Christianity

A Reformed Baptist Perspective on Public Theology – The Incarnate Lord (Part II)

/ William F. Leonhart III / 26 Comments

You can read earlier posts in this series by clicking on the links below:

Continuity

As we consider the life and teaching of our incarnate Lord, let us keep at the forefront of our minds the fact that Christ’s primary mission was not that of social change. Rather, His primary goal was that of redeeming His bride (the church). However, given the fact that His relationship with His bride is a covenant relationship, this work of redemption came with some very real implications for Covenant Theology.

Whether referring to the saints of the Old or of the New Testament, 17th century Particular Baptists designated them the Church. The radical divide presented in Dispensationalism between ethnic, national Israel and the Church would not only have been absolutely foreign to our Particular Baptist forefathers. It would have been downright abhorrent. Insofar as the saints of the Old Testament period believed on Yahweh alone for their righteous standing before God, they were truly circumcised of the heart.

Continuity through General Equity

There was no sense, in the Old Testament, in which man was saved by the Law or in which he could merit his own salvation. There were consequences built into the civil law that provided for the regulation of proper conduct within God’s covenant community then just as there are consequences built into the New Testament policy of church discipline for the regulation of proper conduct within God’s covenant community today. Whether it was a matter of corporal punishment in the nation of Israel or excommunication from the ranks of the New Covenant church, the requirement of three or more witnesses is the same.

As such, our incarnate Lord made clear that the Civil Law of national Israel was given as a shadow of the greater reality of church discipline in Christ. In this sense, Christ did not abolish the Civil and Ceremonial Law so much as make application from them to local congregations. In so doing, Christ did not use the greater reality of national Jewish law to point to shadows in the New Covenant church. Rather, the Civil and Ceremonial Laws were given as shadows in order that they might highlight the greater reality of church discipline in Christ. This is the Reformation principle known as “general equity.” The letter of the Old Covenant law is no longer binding on the Christian church, but the eternal, moral principles behind them are.

“To them also he gave sundry judicial laws, which expired together with the state of that people, not obliging any now by virtue of that institution; their general equity only being of moral use,” (The Baptist Confession, 19.4).

Why, though, does church discipline exist? Church discipline exists in order that Christ may present His bride to His Father as pure, spotless, and without blemish. This is not to say that we will be sinlessly perfect in this life. We will not obtain perfection until glory. However, it does mean that we will be distinguished from the world.

God’s Set Apart People

One of the reasons Israel was given the Civil and Ceremonial Laws was to distinguish her from the surrounding nations. They were told that they were to be different from the nations around them who sacrificed their children to their false gods (Lev. 20:2-5). In giving them this instruction, Moses did not assume that Israel would automatically be enticed to go and sacrifice their babies to Molech. Rather, it would be over time, as they allowed for more and more syncretism over the years, they would eventually find little difference between them and their pagan neighbors, even sacrificing their babies on the altar (1Kgs. 11:7; 2Kgs. 23:10; Jer. 32:35).

In the same way, one of the reasons church discipline has been given to the church is to distinguish her from the world. “Therefore ‘Come out from among them And be separate, says the Lord. Do not touch what is unclean, And I will receive you,’” (2Cor. 6:17; NKJV). Our Lord told His disciples that the world would hate them just as they hated Him (John 15:18). An essential mark of Christ’s disciples is that they will be set apart (sanctified) from the world. Christ’s true disciples will be distinguished by a Bible-centered worldview (John 17:17).

As such, the social ills that plague our society (e.g. racism, chauvinism, divorce, etc.) ought all to be issues addressed in church discipline. We are not here calling for the knee-jerk excommunication of such as commit these sins. Rather, we are calling for the biblical practice of church discipline to be applied in these cases.

Biblical Church Discipline

The biblical practice of church discipline is four-fold. It starts with what has come to be known as formative church discipline. That is the discipline of the Spirit applied to the hearts and minds of church members as they sit under the regular preaching of God’s word. Of course, if the Spirit is to discipline His people through the preached word on these matters, pastors have a duty to preach the whole counsel of God (Acts 20:27). This means that, where opportunity arises in the text to address racism, chauvinism, abortion, homosexuality, divorce, etc., pastors must seize these opportunities and emphasize the biblical standard in their preaching of the word.

Where sins of this nature persist within the body in spite of the preached word, they must be addressed in a much more personal space. The Bible regularly exhorts the body toward personal admonition (Rom. 15:14; Col. 3:16; 2Thess. 3:15; Tit. 2:4; 3:10). According to our Lord, there are three phases to personal admonition: (1) go to your brother in private and, if he listens to you, you have won your brother; (2) if he does not listen to you, take another brother with you so that, by the word of two or more witnesses, every matter may be established; and (3) if he still does not listen to you, take the matter before the church (see Mt. 18:15-20).

We must remember, anytime we discuss church discipline, that it was given for the purity of the church. Again, the church is to be pure; the church is to be set apart from the world. As such, as we have already stated, the world will hate us.

