Category: Christian Culture Page 7 of 11

Lord, Have Your Way in Me

On November 12, 2008

This is the last line in the chorus of a song we sing at church entitled, Lord, I Give You My Heart, by Reuben Morgan. I enjoy the song (though I typically have a hard time worshiping the Lord in singing about what I’m going to do for Him instead of what He has already done on my behalf at the cross, but I digress). Many times, it is very easy to just say the phrase “Lord, have Your way in me,” without meditating upon its implications in our lives.

When we ask the Lord to have His way in us, it may be that He sovereignly decides to allow that which happened to Job to happen to us, or at least something comparable. Youch. Are we preparing now spiritually for this, before it happens, through Scripture studying, prayer, communion with God, and fellowship with other believers, which should all spill over into the unbelieving world around us through love and good works? And trust me, at some point trials will come, if they haven’t already.

The lyrics right before this line, at least to me, can tend to soften this implication when they say, “Every breath that I take, every moment I’m awake … Have your way in me.” In no way am I criticizing the intention of the artist, Reuben Morgan, for I believe the intention in this lyric is good, and is a decent literary way of displaying our relationship with Christ. But it’s just so nice and fluffy to sing about the air we breathe, the moment by moment nature of our relationship with God in Christ and what we’re going to do for Him (you know, the whole WWJD/WHJD distinction – “What Would Jesus Do?” versus “What Has Jesus Done?” as a motivator for holiness?). Yet that last phrase in the chorus has vast implications in our lives. And these implications are thoroughly talked about in Scripture.

Here are just a couple of examples amongst many (including the whole book of Job):

“More than that, we rejoice in our sufferings, knowing that suffering produces endurance, and endurance produces character, and character produces hope, and hope does not put us to shame, because God’s love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit who has been given to us.” – Romans 5:3-5

In contradistinction to an understanding I recently read on a forum pertaining to this verse, in no way do I believe this is talking about the mundane, day to day, light-weight trials we pampered Americans go through on a daily basis, like work, traffic, school, etc. Please.

We American Christians are in the minority of total Christians in the rest of the world. And a majority of the rest of these Christians are being persecuted in ways we cannot even dream of in America. There is pure hatred for the people of God in the world and I do believe there is a time coming when it will be here as well. I highly doubt those persecuted Christians, as well as the history of the whole church’s understanding of this text, would come to this same, “three inch deep” conclusion.

It’s so easy to read a text of Scripture through the filter of our own experience, our own cultural point of view and our own socio-economic vantage point. This text is talking about Trials with a capital T, because Paul’s audience was a group of believers who were experiencing exile, imprisonment, beatings, torture, death, and financial distress of a kind we have not even seen in our life time, let alone in America. It can definitely mean trials such as family-related issues, natural disasters, all kinds of other things that we do experience here in America. But in context, Paul had a specific intention to his readers.

And not only this, but it says to rejoice in those very sufferings! Rejoice! How? Only by God’s Spirit working in us is this possible. We need Him desperately to supernaturally work this kind of divine affection and love into us, for it is foreign to our sinful natures and our flesh. When we consider that as the people of God we are like gold that is refined through fire, it is only in this mindset and perspective that we can rejoice in trials, for they are God’s work in us to make us like Himself.

“Count it all joy, my brothers, when you meet trials of various kinds, for you know that the testing of your faith produces steadfastness.” – James 1:2-3

The result of these trials and the reason we should rejoice in that which the Lord has sovereignly ordained for our lives, is that in them, the Lord produces in us steadfastness. And as those verses in Romans say above, in sequential order, we know “that suffering produces endurance, and endurance produces character, and character produces hope, and hope does not put us to shame, because God’s love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit who has been given to us.”

“Because God’s love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit who has been given to us.” The reason we can rejoice is that in the trials God mercifully brings (being that they are making us into the image of Christ) we see God’s faithfulness to sustain and stoke our faith (in the same way you stoke fire with more wood and blowing air into it) when everything else gives way around us. And this in itself is confirmation that we are chosen of God, elect, the predestined people of the Lord, whom He has unconditionally set His loving favor and affection upon, made effective through the cross of Christ, sealed in His resurrection.

