flattening of the Scriptures, along with the seductive lure in the sermon to expect the surprise typological leap at the end – “Oh, Jesus is rod that Moses used to part the Red Sea! I didn’t see that before!” Well, the reason you didn’t see it before, is probably because it isn’t there. In some ways, the sermon becomes not unlike the magician’s performance, except at the end of the act instead of a rabbit, the preacher pulls out Jesus to everyone’s surprise.

One of the favorite verses of advocates of exclusive Redemptive-Historical preaching is Luke 24:27 – “Then beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, He explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures.” Of course, most if not all believers, would readily agree that all of Scripture points to Christ. That’s not the issue. The issue is: does all of Scripture point to Christ in exactly the same way? That is, typologically? The danger here is that if everything in the Old Testament is interpreted and preached typologically, we will begin to lose our guides and rails and our interpretation will be subject more to our imaginations or “literary acumen” then to the actual interpretive grid of the Scriptures themselves (WCF 1.9).

5. “Second Use of the Law Only” Preaching

There is this idea in the abuse of Redemptive-Historical preaching that the only legitimate interpretive grid for understanding the Scriptures is what is known as the “Law-Gospel Hermeneutic.” Simply put, the Law-Gospel Hermeneutic means that every Scripture may be divided into one of these two categories: law or gospel. In the law passages there are only imperatives (only commands concerning what you must do), while in the gospel passages there are only indicatives (only statements concerning what God in Christ has done for you). According to this methodology, the law is opposed to the gospel.

To be sure, there is a legitimate sense in which we may view the Scriptures this way: the law commands us to be perfect, we recognize our inability to keep the law, and then we see our need for Christ who has fulfilled the law for us (Galatians 4:4-5). At the same time, there is also a legitimate sense in which the law and the gospel are not opposed to one another, but the law actually sweetly complies with the gospel (WCF 19.7). To better understand what’s going on here, it’s helpful to consider what has historically been known as the three uses of the law. Theologians have recognized and for the most part agreed that the law of God functions in at least three ways; the law has three uses.

First, the law of God is a goad to civil righteousness. This is the operation of God’s law in the realm of common grace. The law in this manner restrains sin and promotes righteousness. In this use, the law functions merely as a cold task-master. Second, the law of God is a tutor to drive us to Christ, a stumbling block, if you will. A person tries to keep the perfect, holy law of God, fails and comes up short, and thus sees his or her need for Christ who has kept the law for us. In this use, the law functions as measuring stick against our sin-nature, continually reminding us of our need for a perfect Savior. Third, the law of God is a rule of life, a guide. While the first two uses of the law are employed with respect to both believers and unbelievers, the third use of the law is employed only for believers, for only those who have been regenerated may actually keep God’s law. John Calvin wrote that this third use of the law is “the principal use, and more closely connected with its proper end” (Calvin’s Institutes, 2.7.12).

Here’s why understanding these three uses is helpful. In the abuse of Redemptive-Historical Preaching, only the second use of the law is used. That is not to say that in Redemptive-Historical Preaching, there is no place for preaching the law as a rule of life and guide for believer. However, in the abuse of Redemptive-Historical Preaching, there is no place for it. The fear is that the hearer will come away from the sermon with either undue despair (there’s no way I can live that way!) or misplaced arrogance (look how good I am!). These are legitimate concerns, but the answer is not to omit the demands which God makes on His people in our preaching. The answer is to be clear, balanced, and faithfully preach the text before us.

Though the exclusive Law-Gospel approach is gaining ground among some in the Reformed community, it is interesting to take note that it is actually a very Lutheran distinctive. In a paper presented to the Evangelical Lutheran Confessional Forum in 1998, Mark DeGarmeaux described this distinctive Law-Gospel approach as one of the unique contributions to worship and preaching by the Lutheran tradition. This type of preaching, he calls “sacramental preaching.” You will note that in the following quote, the author is using “the gospel” in the narrow sense as referring only to justification by the substitutionary atonement of Christ:

Luther’s understanding of the distinction between Law and Gospel shines forth clearly in the preaching done in the Lutheran church. Of course, that statement is a bit idealistic because we all at times fall short in making this distinction, but we would hope that all Lutheran preachers strive to keep this distinction clear for themselves and for their hearers. The preaching in our Lutheran congregations should be neither the “dreary preaching of the Puritans” nor the legalism or mysticism of the papists, which both so easily go along with a lack of understanding concerning Law and Gospel and the means of grace. Lutheran preaching will be evangelical in that the Gospel predominates, and it will be sacramental because that Gospel emphasis proclaims “the wonderful works of God” (Act 2:11), “that is, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not imputing their trespasses to them, and has committed to us the word of reconciliation. Therefore we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were pleading through us: we implore you on Christ’s behalf, be reconciled to God” (2Co 5:19-20).

