The Battle Between Mainline Liberal and Conservative Christian Churches

My last blog on this subject (The Emerging Church) was controversial because it named names. Charges of "judgmentalism" and "practice what it says in Matthew 18 when you bad-mouth brothers in the church" are ringing in my ears. Well, based on their expressed beliefs, these people may not be members of the “church,” as Scripture defines it. And how does a little guy like me privately approach these people in the first place?  Their pastor should do the job, really. And let's not forget that St. Paul named names. In 1 Timothy 1:18–20, Paul charged Timothy to fight the good fight against false teachings. Paul specifically named Hymenaeus and Alexander as individuals that he helped throw out of the church because of their behavior. In his next letter to Timothy, Paul mentioned Hymenaeus again and added Philetus to the list of false teachers. Look also at Jude 4:

For certain individuals whose condemnation was written about long ago have secretly slipped in among you. They are ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into a license for immorality and deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord.

People who “secretly slip in” and work to destroy the church--should we allow them freedom to tear away because we don’t want to offend them? This isn't simply gossip; in the Emerging Church blog, I quoted public statements they've made that are anti-Christian. Let's expose them and remove them from being called part of the church. I mean, the pastor is a shepherd; his people are the sheep. Will we allow a wolf the freedom to attack our sheep, or will we defend them? And what if somebody said this about God (as one of them did): “The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty…” I mean, stop…it’s like calling my wife a prostitute. I’m going to defend my God.

Anyway, in Tom Horn’s book Blood on the Altar, there’s a great article called “A Divided House” written by a Master of Theological Studies, Cris Putnam. I’m going to give you the kernel of it in my "Reader’s Digest summary." I’ll probably hear more keening from some folks later, but that’s what always happens when you go to war against the enemy. So let’s continue to do the unfortunate task of naming some names. But on a bigger scale this time--naming denominations. Now, I hope you understand that if I denounce a denomination's expressed theology, that does not mean every single person in that denomination agrees with it--or even knows what it is. Nor does it mean that every single church in that denomination is in line with some heretical thinking we give.  But we may ask:  If you disagree on major theological points, why do you stay in that denomination?

Here is the split in the church: The so-called "mainline" Protestant churches, for the most part, contrast in recent belief, history, and practice with evangelical, fundamentalist, and charismatic Protestant denominations--"religious conservatives." The deciding factor, here, of course, is the statements of Scripture. Conservatives generally uphold the doctrine of biblical inerrancy (though their congregations often don't take His Word seriously) and embrace God’s moral truths as timeless. Opposing them, though, are folks who believe the Scriptures are an imperfect human work bound to anachronistic culture, and that one must revise one’s interpretation in light of today’s sensibilities. Keep in mind that Scripture definitely claims to be the Word of God.  Consider the definite meaning of "God-breathed" in II Timothy 3:16-17:

All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

Mainline “churches” who have these "updated" heretical beliefs include the Episcopal Church, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, the Presbyterian Church USA, the United Methodist Church, the one group of Baptists--called the American Baptists, the United Church of Christ (Congregationalist), the Disciples of Christ, the Unitarian church, and the Reformed Church in America. Most of those reject core doctrines of classical Christianity like substitutionary atonement of Christ, leading H. Richard Niebuhr to famously surmise their creed: “A God without wrath brought men without sin into a Kingdom without judgment through the ministrations of a Christ without a Cross.”

Evangelical denominations who believe Scripture is God-breathed include: Assemblies of God, Southern and Independent Baptists, Bible Church, Black Protestants, African Methodist Episcopal (and Zion), Church of Christ, Lutheran Missouri Synod, National Baptist Church, Pentecostal denominations, and the Presbyterian Church in America. (Note the split in the Baptist, Lutheran, Church of Christ and Presbyterian denominations. This certainly points out that it’s important to get a church's creedal statements before becoming a member—many individual churches have it online.  I would be leery of joining a church that doesn't post its creed). Don’t get put off by people sarcastically calling these groups “fundamentalist”—though some of them wear that badge proudly, maybe a little too proudly.  But as you can see, there are plenty of churches that have a loose leash now that they are free to judge God on what's "really" His Word for now. Men judging God--hah!

So let's get down to brass tacks:  Here are five fundamental beliefs, any one of which could not be denied without falling into the error of non-Christian liberalism. (1) inerrancy of original Scripture; (2) divinity of Jesus; (3) the virgin birth; (4) Jesus’ death on the cross as a substitute for our sins; and (5) His physical resurrection and impending return.  Mr. Putnam adds two: (6) the doctrine of the Trinity; and (7) the existence of Satan, angels, and spirits.

Mr. Putnam has a shocking conclusion:  he argues that there really isn’t any difference between liberal mainline pastors and antitheists (who don’t believe in God). For an example of proof of his statement, Mr. Putnam quotes Unitarian minister Marilyn Sewell: “I’m a liberal Christian, and I don’t take the stories from the scripture literally. I don’t believe in the doctrine of the atonement (that's Jesus paying the price for our sin).” And a quote from Episcopal Bishop John Shelby Spong: “the expanding knowledge of my secular world had increasingly rendered the traditional theological formulations expressed in core Christian doctrines as the incarnation, the atonement and even the trinity inoperative at worst, and incapable of making much sense to the ears of 21st century people at best.” But, Mr. Putnam so well put it, “the incarnation, atonement, and Trinity are not exactly negotiable doctrines.” Both heretical statements above are the same, because both deny God’s central plan for the saving of the world. Neither of these people will lead you to heaven.  Believe what they say here, and hell is your desitination.  These congregations don’t believe in the God we know, and their knowledgeable leaders will have the same ultimate destination in eternity as the godless antitheist—unless they repent.