We can be assured of our salvation and His choosing of us for it when trials come and we continue trusting in and holding onto God’s promises in the midst of them, for this itself is the working of God in us and the visible evidence of our conversion, started by God in our spiritual birth, who will then bring it to completion at the Day of Jesus Christ (Philippians 1:6). And in this we greatly rejoice, for our final hope and the ultimate goal of all this is sharing in the glory of God forever with all of His people!

My whole point in all of this is that the words we sing to the Lord carry weight and should not be taken lightly. And many times, I fear they are in many evangelical congregations. Sometimes the words carry more weight than we’re willing to admit and it is so easy to glibly gloss over their real meaning. This line is just one example.

If we really ponder the sustaining power the Lord has over our lives, for both blessings and trials, I believe we would fear the Lord properly, not a fear that shrinks away from Him, but that reveres Him for His awesome sovereign might and find peace and solace in His grace alone that sustains us in the midst of blessings as well as trials.

It is perfectly within His power to lift His hand and allow us to undergo suffering of all kinds and I believe we need to keep this in mind when singing these kinds of songs in particular. It should humble us and make us stop to think about what we’re really asking of the Lord.

Politics and the Gospel – Part 2

By David Westerfield

On November 10, 2008

In Christian Culture, Culture, Politics, Theology

After the election, in my own thinking, I have been working through how we as believers are to approach the preaching of the Gospel and politics. Particularly from the Reformed camp, I keep seeing two answers to this (broadly speaking, knowing there are probably more).

One answer is that we can do both Gospel-preaching and be politically active on issues such as abortion or feeding the homeless or whatever your pet issue may be, so long as the political activism does not eclipse the Gospel message. One example of this would be someone like William Wilberforce (mp3 audio biography) who fought to abolish slavery through legislation and eventually won in British Parliament (something I am extremely grateful for).

But the other camp says we should not be politically vocal at all really for the sake of the Gospel, stating that all we need in culture is pure Gospel-preaching and living and the culture will change as the Lord uses that preaching and living as He sees fit to save people and move in the core of their being on these issues. At this point, I’m leaning toward this second response, though I sway back and forth.

During the election, I leaned toward the first answer, that we can do both Gospel preaching and at the same time be publicly involved in the political process on various issues, attempting to convince others, as best we can, of the rightness of it. However, in hind sight, and after having read a blog post by Phil Johnson, as well as this one, I’m second guessing my original stance now. I just have to think to myself, “Did others, especially unbelievers, remember what my political stance was or how great Christ is?” I feel like maybe to my shame it is the former answer.

Now of course, I know that the Gospel should take priority above politics; that is a given. But I’m still navigating through this issue and swaying back and forth on what I should do next time around or even before then. I’ll confess to everyone that sometimes, I got a little bit too excited about the whole thing. I saw through the political nonsense at times, and at other points, I got caught up in the nonsense. At times it distracted me from my pursuit of Christ in prayer, the Word and studying of theology. For this, I was clearly in error.

So how involved should we be in politics as believers, if at all? I pose this question to get ideas from others. I think about Tim Keller (along with Phil Johnson’s comments) and see the amazing fruit of not going after political issues. Through pure Gospel-preaching and living, he has transformed an area of Manhattan that would not otherwise have been possible (i.e., I highly doubt anyone in Manhattan would listen to a rant about abortion, knowing of course at the same time that it is indeed morally wrong, abhorrent and murderous, that regardless, a lot of walls would go up instantly with these hearers).

But then I think about John Piper as one of my heroes of the faith and his vocal stance from the pulpit in clearly proclaiming the evils of abortion. I also think about John the Baptist in telling Herod he was in the wrong and as a result having his head cut off. Standing up for morality can be costly, but the question is, why are you doing it? So I’m really wrestling through this issue at the moment. Any thoughts would be appreciated.

Thoughts on the Day After an Historic Election – James White

By David Westerfield

On November 7, 2008

In Apologetics, Christian Culture, Culture, Politics, Theology, Video

R.C. Sproul on Abortion, Voting and Christianity

By David Westerfield

On October 30, 2008

In Christian Culture, Culture, Politics, Theology

“I’m reminded of the work of William Wilberforce in England. You may recall that in debate after debate after debate, and in election after election after election, Wilberforce was soundly and roundly defeated when he sought the abolition of slavery in the British Commonwealth. But if ever there was an exercise in perseverance, it was by Wilberforce. Wilberforce refused to give up. He simply would not walk away from being the conscience of the English nation. And he publicly testified that slavery was wrong and he promised to oppose it as long as he had breath in his body. And finally in the providence of God, Parliament woke up and abolished this unethical practice that was a plague on the English speaking world.