With an emphasis on the Law-Gospel hermeneutic as the only legitimate way to interpret the Scriptures, the proponents of this kind of preaching will often say that the preacher must always “expound the law so that people see their need for Christ, and then once they have seen their need, give them the gospel.” And, yes, this is a legitimate and necessary way of preaching from many portions of the Scriptures: law, then gospel. But, there are other forms as well: law, gospel, and then law again (where the law operates both in its second and third uses in the same sermon); gospel, then law (only the third use of the law). I could go on. The truth of the matter is that God’s people are to respond in various ways to the law of God: as that which reveals our need for Christ (e.g. Galatians 3:24ff; 2 Corinthians 5:21), as a rule of life (e.g. Exodus 20, esp. v 20; John 14:3; 1 John 5:3), as something to meditate upon (e.g. Psalm 1), as something to delight in (e.g. Psalm 119:70, 77, 92, 174), as a joy (Nehemiah 8:9-11), etc.

Conclusion

Let me conclude with a confession: I was once on the road toward being of this mindset – a proponent of exclusive redemptive-historical preaching. I used to throw around pejorative accusations about preachers (in certain safe company, of course) who I thought were not clearly preaching “the gospel” because they actually called their hearers to do something. I used to believe and do some of the things that I mentioned above, and some that I will mention in these essays. There are several reasons why I began go down this road of believing that an extreme form of Redemptive-Historical preaching was the only true and proper form of “gospel preaching.”

First of all, when you sit under this kind of preaching – and when you preach it – it makes you feel good. If there is never a call to do anything, to reform my ways, or change my behavior, and all I have to do is acknowledge that where I failed, Christ succeeded – I get a sense of great assurance, and I feel really good about myself. And, people are attracted to that kind of message. The problem, however, is that it leaves out many of the hard sayings of the Bible; it leaves out the Lordship of Christ; it leaves out the call to discipleship. It’s easy, it’s fun, and it tickles one’s ears (2 Timothy 4:3), but it can very easily lead to a lack of self-examination and a false assurance. Perhaps that’s why it is so appealing.

Second of all, this kind of preaching sounds Biblical. In fact, it is Biblical, but it is only one side of the coin. Yes, it is true that we are justified by faith alone, in Christ alone; there is not one thing that we can do to add to the merit which Christ has provided for us in His perfect life, death, and resurrection. Truly, God made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him. Yet, that is not the whole of the Gospel message. Justification may be the heart of the Gospel, but it not the whole of the Gospel. The good news is the Gospel of the Kingdom. Last I checked a kingdom implies that there’s a king. And, the fact that there’s a king, implies that we ought to obey Him. I had become so enraptured with Christ as my Savior (a good thing), that I had forgotten that He is also my Lord and King.

Third, and finally, in certain contexts – as I once found myself in as a chaplain in the army – an emphasis on Redemptive-Historical Preaching fits well in such evangelistic settings. This is why you see a great emphasis in the sermons that we have recorded for us in the book of Acts. The initial emphasis for those who have never heard of Jesus Christ needs to be an exposition of the teachings surrounding the doctrine of justification. Perhaps, this is why many on our college campuses gravitate toward this kind of preaching. There is something to the fact that an emphasis on Redemptive-Historical Preaching is quite helpful in these contexts.

There is so much more richness to the Scriptures, however. And, it’s unfortunate that many in this camp – as I used to do – berate those who don’t see eye to eye with them – even accusing others who don’t hold exclusively to a Redemptive-Historical Preaching model as not preaching the gospel. May God save us from our own unfounded shibboleths.

The Gospel, the Whole Gospel, and Nothing but the Gospel (Part 1: The Gospel of Justification?)

Introduction

This is the first in a series of essays in which I hope to take up the question: What does it mean to preach the gospel? At first, this sounds like a very simple question. Of course, to preach the gospel means to proclaim the good news of salvation through Jesus Christ. In actuality, however, the question has become a bit more complicated then you might think. The reason is because the definition of “the gospel” varies depending on to whom you are speaking. In my personal experience as a pastor, I have found that for an increasing number of people, “to preach the gospel” means to preach the gospel of justification.