God’s Hated People

Of course, God’s people have always been hated by the world. We have always been hated, because we have always been set apart by His word (John 17:14, 17). We have also been hated because of the work of the devil. Our Lord told the Jewish leaders of His day that they were of their father: the devil (John 8:44). It was because the Jewish leaders were sons of Satan, the brood of vipers (Mt. 3:7), that they murdered the prophets (Mt. 23:29-36). In the same way, our Lord told His disciples that they would be dragged before rulers by the Jewish leaders of their day (Mt. 5:11-12; 23:34).

Does this mean that we are to shun the Jews and the world at large? Should we retreat into monasteries never to be heard from again? No. Rather, our Lord gave us a commission to be His witnesses “both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and even to the remotest part of the earth,” (Acts 1:8b; NASB). Through the book of Acts and the epistles we will see, both in practice and in teaching, that the apostles had a heart for both the Jews and the Gentiles. They both taught and practiced taking the gospel “to the Jew first and also to the Greek,” (Rom. 1:16b; NASB). It was through the incremental expansion of God’s covenant people into every tribe, tongue, and nation, as seen in Acts, that God broke down the dividing wall of hostility that once existed between God’s Israelite covenant people and the nations around them (Eph. 2:11-22). In the same way, the world will hate us as long as their hearts remain unchanged by the gospel.

We will conclude in our next post by examining the discontinuities between the two epochs divided by our Lord’s incarnation.

A Reformed Baptist Perspective on Public Theology – The Incarnate Lord (Part I)

/ William F. Leonhart III / 29 Comments

I realize it’s been a while since our last post on Public Theology. That’s because it was agreed ahead of time that I’d do this next series and, with two full-time jobs and a young family, anything from me will be slow coming. Enough about me, though. You can read the last post in this series here, or just pick up in your reading below. Enjoy.

Introduction

In the last two posts in our series on public theology, we examined the approaches to public theology employed by two notable prophets: John the Baptist and Amos. There are many approaches to the relationship between the Old Testament and the New Testament. Some argue for more radical discontinuity between the two epochs than others. Regardless of what approach we take to entering this discussion, Reformed Baptists must not deny the the existence of discontinuity between them.

For instance, Reformed Baptists overwhelmingly affirm the cessation of the theocratic relationship between God and the ethnic, geographically-identified nation of Israel (see The Baptist Confession, 19.4). With the cessation of this relationship, Gentiles were grafted into the covenant community of God and men ceased worshipping God “on this mountain or that mountain,” worshipping Him instead in truth and in spirit (John 4:19-24). This was certainly a massive shift. God’s people went from a covenant nation comprised of both believers and unbelievers primarily of one particular ethnicity and nationality to covenant communities (churches) comprised only of believers (a credocovenant relationship) from all ethnic groups and nations. The question is whether this shift simultaneously represented a shift in approach to public theology. Certainly, it must have.

In the remainder of our posts, we will attempt to determine the nature and extent of the shift in public theology that occurred between the Old Testament and the New Testament. In the next two posts, we will look to our incarnate Lord and His approach to public theology while on this earth. Particularly, we will examine His approach to public theology during the period known as His incarnation.

First, we must recognize the fact that Christ, in the New Testament, is distinguished from His forerunners. He was different from the prophets who preceded Him.

“God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world” (Hebrews 1:1-2; NASB).

Though Christ was different from the prophets that preceded Him, we also recognize that Christ came as the antitypical Prophet, Priest, and King. By this, we mean that the prophets, priests, and kings of Israel were types of the Christ to come. They foreshadowed Him in the roles they filled within the nation of Israel. As such, the roles to which they were called, and the laws governing those roles, point to the role Christ was to play. Hence, the author of Hebrews writes, “God. . . in these last days has spoken to us in His Son.”

This assertion is of paramount importance. The God of Israel, the immutable God of the Holy Scriptures, the God who spoke through the prophets of old, is the same God who spoke to us through His Son Jesus Christ. We must assume, then, that there must be some great continuity between the prophets and the Prophet. In the next two posts, we will examine both: the continuity and the discontinuity.

Cultural Footprints in Public Discourse

/ William F. Leonhart III / Leave a comment

Take a brief moment today to consider name-calling as a rhetorical device. Most of us would agree that it is disgusting when a person calls another person a name simply for the purpose of stigmatizing his or her ideas. This is a terrible approach to debate and dialogue. It may work to solidify opposition among the less astute, but it is nonetheless little more than mud-slinging. Not every use of names can be reduced to mud-slinging, though.

We would do well to recognize that many very historical names leave behind massive cultural footprints. Granted, sometimes people can be falsely charged as Marxists, Pelagians, Hitlers, and the like. However, to evoke one of these names—and myriad others—in a spirited debate, is not necessarily reducible to mud-slinging. In fact, oftentimes, when we reduce the use of these historical names in the cultural dialogue to mere mud-slinging, we run headlong into the error of denying cultural footprints and we demonstrate that we are ignorant of history.