The liberal churches, when they tear down the Bible, are attacking Biblical morality as well. They are stating that there is no objective, or absolute, morality. We thus have freedom to sin--as Scripture defines it, anyway--without guilt. They claim the Bible is sexist, homophobic, the flawed product of an ancient patriarchal culture. Bishop Spong says Scripture promotes slavery, demeans women, and our Bible “claims” that sickness is caused by God’s punishment, and that mental disease and epilepsy are caused by demonic possession. These are gross distortions. They say the Bible is a Jewish legend, that Joshua’s conquest is an example of genocide. If the Bible were true, God is a moral monster, says “New Atheist” Richard Dawkins.

A corollary of "postmodernism" (see the Emerging Church blog) known as “moral relativism” rules out a transcendent moral law revealed by God. Morality is culturally defined and relative to a particular group. So, if a majority of Americans agree that same-sex marriage is morally good, then it is. God has no say. As Putnam says, “it amounts to 'the mob rules.'” Following through with that reasoning, the majority who discriminated against the blacks in the South in the 1960s was correct, and Martin Luther King, who appealed to transcendent morality, was just a rabble-rouser trying to change culture for his own race's benefit. Further, there isn’t even a warrant to criticize atrocities like the Holocaust, even if the German citizens didn't provide enough of a warning when it went on under their noses. The majority who were soldiers were willing to kill and give their lives for Hitler, an avid and public Jew-hater. If the “relativist” argues the Holocaust was immoral, then he or she has conceded a moral absolute—and that, to them, is a no-no. By the way, just the fact of their repeated denouncing the “immorality” of real Christianity is a violation of their stated “ethic” about not judging anybody's morality.  Touche, elitist.

They also say that if you argue that Christianity is superior to Buddhism, you believe in “religiocentrism.” (They love big words; it makes them feel superior, and puts you on the defensive.) Evidently religiocentrism is bad; as we said in that blog, what about Acts 4:10, 12? It sounds pretty religiocentrist:

...by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead...Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.”

Quoting those verse will make you an ”intolerant exclusionary”--but be bold. No Scripture returns void, remember (Isaiah 55:11). Quote it with pride.

Fancy name-calling is an excellent way to put you on the defensive. According to their ethic, one cannot say  anything is truly wrong. Remember, there are no absolutes, according to them. The best you can do is express your feelings: “I don’t like it.”

The apostle Paul was really thinking about today when he said the suppression of truth leads to futile thinking and deeper and deeper sin under a seared conscience (Romans 1:22ff). John Piper, an evangelical pastor, points out that these denominations are knowingly leading people to hell by approving of this behavior. Some of the author Putnam’s solutions: “We should approach liberal "Christians" as non-believers, keeping in mind that, as I Corinthians 2:14 says:

the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.”

Recent data indicate that their numbers are just as strong as conservative Christians.  Unfortunately, they have chosen the wide gate Jesus warned of in Matthew 7:13:

“Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it.

“Destruction” there speaks of hell. Now I'm not saying we should condescend to them as foolish or dull-witted, nor should we tell them early in the argument that they are non-Christian (there are many definitions of that word in society) or bound for hell. But (and I know I might get yelled at) there may come a time later on in the argument, when they have voiced their defiance of Christian cores, or when they’re living openly in sin, or when they’re just toying with you with their “arguments,” that you might say that it does appear that they’re bound for hell, unless they repent—say it sadly, not angrily, right? (I'm assuming that's the way you feel).

The author finally warns that “these (liberal) "Christians" will most likely lead the persecution of the believing church, (which has) already (been) labeled as bigoted and homophobic.” A shocking thought, hard to believe? Well, why not? Who led the charges against Jesus? Religious people. In the 1500s, who horribly tortured Christians, and deliberately burned them at the stake in green wood—to lengthen the pain before death? Religious people. Who used the Crusades as an excuse to slaughter "non-believers" with the sword? Religious people.

Let’s have some spiritual discernment when we decide which church to attend. Let’s prayerfully look for a way to discuss the Bible with people—if we’re mature in the faith. Can we let them run off the cliff to hell without making any attempt to stop them?

Acknowledgements: Blood on the Altar, Thomas Horn

What Happens When the Good Guys Become the Bad Guys?

I grew up when TV was first starting. My favorite shows were Lone Ranger, Gunsmoke, Hopalong Cassidy, Davy Crockett, Rifleman—all had good guys vs. bad guys. It was easy to figure out who the good guys were, and who the bad guys were. When I grew up, things like that got complicated and weren’t clear anymore. To show you what I mean, I’d like to tell you a story about the later medieval period. When who were the good guys and bad guys not only weren’t clear, but some of them changed from one to the other…

First, a definition: A good guy, for my purposes, is a person or group who stays true to Jesus’ commandments—he is saved, he is born again--and he does not even hurt those he perceives as his enemies. Because Jesus commands it.  Matthew 5:44:

But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you

If a person doesn't abide by Christ's commands, we may question his salvation, whether he has been the "good guy" in the past. Even in a violent time period in world history. if he was likewise violently brutal with his enemies, no way can he be a "good guy."  If he is a disciple of Christ, he must go counter to the culture.  We don't let him "opt out" of responsibility because he was in an impassioned period, where violence and lack of respect for human rights seemingly was the "rule." The idea is, you don't just fall into the world's culture. You obey His commands, so you resist the world's culture at critical decision points.  Then we know you're the good guy.

During medieval times, the Catholic church was the only recognized Christian church--but their corruption dimmed their witness. Larger protesting groups were rising as early as the 1200s, but the Catholics persecuted them mercilessly, and the groups were snuffed out. The Spanish Inquisition was then set up, and there was the horrific torture and extermination of the Albigenses and the Waldenses. And we must not forget the earlier Lollards and John Huss--and Bible translator John Wycliffe. The ones being persecuted and murdered were godly people. But they didn’t agree with all the Catholic doctrine, and paid with their lives. Feelings were strong. These events were 50-150 years before Martin Luther. Many of these people were burned alive at the stake, or targeted and slaughtered in Crusades ordered by Popes.  A Pope also had wicked leverage on his side called “indulgences.” Indulgences supposedly reduced the time your loved ones spent in purgatory. These generally had to be bought (and became an important source of papal revenue), but wily Popes also gave them away to the “right” people as well—such as to common citizens who gathered up wood to help burn these Protestant heretics at the stake. They were also given to people who volunteered to go on Crusades; or he gave them to torture-Inquisitors.