That’s actually an odd phrase if you think about it – the gospel of justification. It’s odd because it takes something that is so glorious and so grand, and reduces it to just one of its parts; granted, justification is at the heart of the gospel, but it is most certainly not the whole of the gospel. You will never find this phrase – the gospel of justification – in the Bible, and yet I hear it thrown around as if it were an accepted descriptor. What’s worse is that there are people who define the gospel in this way, and don’t even recognize that they are doing it.

But, this narrowing of the definition of “the gospel” to mean only “the gospel of justification” is just the tip of the iceberg. There are actually several other issues that lie beneath the surface. Typically, what you see in debates and controversies about what it means to “preach the gospel” is actually just the symptom and logical consequence which flows from and into several other doctrines – things like, the relationship between the law the gospel, the means and power of sanctification, how you read the Bible, how the Mosaic covenant is related to the covenant of grace (if at all), and the list goes on.

These, among others, are the several topics that I will take up in this series of essays under the broad heading of: The Gospel, the whole Gospel, and nothing but the Gospel. My intent is to start on the surface, and then dig down deeper and deeper - pulling back the many layers of misunderstanding – in order to eventually arrive at the heart of the matter. Which, by the way, is the heart of the individual who -though he or she may look like an antinomian -  is in fact, actually quite legalistic. Interestingly, I believe that it is actually a legalistic attitude under the guise of antinomianism that is at the root of the problem. But, you’ll have to wait until the conclusion to see what I mean. First, we have to address and deal with the various interconnected layers of thinking that surround and overlay the heart. So, let’s begin by exploring a broader, more biblically-based definition of “the gospel.”

Toward a better understanding of “the gospel”

I’ve arrived at two, three-fold ways of talking about this question. From the ordo historia, the gospel is the gospel of the kingdom: how Jesus brought the kingdom (inauguration), how Jesus rules the kingdom (continuation), how Jesus will bring the kingdom in its fullness (consummation). From the ordo salutis, the gospel is the gospel of the kingdom: how one enters into the kingdom (justification), how one lives in the kingdom (sanctification), and where one is going in the kingdom (glorification). For those who are familiar with Murray’s work, you will see how this fits nicely into the structure of “redemption accomplished and applied.”

“The Gospel” is about how God objectively saves us through the coming, continuing, and consummation of His kingdom AND “the Gospel” is about how God subjectively justifies me, sanctifies me, and glorifies me. All of these things are good news, and all of these things are presented and taught in the Scriptures. In fact, and here comes the application for preaching (where the rubber meets the road) – every passage of Scripture will fit into one of these 6 categories: (1) inauguration of the kingdom of God; (2) continuation of the kingdom of God; (3) consummation of the kingdom of God; (4) justification; (5) sanctification; and (6) glorification. Of course, there is a lot of overlap and many passages of Scripture deal with several of these simultaneously. Still, it helps to see that the “good news of the gospel” is much bigger than the justification of the individual believer – as grand and as personally gratifying as that is.

This is why it is inappropriate to limit “the gospel” to justification. First of all, it is unbiblical, and stems from a very narrow reading of the Bible. Second of all, in any given sermon, the preacher is to preach the good news of that passage, not the good news of justification, necessarily – unless of course, that happens to be the good news of that particular passage. This is the real crux of the matter and something which has continuing application in ministry. If one defines the gospel as being equal to justification, the end result limits the full-orbed – milk and meat – doctrinal teachings of the Christian faith. And, when that happens, God’s people will not grow, but stubbornly cling to milk because it tastes good. Yet, just aschildren grow and mature by eating solid foods, so believers need to be weaned so that they will be able to continue to drink milk, but also eat meat.

Unfortunately, I have seen the result of those who have been fed only “the gospel of justification.” I used to be one of them – indeed, I used to be a soda jerk at the milk bar, dispensing only milk because I thought that that’s only what people (believers and unbelievers, alike) needed [More on my personal change in a subsequent essay]. In general, when one is solely focusing in on the justification of the individual believer as the good news of the gospel, he or she will become stunted in their growth and become easy prey for the world, the flesh, and the devil.

