Thesis 45 We must not look to others for our value or importance.
It is supposed to be part and parcel of being an American that we would both delight to be and aspire to be free. Freedom is our corporate, cultural highest good. To be sure we understand what freedom means less and less with each passing day, but whatever it means we know it’s good. We know it’s worth fighting for. We honor our forefathers for the sacrifices they made to make us free. We inhabit the land of the free.
It is true enough that political freedom is something we ought to aspire to and long for. But we ought to note that governmental tyranny is not the sole kind of tyranny in the world. Governments alone are not our potential slave masters. We not only live in an age where governments tell us where we may live, how much of our income we may keep, and how much rent (real estate taxes) we must pay on “our” land. We also live in an age where the broader culture seeks to enslave us. It wants to ensure that we drink this brand of soda, that we wear this label on our clothes, that we stream these television programs.
The same basic principle can be often at work even in our relationships. We exchange a bit of our independence for the approval of our peers. We only believe that we are of value or significance when other people, friends, customers, employers, etc. likewise believe it. We can even be enslaved by our relationships.
Our dignity, however, is not wrapped up in our friends or in other merely human relationships. It is not under the control of those for whom we work, or who work for us. It is outside the baileywick of our peers. Instead it rests in Christ. Our Father in heaven, if we are in Christ, has cast His love upon us. We are the exceedingly great reward of His Son. And His Spirit has consented to not only dwell with is, but within us. We are called to be a free people; Jesus makes us free indeed (John 8). A mature believer not only knows who he is, but whose he is, and rests therein. A mature believer rejoices to remember that he not only bears God’s image, as all men do, but is being made into the image of Christ, the express image of the glory of the Father.
This is true of us as individuals, and true of us corporately. The church too often seeks the approval of those outside her doors, believing ourselves significant only when we are trending on twitter. We are together the bride of Christ. We are, though we in ourselves are not at all worthy, that for which He suffered the wrath of His Father. We cannot allow ourselves to be enslaved, because we have already been bought with a price. We must cherish and protect our freedom, for so our Master, the one who set us free, commands.
We finish our study on The Holiness of God tonight at 7 eastern. We will not be welcoming friends into our home tonight due to health concerns, but you can tune in live on Facebook Live, at RC-Lisa Sproul. Hope to see you there.
Yes. It may be easy to miss that truth when one considers all the seemingly random things that came together to bring the Reformation to pass. What if that thunderstorm had not re-routed Luther from law school to monkery? What if Tetzel’s sales territory had been further south? What if Gutenberg had been born twenty years later? These realities had a significant impact, along with sundry political intrigues and a dozen other less than theological forces.
And no. It wasn’t necessary if we mean by Reformation the split between the Roman and the Protestant churches. That didn’t have to happen. It could have been avoided had one thing happened, had Rome repented of her heresies and come back home. It is not pedantic but important to remember that Protestants did not split from the church, but rather Rome did. Just as the faith of Abraham is the faith we affirm, and Judaism has left it, so with Rome and biblical Christianity.
It is true that Luther himself was not shy about getting into theological battles. He did not have a strong reputation as a diplomat and a peacemaker. But such misses two critical realities. First, Luther’s battle at the beginning, from his own perspective wasn’t against Rome but for her. He genuinely, albeit naively, believed that when those in power in Rome learned of the heresy being wrought by those who were selling indulgences that the hammer would come down and the church would be made right. Luther and Tetzel were like two brothers fighting in the back yard, until Luther broke away saying, “Wait until Dad gets home. You’re going to be in big trouble.” Trouble is, when Papa came home, it was Luther who got the switch. Secondly, while Luther was fighting, he was fighting to protect the peace that we have with our heavenly Father. It was his love of the peace won by Christ that led him to fight.
The Reformation, the split, was not made formal when Luther was excommunicated. Rather this happened during the counter-Reformation, when the Council of Trent formally and unchangeably adopted its sixth session condemning as damnable heresy the biblical doctrine of justification by faith alone. This was her departure from the faith once delivered. The Protestant church was and is the church continuing, that against which the gates of hell will not prevail. The church did not end and then start anew with a different group. Rather Rome fell away as an institution.
It is not a bad thing at all to mourn the lack of institutional unity between Rome and the evangelical church. It is tragic indeed. It is a bad thing, however, to see the evangelical church as having been overly scrupulous or pedantic in its protestations, to lay the disunity at the feet of those who are in subjection to the Word of God alone. Those who deny the gospel, who not only deny being under the authority of Scripture alone but affirm themselves as above the very Word of God, they remain at fault. The Spirit, through the gospel however, even now has power to redeem everyone still caught up in Rome. Let’s pray that He does.