On Halloween, 1517, Martin Luther tacked a list of 95 objections, mostly to indulgences, on the wall of a cathedral in Wittenberg, Germany. And thus the Reformation was actually born. Luther also translated the Bible into German, so for the first time, many people could read God’s Word. By 1540 all North Germany had become Lutheran. The Pope declared a Crusade on them, and after 9 years of bloody battle, a surprising event--a peace treaty won legal recognition of the Lutheran religion. Luther is definitely a good guy, right?

But here is where the story changes, and the playlist gets harder to tell. The only reason Luther stayed alive from the Catholics is because he had the backing of wealthy German princes, who protected him. The princes were still running a very profitable feudalism, where they effectively confiscated the people’s property under the agreement to protect them, but the people were poor for life--in effect, slaves.  They worked the property, and their profits went to the princes.  (Some accused the princes’ willingness to follow Luther was not religious at all, it was just to get out of a burdensome Roman Catholic tax). So when in 1525, 300,000 of the people rebelled against the princes and their feudal oppression-- you might be surprised to learn that Luther not only backed the rich guys against the poor guys (the opposite of what Jesus would do, given His negative view about the rich who oppressed the poor), but he wrote letters urging the princes on to a killing frenzy. The title of his main paper was: Against the Murderous, Thieving Hordes of Peasants, and his hatred against the poor included the following sentences: “Let everyone who can, smite, slay, and stab, secretly or openly, remembering that nothing can be more poisonous, hurtful, or devilish than a rebel. It is just as one might kill a mad dog; if you do not strike him, he will strike you.” This bloodthirstiness was unnecessary, since the peasants had few real weapons or military experience. The “princely” soldiers slaughtered 100,000 of them before the revolt was quashed.

This ungodly hatred possessed Luther again in 1543, when he targeted his hatred for the Jews, and wrote a 65,000-word treatise, The Jews and Their Lies, calling them “a base, whoring people…full of the devil’s feces…which they wallow in like swine.” The Jewish synagogue was “an incorrigible whore and an evil slut.” He argues that their synagogues and schools should be set on fire, prayer books destroyed, rabbis forbidden to preach, homes razed, and property and money confiscated. These “poisonous, envenomed worms” should be drafted into forced labor or expelled for all time. This hatred reached a peak when he suggested murder, saying “we are at fault for not slaying them.” God’s Word suggests that people who hate are unsaved. In I John 3:15:

Whoever hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him.

Luther’s letter was, 400 years later, an excellent motivator for Adolph Hitler, who fulfilled Luther’s violent rants. Luther never repented from this horrible slander, writing yet more such poisoned letters just before his death. Thus, his evil works carried on long after his death, and he was quoted many times by Nazi propaganda in the 1930s and 1940s.

Did Martin Luther die an unsaved man? Ezekiel 18:24 is a good litmus test. Keep in mind the words “live" and “die” refer to heaven and hell:

“But when a righteous man turns away from his righteousness and commits iniquity, and does according to all the abominations that the wicked man does, shall he live? All the righteousness which he has done shall not be remembered; because of the unfaithfulness of which he is guilty and the sin which he has committed, because of them he shall die.

My next good guy/bad guy story is in Zurich, Switzerland. Rolling back the years again, when Catholics were in charge:  At the same time as Luther began reforming Germany, Ulrich Zwingli was trying to do the same in Zurich, Switzerland. He urged his followers to read Scripture, a very anti-Catholic idea at the time. He was already an admired public figure, so the liberal Catholic magistrates in Switzerland gave him a free hand, but...as long as he didn’t suggest radical changes. But readings of Scripture caused him to request that the people be allowed to drink from the cup during the Eucharist—but the magistrates said No. He backed off, taking no further action. Further Scripture readings caused him to request the magistrates to cease the state-collected tithes (a tax used to support the church). They said No again, and he backed off again. His disciples were now getting restless for reform, and nothing was happening. His disciples, upon their further Scripture reading, stumbled upon a huge, heady question--what was the church, they asked? The procedure at the time was, every infant (except Jewish) was baptized, and was considered part of the church. This doctrine was initiated by the Catholics, of course, and St. Augustine's theory that unbaptized infants were damned. But it was completely un-Scriptural.  Augustine, surprise, was unchallenged by the Lutheran Reformers. But some of the Zwingli disciples urged him to request the magistrates again. (By the way, this seemingly odd practice was because civil and religious were the same government). This time they asked to stop baptizing babies, but to change to a Biblical idea, baptizing people when they become believers, and are willing to be disciples of Christ. The Zwingli disciples decided that only the people who followed Christ's commands in Scripture, were the church. The civil court said “no” to this "radical" idea and Zwingli backed off--again. Now his disciples went public, talking about Scriptural reform, and about Catholic doctrine not agreeing with Scripture. So Zwingli was asked by the magistrates to calm his disciples down. But he couldn’t. Hey, he taught them to investigate Scripture, right? Several of his followers now took a bold move--expressing their faith in Christ and His commands, they baptized each other. Since that was their second baptizing, they were called Anabaptists (which means “baptize again.”) The Anabaptists rejected that name, since they only felt that a single baptism, as believers, was properly Scriptural. They called each other Brethren—and started another Movement. From this movement, we have the Amish, the Mennonites, the Hutterites, the Swiss Brethren, and the Bruderhof. It was later called a “Radical Reformation.”