More than repentance from dead works and of faith toward God

Part of the gospel is the good news of justification, but to so limit it thusly, does injustice to the Scriptures and leaves one drinking milk only. Yes, everyone needs to hear and be reminded about justification by faith alone (believers, as well as unbelievers), but while believers and unbelievers both need to hear about justification, there is more to “the gospel” than justification. Consider the following passage from Hebrews:

Hebrews 5:12 – 6:3 (NASB)
12 For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you have need again for someone to teach you the elementary principles of the oracles of God, and you have come to need milk and not solid food. 13 For everyone who partakes only of milk is not accustomed to the word of righteousness, for he is an infant. 14 But solid food is for the mature, who because of practice have their senses trained to discern good and evil. 1 Therefore leaving the elementary teaching about the Christ, let us press on to maturity, not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God, 2 of instruction about washings and laying on of hands, and the resurrection of the dead and eternal judgment. 3 And this we will do, if God permits.

Commenting on Hebrews 6:1, Calvin writes:

“To his reproof he joins this exhortation, — that leaving first principles they were to proceed forward to the goal. For by the word of beginning he understands the first rudiments, taught to the ignorant when received into the Church. Now, he bids them to leave these rudiments, not that the faithful are ever to forget them, but that they are not to remain in them; and this idea appears more clear from what follows, the comparison of a foundation; for in building a house we must never leave the foundation; and yet to be always engaged in laying it, would be ridiculous. For as the foundation is laid for the sake of what is built on it, he who is occupied in laying it and proceeds not to the superstruction, wearies himself with foolish and useless labor. In short, as the builder must begin with the foundation, so must he go on with his work that the house may be built. Similar is the case as to Christianity; we have the first principles as the foundation, but the higher doctrine ought immediately to follow which is to complete the building. They then act most unreasonably who remain in the first elements, for they propose to themselves no end, as though a builder spent all his labor on the foundation, and neglected to build up the house. So then he would have our faith to be at first so founded as afterwards to rise upwards, until by daily progress it be at length completed.”

You see, when “the gospel” is defined simply in terms of justification by faith alone (“repentance from dead works and of faith toward God” – Hebrews 6:1) the household of faith is taught to lay again the foundation over and over again. Should we revisit and inspect the foundation? Of course! Is a proper understanding of (and reminders about) the foundation essential? Yes! But, to quote Calvin, to be always engaged in laying it and never proceeding to the rest of the building would be to engage in “foolish and useless labor.” Yet, this is precisely what happens when we so limit the definition of “the gospel.”

Conclusion

As we consider the question – What is the Gospel, the whole Gospel, and nothing but the Gospel? – it is important that we first define our terms. Yes, the good news of the gospel includes the doctrine of justification – it is one of the central aspects of the gospel – but to limit our definition of the gospel by saying that it is merely justification, would be to limit the grand plan of God, and the richness of a life that is hidden with Christ in God (Collosians 3:3).

One of Jesus’ favorite ways to describe “the gospel” was with the descriptor, “of the kingdom” (Matthew 4:23; 9:35; 24:14; Luke 16:16). Isaiah’s messenger of good news – the one who announces peace and brings good news of happiness, who announces salvation – does not come, saying, “You’re justified!” He says to Zion, “Your God reigns!” (Isaiah 52:7). Implicit in the reign of God is, of course, justification – but the effective reach of God’s will through the kingdom of His beloved Son is about so much more than the justification of His people. It’s about making all things new!

Thy Will Be Done

In the history of the church, there has been no shortage of debate concerning the relationship between Law and Gospel (in the Christian life and in preaching). One of the most important, thorough, and helpful works on this topic is The Marrow of Modern Divinity written in the seventeenth century. A few hundred years later, the Dutch Reformed theologian, Herman Bavinck, succinctly addressed this issue in an excellent article entitled, “The Law-Gospel Distinction in Preaching.” Here is the conclusion:

“Viewed concretely, law and Gospel differ not so much in that the law always meets us in the form of command and the Gospel in the form of promise, for the law too has promises and the Gospel too has warnings and obligations. But they differ especially in content: the law demands that man work out his own righteousness, while the Gospel invites him to renounce all self-righteousness and to receive the righteousness of Christ, to which end it even bestows the gift of faith.