For instance, a person who has studied church history should be very aware of the Pelagian debate where Augustine asserted that men must be enabled by God to do what He requires us to do. Pelagias responded that God would not require anything of us that we are incapable of accomplishing. When some professors and seminary presidents respond to Calvinists with the same line of argumentation and, subsequently, they are told they are making Pelagian arguments, they will often accuse their brothers of mud-slinging. By accusing Calvinists of mud-slinging, simply because they did not (directly) receive their argumentation from Pelagius himself, they deny Pelagius’ cultural footprint and / or demonstrate that they are ignorant of a major debate in church history.

Likewise, a person who has studied political history should be very aware of the Marxist debate where Marx and Engels asserted that a narrative must be forwarded that pits oppressors against oppressed so that a one-world communist utopia could arise. Marx and Engels primarily focused on economics, but they were also for the toppling of other institutions as well, like the family and the church. For them, any destabilization would lead ultimately to revolution, and revolution could only make possible the rise of their desired utopia.

So, when Christian leaders start to smuggle this language of oppressor and oppressed into the church, the idea of a power struggle between classes even within God’s church, some have rightly called them on the use of a Marxist tactic. Yet, predictably, they claim that this recognition of Marxism is nothing more than mud-slinging. By accusing their detractors of mud-slinging, simply because they do not (directly) receive their argumentation from Marx and Engels, they deny Marx’s and Engel’s cultural footprints and / or demonstrate that they are ignorant of a major debate in political history.

Conclusion

The next time someone uses a name you consider to be very negative to describe your position, try not to respond with a knee-jerk reaction and accuse them of mud-slinging. Rather, ask them why they make that connection. You may have imbibed a cultural footprint of which you are unaware. You may have a blind spot in your understanding of history. The other person may have a very valid reason for the connection he or she is making and, if he or she doesn’t, you can offer a more gentle correction than merely accusing him or her of mudslinging.

Why I Lovingly Push Reformed Theology

/ William F. Leonhart III / 2 Comments

Periodically, an article is published to which I am compelled to respond. This doesn’t necessarily mean that I have to respond with nastiness or even direct disagreement. A response is not a reaction. The following article is an attempt at a friendly response to an article published today over at RAANetwork. The goal here is not to discredit the article or punch holes in its reasoning. My goal isn’t even to correct anything I believe to be improperly stated. Rather, my goal here will be to offer an alternative viewpoint, or perhaps to approach the subject from a bit of a different angle.

Defining Our Terms

Many well-intentioned articles have been written to persuade Reformed Christians to go easy—fly under the radar—in the discussion over Calvinism and non- (or anti-) Calvinism. Let us take a moment before diving into this discussion ourselves to discuss some important definitions. It’s important that we all understand from the outset that, when we say someone is Reformed or Calvinistic, we don’t all mean the same thing. Some equate Reformed Theology with Calvinism. Others recognize that Calvinism has come to be defined in Evangelicalism as a much different thing from Reformed Theology. For the purposes of this article, I will be using the two terms to describe two different, but related, concepts.

First, when I say Calvinism, I will mean the minimalistic adherence to the five points of Calvinism as outlined in the Canons of Dort. Second, when I say Reformed, I will mean a much more comprehensive approach to the Christian life that certainly affirms the five points of Calvinism, but also holds to historic Reformed expressions and formulations of both belief and practice as outlined in the historic Reformed confessions of faith. By this definition, many among the Dutch Reformed, Presbyterians, Anglicans, and even Baptists fit comfortably under the heading Reformed.

(Note: I believe the article mentioned above does a decent job of using the historical definitions of these terms.)

It Is Biblical

One area where you might say I agree that we should not be in the business of pushing Reformed Theology is in regard to pushing “mere Calvinism.” If all that a man ever seems to talk about is the five points of Calvinism to the expense of the other godly wisdom we’ve inherited from the early Reformers, Puritans, and Particular Baptists, that man will inevitably exhibit a certain imbalance in his life and doctrine. Reformed Theology is holistic, touching every part of the Christian life.

Q.6: What things are chiefly contained in the Holy Scriptures?

A. The Holy Scriptures chiefly contain what man ought to believe concerning God, and what duty God requireth of man (Collins, The Baptist Catechism of 1693).

Reformed Theology is holistic because it is biblical, and the Bible is holistic. This is where Calvinistic Christians have often gone wrong in recent decades. We have often focused on the academic aspect of the Christian belief system without demonstrating the connectedness of Christian thought with Christian practice. We have failed to maintain an element of the Christian life that was essential for the Reformers, Puritans, and Particular Baptists: that knowledge not coupled with understanding and wisdom (right knowledge that does not lead to right action) is not biblical knowledge.