I want to assure you that they didn’t take up arms to defend themselves. Now there was a novel conception at the time--but possibly Scriptural. They had a simple desire for the freedom to worship as they saw the Scripture. They did have some beliefs considered strange at the time—not taking oaths (first allegiance only to Christ), not volunteering for military service (because they would have to kill people). But these were peaceful beliefs. So, these are good guys. And they remained good guys until the day they died—which, in many cases, was pretty soon. The magistrates reacted swiftly once they heard that they weren’t baptizing their babies and instead were baptizing adults. They were given one week to recant, or they would be thrown out of the community. If they tried to remain, they would be drowned. Either way they chose, they had to abandon their property--which the magistrates grabbed, and it was divided among the loyal Catholics who remained. So Anabaptists had to flee to other communities, where they were usually expelled again.  This happened repeatedly. They were persecuted by Catholics and Lutheran Protestants alike for their ideas (following Scripture was unacceptably radical). Men who attempted leadership of their groups got persecuted more severely--they were either drowned or tortured, and then burned at the stake. But even their enemies wrote what beautiful, godly, gentle people these were--but we still have to kill them, because they have the "wrong" doctrine, and they must be behaving badly in secret.

The story for the Anabaptists ends well--they were not all killed--and some Anabaptists are still around. We snigger at them for the women’s headcovering (which happens to agree with I Corinthians 11:5-6) and modest clothing (I Timothy 2:9) and their radical “third world” standard of farming and living. Hey, they learned to live without Smartphones.  Keep in mind, though, that many thousands of them were murdered in those days just because they were different. Even in London, when the Puritans ruled. Well, the Puritans were another story of twisting Jesus’ commands.

Well, wait, what happened to Zwingli, you might ask? Not surprisingly, he was opposed to his disciples making this radical move of baptism. (I suspect his reputation was more important to him). He made a decree in 1526 that urged their drowning, and testified against them more than once.  So he betrayed students who followed what he taught. A cowardly act of a compromising man. I can think of one Scripture that he didn’t have the heart to believe in, Matthew 5:11-12:

“Blessed are you when they revile and persecute you, and say all kinds of evil against you falsely for My sake. 12 Rejoice and be exceedingly glad, for great is your reward in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you.

Persecution wasn’t his thing. For him to teach radical ideas is easy, but following through, taking up Jesus’ cross, knowing you will be expelled or killed, takes some guts.

In the end, he must have developed some spine: He died in armed conflict against canton magistrates when he was only 47--on other issues he disagreed with. But he never led any “real-Christian” movements.  Good guy or bad guy? A mixed bag. But, when you think about it, a mixed bag is what what most of us are--except Jesus. Let us seek to be more courageous and like Him .

Acknowledgement: Dave Bercot, “Anabaptists” CD

The Weaker Brother

Another great sermon by Dr. R.C. Sproul, again very nearly word-for-word.  On “doubtful things.”  Enjoy.

The progress of our Christian life following our justification is sanctification, by which we are called to grow to maturity and into conformity to the image of Christ.   In defense of the gospel of justification by faith alone, Martin Luther said, “Justification is by faith alone, but not by a faith that is alone.  A true faith that is saving faith will immediately, necessarily, and inevitably begin to show forth the fruit of that faith in the progress of sanctification.”  Also remember the apostle who told us to “work out our salvation with fear and trembling.” And in Philippians 2:13:  “For God is at work within us both to will and to do His good purpose.” This means that we are not to be at ease, to “let go and let God.”

There are various pitfalls that undermine that progress along the way.  And perhaps the two most dangerous pitfalls are the distortions that we call antinomianism and legalism.  Antinomianism means “anti-law-ism.”  It asserts that once I am saved by grace, I no longer have to be concerned about living a life of obedience, or give any particular significance, to the Law of God.  One of the critical concerns of 16^th century Romanism, with the advent of the Reformation, was a belief that this doctrine of “faith alone” would lead to a spirit of antinomianism, because once the Law had fulfilled its purpose of driving us to Christ and the Gospel, it would have no more impact among us.  And there were those who literally moved in that direction. But we believe that though the ceremonial laws have been fulfilled in Christ and therefore abrogated, nevertheless the laws that are rooted in the very character of God, and are revealed in His moral law, still have relevance to the Christian.  Not as a means by which we achieve salvation, but rather as a means by which we proceed in sanctification—to do that which is pleasing to God. 

But we live in a time, within the evangelical church, where antinomianism is epidemic.  One denomination, in their doctrine, says the Old Testament Law has no further import to the life of the Christian.  And in that antinomian spirit, we have seen, I think, one of the most destructive doctrines that has been embraced widely in the evangelical community—namely the concept of the “carnal Christian.”  It is an oxymoron, a contradiction in terms.  True, we have a fleshly spirit that is not completely eradicated until we enter Glory, but that’s not the problem when we encounter the doctrine of the “carnal Christian.”  Their idea is that a person can be truly saved, and receive Christ as Savior—but NOT as Lord.  And they may never produce any fruit of a sanctified life; but may remain carnal (fleshly) until death.  Christ is supposedly in this person’s life, but not reigning on the throne of their life.  “Self” remains established in the governing center and the core of the person.

But on the other side of the equation is the threat that’s always there of legalism.  What is legalism?  There is not one single monolithic form of legalism.  There are varieties, different types of meaning.  The worst meaning has reference to the idea that by your works, you can satisfy the demands of God’s Law, and can gain salvation through your own works.  That is the view that is so widely held by people who have never heard the Bible say that “by the works of the Law shall no flesh be justified.”  In fact the vast majority of people out there really believe in a legalistic manner and means of being redeemed.  Which is false not only with respect to the way of salvation set forth in Scripture; but it is a way of salvation that if it were indeed the Biblical way of salvation, would cause these people who believe it nothing but everlasting Doom.  Because none of us do the works of the Law that are required to satisfy the legal demands of God.