Law and Gospel stand in that relationship not just before and at the point of conversion; but they continue standing in that relationship throughout the whole of the Christian life, all the way to the grave. The Lutherans have an eye almost exclusively for the accusing, condemning work of the law and therefore know of no greater salvation than liberation from the law. The law is necessary only on account of sin. According to Lutheran theology, in the state of perfection there is no law. God is free from the law; Christ was not subject to the law for Himself at all; the believer no longer stands under the law. Naturally, the Lutherans speak of a threefold use of the law, not only of a usus politicus (civilis), to restrain sin, and a usus paedagogicus, to arouse the knowledge of sin, but also of a usus didacticus, to function for the believer as a rule of living. But this last usus is nonetheless necessary simply and only because and insofar as believers are still sinners, and must still be tamed by the law, and must still be led to a continuing knowledge of sin. In itself the law ceases with the coming of faith and grace, and loses all its significance.

The Reformed, however, have thought about this in an entirely different way. The usus politicus and the usus paedagogicus of the law became necessary only accidentally because of sin; even with these uses aside, the most important usus remains, the usus didacticus or normativus. After all, the law is an expression of God’s being. As a human being Christ was subject to the law for Himself. Before the fall Adam had the law written upon his heart. With the believer it is again written upon the tablets of his heart by the Holy Spirit. And all those in heaven will walk according to the law of the Lord.

The Gospel is temporary, but the law is eternal and is restored precisely through the Gospel. Freedom from the law consists, then, not in the fact that the Christian has nothing more to do with the law, but lies in the fact that the law demands nothing more from the Christian as a condition of salvation. The law can no longer judge and condemn him. Instead he delights in the law of God according to the inner man and yearns for it day and night.

Therefore, that law must always be preached to the congregation in connection with the Gospel. Law and Gospel, the whole Word, the full counsel of God, is the content of preaching. Among Reformed people, therefore, the law occupies a much larger place than in the teaching of sin, since it is also part of the teaching of gratitude.”

In reminding us that the Law is eternal and that the Gospel is temporary, Bavinck helps us better understand the Christian life, particularly with regard to the personal application of one of the petitions of the Lord’s Prayer – “Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven.” God’s will is done perfectly in heaven. The host of heaven obey Him completely. In this petition, we pray that God’s will would be done on earth, just as His will is done in heaven – that we, His people, would obey Him perfectly – because we have been set free by the Gospel to keep God’s law.

May all God’s people sing with the Psalmist: “The LORD has established His throne in the heavens, And His sovereignty rules over all. Bless the LORD, you His angels, Mighty in strength, who perform His word, Obeying the voice of His word! Bless the LORD, all you His hosts, You who serve Him, doing His will. Bless the LORD, all you works of His, In all places of His dominion; Bless the LORD, O my soul!” (Psalm 103:19-22)

Fool’s Fools

“Talk sense to a fool and he calls you foolish.” – Euripides

We, as followers of Christ, deal in the absurd. Consider this: we believe in a murdered God, dead men waking, the value of foolishness over wisdom and weakness over strength. We believe that the way to life abundant is by dying (to self), that the kingdom is here and now and yet we are still waiting, and that what we do is actually done by someone inside us. Perhaps it is a limitation of our humanity, or perhaps more likely an aspect of our fallen state, but we have trouble grasping such things. Reality does not reveal itself easily. The problem is our lack of effort in attempting to understand such things. Instead of investigating the deeps, we seem content to live deceived lives.

On the other hand, it seems obvious that the dead do not live, that power is the means of change, or that results are a valid measure of activities. Yet the obvious is wrong. It is not a case of simple misinformation, but a problem of active opposition. There is no middle ground between the way of Christ and the way of the world. Given the inevitability and repetition of this choice, it is unfortunate that we far too often choose the world. I want fame and fortune and everything that goes with it; I am tempted by all that this world offers.

We speak foolishness, we work in weakness, we call to the dead, we worship a crucified (yet risen) Lord, we encourage those who have stirrings of life to come and die, we act freely as those possessed (Not I but Christ in me), we eat and are the body of our king. How utterly ridiculous we sound. Yet how marvelous and grand is this new kingdom. To those who are given eyes and ears it is beauty and life, yet to those who are perishing it is madness, or worse. We have been made part of Christ’s upside down kingdom.

Our message is provocative; it is unpleasant (take up your cross…) and it is absurd to all who don’t know the Lord. There is no way to preface it, or package it, or soften it. It is what it is. We speak a message of foolishness. There is no way to accompany the message such that it becomes wonderful to those who oppose it. The dead do not respond.

