Just for the elect. This truth is hard for some people for what seems like a good reason- It shows God treating people unequally. If Christ’s atoning work covers only some people, doesn’t this somehow make God unfair, treating one group of people one way, and another group of people another way? If people end up in different places, some in heaven and some in hell, then we can either attribute the difference to how God acts in our lives, or in how we act in ourselves. The latter choice has a great deal going for it. It absolves God of the charge of treating people differently. And no one in hell, of course, can complain about being there. They are there by their own doing.
The first choice, however, has three things going better for it. First, it means some people will actually go to heaven. Given the scope of our sinfulness, were God merely to make our salvation possible, (which is itself a limitation of the atonement) and then dependent upon our natural obedience to His call, none would come. Dead people do not respond to the call to repentance, unless they are first made alive.
The second advantage is that this is what the Bible teaches. Consider, for instance, Jesus’ High Priestly prayer. If it is incumbent upon God to treat all men the same, would it not be incumbent on Jesus to pray for all men the same way? What, then, are we to make of this- “I pray for them. I do not pray for the world but for those whom You have given Me, for they are Yours” (John 17:9). Here Jesus explicitly denies praying for those who are not His, while affirming that He prays for those who are His. Now if Jesus is unwilling to pray for those who were not chosen, on what grounds can we claim that He suffered the wrath of the Father for the sins of those for whom He would not pray? Remember that God explicitly affirms His liberty to treat some people differently than others- “For He says to Moses, ‘I will have mercy on whomever I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whomever I will have compassion’” (Romans 9:15). What we try to free God from, the accusation that He treats some people one way and others another God proudly affirms.
There is a third serious problem with the notion that Jesus died for all sins of all people. Hell. If Jesus atoned for all sins, just for what are the sinners in hell suffering? Those who seek to “protect” God’s integrity by arguing He must treat us all the same end up, accidentally, affirming that God punishes the same sins twice, once on Calvary and again in hell. Some might object in turn that the sinners in hell are being punished for their unbelief. But that too is a sin, and thus would have already been punished. If all sins have been atoned for, they can’t be punished.
God owes man nothing save damnation. What He chooses to give, outside of damnation, is all of grace. Which means in turn that He treats His elect one way, and the reprobate another. All to the everlasting praise of His glory. The value of the atonement, of course, is infinite. The purpose of the atonement, however, is specific.
It goes against my own principles to argue from the perspective of the pragmatic. Pragmatism, after all, is a worldly thing. We have been called to faithfulness. God tells us what to do, and we are to do it. The results we wisely leave in His hands. Strangely, however, from time to time, the two approaches intersect. That is, sometimes doing the principled thing is the same thing as the pragmatic thing.
Consider, for a moment, this command from God- “Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes” (Proverbs 26:5). Now I grant that the verse immediately preceding this verse is puzzling, “Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest you be like him yourself.” How can we do both things? The key is this. We ought not ever to adopt the standards of fools. But we ought not to be afraid to use the standards of fools against fools. If, for instance, the promoter of the church growth mentality, holds out the size and budget of Seeker Church A as evidence of the wisdom of this approach, we would be foolish were we to respond by holding up the size and budget of Non-Seeker Church B as evidence of the folly of this approach. Everyone, no matter where they stand on this issue, if they agree that the standard is size and budget, is already a fool.
On the other hand, if God commands us to answer the pragmatist according to his pragmatism, lest he be wise in his own eyes, we, if we are principled, obey. And so I shall.
I trust that no one would really use the size and budget of a given church as a measure of effectiveness. If we did so, the largest denomination in America would not be the UMC, nor the SBC, but the NFL. We might, however, be tempted to measure a church’s success by the number of unbelievers it attracts. We would do this only if we were confused over the relationship between evangelism and worship. Sadly, such confusion is alive and well in the church. We do not jettison worship for the sake of evangelism, but evangelize for the sake of the worship. Nevertheless, if we agree with the fool that what we want on the Lord’s Day morning is a packed house of “seekers” what approach ought we to take? Counter-programming.
The world around us is awash in vacuity. We live in a virtual Inanity Fair. We are utterly empty, suffering the unbearable lightness of being. The world, cutting itself off from the transcendent realm, has nothing of substance, nothing lasting to offer. If there were such a thing as a seeker, what would they be seeking? The church growth movement seems to believe they would be seeking more of the same. In a world consumed with light hearted entertainment, we offer up less professional, less entertaining light hearted entertainment. Why, I keep wondering, would a “seeker” get up on a Sunday morning, and travel to some giant box to hear a third rate rock band preceding a third rate comic give a third rate “message” that leaves him in the same state that he arrived in?