Other forms of legalism were those perfected by the Pharisees, which drew the rebuke, and at times, the wrath, of our Lord Himself. The Pharisees were fond of majoring in minors.  That’s a form of legalism where you give great zeal and great attention to minor matters of the Law, at the expense of, and ignoring, the weightier matters of the Law.  They paid attention to the tithe, but ignored justice and mercy.  You know people like that; they’re scrupulous in their church attendance, they wouldn’t think of shorting God in the collection plate--but as far as the rest of the fruit of the spirit is concerned, they could care less!  They have majored in minors.

The other thing the Pharisees were experts at were a kind of “ethical loop-holism.”  If they could obey the letter of the Law, never mind the spirit of the Law, they spent time looking for a way around it to suit their needs.  If they wanted to go on a trip that was more than a Sabbath day’s journey, they would simply, during the week, have a courier leave a toothbrush under a rock at various intervals, because, legally, the presence of one’s toothbrush established temporary legal residence.  And so even though they made a trip of 15 miles in one day (thus breaking their law of travel on the Sabbath), they only went so far between these rocks containing their toothbrushes—so thus they never went more than a “Sabbath day’s journey.”  These were Philadelphia lawyers before there was a Philadelphia. 

But one of the most destructive form of legalism then and now, the one that was most seriously practiced by the Pharisees, was to add to the Law of God. To bind men’s consciences where God had left them free.  Substituting the human tradition for the Law of God.  We wag our fingers at the Pharisees for doing that, but that problem has plagues the church in every generation.  The problem that we have between antinomianism on the one hand, and legalism on the other—you might ask yourself where you tend to fall off which side of the horse, and what kind of an atmosphere you have at your church.  To these poles of legalism and antinomianism are the questions of “indifferent matters” and Christian liberty.  Matters that are indifferent refers to those areas where God has not commanded to do or to abstain from.  We have Christian liberty in that particular zone.  Remember, though, Christian liberty never gives anybody the liberty to disobey God.  That’s another form of antinomianism, where Christian liberty becomes the disguise, or the license, for licentiousness, where people are saying, “I’m free, I’m liberated, by the Spirit (and so I can disobey God).”

So the big issue is:  How we as Christians can co-exist, when we don’t always have the same understanding of what it is that fits into the category of God’s “indifference” and where our Christian liberty begins, and where it ends.  That was a problem in the Corinthian church, it was a problem in the Roman church, and it has been a problem ever since. Let’s look at Romans 14:1-2:

Receive one who is weak in the faith, but not to disputes over doubtful things. ² For one believes he may eat all things, but he who is weak eats only vegetables.  Let not him who eats despise him who does not eat, and let not him who does not eat judge him who eats; for God has received him. 

Paul is saying, in the body of Christ you have weaker brothers who have this particular scruple about that which God has not legislated.  How are you to respond to the weaker brother?  We might insist on educating him on the spot, that our way is “correct.”  No; we both belong to Christ; how dare we judge one who is Christ’s servant?  If we are to judge, we are to judge according to the explicit standards set forth in sacred Scripture, not by dithering about on uncertain scruples.  I don’t think it is as bad today as it was 50 years ago.  Then, evangelicanism was plagued by a kind of spirit of legalism that said that if you’re a Christian, you don’t drink, you don’t smoke, you don’t dance, you don’t play cards, and you don’t go to movies. Now, those virtues still prevail in certain places; but this became such a matter that one’s entire spirituality, and even Christian profession, was to be judged by conformity to these specific taboos within the Christian community.  And you go through your Bible, and you can’t find anything explicit about them in Scripture.  So how can you judge?  But these became so important that they became the tests of one’s Christianity.  A lady who tells the waitress at a restaurant, “Oh, no, we don’t drink, we’re Christians,” leaves the waitress with the impression that that’s what Christianity is all about.  But is that what the Gospel is?  That’s not the apostle Paul is saying here in this Romans text.  But many people have been taught that it is a sin to do things that God does not declare to be sinful.

So, if I believe it is a sin to do these taboos, if I do it, is it a sin?  Yes!  Not because the thing itself is sinful; but what is sinful is doing something you believe to be sinful—that’s sin to do it.  That’s why we all have to be exceedingly sensitive and careful what we do around these folk.  Go back to the Corinthian problem (I Corinthians 8ff).  Meat was offered to idols in a pagan worship service, and then was sold in the marketplace—as meat.  Some Christians, not wanting a hint of scandal, or association with paganism, said, “I’m not going to buy that stuff.  It’s been tainted.”  What’s Paul’s view?  Hey, it’s meat.  It’s the difference of what we call primary and secondary separation.  Primary separation is where you separate yourself from offering meat to idols, which itself is a sin.  But if I decide I have to separate myself from anybody else who has ever offered meat to idols, or from the meat itself, that’s what we call “secondary separation.”  Actually, to be consistent in the application of secondary separation, you’re going to have to leave the planet!—because no matter where you are, or what you do, or from whom you buy, you’re going to be dealing, at some level, with people who are in sin. 

So how does the stronger brother deal with a brother who has this scruple? You can make fun of him, badger him with criticisms—or you can respect his conscience.  You should say, “I know you have this scruple, and I don’t want to make you stumble by trying to entice you to indulge in something that you are convinced is a violation of the Law of God.”  Paul says, and I don’t think he is just using hyperbole, “I will give up meat altogether for the sake of my weaker brother.”  That is his attitude.  If a person has a scruple that I don’t share, and that’s unto the Lord, and because their conscience is held captive by their understanding of the things of God, I am to bend over backwards to be caring, loving, sensitive to that person.  And not flaunt my liberty in their face.  You might do it in private so as not to scandalize the weaker brother. Thus, our liberty is not an autonomy whereby we’re allowed to do anything we feel like doing.  But it is a freedom that must always be accompanied by a charitable sensitivity to those who have scruples that are different from ours.