You see, we are called to an impossible task: proclaim this message to the ends of the earth converting and teaching all to understand and obey. Yet we are powerless. We cannot make those who are dead to understand life, much less to take part in it. We cannot do that which we are called to do. But God can. You see the reality is that it is not we who are foolish, but those who depart from reality and oppose the Creator. It is not the church that is weak (it is eternal), but all who seek oppose it. We do not call other men to life, but instead it is the God who created all life who calls us from death to eternal life. With God all things are possible, even the salvation of men’s souls.

So we trust in Him. We can do nothing else. We look to His word. In it is life and beauty and hope and goodness and truth. We might find comfort in the ways of the world, sometimes even finding some measure of success. But we cannot find Christ there. We cannot find eternity. For now, we must be content to be weak in Him for He is strong. We must be content to follow His way, for He is wise.

Attempt the impossible. For Christ glorifies Himself in the impossible. Dead men are made alive through the words of fools. Let there be no confusion at the end as to who deserves the glory. He has chosen us to prove that it is He who saves, it is He who reigns. Welcome back to reality. We’re not crazy, we only sound like it.

1 Corinthians 1:18-31; Luke 9:23-27; Ecclesiastes 9:3; Matthew 13:10-17; Matthew 19:26; 2 Corinthians 12:9

Our Time on His Altar

“You shall surely observe My Sabbaths…” Exodus 31:13

Life is busy. Attempting to balance family, work, friends, interests, and church is a nearly impossible task. How do we set our priorities? And perhaps more importantly, how do we teach our children right priorities? It is impossible to fully answer these questions as there are innumerable potential situations; however, we do have a standard which informs every specific situation we encounter. The standard is this: honor God above all. Practically, it means that we should organize our schedules around worship, not worship around our schedules.

School and its demands of class and homework combined with numerous extracurricular activities threaten to consume our youth. The rest of us face the equally daunting task of fulfilling the demands of work, home, and family. We cannot do it all. It is because of this limitation that our choices are important; it is our choices that reveal our priorities. Our choices define us.

Most people view religious activities as pieces of the schedule to be moved around as they see fit. Daily scripture reading is subject to the needs or whims of the day. Attendance of bible study and church is governed by the requirements of various other activities. It is much easier to sacrifice reading the Bible or going to church than it is to cut back on work or play. It is much more exciting to take part in that other activity (sport, party, activity, etc) than to refuse anything that would infringe on our devotion and worship.

Christians are no better in governing their time than anyone else. We too are often overcome with business such that we are forced to leave things undone. It is unfortunately true that often the first thing we cut is God’s time (church, study, prayer). Yet God demands that we give Him everything, even our schedules. So do we glorify God with our time? When we are tired, do we sleep through church or our private study time instead of cutting something else from our schedule? Do we make time for watching movies or surfing the web instead of reading our Bibles? Are we more faithful in attending class, being punctual at work, or watching a game than we are in regular study of scripture, prayer, and corporate worship?

So how can we glorify God with our schedules? Adults, be intentional in honoring God. Go to church. Don’t allow anything to prevent your attendance, whether at home or abroad. Set aside time to read scripture. Let nothing interfere (excepting of course those instances of catastrophe or endeavors of mercy). Parents, do not allow your youth to exclude God from their schedules. Plan time for church and family first, don’t try to fit them in around other things. Youth, be willing to give up those things which pull you away from God; do not count current happiness or future “success” above the Lord.

There is nothing easy in this call. It is a call for sacrifice. But it is God’s call. He demands to be first in our hearts, in our worship, and in our schedule.

Words From of Old

There is a strange and disturbing fascination with all things new. Our culture is obsessed with new technology, new possessions, new experiences, etc. We in fact honor the idea of “progress” as sacred. The worship of the new threatens even the church. While this has been stated in various ways, it is often said that our message stays the same but the presentation must change to fit a world ever in flux. It is true that our culture and the world surrounding it are dramatically different than a thousand, five hundred, or even a hundred years ago. The dominant philosophy of the WWII generation is distinct from the postmodern youth culture of the new millennium. However, it must be asked what exactly has changed to which we must adapt ourselves. Has the truth changed? Has the audience and their need? Or perhaps the required method of communication? What about the claim that there is nothing new under the sun?

Truth is eternal by definition. If something is true it is always true. This is a basic tenet of logic which is especially relevant to this question. In an abstract sense, if something is new, it is not true (excepting of course the obvious procession of facts such as the production of this paper – but while the physical makeup of this document is new, the truth it communicate is ancient or false). Something which is true does not become false – ever. What this means is that if we consider the claim that God revealed truth through His prophets and apostles, and that truth was recorded and preserved as the words of Scripture, then it is as true and relevant today as it was in eternity past.