The problem with Reformed Theology is a PR problem more than anything else. The problem isn’t that Reformed Theology isn’t biblical. The problem is that the acquiescence and application of Reformed Theology on the part of many Reformed Christians has not been biblical. Many of us have accepted Reformed Theology because it is true; it lines up with Scripture (knowledge). That’s a good thing. However, how many Reformed Christians apply themselves to imbibing these teachings as they are found in Scripture (understanding) and actually walking them out in their everyday lives (wisdom)?

It’s not enough merely to affirm Reformed Theology as true and biblical. When our Christian and non-Christian friends hear us discussing Reformed Theology, if they only hear platitudes and well-structured arguments, but they see lives unaffected by these truths, they rightly recognize that something is “off.” What’s “off” is the fact that we have biblical knowledge, but we have not coupled that knowledge with biblical wisdom and understanding (Eph. 1:17-18).

One Church United in Truth

When properly acquired and applied, Reformed Theology is more powerful than any other Scriptural, theological formulation in uniting Christians with one another. For many of our readers, this assertion doubtless seems odd. After all, we’ve been told, it’s doctrine that divides, and especially that dreaded Reformed doctrine (queue suspenseful music).

KONICA MINOLTA DIGITAL CAMERA

On the contrary, the Bible teaches that proper doctrine unites the church. When Christ ascended, Paul wrote to the Ephesian church, He bestowed gifts upon the church. He not only led captivity captive (freeing us from our slavery to sin, the traditions of men, the world, the flesh, and the devil), but He also gave godly men to the church to unite us in proper Christian doctrine. The result of this unity would be that we would no longer be as babes in the faith carried about by every current of doctrine, but we would be built up like a man of full stature able to stand with feet firmly planted on the riverbed of the world, immovable and complete with the strength that every part supplies, and with Christ as our Head (Eph. 4:7-16).

Now for a sober thought. To undervalue unity in truth (and that’s what Reformed Theology is: truth) is to weaken and divide the church where God has ordained that ought to find our true unity. Is the church divided? We sure are. Is it proper that we should point to true doctrine as the source of that disunity? May it never be! Rather we should pray, as Paul and Timothy did for the church at Colossae, that God’s children would grow in knowledge, wisdom, and understanding (Colossians 1:9).

Real Sources of Disunity

What then is the source of our disunity? There are several sources to which we can and should point. First among them are divisive brothers. The Bible is riddled with warnings against divisive brothers. They are called an abomination to God in Proverbs (6:16-19). Paul wrote to Titus: “Reject a factious man after a first and second warning, knowing that such a man is perverted and is sinning, being self-condemned” (Tit. 3:10-11; NASB). The problem with these men is not the doctrine being taught from the pulpit, but a divisive spirit that has gone unchecked within them.

Another source of disunity in the church is an unteachable spirit. This isn’t solely the fault of individual congregants. All too often, churches leave their doctrinal positions undefined. As people join their ranks, they come in with the assumption that the church is fluid where they are fixed. They are allowed from the onset to believe that they, as an untrained, non-ordained member of the church will be able to sway the church this way or that on their pet doctrine. Rather than being shaped by the word preached, they desire to shape the word preached through their human influence. They prefer to accumulate for themselves teachers that tell them what they want to hear, turning their ears away from the truth (2Tim. 4:3-4).

Once a man allows this presumption to fester in his heart, a hostile environment is inevitable. The moment the pastor authoritatively opposes his pet doctrine, a wound is opened within his soul and the infection of bitterness begins to set in. In this way, the unteachable spirit is not unlike the discontented spirit. Both can lead to disunity if unchecked, and both will use Reformed Theology as an occasion to sow division within the body. We would be wise to keep in mind, however, that Reformed Theology is not the cause but the occasion of this division.

A third source of disunity is immaturity in the faith. Reformed Christians have affectionately coined the term cage-stage Calvinist to describe these immature believers, but it’s important to recognize that this phenomenon is not unique to Reformed Theology. Truth in the hands of an immature man is always a dangerous weapon. Wise parents don’t hand scalpels to their toddlers and leave them unsupervised. However, in the hands of a skilled surgeon, a scalpel is a necessary tool. The same is true for sound biblical knowledge, such as Reformed Theology.

Lusts (or passions) can also be a real source of disunity within the body. James points out that the cause of all quarrels is unchecked passion (Jas. 4:1-3). We want, but we do not have, so we steal, murder, slander, and destroy. We bite and devour one another, when we should be building one another up in the faith.

These are all sources of disunity. They all point to man’s universal, sinful condition. Note, however, that nowhere in Scripture does the Bible point to truth properly acquired and applied as a source of unity. In fact, it is the exact opposite.