But now here’s where it gets complicated.  What happens when the weaker brother wants to elevate the scruple he or she has to the level of a moral standard for Christianity, or a standard that must be obeyed to be a member in good standing; or a standard that it becomes necessary to be obeyed in order to be an officer in the church?  Now, the weaker brother becomes the legislating brother; and now he begins to take the scruple he has and uses it to bind the consciences of the people, and destroy Christian liberty—what do you do now? 

That’s one question.  Another question that is close on its heels is the question, “who really is the weaker brother?”   How do you discern it?  You can try to extend God’s morality, but extend it too far.  We have to be very sure that the standards we impose upon people in the church are Biblical standards, and not our own traditional scruples.  I’ve known ministers who have required of their elders that they must sign a pledge not to have any alcoholic beverage including wine—ever—in order to be qualified to be an officer in the church.  Thus they make a standard in the church that would preclude the membership of the apostle Paul, and, yes, of Jesus Himself!  That same pastor will tell you that the wine used in the Bible was not fermented.  Well, it’s not so clear.  Jesus was not called a wine-bibber because He drank Welch’s grape juice.  Nobody worried about exploding old wineskins by putting grape juice in them.  It’s not grape juice that “maketh the heart glad,” and it’s not grape juice that you take for your stomach’s sake.  The attempts to take a cultural thing in America and force it upon the Mideast cannot be done.  You go to Palestine and say that the vineyards were used to make raisins and grape juice; they will laugh you to scorn. No doubt a strong, vehement prohibition against drunkenness is needed, but we find it too easy to add to the standards of God. 

So here’s my problem.  When the pastor imposes that standard that I’ve just used as an example, or any other such extra-Biblical standard on the elders, will that minister admit to being a weaker brother?  Unlikely.  Ministers should not be weaker brothers; they should be able to handle Scripture in a way as to not be caught up in issues of whether to eat meat or vegetables—they should know better than that.  For the solution of this conundrum, let’s look at Galatians 2:11:

  Now when Peter had come to Antioch, I withstood him to his face…  

Why? The next words: …because he was to be blamed.   Here we have a controversy between two titans of the apostolic community, Peter and Paul; and it’s not sensitively done in private, but to his face; and, under the impetus of the Holy Spirit, Paul incorporates it in sacred Scripture. 

Why are we breaking the rules about sensitivity, which will include not embarrassing him, and what about not reprimanding, that we outlined above? 

Peter, from his Cornelius event, knew it was right to eat with the Gentiles when the Christians gathered.  But when the Judaizers came, Peter avoided the Gentiles. Paul felt that Peter was caving in (as Scripture puts it, “played the hypocrite with them”) to the heretical doctrine of the Judaizers—who preached that Christians must also obey Jewish law when saved.  They had an army of scruples on matters where God had no doctrine to avoid or affirm.  Salvation did not include the old law and its man-made burdens.  We are to live by love, and by the Holy Spirit. 

Now, this is no longer the simple matter of eating vegetables or eating meat.  This had escalated into the Judaizer heresy, where they had reinstituted the requirements of the dietary and ceremonial laws upon Christian believers.  This was serious, and the Judaizers were the weaker brothers.  These people couldn’t live with the liberty that Christ had given them from these Old Testament practices.  Jesus gave that liberty, not simply out of kindness, but there were profound theological concerns there.  Paul said, if you enforce circumcision again, since the significance of circumcision has been fulfilled once and for all in the death of Jesus Christ—who was circumcised, or cursed by God. —then you are now placing yourselves, symbolically, again, under all of the terms of the Old Covenant , that have already been fulfilled by Jesus—and you’re crucifying Christ afresh.  So it’s not just a matter of scruples; it’s the matter of the Gospel.  As Galatians 5:11-14 says:

And I, brethren, if I still preach circumcision, why do I still suffer persecution? Then the offense of the cross has ceased. ¹² I could wish that those who trouble you would even cut themselves off!  For you, brethren, have been called to liberty; only do not use liberty as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another. ¹⁴ For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” 

Note that Paul really wishes people with serious heresy would be cut off from the church—and, as it really says, cut off from God! Paul insists that liberty is there, but warns against antinomianism. On the other side of the coin, God instructs sensitivity to those with scruples.  But the Judaizers were insisting that he circumcise Titus, to use another example.  And what did Paul do about that?  As soon as the weaker brother tried to enforce his weakness to become the law of the church, the real Gospel was threatened; and Paul fought tooth and nail against the tyranny of the weaker brother.  Anyone that tries to make it a rule of the church, they must be resisted. They must not be allowed to establish laws where God has left us free.  Applying these principles takes the wisdom of Solomon.  We apply the Word of God and the love of Christ that is shed abroad in our hearts.  We cannot simply tenaciously hold on to our own liberty, but to protect the Gospel while being patient with those who are young in the faith—but try not to allow people to tell waitresses—and promote distortions about what being Christian is

The Other Side of God

I would like to give you, pretty much word for word, a great sermon by Dr. R.C. Sproul, preached just before he entered the hospital for respiratory treatment that eventually killed him.

We live in a culture, and, sadly, in a church, that, if they believe in the existence of God, do not consider God to be holy.  But if, peradventure, some may acknowledge that He is holy, they don’t add to that holiness any idea of divine Justice.  And if, with the lamp of Diogenes, we are able to find a handful of people who believe God is both holy and just, it is next to impossible to find someone who will add to these elements the idea that God is a God of wrath.  Because the assumption in the world and the church today is that the love of God, the mercy of God, and the grace of God either swallows up the justice and wrath of God, or certainly trumps it. Even on national occasions, where noted people are buried out of the National Cathedral in Washington, it is commonplace to hear choirs sing or bagpipers play “Amazing Grace”--but nobody believes that His grace is amazing. It’s something we assume.  Because again the assumption is, God is not holy, God is not just, and God is not a God of wrath. 