If we were to design a worship service for the sake of the seeker (and remembering Proverbs 26:4 we wouldn’t want to), wouldn’t we design one that at least delivered something of what the market lacks? Shouldn’t we be filling gaps, rather than going head to head with the professionals? Wouldn’t it make sense, if you were ABC, to air Love Story while CBS is airing the Super Bowl, rather than airing a John Wayne marathon? Shouldn’t we be zigging while the whole world is zagging? A service that might attract the lost would be one that does not hide the transcendent, but reveals it. A service that might attract the lost would be one that does not deliver more of the same, but that shows forth the One. A service that might attract the lost would be one heaven bent on giving a map, rather than celebrating being lost. A service that might attract the lost would be one that panders to those who are sick of being pandered to, by refusing to pander. A service that might attract the lost would be one that offers discomfort to those who are sick and tired of being comfortable.
Of course the more we try to be pragmatic, the closer we get to the principle. If anyone is seeking, they are seeking what they have not found in the world. If anyone is seeking, they will never find, unless they seek first the kingdom of God. We can only help them by being the kingdom of God.
Which brings us back to why we must not answer a fool according to his folly. We do not make decisions based on meeting numbers. We make decisions based on meeting God. Worship isn’t a means to an end, but the end of all means. We do not design it for the lost, nor for the found. We listen to the Seeker of the lost, and do as He commands. We come to worship Him in spirit and in truth. We come to worship Him in the beauty of His holiness. We come to worship Him, for His is the kingdom and the power and the glory. We come to worship Him, to seek first His kingdom and His righteousness. And then, and only then, will all these things be added to us.
There is a process by which a people group loses its privilege. First, lofty standing begins to lose its cache. Second, the once privileged become a matter of insignificance. Last, they become the untouchables. While Christians are fast on their way to being untouchables, having last election cycle been bundled together in a basket full of deplorables, we now feel the angst of our own insignificance. We don’t count much. No one especially cares what we think. Heck, we can’t even agree among ourselves over something so basic of the deity of our Redeemer.
Time was that both parties courted the evangelical vote. Now the reds take us for granted while the blues paint us as so out of touch that our thought leaders and their thought followers desperately swing left so as not to be left out of the cool kids club. Big Eva will always find a place among the elites, so long as she puts out.
All of which is a mirage painted for us by our real enemy, the Serpent. The truth is that every member of the power elite rules at the King’s pleasure. They, like Pharaoh before them, are so many puppets set up so that our Hero can knock them down (Exodus 9: 16, 17). The purpose of this faux show is two-fold- our well being and His glory. The devil wants us to believe that we are spinning in circles in the swirling eddies of the backest of backwaters while he is the center of the universe, and the power brokers are his satellites. The truth is that we are the center of the story, because He is the center of the story, and we are one with Him. We are the bride of the Star of the show.
The show in turn has two grand plots that He weaves together. One is the story of our Hero brandishing His iron rod and breaking the knees of every ruler that will not bow before Him (Psalm 2). The other is story of Him pulling us out of the gutter like Gomer, and washing away every blot and blemish through the Word (Ephesians 5). The devil and his minions, both human and demonic are props. The daily events covered by the news are but a painted backdrop.
This means you. If they think little of you where you work, if the town council thinks you a harmless crank, if your unbelieving family and neighbors feel pity for you, it matters not. The Maker of Heaven and Earth made heaven and earth, and you so that He might glorify His Son in rescuing you, whom He has loved by name from before time. He rejoices every time you draw near Him in prayer. He is preparing eternal blessings to shower on you.
And He blesses you now, by taking from you, and from me, and from all that call upon His name, the pathetic privileges that pour from power. For our good and for His glory. Jesus, and His beloved, always win.
Sonship theology is a set of biblical notions originally propagated by Jack Miller, a former missionary and pastor in the Presbyterian Church in America (former because Jack has gone on to his reward.) The ideas were first spread through a Bible study, then through a Presbyterian missions agency. The central theme, as evidenced in the title, is that we must come to understand that we are not only justified, but that we are adopted. It begins with an assumption that while our lips may affirm we are justified by faith alone, our Pelagian hearts are given to thinking that God is happy with us when we do well in our walk, unhappy with us when we do not do as well. It encourages us to enter fully into our union with Christ. Among the common slogans birthed in this movement are these- “Relax!. You’re much worse than you think.” And “Preach the gospel to yourself every day.”
So far there is nothing here that I could imagine objecting to. Indeed these themes are near and dear to my heart, central to my thinking, my teaching, my writing. I agree with Jack Miller not only that we need to understand these truths, but agree that getting our hearts around the glorious truth is a potent means to a more sanctified heart, a more God-honoring family, and a more grace infused church.
But there have been complaints. Some have accused Sonship theology of being implicitly antinomian. That is, some suggest that the notion that God is already as pleased with us as He is with His Son will remove the motive for better behavior. I find this accusation profoundly telling. I am unable to see how this accusation can stick on Sonship, but not stick on the gospel. That is, this accusation is a precise echo of what Rome said about the Reformers and the gospel they (and we) preached and defended. Though it may be apocryphal, it is said that Luther once quipped about preaching the gospel “If you are not accused of being antinomian, you are doing it wrong.”