Reformed Theology Is High Theology

So is it wrong or unwise to contend for Reformed Theology with our brothers and sisters in the faith? It depends. It depends on your heart and on the heart of your listener. If your heart, or the heart of your listener, is to win an argument rather than to demonstrate and share the rich spiritual benefit that is to be found in an affirmation of biblical truth, then your heart is not in the right place to be discussing Reformed Theology. There is a time and a place for swordplay: among parties who agree. The problem often comes when we take that playfulness and try to employ it with people who diametrically oppose our understanding of Scripture. We must approach these conversations with much more prayerfulness and seriousness, because much more is at stake.

What is it that’s at stake? What is it that Reformed Theology can grant our non-Reformed brothers and sisters that they don’t already have? In a word: consistency. We don’t deny that Arminians, and all other forms of non-Calvinists, can and do have a high view of God. The fact is, however, that Reformed Theology offers the highest view of God there is.

Our non-Calvinistic brothers and sisters will not care to hear from us that we believe their high view of God to be inconsistent with their approach to biblical interpretation. However, that is precisely what we believe as Reformed Christians. Yet it should be noted that they have the same critique of our theology. Why not just be honest about it? Much as it would be unloving for me to have a prolonged relationship with a Jehovah’s Witness or a Mormon without ever sharing the gospel with them, it is (to a drastically less significant degree) likewise unloving for us as Reformed Christians to think we have the richest, most deeply rewarding view of God and then to withhold it from our brothers and sisters in the faith. Why would we deny them this rich heritage that we have found so rewarding to our faith and practice?

Might it be because we have not truly found it rewarding? Might it be that we have not thought out how truly holistic Reformed Theology is and applied its teaching to every aspect of our life and our doctrine? See, our zeal for truth tells those who disagree with us how truly committed we are to that truth. If we have no zeal for truth we are telling others, whether we intend to or not, that we find it neither true nor beneficial. This has not been our experience, though. We affirm Reformed Theology not simply because we have been logically convinced; we affirm it also because we have been experientially convinced. That is, unless we haven’t. Our actions will tell.

The Necessary Contrast between Christianity and Rome

Not only do our non-Reformed brothers and sisters miss out on the benefit of a high theology, but often they also fail to see the very necessary contrast between Christianity and Rome. There are many pastors and theologians in the church today who, as a result of their abandonment of Reformation theology, have completely abandoned the Reformation! Everywhere you look, there are pastors, seminary professors, theologians, and biblical scholars who claim to represent a Protestant tradition or denomination while simultaneously holding out a hand of fellowship to Rome. These men and women speak of three orthodox groups under the umbrella of Christianity: Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and Protestantism.

As Reformed Christians, we recognize only one of three groups just listed as truly Christian according to the Bible. I have had professors that would view this statement as divisive. Well, with all due respect to my professors, the Council of Trent was just as much to blame for this division as any Reformer, Puritan, Baptist, or Reformed confession or catechism. When the papacy holds a council that takes an essential doctrine such as Justification by Faith Alone and calls any who teach it accursed, this act alone is enough to place Rome squarely outside the pale of biblical orthodoxy.

Yet we have “Protestant” Christians claiming that those who have called us anathema (and have not retracted it) are under our same umbrella. We shouldn’t merely push Reformed Theology because of its high view of God. Reformed Theology is also a necessary guard from adopting heterodox views of our relationship to Rome and the Eastern Orthodox church.

Conclusion

Again, why do I push Reformed Theology? I push Reformed Theology because it’s biblical. I push Reformed Theology because biblical truth, when rightly acquired and applied, unites. I push Reformed Theology because it offers the most consistent interpretation of the Bible with a truly high view of God. I push Reformed Theology because it keeps us from erroneous, though perhaps well-intentioned, attempts at unity with groups with whom the Bible requires we disagree. For all of these reasons, it would be both unloving and a disregard for the unity of the church for Reformed Christians not to push Reformed Theology.

Edit – After getting some feedback from the author of the article that inspired this one, I wanted to offer the following statement as a kind of second conclusion:

It seems to me that the heart of the article’s author is in the right place, wanting to bridge gaps between disparate Christians and break down barriers. I would prefer that Reformed Christians with such a heart boldly use the terminology we believe to be the most biblical, but do so in such a way that we utterly destroy the stereotypes people have erected of us in their minds. That is to say that we should employ Reformed terminology (early in our conversations) in such a way that our non-Reformed friends are completely disarmed by the love and tenderness behind it.

Repost: Why Catechize?

/ William F. Leonhart III / 1 Comment

I originally posted this article back in February of 2013. In discussing catechesis with my wife tonight, I went in search for it. After reading it, I decided it was worth a repost. I hope you find it helpful.

___________________

It has been such a blessing for our family to catechize our daughter. My wife and I use The Baptist Catechism, but my four-year-old and the children’s ministry at our church use the more basic Catechism for Boys and Girls. Every night we get together as a family to pray, sing hymns, and read God’s word. Of course, we haven’t always been able to do this perfectly, but it has become a fairly regular expectation for my family. When we gather together at night to have family worship, we also spend some time catechizing our daughter and one another. We even let our daughter ask us questions from The Baptist Catechism. She loves it. So, today, I was thinking about the benefits of catechesis and thought I’d simply blog about it.