A nuanced form of this challenge is the idea that the needs of people change and thus our message must change with it. At the height of the modernist enlightenment the church needed to stand for humility in human knowledge. Today, as our culture slides into relativism and globalism, the church must stand for the seemingly opposite position of the assurance and authority of our knowledge (built upon revealed truth of course). Is this not an example of the need to invent a new approach in order to meet the conditions of our world? Is this not an example of the need for new truth? In fact, it is nothing of the sort; it is simply a change in emphasis. Much like we find within the Pauline corpus where there are both strong appeals against works righteousness (Galatians) as well as strong appeals for sanctified behavior (1 Corinthians), cultural shifts do not propose anything new but simply demand an appropriate response from the established whole of Scripture. The truth remains the same – the message remains identical (though variously emphasized) throughout the ages. Read Paul, Augustine, Calvin, Owen, Edwards, Spurgeon, or Still and you will hear the same message, the same truth. Though their audience and challenges varied greatly, they did not respond with anything beyond God’s revelation.

Perhaps then it is our audience which has changed. Unfortunately not. Since the sin of Adam, humanity has been unsettlingly similar. In all ages and places, people share the common problem of sin. Languages and cultures change through time and vary from place to place, but the problem being addressed remains the same. Grammar and rhetoric vary, illustrations change, but the message does not.

Philosophies and worldviews change through time, even an individual’s lifetime produces great change in their own thinking. But we must remind ourselves that the ideas we accept are not new. We believe the same truths (God said…) or the same lies (did God really say…) as people have throughout the ages. It is a constant problem where we are blind to the past such that we think it does not inform the present.

If it is not the message, nor the target, that is new, surely we will find the need for reinvention in the realm of method. We might say that in order to communicate our ancient message, we must update it and deliver it in a way which “speaks” to modern man. It is difficult to grasp what this means. Does it mean the non-believer of today? How do we adjust words of life such that the dead can hear them? Does it mean the believer of today? What sort of believer is it that is incapable of understanding that Jesus saves and rules?

Perhaps the emphasis is on technology. We must get with the times and use the means at our disposal. Perhaps so. The internet is a wonderful tool. We are able to record and share speeches and books, we can broadcast on radio and TV, we are able to produce mass quantities of printed materials. But I ask you, does any of this escape from the centrality of the word. Our message is communicated ultimately and finally through the word alone. Whatever technology we make use of, the product is the production of words. But wait, haven’t we moved into a post-verbal culture? Are we not a picture driven society? In short, no. Words are basic to communication. They are basic to thinking. They are basic to our humanity. As humans we develop, think, and function through language. As Christians, we are a people of the word: created, guided, and governed by the Word. The shift from word to image is not simply a change in media, but a change in reality. It is an escape from reason and logic. It is a reshaping of the message and not simply the media. We must cling to the word. It is our only foundation, our only guide, our only tool, our only weapon, and our only hope.

How should we as the followers of Christ respond to the constant demand for something new? Our message is ancient, our audience shares the problem of the ages (and as we study history, we are confirmed in the belief that people are the same throughout time and place), and our medium is the word. Is there indeed something new under the sun which must be addressed? If anything, the constant flux of culture suggests that we should cling to what does not change, namely the Word (both incarnate and written). It would be wise to heed the words of scripture and utter the words our fathers have told us and pass on the dark sayings of old.

Remembering, Considering, and Imitating (Hebrews 13:7)

Last year, someone asked me about the book Crazy for God: How I Grew Up as One of the Elect, Helped Found the Religious Right, and Lived to Take All (or Almost All) of It Back by Frank Schaeffer. My friend had been helped greatly in their Christian walk by the author’s father, the renowned author, philosopher, and theologian, Francis Schaeffer. So, naturally, my friend was interested to read his son’s latest work, despite the absurdly long, overly descriptive, self-refuting subtitle.

Upon reading Frank’s book, my friend was deeply disturbed, and rightly so. Obviously, I’m in no position to judge whether or not Frank Schaeffer is factually correct in his description and assessment of his father. Frankly, I had never even heard of Frank before, though I have been greatly helped by some of his father’s writings. It is very sad when a son decides to expose the sins of his father. Real or supposed sins, it really doesn’t matter (consider the deleterious effects of Ham in Genesis 9:22-25). What matters is that Frank Schaeffer decided to turn his back on the Christian faith, and then to besmirch his father’s good name in such a public manner. In the words of Os Guinness, from his review of Frank Schaeffer’s book, “With such a son, who needs enemies?”