Reading I Chronicles 13:1-6, David called all spiritual leaders in the land to form a grand procession and celebration to bring the ark of the covenant from storage back to his capital city.  Let’s pick it up from verse 7:

So they carried the ark of God on a new cart from the house of Abinadab, and Uzza and Ahio drove the cart. ⁸ Then David and all Israel played music before God with all their might, with singing, on harps, on stringed instruments, on tambourines, on cymbals, and with trumpets. ⁹ And when they came to Chidon’s threshing floor, Uzza put out his hand to hold the ark, for the oxen stumbled. ¹⁰ Then the anger of the Lord was aroused against Uzza, and He struck him because he put his hand to the ark; and he died there before God. ¹¹ And David became angry because of the Lord’s outbreak against Uzza…

David was afraid of God that day.  When I was in seminary, I was taught that the Biblical passages that refer to the sudden explosion and paroxysm of rage that God manifested in the Old Testament, showed that the Old Testament is not the inspired Word of God, but is simply an example of a popular religion of a tribal deity from a semi-nomadic group of people who were pre-scientific and unsophisticated.  And they would say that these episodes recorded in the Old Testament were totally incompatible with the New Testament portrait of the love of God revealed in Jesus.  So what I experienced in seminary was a revival of the Marcionite heresy (Ed. Note:  around 144 A.D.); with an attempt to expurgate from the Bible all references to this Old Testament angry deity.  But I thought that this episode, and others like it, since they were recorded in the pages of sacred Scriptures, would at least deserve the philosophy of a second glance.  So, David is going to bring the most sacred vessel of their religion to the holy place; he is going to restore the Glory to Israel to a brand new place.  So he has a new cart made; and in the middle of a jubilant procession, the ox stumbles, and tilts the cart, and the sacred ark is in immediate danger of falling into the dirt, or mud, where it would be surely desecrated.  Instinctively, out of a sense of respect for this sacred object, lest it become marred in the dirt, Uzzah stretches forth his hand.  As soon as he did, the heavens opened, and a deep voice shouted to him from heaven, “Thank you, Uzzah!”  Well…not how it happened.  As soon as he touched the ark, instantly, he was stricken.  God executed him. 

Oh! The gymnastics my Old Testament professors went through in seminary, saying, “Well, that’s the way it seemed to these unsophisticated Hebrews who were watching this. Surely the man dropped dead of a heart attack, generated by his terror that he would venture to touch that sacred object.”  Or they would say, “This is evidence of whatever portrayal we have of the wrath of God in the Old Testament; it portrays God’s as being arbitrary, whimsical, capricious…” One professor even called this “the dark side of Yahweh…the demonic element within the nature of God Himself.”

Evidently these people never read Numbers 4.  That’s when God gave the responsibility of the priesthood and the teaching to the tribe of Levi; within which the sole responsibility of the clan of the Kohathites was to look after the sacred vessels for the tabernacle.  But the ark was designed by God Himself to have rings on the sides; then they used long poles, or staves, inserted them through the rings, and carried the ark, on foot, balancing the staves on their shoulders on either side of the ark. The idea was that they, as human beings, would never come in contact with the throne of God. Keep in mind that the ark was designed to manifest God’s holiness. Numbers 4:15 explicitly says:

…the sons of Kohath shall come to carry them; but they shall not touch any holy thing, lest they die.

Jonathan Edwards has a sermon about this; he says “the sin of Uzzah was the sin of arrogance.”  It looked to me like a heroic act of humility.  But herein was the arrogance; Uzzah assumed that contact with the mud would be a greater sacrilege than contact with the hand of a human being.  What is mud?  Earth and water.  There is nothing innately sinful about dirt. If the ark touches the ground, it’s not going to do any damage.  What desecrates the throne of God is not the touch of earth; it’s the touch of man.  There is sin in the hand of Uzzah.  So he was executed for profaning the most holy object in Israel. 

Now please turn to Leviticus 10:1-2:

Then Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, each took his censer and put fire in it, put incense on it, and offered profane fire before the Lord, which He had not commanded them. ² So fire went out from the Lord and devoured them, and they died before the Lord.  

 Whatever made it profane, it did not please God. These young priests were simply involved in experimental worship.  Maybe to try to change the liturgy that God had ordained, in such a way that it would be more appealing to the congregation. They missed the fundamental principle of worship: worship is to be determined not by what is pleasing to us, but what is pleasing to God.  (Ed. Note:  There was applause for Dr. Sproule here; if they’re thinking like me, they’re thinking about contemporary music, always a sore spot lately). 

God never counts noses in the Old Testament, to decide what was the “best” form of worship; convenience to the crowd is not necessary. 

The most successful worship service ever recorded, which drew more people in attendance, with singing with so much gusto that when their voices were heard miles away, on a mountain, one of the men who heard the noise of this thought a war had broken out.  He thought the noise that he heard was the tumult that accompanies battle. But when they took time to investigate it, it was not a war, it was a worship service--for the golden calf!

Nothing attracts greater crowds than the practices of idolatry.

But these young fellows were just trying to improve on the worship of Israel; they offered a new way of sacrifice. And as soon as they did it, a fire came out and consumed them to a crisp. 

I want to ask you this question: What do you suppose Aaron’s response to this was?  I mean, he’s a father; “God, what are You doing? These are my sons.  All they did was tinker a little bit.”  And he speaks to Moses.  Moses said to him, as it were: “Do you remember what the Lord said at your consecration?” We can find it in Lev. 10:3:

By those who come near me, I must be regarded as holy, and before all the people, I must be glorified.

But instead of regarding God as holy, Nadab and Abihu came in profanity. Do you realize how the Lord God Omnipotent considers our profane worship?  When we dare to come into His presence without considering Him as holy?  And without seeing our primary responsibility in our celebration of worship is displaying before the whole congregation, the glory of God.

What does it say that Aaron did when Moses gave him this reminder?  In typical masterful Biblical understatement; the verse says, “So Aaron held his peace.”  There was nothing else for Aaron to do, no room for debate. “I am the Lord, there is none other; and I will be regarded as holy by anyone who comes near to Me.”    The story goes on and Moses calls others to:

…come near, carry your brethren from before the sanctuary out of the camp.