Some Benefits of Catechesis:

  • It helps us to make sense of the things we are reading regularly in Scripture. We should not simply be concerned that our families understand what the texts say in their immediate contexts, but what the Bible as a whole has to say on various topics. If we simply focused in on the immediate contexts of certain texts, we would never arrive at a full-fledged understanding of even the essentials of Christianity such as the Trinity, Justification by Faith Alone, and the Hypostatic Union.
  • It helps us to set a context for making sense of the gospel. When children have a big picture understanding of the teachings of Scripture, they can better understand not only the truths of the gospel, but also the importance of those truths to their everyday lives. The Bible’s claims make the most sense from within a biblical worldview. It is this worldview that catechetical parents hope to instill in their kids.
  • It provides us with healthy opportunities for daily, intentional interaction with our kids. Our kids crave and long for our attention. When we catechize them, we are providing them with an opportunity (scripted, but an opportunity nonetheless) to interact with their parents in a way that few other things do. They have a sense of accomplishment and, more importantly, they bond with their parents.
  • It provides us with the opportunity to pass on our worldview and subsequent values to our children. The influences in our society are plenty which compete for our children’s affections. Catechisms are an invaluable tool for ensuring that our children are immersed in a biblical worldview on a daily basis.

This is by no means meant to be an exhaustive list. I’m sure there are many benefits I have yet to consider, but I think these are sufficient for whetting our appetites for catechizing our children. I pray this has been an encouragement for you in your endeavors to raise your children in the fear and the admonition of the Lord.

Repost: Why Publicly Contend for Christian Morality?

/ William F. Leonhart III / Leave a comment

I found this article, today, that I originally posted all the way back in 2011. It’s the earliest original article I posted on CredoCovenant, and it pretty much summarizes the reason for my participation in the current Public Theology series. As such, I thought it was worth a repost. Enjoy.

____________________________

In the subculture of evangelicalism I inhabit, the issue of publicly contending for Christian morality (i.e. abortion, the definition of marriage, “Don’t ask, don’t tell,” etc.) surfaces from time to time. There seems to be basically two camps: those for it and those against it. On the surface, I tend to agree with many of the arguments made by those who are against making a public defense of the moral claims of the Bible. They say it detracts from our focus on the gospel. They say that it can often stem from post-millennial idealism. They say that it makes us look silly to a world that already hates us for the gospel. On the surface, I can agree with all of these arguments. However, allow me to offer some arguments for the other side in response:

  1. The gospel does not make sense apart from conviction of sin, and there is no conviction of sin in a society where the church is by-and-large silent on moral issues in the public sector.
  2. To want a better society for one’s children, and to want to see people live according to the precepts of Scripture, does not automatically make that one a post-millennialist.
  3. The authors of Scripture spent more time defending the moral assertions of the Bible than they did defending the epistemological assertions of the Bible. Think about it.
  4. The law and the gospel are not diametrically opposed to one another, but rather God uses both to bring people to repentance and faith. The problem comes when one is shared without the other.
  5. Throughout church history, church leaders have contended for biblical morality in their cultural settings.
  6. Someone’s worldview will be the current that drives the culture. Why not Christianity’s?

A Reformed Baptist Perspective on Public Theology – The Reformed Confessions (Part II)

/ William F. Leonhart III / 36 Comments

Read the first four posts here, here, here, and here.

______________

In the last post, we examined the approach of the framers of The Belgic Confession to public theology, specifically as it regards civil government. In this article and the next, we will shift our attention from the Continental Reformation to the English Reformation. Without further introduction, let us begin with the earliest of the English confessions we will consider: The Baptist Confession (1644 / 1646).

Not Anabaptists

The considerations that would lead to further development of the public theology laid out in The Belgic Confession came sooner for the early English Baptists than for others. In 1644, a group of Baptists came together in London to publish a new confession of faith. This Confession was meant to be a source of unity for the churches in question, but it also had a secondary purpose. On the European continent, Anabaptism had spread since the time of Zwingli. The early Anabaptists, especially those who were initially among Zwingli’s disciples, were very thoughtful, orthodox, and studious in their approach to theological systematization. However, as the years passed and persecution ensured that Anabaptists had less and less ecclesiastical resources at their disposal, they began to become more extreme in their stances against government and to develop heretical and heterodox views on key doctrines.

As persecution arose for Reformed pastors and theologians at different points of British history, the Reformed would often flee to the continent. Continental Europe, especially in Switzerland and the Dutch provinces, was understood to be more favorable toward the Reformation. In their sojourn on the continent, many Reformed pastors were made aware of the errors of these later Anabaptists. As a result, when Baptists began to emerge in England out of the Separatist movement, they were viewed with an eye of suspicion and slandered as Anabaptists. For this reason, they saw fit to entitle their first confession: London Baptist Confession of Faith, A.D. 1644: The CONFESSION OF FAITH, Of those CHURCHES which are commonly (though falsely) called ANABAPTISTS.