The serpent, of course, disguises himself as an angel of light. The bride, on the other hand, is still besmirched and muddied. Telling the true from the false is never easy. The former point reminds us not to be fooled by appearances. The latter reminds us that we will never find the perfect church. If you do, don’t join it because you’ll ruin it. Because neo-liberal churches are liberal, they are to be avoided. Because they are neo, they are not always easy to see. What follows then are a few diagnostic tests that ought to help you along the way.
1. If the church notes anywhere that it is part of the ECUSA, the PCUSA, the ELCA, the UCC, the UMC, the DOC, or any other mainline denomination, it’s not likely to be neo-liberal. It is instead paleo-liberal and you need to run for your life.
2. If the church trumps the plain teaching of specific texts in light of broad principles across the scope of the Bible, it is likely a neo-liberal church. Paul tells us, for instance, that wives are to submit to their own husbands, as unto the Lord. Neo-liberals trump this text with the general principle that we are to submit to one another, the broad principle of “servant leadership” and this little nugget, “I just can’t see Jesus insisting that a woman submit to Him…” This same principle is at work with respect to ordaining women in the church. Sure Paul tells us that women are not to exercise authority over a man, but we know the Holy Spirit calls people to this thing or that, and who are we to argue with the Holy Spirit?
3. If the church spends much time touting the wisdom of those outside the church, it is likely a neo-liberal church. To be sure blind squirrels do find nuts, and God gives grace to those outside the kingdom, but beware when the church is all abuzz with the wisdom of this advertising wizard or that psychology guru. If your pastor gets his reading list from Oprah, you are probably in a neo-liberal church.
4. If your church is so zealous to meet people where they are that they end up leaving them where they found them, you are likely at a neo-liberal church. This one is particularly sticky. Take, for instance, those who practice the perversion of sodomy. A sound church will of course believe, and act on the belief that the gospel is bigger than this or any other sin, that those who repent and turn will find their sins forgiven, and their lives empowered for obedience. On the other hand, a sound church will never embrace those who practice gross and heinous sin without repentance. If discipline is not practiced, if, any time discipline is mentioned leadership chimes in that they’re all about grace, not law, you are likely in a neo-liberal church.
5. If your church is ecumenical beyond the confines of the gospel, it is likely you are in a neo-liberal church. We all ought, of course, love our brothers and sisters in Christ even when we disagree on important, though non-essential issues. No one is suggesting that a warm attitude toward the Baptists down the street is a danger sign. A warm attitude toward the liberals down the street is a problem. A warm attitude toward Rome is a problem. A warm attitude toward peace-loving Muslims is a serious problem. What often drives this kind of ecumenical spirit is embracing “inclusivism” a clear doctrinal heresy that is becoming ever more common in churches that on the surface look evangelical. Here the view is that the grace of God is spread abroad to other faith traditions. This is often in turn driven by a cozy relationship with post-modernism wherein we confuse biblical humility with betraying Jesus. That is, when our narrative doesn’t allow us to affirm “Thus saith the Lord” or “There is no other name under heaven by which a man must be saved” because this makes us look like we have “cornered the market on truth” then we are in a neo-liberal church.
6. If your church is willing to make affirmations, but is unwilling to make denials, it is not really making affirmations and is likely a neo-liberal church. It is one thing to say, “Jesus saves.” It is another altogether to say, “Only Jesus saves.” It is one thing to affirm that we will enter into heaven when we die because we trust in the work of Christ. It is another thing to say that those who do not so trust will suffer the wrath of the Father into eternity. Here the sheer ugliness of hell doesn’t inflame our evangelism. It eviscerates it, because we would rather believe it doesn’t exist. If your church leaves open this question, open the door and walk away.
7. Last but not least, if your church leadership is often speaking about what they want to believe, rather than what they do believe, you might be in a neo-liberal church. This works in two directions. First, it may be a sound biblical doctrine that they “want” to believe because there it is in plain sight in the Bible. But something, namely worldliness, makes them hesitate. Second, they may mean that their convictions are formed not by what the Bible says but what makes them feel good. “I like to believe that hell is empty” is nice talk for “I don’t believe the Bible and what it teaches about hell.” “I like to believe that God gives everyone a chance, and judges us by the sincerity of our hearts” is nice talk for, “I don’t believe the Bible and what it teaches about the need for regeneration, faith and repentance.”
Remember, these folks will not hiss at you. They will tell you they are sorry to see you go. In reality, you are an aggravation to them, and they are a danger to you. When we agree that the Bible gives us our answers, we can overcome any disagreement. When one of us believes that the Bible is true, and must be believed no matter what the world says, and the other believes we need to look reasonable and accommodate ourselves to the world, we have unequal yoking. Get out, and get into a faithful church.