We’ve gone through the same plague in the history of America, and thanks be to God slavery has finally been abolished in America. But I believe that slavery is the second most serious ethical issue that our country has ever faced. From my perspective the number one ethical issue that this nation has ever faced is the issue of abortion. Abortion is not a matter of private choice–not for the Christian who understands anything about the sanctity of life. The first century church made it very clear in their day, explicitly stating that abortion is murder.

I’ve written over 70 books. The book that had the shortest shelf life of all of my books was my book on the case against abortion. I talked to pastor after pastor and sought to understand why they weren’t using this material (for which we also made a video series). They told me, “Well, we agree with it but we can’t do it in our church.” And I said, “Why?” They responded: “It will split the congregation.” And I said, “So be it!” A million and a half unborn babies are slaughtered wantonly in the United States of America every year in the name of women’s rights. If I know anything about the character of God after forty years of study, I know that God hates abortion. And I could never vote for a candidate who supported abortion–even if I agreed with that candidate on every other policy position. If he supported abortion I would not vote for him and I urge you to do the same.

I know that abortion is not the number one issue in this campaign because it has become acceptable. Just like slavery became acceptable. But it cannot be acceptable to ethical people. The people of God have to rise up and say ‘NO’! We are not asking the state to be the church but we must say to the state, “Please be the state. God ordained you to protect, maintain, and preserve the sanctity of life, and you are not doing it.” So that has to be on your mind when you walk into that voting booth.”

Taken from this article: http://www.ligonier.org/blog/2008/10/pr … -text.html

R.C. Sproul on the Redistribution of Wealth, Voting and Christianity

By David Westerfield

On October 30, 2008

In Business, Christian Culture, Culture, Economics, Politics, Theology

“We have an income tax structure today that is inherently unjust. We almost never hear anybody discuss this injustice. But when God set up a system of taxation, He did things differently. God said I’m going to impose a tax on my people and it’s going to be ten percent from everybody: The rich man and the poor man are not going to pay the same amount. The rich man’s going to pay much more than the poor man, but they’re both going to pay the same percentage. They’re both going to have the same responsibility. That way the rich man can’t use his power to exploit the poor man, saying, “I’m going to pay five percent, but you’re going to pay fifty percent.” The rich weren’t allowed to do that. Nor were the poor allowed to say, “We’re going to pay five percent and the rich are going to pay fifty percent because they can afford it.” What that is ladies and gentlemen is the politics of envy that legalizes theft. Anytime you vote a tax on somebody else that is not a tax on yourself, you’re stealing from your brother. And though the whole world does it and though it’s common practice in the United States of America, a Christian shouldn’t be caught dead voting to fill his own pocketbook at the expense of someone else. Isn’t that plain? Isn’t that clear? And until we get some kind of flat tax, we’re going to have a politicized economy, we’re going to have class warfare, and we’re going to have the whole nation’s rule being determined by the rush for economic advantage at the polls. Don’t do it. Even if that means sacrificing some benefit you might receive from the federal government. Don’t ask other people at the point of a gun to give you from their pockets what you don’t have. That’s sin.

It is, of course, the American way. But we Christians should not be involved in that sort of thing. Rather we should be voting for what is right, what is ethical. And our consciences on that score need to be informed by the Word of God, not by our wallets. And so I plead with you: When you enter the voting booth, don’t leave your Christianity in the parking lot. And be bold to speak on these issues, even if it means somebody picks up a rock and throws it in your head. Because it is through tribulation that we enter the Kingdom of God. I pray for you, beloved, and for our nation in these days to come.”

Taken from this excellent article: http://www.ligonier.org/blog/2008/10/pr … -text.html

On the “Bush is Pro-Life and Abortions Have Still Continued” Argument

By David Westerfield

On October 23, 2008

In Christian Culture, Culture, Politics

This line of thought keeps rearing its head on several different fronts, and I’m hearing it more and more from evangelicals who are in favor of Obama. I’m assuming this is supposed to lead me to the conclusion that, “Therefore, as an evangelical, I can now vote for Obama, seeing as how Bush has gotten nothing done on this front.” My question is, “And Obama will, given his radical pro-abortion decisions in the recent past, and his own commitment to sign the Freedom of Choice Act?” This is quite a bit of ambulance-chasing-trial-lawyer-style rationalization to me on the abortion issue, not taking into account the severely immoral nature of what is actually taking place when someone has an abortion, as well as Obama’s own radical positions on the subject, based not only on his words, but his votes while in Illinois. Some seem content to ignore that factual, documented information though.