This seems that God is being gracious now, and we assume they will get a proper burial.  No, uh-uh.  Verses 5-7:

So they went near and carried them by their tunics out of the camp, as Moses had said.  ⁶ And Moses said to Aaron, and to Eleazar and Ithamar, his sons, “Do not uncover your heads nor rend your clothes, lest you die, and wrath come upon all the people. But let your brethren, the whole house of Israel, bewail the burning which the Lord has kindled. ⁷ You shall not go out from the door of the tabernacle of meeting, lest you die, for the anointing oil of the Lord is upon you.” And they did according to the word of Moses.

You see what He is saying through Moses?  “I don’t even want their bodies in the camp.  And I don’t want anybody rending their garments and lamenting in dust and ashes.  I don’t want a wake for these guys. They’re polluting My sanctuary. I want their bodies, and anything associated with them, carried outside the camp—because they have profaned Me with their false worship.”

You know, the most famous sermon ever preached in America, was preached in the 18^th century in Connecticut by Jonathan Edwards.  You all know the name of that sermon:  Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God.  I had to read that for the first time in college, where it was required reading as an example of “sadistic preaching.”  And I thought, even then, if Jonathan Edwards were sadistic, which he wasn’t, and if he believed in hell, which he did, a sadistic preacher would do everything in his power, gleefully, to tell his congregation that there was no such place.  And secretly enjoy the inevitability of their being plunged into it.  Edwards was no sadist; he loved God, and he loved His people—and he cared about their ultimate destination. Almost everybody in America has heard the title of the sermon; almost no one is aware of the text for that sermon—from Deuteronomy 32:35:

….their foot shall slip in due time

Edwards’ sermon has also been used in classrooms because of its graphic imagery of the wrath of God.  God is poised as a dam building up water until it is ready to break, to pour forth upon mankind; as a man with a bow drawn, aimed and ready to let go and pierce the heart of a sinner, all in discomforting detail.  But the only thing that keeps you from falling into hell is the hand of God.  So the sermon is on the wrath of God, but also on His grace of His stayed hand. 

That sermon wouldn’t scare anybody in our culture or in our churches, because nobody believes in hell anymore.  And the greatest lie, the most monstrous lie, the most brazen lie of all, is the lie that people tell themselves, “I have nothing to worry about from the wrath of God.  My god is a god of love.”  Well, your god is an idol—and no God at all.

Edwards challenged his congregation, and said, “Can you give me any reason, since you got out bed this morning, why you haven’t fallen into hell?”  Apart from the Gospel, dear friends, I couldn’t answer that question.  I couldn’t give any reason why I’m alive this afternoon, and not in hell—apart from Christ. 

My favorite illustration of how calloused we typically become, goes back to the second year of my teaching career, when I was given the assignment of teaching 250 college freshmen a course in the introduction to the Old Testament.  They were given three short term papers, due September 30, October 30, and November 30.  On September 30, 25 of them fearfully admitted to not having their paper.  They timidly added their excuse.  I graciously gave them 3 extra days, and they were most appreciative.  On October 30, 50 of them did not have their papers.  They explained calmly that it was mid-term, homecoming games, etc.  I graciously again gave them 3 extra days.  They started to sing, spontaneously, 250 voices, “We love you Prof Sproul, oh yes we do…” And I was the most popular professor on that campus—until November 30. This time, 150 students came in without their papers.  And I watched them walk in as cool and as casual as they could be, and I saw one of them, a Marine veteran, and I said, “Johnson—where’s your paper?”  He said, “Hey, HEY.” (Happy Days TV.) “Don’t worry about it, prof, I’ll have it for you in a couple days.”  I picked up the most dreadful object in a freshman’s memory, a little black book, opened it up, and said, “Johnson, you don’t have your term paper?”  He said, “No.”  I said “F.” “Nicholson, where’s your term paper?”  “Don’t have it.”  “F.”  And then, out of the midst of this crowd, somebody shouted what you know they would shout, “THAT’S NOT FAIR.”  I turned around, “Fitzgerald, was that you who said that?”  He said, “Yeah. Not fair.  Right.”  “Weren’t you late last month with your paper?”  He said “yeah.”  I said “Fitzgerald, I’ll tell you what I’m going to do. If it’s justice you want, it’s justice you will get.”  And I went back, and changed his grade from October to an F. There was this gasp in the room.  And I said, “Who else wants justice?” I didn’t get any takers. It reminded me of a song similar to My Fair Lady: “I’ve grown accustomed to his grace.” What had happened was, the first time they were late, they were amazed by grace.  The second time, they were no longer surprised, they assumed it.  By the third time, they Demanded it.  They believed grace was an inalienable right, an entitlement to which they all deserved.

I took that occasion to explain to my class, “You know what you have done when you said “that’s not fair?”  You have confused justice and grace. The minute you think that anybody owes you grace, a bell should go off in your head to remind you that you’re no longer thinking about grace—because grace, by definition, is something you don’t deserve, it’s something you can’t possibly deserve. 

You, my friends, have no merit before God—except demerit. And if God should ever, ever, treat you justly, outside of Christ, you will perish. And your foot will slip in due time. 

Any time there is a group this large, assembled, I don’t care for what reason, even a church service, I know that there are people in this room, right now, who are that far from hell (holding his fingers close together). And they’re assuming they’re not going to go there. But if there is a God, and there is, and if He is holy, and He is, and if He is just, and He is, He could not possibly be without wrath. And if you have not been reconciled through the blood of His Son, the only thing you have to look forward to—is His wrath.  Which is a divine wrath. Which is a furious wrath. And it is an eternal wrath. Because God must be regarded as holy by anyone who comes near Him. 

So, my beloved, if you would come into the presence of God, consider the nature of the God you are approaching—that you may come covered by the righteousness of Christ.