Suppose your love of dancing is known throughout your community. Suppose that at tonight’s dance you’ve not only waltzed and tangoed through the first five dances, but did so with a variety of partners and always with a genuine smile on your face. Comes now a young gentleman to ask if he might have the next dance with you. He follows every detail of the prescribed social niceties of the ask. His reputation is not that of a rake or a scoundrel. You say, “No, thank you.”
The young man has at least three choices before him. He can walk away politely. Or, he can “politely” pursue the issue, asking, “Are you injured? Perhaps you are tired and I might ask again in a while?” or he can have a meltdown like your three year old nephew who missed his nap and is denied cotton candy at the county fair. The third option we all reject. The first option we all recognize as a legitimate option. It’s the second option that is unclear. We can clear it up rather easily however, with one question- is the young man owed an explanation? No, of course not. That doesn’t mean I necessarily fault the man for asking. But if his probing questions are met with a polite albeit cards-to-the-chest response of “no” he is left with only the first and third choices. If he takes his “no’s” politely and politely walks away, no trouble. If, however, your answers push him toward a sputtering fit of frustration, well, he thinks he is owed something he is not.
Chances are this chain of events has not happened to you, from either side of the equation. Chances are they never will. But this exercise in imagination should remind us to, even with friends, guard our boundaries, and not cross theirs. We live in the information age, and google never says, “None of your business.” We are inclined therefore to think everything is our business. Too often we even think we are google, and owe an answer to anyone who asks. Which is just how the devil wants it.
When Cyrus sent Nehemiah to rebuild the walls of Jerusalem, Nehemiah went on his way to do just that. When Sanballat saw what was going on he was none too pleased. Did he send a message to Cyrus, “Dear Majesty, What gives?”? No, he went after Nehemiah. He sputtered and spewed. He threatened and falsely accused. He demanded that Nehemiah come and explain himself. Nehemiah just kept building. He had been given a job to do. He was faithful to his own vision and to the calling of his king. And he would not stop the work to explain to those who objected of its legitimacy. He just kept at it.
Our enemies, and even our friends can all too easily become the sand in our gears. Worse, we can become the sand in theirs. Perhaps we would all do well to put this as frontlets before our eyes, “Who are you to judge another man’s servant? To his own master he stands or falls. Indeed he will be made to stand, for God is able to make him stand” (Romans 14:4). To put it another way, “Dance with the One who brung you.”
It is not at all unusual for us to defend our own peculiar perspective by painting our opponents in the worst possible light. There is genuine disagreement over whether political issues have any place in preaching. Those who stand opposed, however, lob their arguments against those who wrap their sermons in the American flag, who create six part sermon series on why poll taxes are more biblical than property taxes. Those who are more eager for sermons dealing with political issues, on the other hand, argue against Gnostic preaching that seems to suggest that anything outside of prayer, preaching and the sacraments is worldly, off limits. Very few are that extreme, in either direction.
The answer to the question- what should pastors preach, is simple enough. They should preach the Bible. The Bible, according to the Bible, equips us for every good work. There is nothing of importance, and surely all would agree that liberty is important, that the Bible does not speak to. Where it speaks so so ought the preacher to speak. We don’t come to the Bible, or any of its texts, hoping it will support our own message. Rather we come hoping we will communicate its message.
The more difficult question is one of priorities. The question is not if we should preach against the grasping state, but how often ought we to do so? And that, I would argue, is answered not by knowing the Bible, but by knowing one’s congregation. Too often we tickle the ears of the flock not by speaking well of them, but by thundering against the sins of their enemies. A steady diet of “We are the oppressed minority who are being overrun by the state that hates us” may increase our blood pressure, but isn’t likely to increase our holiness.
Preaching should both call us to repent of our sins and look to God’s promises in Christ. That may mean calling a congregation to repentance for treating the state as an idol, looking to it to give us this day our daily bread. It may mean calling a congregation to repent of its indifference to the enslavement of their neighbors by the state. But it is likely also to mean calling a congregation to repent of worshipping mammon, or bowing before the god of personal peace and affluence. It might also mean calling a congregation to stop acting like Chicken Little, and implicitly denying that God raises rulers and brings them down for the sake of the sanctification of His bride. It might mean calling the congregation to repent of its pride, if we are given to thinking, “I thank you Lord that I am not like other men. I read Breitbart and have anti-government bumper stickers on my car.”
Or, as we consider the size and scope and tyranny of the state that ruled during the time of the New Testament church, we might preach like this- Do not be surprised when the world hates you. It hated Jesus, and we servants are not greater than the Master. They may persecute us. They may take our property. They may silence us. They may put us to death. But, we are princes in the kingdom of God, seated with Christ in the heavenly places. We have been set free of the greater Monster, our own sin. And we are to be of good cheer, for He has already overcome the world.
That will preach.