You see, changing legislation that was ruled by the Supreme Court over 30 years ago is a little more difficult than merely getting a President elected who is pro-life. The President is just one piece of the puzzle; a big piece yes, but not the whole thing, as this argument seems to not take into account.

You have a society who democratically elects officials, and the culture itself needs its mind changed on this issue (and yes the attitudes of many pro-lifers in using ad hominems to try and convince their opponents is appalling and won’t change anyone’s mind). The culture needs to see abortion not as a rights issue but as a right and wrong issue. Rights talk on all kinds of issues is ruining the moral civility of this land.

You also need congressional officials that are decidedly pro-life, who are elected by the people. You also must have court cases that go through the normal court proceedings and get into the hands of the Supreme Court who can then make a decision on the matter.

Then we have Supreme Court justices, some of whom are retiring from their positions in the next few years, two of whom have already been replaced by two conservative justices during Bush’s Presidency.

So here we have the President, Congress, the Supreme Court, and the will of the people that must work together to change the laws on abortion. And to be honest, if people will actually stop for two seconds and look at what Bush has actually done in the past eight years on this issue, they will see he has done a fair amount of work by 1) as mentioned, appointing two conservative justices who are pro-life, and 2) simply not signing bills into law (like the Freedom of Choice Act) that would further expand abortion rights way beyond what they currently are, like a certain Barack Obama will do “first thing” if he is elected (his own words).

There are one and possibly even two Supreme Court slots that will be opening up within the next few years. Who do you think will get appointed if Obama is President, given his record? There is a lot at stake in the next few years on this issue: either a continued back-sliding toward even greater numbers of abortions and other “rights,” or progress made in trying to reverse this cultural slide toward a cesspool of immorality beyond what we can imagine. However, by the time these things are approved, our society will have become greatly calloused to them, just as we are for the most part to abortion. Lord, please have mercy on us.

So please don’t tell me Bush has done nothing on this front. That’s just not true. And yes, electing a pro-life President does matter. However, that’s not all we’re concerned about in the fight against pro-abortion legislation. One man in power for four or eight years can’t change the course of law or people’s minds on the matter necessarily. There are many components to our government and society. It literally will take an act of Congress, and not only that, but an act of the entire government and the society working together, in concert, to get these laws changed.

We really must feel the weight of how depraved abortion is and not stand for it as a fundamental human right anymore. What else will become a right if something as depraved and grotesque as abortion is just a norm in our society? This will simply lead to moral anarchy. We have approved, by law, the blatant murdering of our sons and daughters. If that doesn’t offend you, I don’t know what will. It is the shedding of innocent blood. It is detestable. However, many seem content to just ignore it, not think about it … or in the case of this argument, rationalize and explain it away.

In my estimation, this argument is a cop-out from dealing with the actual issue, putting it on the back burner in the place of other issues that we think are more important. To read a good commentary on this whole subject, check out Mohler’s piece he wrote recently: http://www.almohler.com/blog_read.php?id=2630 .

Does God Trust Us With His Work After We Believe?

By David Westerfield

On October 16, 2008

In Apologetics, Christian Culture, Culture, Philosophy of Ministry, Theology

“For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.” – Ephesians 2:10

I have had a couple of conversations recently in which I noticed a certain idea being articulated as it related to the person’s life circumstances and God’s role in it all: that is that God, after we believe in Him, trusts us to build His Kingdom. And from the relationship perspective, that God trusts us to go through trials. Most people might brush aside such a thought as a simple notion that gives no weight to what one savingly believes concerning God; or bringing it down to a practical level, how that idea affects everyday life and practice. However, I personally believe it is quite a revealing notion about the way in which many are beginning to view God’s role in bringing us to Himself and making us more like Christ.

I have a hunch I know where this idea is coming from, an idea that I believe to be quite injurious to the Church; if not immediately, maybe on down the line as people pick up on it more and more, particularly in youth groups around the nation, whose members then grow up to be adults a decade from now.