Others have suggested that Sonship is too introspective. As you are encouraged to look for the idols of your heart, so that they might be torn down, it seems you could spend your time gazing at your navel. But do you notice how this complaint works against the former complaint? That is, how can one movement take you off the moral hook, and then also be too accusatory? And how can it be a bad thing to mortify your sins?
Finally, some accuse the movement of being a Reformed version of “higher life.” That is, like the original Keswick movement, like the holiness movement, Christians always face the temptation to create a two-tiered Christianity. There are those Christians over there, who haven’t had our experience, and us over here that have. We’re willing to see them in heaven, but if they want to join the elite, they need to have our experience. That higher life perspective is deadly, Gnostic and foolish. But surely that can’t mean that we can’t grow in grace and wisdom. Surely it can’t mean that we can’t encourage others to grow in grace and wisdom. Surely believing the gospel more fully, more faithfully, more biblically is a good thing. Indeed, surely believing this more fully will make us more humble, not less so.
My only complaint with the movement, as with most movements, is that it is a movement. That is, it can become THE KEY in the minds of some. It can be divisive in the minds of others. It can become a focus ironically, away from the work of Christ. These failures, however, are our failures, not a failure in the glorious gospel truth that in Christ we are made the sons of God. These failures are our failures, not a failure in the glorious gospel truth that we are forever sons, and not only can nothing tear us from our Father, but that nothing from this day forward can diminish His infinite love for us. We don’t need a movement. We do need to believe the gospel.
Not that is would surprise any of you, but technology is not my strength. As such I am dependent on others whose skills surpass mine. This website would not exist were it not for the good work of my friend Charles Hacker. (Yeah, it is a bit scary to put your cyber-life in the hands of a guy named Hacker. ) The podcast is much the same. I know how to talk. Getting that to you is not something I was very good at. I’ve received help from my friends Christopher Mann and David Knight.
I started trying to get this blog up right about the time my latest book came out, Growing Up (with) RC knowing such was important for sales. What I didn’t know was how difficult it would be to get the capacity to link bookselling to this site. Enter another friend, Ben Ruprecht. A few days ago he committed a morning to help me to the place where a body could browse through some of my books, and if so inclined, purchase a copy or ten. And lo, such a thing now is.
What does this mean to you? It means you can get some good books, conveniently and in a way that will help our bottom line. I’ll be adding more stuff as times goes along, not the least of which is my most recent book, written with still another friend, Paul Derry, Call Me Barabbas. Check it out, right there on the menu, where it says “RC’s Books.”
And say, if you’ve read any of them and found it or them beneficial, leave a comment here letting others know. If you’ve read any of them and found it or them not beneficial, you might want to have that checked. Something’s on the fritz.
How do you know you’re getting better? The answer you give may well be a potent clue in determining just how sick you are. A miser, for instance, judges his health precisely by how much wealth he has managed to hoard, the very sickness from which he suffers. An anorexic measures her health by how thin she is, how well she is practicing the folly from which she suffers. A scholar judges his health by the size of his library, or how many letters dangle after his name, again indicating the illness rather than the health. One need not, however, find oneself in such unusual company to find much the same problem.
The issue isn’t, of course, health per se but our growth in grace. How do we measure spiritual maturation? If we think spiritual maturity is roughly equal to greater and greater theological precision, as I spent decades believing, we understand neither theology nor spiritual maturity. If we think spiritual maturity is roughly equal to greater and greater success in avoiding the really bad sins, the ones that involve pleasure of one sort or another, then we understand neither temptation, nor spiritual maturity.
It is, of course, a good thing to study theology. It is a good thing as well to fight off temptation. But theology teaches us that we have desperately deceitful hearts. And the greatest temptation we face is always to think too highly of ourselves. Ironically, the more sound we are in our theology, the more we think lowly of ourselves. King David, for instance, was a man after God’s own heart not because he successfully fought off temptation in the case of Bathsheba, but because in response to his sin, he penned Psalm 51.
Which means in turn that the more sick, or rather sinful we understand ourselves to be, the more healthy, or rather spiritually mature, we may well be. John adds this symptom as well. He argues throughout his first epistle that what separates the children of God from the sons of the devil is this, that we have love one for another. What defines us vis a vis the world around us is that we love our brothers in Christ, while they hate us, and each other.
These two symptoms, however, come together in the end. The more conscious we are of our own sins, the less conscious we are of the sins of our brothers. The more aware we are that our hearts are deceitful, the less likely we are to trust our judgmental judgments against our brothers, the more likely we are to think no evil as love calls us to do in I Corinthians 13. As we own our sin, remembering of course that in Christ we are beloved of the Father, then we better love the rest of those who in Christ are beloved of the Father, our brothers and sisters.
Want to know how well you are? Look at your neighbor in the pew. Is your first thought, “How can I be expected to be gracious to someone like that?” Or is it instead, “How astonishing that they should be so gracious to me, a sinner!” And after you fail this test, repent, believe, and ask for the grace to know your sin more and to love your brother more.