Liberty of Conscience

bloudy-tenetThe General and Particular Baptists adopted none of the theological or practical errors of the Anabaptists, but they were somewhat innovative in their approach to public theology. Due to persecutions experienced at the hands of church-run magistrates, they searched the Scriptures and came away with a doctrine that would come to be known as liberty of conscience. Thomas Helwys, a General Baptist, was perhaps the first to write on this subject. Roger Williams, an English migrant to America and a Separatist-turned-Particular Baptist, expounded on Helwys’ earlier work. In his 1644 work entitled The Bloudy Tennent of Persecution, Williams called out civil magistrates for their persecution of the consciences of saints. Nevertheless, he called the saints to expect persecution if they truly be in Christ.

“WHILE I plead the cause of truth and innocence against the bloody doctrine of persecution for cause of conscience, I judge it not unfit to give alarm to myself, and to all men, to prepare to be persecuted or hunted for cause of conscience. Whether you stand charged with ten or but two talents, if you hunt any for cause of conscience, how can you say you follow the Lamb of God, who so abhorred that practice?” (ed. Joseph Early, Jr., Readings in Baptist History, pg. 21).

The Baptist Confession (1644 / 1646)

Liberty of conscience was a universally accepted distinctive of the early English and American Baptists. In The Baptist Confession (1644), the English Particular Baptists made many concessions to the public theology of the continental Reformers as laid out in the Belgic Confession. However, they nuanced it quite a bit. The Dutch Reformers would doubtless wholeheartedly affirm Article XLVIII in The Baptist Confession of 1644. It reads almost verbatim like the Belgic Confession in its insistence that Christians are subject to magistrates:

“That a civil Magistracy is an ordinance of God set up by God for the punishment of evil doers, and for the praise of them that do well; and that in all lawful things commanded by them, subjection ought to be given by us in the Lord: and that we are to make supplication and prayer for Kings, and all that are in authority, that under them we may live a peaceable and quiet life in all godliness and honesty.”

However, moving into the next article, there is a slight change of tone from the Belgic Confession to the Baptist Confession. Where The Belgic Confession offers no concession for liberty of conscience, The Baptist Confession highlights it.

“The supreme Magistracy of this Kingdom we believe to be the King and Parliament freely chosen by the Kingdom, and that in all those civil Laws which have been acted by them, or for the present is or shall be ordained, we are bound to yield subjection and obedience unto in the Lord, as conceiving ourselves bound to defend both the persons of those thus chosen, and all civil Laws made by them, with our persons, liberties, and estates, with all that is called ours, although we should suffer never so much from them in not actively submitting to some Ecclesiastical Laws, which might be conceived by them to be their duties to establish which we for the present could not see, nor our consciences could submit unto; yet are we bound to yield our persons to their pleasures” (Article XLIX).

It’s worth noting that, while Particular Baptists at this time saw no place for a civil magistrate to exercise ecclesiastical authority, they do not deny the right of the church described in The Belgic Confession to speak with prophetic authority to civil magistrates. In fact, in the next article, they themselves appeal directly to God for the hearts and the minds of the state to be bent toward them in mercy:

“And if God should provide such a mercy for us, as to incline the Magistrates’ hearts so far to tender our consciences, as that we might be protected by them from wrong, injury, oppression and molestation, which long we formerly have groaned under by the tyranny and oppression of the Prelatical Hierarchy, which God through mercy hath made this present King and Parliament wonderful honorable, as an instrument in his hand, to throw down; and we thereby have had some breathing time, we shall, we hope, look at it as a mercy beyond our expectation, and conceive ourselves further engaged forever to bless God for it” (Article L).

This was a clear appeal not only to God but also to the civil magistrates to show mercy and kindness to them for conscience sake. Yet the Particular Baptists went on to explain that, even if the magistrates did not show mercy but dealt treacherously with them, they were still to submit in all things lawful, yet without violating their consciences. The revision of this Confession in 1646 goes on to expound on this idea of liberty of conscience recognizing it as a duty the state owes to its citizenry. It even goes so far as to dictate to the magistrates what are their duties to men regarding liberty of conscience. As such, we see that the early Particular Baptists did view the use of the prophetic voice as a deterrent for governments that might otherwise violate their liberty of conscience. They did not concede to the notion that the church should not speak to matters of government, only that governments were not free to dictate terms to the church.

______________
In our next article, we will conclude our discussion of public theology in the Reformed confessions by examining developments in The Westminster Confession and The Baptist Confession (1677 / 1689).

A Reformed Baptist Perspective on Public Theology – The Reformed Confessions (Part I)

/ William F. Leonhart III / 37 Comments

Read the first three posts here, here, and here.