There was an article written by Dale Van Dyke a few years ago that reviews Rob Bell’s book Velvet Elvis: Repainting the Christian Faith. In it, Van Dyke points out a particular quote from Bell’s book on pg. 134 where Bell states (in no uncertain terms I might add, which I find ironic at a belief system level … but I digress), “[Jesus] 1/4 left the future of the movement (the church) in [the disciples] hands. And he doesn’t stick around to make sure they don’t screw it up. He’s gone. He trusts that they can actually do it.”

Now before continuing, I would like to quote Van Dyke’s own preface to his review that I think is appropriate here as well: “I believe that Rob Bell is well intentioned. He is passionate about helping Christians break out of the drudgery of a tired, traditional religion into a vibrant, culture-transforming relationship with Christ. He earnestly desires to help people live out the commands of Christ. This is commendable and explains in large part his appeal to the largely churched Grand Rapids community.” I totally agree and have seen some of the good that Bell has done locally, through a few videos, coupled with some leaders who shared the Gospel, in (at the very least) helping a few people come to believe in Christ and are now off at college and vibrant in their faith.

However, even small ideas that may seem minute at the moment can have eventual catastrophic effects down the road, maybe not within the immediate generation (though I believe we’re already seeing the effects in some ways), but what about 10, 20, 30 years from now when our youth groups are all grown up, taking these ideas we’re giving them, that we’ll be held accountable for on judgment day?

There are several presuppositions in this quote of Bell’s that are contrary to the text of Scripture, however, that may not be obvious on first glance. Something may not sound right to you, but your not quite sure what it is. Here are a few I noticed, if it helps at all, though by no means is it exhaustive of everything Bell would have to say; in addition, he may very well not be intending it though, I believe they are unavoidable in the language he uses:

1) that implicit in this idea of God trusting Kingdom work (or trials) to His disciples (even 1/4 of it), God is not directing the course of history sovereignly for His own glory and purposes which is so clear in the Old Testament quotes of God Himself;

2) that there are things that could potentially thwart God’s purposes if the Kingdom is left in the hands of sinners and God is hands-off even a 25%, to one degree or another;

3) that man is capable in himself of carrying out God’s eternal plans;

4) Jesus is not providing the constant power, ability and will (a gift purchased and secured at the cross) to carry out the very things in His people that He wills to come to pass in His Kingdom.

This is ultimately a denial of God’s over-arching sovereignty in creating and acting in the way that He does to bring glory to Himself, from beginning of creation, to redemption, to the end, the ultimate purpose of creation and even more specifically, salvation. Now I would not say Bell himself supscribes to an outright rejection of God’s sovereignty, but those listening to his teaching sure might.

All of this adds up to what I see as a misapprehension of the theology of the Kingdom of God. Who does what in the Kingdom? What is God’s role and our role? Is it something we build for God or that is God’s to build Himself, using us as His instruments? I would argue the latter.

Now I will confess that some believers can carry around these ideas while inconsistently believing at the same time that God is sovereign over their lives. At some level, we all inconsistently believe something that is amiss from the Gospel, which always inevitably results in sin, a turning away from the glory of God, as Paul defines it in Romans and other places. But that’s not to say that these beliefs do not go without their necessary and undesired effects in our lives and even relationships with God. This point is no different. However, missing this point can result in a dramatic shift from the overarching premises of the Bible, which ultimately affects our Gospel message that we are preaching to a dying world who does not know Him. All that to say, this is very important.

Dale Van Dyke has an excellent insight on Bell’s statement above as to what is wrong with this idea that I think further drives this home: “This is a profound and poisonous reinterpretation of the relationship between God and man. When the gospel becomes the message of God coming to earth and dying on a cross to help men realize how great they really are – something is horribly amiss. A teaching that claims that God trusts his glory and sovereign purposes to the abilities of sinful man has the stench of blasphemy.”