As if Frank’s mockery of the Christian faith and denigration of his father wasn’t enough, what disturbs me even more is that with the airing of an NPR interview with Frank Schaeffer, I have actually heard several Christians comment about how “interesting and insightful” it was. As if Frank Schaeffer’s assessment of evangelicalism or his father could actually be trusted. It was as though they had cast aside all filters of discernment. When I listened to this interview, I can’t help but wonder if we listened to the same thing. Not only does Frank Schaeffer’s arrogance shine through with his claims of inventing the religious right, but his mockery of all things evangelical is disturbing and sad.

Rather than praise Frank for his expose of his father and recanting of the Christian faith, perhaps it would be better to pray for him. Likewise, let us pray for all the children of leaders in the ministry – including and especially, our own. As the son of a minister, and now a minister myself, I know what it is like to live in the fishbowl. And contrary to what some may say (or even what I want to believe), there is actually some legitimacy to living in the fishbowl for the pastor’s family (see 1 Timothy 4:12 and Titus 2:7). The pastor and his family, by God’s grace, ought to strive to be examples for the flock. At the same time, just because someone behaves differently in different circumstances (in the home, in the office, in school, in the pulpit), it does not necessarily mean that they are being insincere or putting on a front. It might just mean that the person feels less guarded in certain situations, or perhaps they understand that what might be appropriate behavior in one setting, might not be appropriate in another.

In no way do I mean to excuse the sin of ministers. That’s not what I’m talking about. To better understand what I’m talking about, please go and read Os Guinness’ review and evangelical assessment of Crazy for God. I’ve already linked it, but here it is again, just in case you missed it the first time: Father’s and Sons: On Francis Schaeffer, Frank Schaeffer, and Crazy for God. Guinness doesn’t gloss over Francis Schaeffer’s failings, brokenness, or sins. Yet, at the same time, Guinness gives testimony to Schaeffer’s sincere faith. Not only is Os Guinness’ piece a great book review, it is instructive on many levels: how to remember sinful, yet redeemed, men and women of faith; how to honor one’s parents; the power and impact of parenting; and many other things.

Most of all, Guinness exposes the cynicism of postmodernism that is so attractive, and unfortunately, so popular – even among Christians. Are we all so naïve, depressed, and cynical as to believe that there is no such thing as character and sincerity of faith? Yes, let us test the spirits (1 John 4:1), but let us also bear in mind God’s command to remember those who led us, who spoke the word of God to us; and considering the result of their conduct, imitate their faith (Hebrews 13:7).

Do we actually believe that this passage no longer applies because there are no more heroes of the faith left? Or, worse, do we actually believe that if anyone ever believed and applied Hebrews 13:7, they were deceived – by themselves or by others? Of course, those who led us were not perfect. Of course those who spoke the word of God to us sinned and failed. But, God’s Word doesn’t call me to root out all of those and expose them. Instead, God says: remember them, considering the result of their conduct, imitate their faith. Personally, I thank God that I have been blessed to have such godly parents who have been examples in the faith, as well as in Christian ministry. Perfect? No. An example of a sincere faith lived out in sacrifice and self-denial in service to God and His church? Yes. Would that I would walk and follow Christ as they have.

I’ve always wondered why it is that at most funerals – particularly Christian funerals – people are remembered for their faith and the good things that they have done. Usually, nothing is said of their sin, their failings, their bad mistakes, the things that they themselves probably would regret. But, we have precedent for this kind of remembering in the Scriptures. Read Hebrews 11 sometime. Hebrews 11 is an example or application of the admonition in Hebrews 13:7. In the great hall of faith of Hebrews 11, God’s Word guides us in considering the faith of those who came before us, not their sin. We know they were sinners; they were human beings and we have accounts of some of their actual sins recorded for us in Scripture. That’s not the point. The point is this: maybe we ought not be considering their sin so much (God, in Christ, has forgiven and forgotten it, you know). Yes, we can learn from the sins and failures of others and what not to do (1 Corinthians 10:11). At the same time, let’s take Hebrews 13:7 seriously. Let’s remember those who led us, who spoke the word of God to us (parents, pastors, whomever). Let’s consider the result of their conduct – mixed with so much weakness and imperfection, though their conduct may be. Then, let’s imitate their faith.