This is ultimately the presupposition that is subtly being subverted, if not explicitly then (maybe, without knowing it) implicitly, by adopting the postmodern ethos that we live and breathe in our culture on a constant basis: that man is in such desperate need of being saved because of the depravity and blindness of his soul, that Christ had to actually set aside His glory for a time, embody Himself as a man that could die (like any one of us), and do what we could not by living a life by God’s standards, in perfect obedience, on our behalf, which He then offers as a ransom for us sinners who could in no way lift a finger to save ourselves, by turning away the wrath of God and removing all hindrances from us through His atoning blood, rising from the dead in power, and then infallibly crediting our accounts with His excellent Gospel-work by raising us from among the spiritually dead in the unfolding of time, simply because He loved us and knew we were utterly helpless in our sin.

You are telling me Jesus did all of that simply to go back to heaven, leaving the future of His Kingdom in our sinfully marred, messed up hands, that without His grace, will run to shed innocent blood with the motives of our hearts every day in one way or another? I don’t think so. Rather, maybe it is that God Himself creates in us a faith that wasn’t there by the work of the cross, applied by the Spirit, who gives and then sustains that power in us to carry out all He has required and decreed from eternity (Ephesians 2:10)?

Maybe it’s not so much that God trusts us to get His work done without Him because we’re sufficient in ourselves for the task (which I thought the Christian life was all about humbly submitting ourselves to Him and relying on Him with and for our everything … well what does that actually entail?). But maybe it’s that God effectively and actively intervenes at every point in our lives, from the ground up, intimately and intricately involving Himself in all of it, in such a way that He receives all the glory, by granting us the ability, power, desire, and strength to carry out what He has sovereignly ordained would come to pass from the foundation of the world?

Bell’s statement, while I have no doubt is well-intentioned, subtly negates the all-sufficiency, omnipotence, sovereignty, and eternally effective love of Christ to build His Kingdom, something that in all reality we’re not doing really in the first place. We are merely recipients of His working and doing. It’s His work to build His Kingdom, not ours. Now we are active participants yes, only by God’s decree, yet God does the supernatural work of raising souls from the dead among us. We are merely instruments in the Redeemer’s hands, created to be used by Him in humble submission to His will, not ours and our various flawed, man-centered agendas that would surely hinder the Kingdom if left up to us.

David Well’s puts it so eloquently in His book The Courage to Be Protestant on pg. 196: “God’s inbreaking, saving, vanquishing rule is his from first to last. It has no human analogues, no duplicates, no parallels, and no surrogates. It allows of no human synergism. The inbreaking of the ‘age to come’ into our world is accomplished by God alone. This is all about the spirituality that is from ‘above’ and not at all about that which is from ‘below.’ It is about God reaching down in grace and doing for sinners what they cannot do for themselves. For if this is God’s kingdom, his rule, the sphere of his sovereignty, then it is not for us to take or to establish. We receive, we do not take; we enter, but we do not seize. We come as subjects in his kingdom, not as sovereigns in our own.”

Well’s, on the same page, also says, “We can search for the kingdom of God, pray for it, and look for it, for example, but only God can bring it about (Luke 12:31; 23:51; Matt. 6:10, 33). The kingdom is God’s to give and take away. It is ours only to enter and accept (Matt. 21:43; Luke 12:32). We can inherit it, possess it, or refuse to enter it, but it is not ours to build and we can never destroy it (Matt 25:34: Luke 10:11). We can work for the kingdom, but we can never act upon it. We can preach it, but it is God’s to establish (Matt 10:7; Luke 10:9; 12:32).”

And this right here is a case in point of why in no way can we make the Gospel more attractive to the culture by stripping certain doctrines because they are offensive. What you are left with is not the Gospel, but another religion, which again, is ironic for a movement that hates religion. Atonement, the sinfulness of man (you know, the actual doctrine, not the stripped down version), grace, predestination, the reality of hell. If you strip these from Scripture, what you wind up with is not authentic Christianity, but rather a man-made appearance of something that looks like Christianity, using the same lingo, but falls infinitely short of the Biblical Gospel and is in fact a false gospel, according to Paul.

This message of the cross is an offense to the Jew and the Greek, remember? Well, this Western postmodern culture is of Grecian philosophical descent. Greeks think the Gospel is nonsensical foolishness, based on Paul’s statements in 1 Corinthians 1 and 2. Just ask any number of the new atheists like Hitchens or Dawkins and they will fill you in. You cannot strip the doctrines and demands for faith and repentance in the Gospel, for you will be left with no Gospel at all in the end.

In one of the particular conversations I mentioned earlier, the person had gone through some very difficult circumstances recently, none of which I am unsympathetic to by the way. In no way do I question the person seeing and experiencing God at work in it or their own personal beliefs concerning the Gospel. I would say based on that conversation they love Christ even more as a result. However, the person made the statement that it was cool to see that God would “trust us enough that He would let us go through trials.” And as I thought on that statement later, I couldn’t help but think that in no way does God trust me to go through a trial. Is that not the reason God interposed His blood for me and sustains me with His grace, namely because I couldn’t do it at all myself without Him?

Rather, God sovereignly let’s me go through trials and in the midst of it stokes and sustains my faith by His power alone, in such a way that He gets all the glory for all of the working and I get changed into the image of Christ in the process. If God trusted me with my trials, to uphold my faith, without His sustaining power in me, knowing just an inkling of the deceit of my own heart (and based on Scriptures diagnosis of my own heart in Isaiah 64:6), I would walk away from Christ for sure and betray the Kingdom. I love Him because He first loved me and it is that very reality that keeps me attached to Him and it is He that sustains that reality in me.

Bell’s assessment simply misapprehends the depravity of man, the sovereignty of God and the power of Christ’s saving work. And ultimately it eclipses the glory of God, which is the whole point of all creation and the work of salvation to start with. If this is not plain to you, I ask that you think through why God does what He does in anything, from creating, to permitting sin and evil and trials (without being complicit in it of course, a mystery indeed), to redemption. Is it because His modus operandi is to make much of us, or Himself, the most valuable One in all the universe that demands to be praised, because to do less is to dishonor Him? We would all do well to pay attention to what we have seen and heard lest we too become deceived by the working of Satan in attempting to derail the Church. What we need to see and hear more of is the Gospel. And the place we see it is in Scripture, prayer and fellowship. Error always starts out small and then grows, like a festering wound that will ultimately poison your blood and kill you off.

James 3: A Story – Really Convicting Video

By David Westerfield

On October 13, 2008

In Christian Culture, Theology, Video

The Prodigal Sons, Tim Keller, Politics, and the Gospel

By David Westerfield

On September 23, 2008

In Audio, Christian Culture, Culture, Politics, Theology

The Prodigal Sons – Tim Keller (MP3)

I’ve heard this sermon before, but listened to it again because it’s so excellent. I’ll admit: recently I’ve had a wrong tendency to want to blackball one political group over another. Keller reminded me (because I’m so quick to forget) that even deeper than all of that is an attitude of superiority.

In taking a step back from all of the nonsense going back and forth between camps at this time, I realized (once again, because I need constant reminders) that there are many unbelieving conservatives who are the elder brother in the parable. They influence much of what is heard and thought about in the conservative political sphere. This is also true in the liberal sphere.

As believers in the Gospel, we (I) really need to be careful about how much stock we put into what they tell us. Our priority beyond politics is the kingdom of Christ and His Gospel. How quick my own heart is to forget that … yet one more reason why I need to preach the Gospel to my own heart on a continual basis.

A Zeal For God Not According to Knowledge

By David Westerfield

On September 17, 2008

In Christian Culture, Theology

“For I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge.” – Romans 10:2

These words were spoken by Paul testifying to the Jews zeal for God, His ways, His acts, His words. Yet their zeal for God, as he says, was not according to knowledge. The whole discourse of Romans chapters nine through eleven is dealing with the unbelief of the Jews as a whole and how it is God’s promises to them still stand in light of the fact that a majority of the nation of Israel rejected the Messiah, Jesus. Paul’s undeniable response as to why God’s promises still stand is that not all physical Israel (Israelistes) is spiritual Israel (all of God’s people for all time), but rather His promise stands according to election, that is, His choice, not ours, in who He wants to save through granting faith.

Reflecting on this verse in particular though made me think not so much in terms of the Jews as a whole though, but rather my own heart (the first place we should start in applying the Scriptures) and its daily tendencies toward unbelief, and in our own day, specifically within evangelicalism at large within America. There are many people in our culture who claim to be Protestant Christians, who claim the title born again, claiming to be regenerated by the power of God from death to life, and yet their lives are totally out of sync with that confession, living as if they had never been born of God’s Spirit. There is no outward evidence pointing to the inward, supernatural reality that the Holy Spirit has indwelt their hearts. This verse makes me think about this a lot. How many of us in our Evangelical Christian Culture have a zeal for God, just as the unbelieving Jews did, yet a zeal not according to knowledge, that is, a zeal for God outside of the Gospel? No one can definitively know of course, for only God sees the belief or unbelief of the heart. Yet there are clear indications in Scripture (James, 1 John) that point in one direction or the other.

Surely, there are many many people nowadays who have a zeal for God, for His ways (as long as they are the positive attributes), His acts (the same), and so on. Yet based upon Paul’s assessment of his own kinsmen in this verse, it is probable many even in our own time possess this zeal for God outside of the Gospel, which ultimately leads to eternal punishment, because if you have a zeal for God outside of Christ, ultimately, your salvation is based on works and not on faith alone. It is not enough to simply have a zeal for God outside of trusting Christ’s work on your behalf. You need to be saved from the core of your being outward, by His power and Spirit. You need God-produced faith in you that sees and trusts Jesus as Savior, not merely a zeal for Him that pursues Him on your own efforts and works.

This was the error of the Jews in Paul’s day: they had rejected the Messiah and setup their own righteousness as what made them acceptable in God’s eyes. Sure, they had a zeal, desire, and even head-knowledge of God. Yet as Paul says, it was not according to knowledge and they found themselves outside of the grace of God, under the wrath of God, even at that moment (John 3:36). What kind of knowledge do we need though? Divinely granted knowledge revealed in Scripture, for how else can we know God unless He opens our minds, hearts, wills, and souls to see and receive Him (John 3:1-10)? We need God’s divine knowledge of the Gospel and we need Him to work in our hearts so that we love and trust Him in truth, in Gospel-knowledge.

What is so saddening about the unbelief of the Jews Paul seeks to explain in Romans nine through eleven is the way he prefaces this whole section in Romans 9:1-5:

I am speaking the truth in Christ—I am not lying; my conscience bears me witness in the Holy Spirit— that I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. For I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, my kinsmen according to the flesh. They are Israelites, and to them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises. To them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen.

Just consider for a moment all of the vast privileges the Jews had. Yet Paul is lamenting their unbelief! To them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the law, the worship, the promises, and ultimately from them came Jesus Himself. What an honor and privilege! And oh how sad it is, they are outside the grace of God, because God has now spoken to us by His Son (Hebrews 1:1-4). To reject Him is to reject God and be forever under His just wrath.

Consider today for a moment all of the vast privileges we have in this nation: freedom of expression, the unfettered ability to preach the Gospel, the mass media, a (relatively, compared to other nations) stable economic environment, the freedom to meet together on Sunday’s to worship. And yet I fear the same thing for many people here Paul did for his brothers, the Israelites: there seems to be a zeal for God that is not according to knowledge on a mass scale in evangelicalism. I turn on the television and see preachers say nothing of the core content of the Gospel, even the basics, just simply that “God loves you.” That is not the Gospel, it is a half-truth at best, which as J.I. Packer says becomes a complete untruth. I hear radio sermons that mention nothing of Christ’s blood sacrifice on behalf of sinners. I see church websites that offer nothing of what they actually believe concerning Christ and His work, who go under the label evangelical. I’m not talking about doctrinal precision, I’m talking about Gospel precision, where is it? For many preachers, teachers and lay people, “God loves you” is all they need to hear, without all the fuss of sin and justice talk. Yet this is not a message according to knowledge, divine Gospel-knowledge. It is a message that Satan seeks to use by watering down and mute the Biblical Gospel with all of its hard edges. And how pervasive this message seems to have become.

My fear for people in our churches today is that many adhere to Christianity for cultural reasons, not personal salvific reasons, identifying with a group for its own sake instead of running to Christ alone for salvation. If this is possible with the Israelites who had way more advantages than we have (the natural branches, as Paul referred to them), how great of a possibility is it for us (the ingrafted branches) to fall into the same unbelief, all the while supposing we are all saved, merely because of a shallow message, “God loves you”?

My prayer and hope is that God will cause a revival in the church in America, not just of emotions, but a revival of Gospel-truth, passion for God’s infallible Word, a passion for doctrinal truth, all of which will inevitably result in a revival of heart-felt affections for Him and seeing others enter into the Kingdom through Christ alone. May God be merciful to us. May He be merciful and turn my own heart from unbelief in His promises, for I know how easily I can go astray myself.