______________

When discussing the idea of the Two Cities and Two Kingdoms paradigms for understanding public theology, many leave a tremendous gap between Luther and modern scholarship. We would be negligent to do so here, though. For a uniquely Reformed Baptist perspective on these issues to be well informed, one must be aware of the fact that there is more than just a Lutheran perspective of public theology to draw upon. There is also a Reformed tradition, which just so happens to be the tradition from which Baptists sprung.

Luther’s further development of Augustine’s paradigm certainly plays a large role in the development of Calvinistic, Reformed, and Reformed Baptist approaches to public theology. However, Calvin and his predecessors did not adopt Luther’s theology without some contributions of their own. Luther’s views on the subject evolved throughout the course of his life and the life of Saxony. The same could be said of Zwingli in Zurich, Calvin in Geneva, and the Dutch, British, French, German, and American Reformers that would follow in their footsteps.

According to Oliver O’Donovan and Joan Lockwood, Calvin intermingled aspects of the patristics, the scholastics, and Luther in the development of his public theology with ideas and methods he’d received from classical political philosophy as well as humanist literary, historical, and legal scholarship (O’Donovan and Lockwood, From Irenaeus to Grotius, 662). Calvin’s take on public theology took into account not only the collective wisdom of church history and Western Civilization, but it also brought several disciplines to bear on the matter. Thus, it would be highly inappropriate to attempt to transplant Luther’s theory into the Reformed tradition without any consideration of nuance or further development by Calvin and his theological predecessors.

Recognizing the willingness of the Reformers to shift understandings of these matters to meet the ever changing political structures of their times and cultures, it’s important that we as 21st century Westerners seek to discern as best we can the most universal elements of the Reformed take on Public Theology. Perhaps the best place to look to find these universal elements are in the development of the Reformed confessions of faith. For the purposes of this series, we will look at four such confessions that particularly pertain to the Reformed and Reformed Baptists: The Belgic Confession, The Baptist Confession (1644/1646), The Westminster Confession, and The Baptist Confession (1677/1689). As we examine these confessions, we will see how historical considerations over time forced the Reformed to continue to revisit the biblical texts most pertinent to the subject matter at hand and further Reform their views on public theology. Semper Reformanda!

Separation of Church and State

Some would take issue with there even being a chapter on magistrates in the confessions. They argue that there should be a complete separation of church and state neither where the state speaks with authority to the church nor where the church speaks with authority to the state. Sam Waldron has offered a response to such reasoning.

“Does it surprise you that the Confession contains a chapter on the subject ‘Of the Civil Magistrate’? Are you inclined to ask, ‘What does politics have to do with Christ?’ If that is something of your response, may I suggest that you are a victim of a religious background which has retreated from its social responsibilities under a wrong view of the separation of church and state? Such an attitude has virtually denied the sovereignty of God over all areas of life. To restrict Christianity to the ‘spiritual’ realm is, ultimately, to destroy it” (Waldron, A Modern Exposition, 284).

The concept of the separation of church and state was a concept unique with Baptists in England and America. It was framed as a larger concept in which to set the gemstone of liberty of conscience, yet another uniquely Baptist doctrine. This concept was never meant to be taken as a separation of God and state. It is important to note at this juncture that not all Reformed confessions championed these concepts. Of course, we’ll see that quick enough as we examine our first Reformed confession: The Belgic Confession.

The Belgic Confession (1619)

589Reformed confessions have always dealt with the subject of the civil magistrate. Specifically regarding this subject the Reformed confessions are in general agreement that the role of government is to wield the sword granted them by God for the punishment of evil and the promotion of good (cf. Romans 13:1-7). Also, shared among the confessions is the recognition that duty is owed by the governed subjects to their magistrates, those magistrates having been given their office by God. The Belgic Confession goes quite a bit further than this, though.

“And the government’s task is not limited to caring for and watching over the public domain but extends also to upholding the sacred ministry, with a view to removing and destroying all idolatry and false worship of the Antichrist; to promoting the kingdom of Jesus Christ; and to furthering the preaching of the gospel everywhere; to the end that God may be honored and served by everyone, as he requires in his Word” (The Belgic Confession, Article 36).

Thus, the Confession most commonly held by the Dutch Reformed community promotes the use of the magistrate to enforce church discipline and promote the furtherance of the gospel. Without doubt this is seen, at least in seed form, in the practices of Zwingli and Calvin. In fact, it was over this issue that Zwingli’s disciples eventually separated from him birthing what would eventually come to be called the Anabaptist movement in Switzerland. Tellingly, The Belgic Confession takes a clear stance against the Anabaptists, anarchists, and revolutionists in its pronouncements.

“Moreover everyone, regardless of status, condition, or rank, must be subject to the government, and pay taxes, and hold its representatives in honor and respect, and obey them in all things that are not in conflict with God’s Word, praying for them that the Lord may be willing to lead them in all their ways and that we may live a peaceful and quiet life in all piety and decency.

And on this matter we reject the Anabaptists, anarchists, and in general all those who want to reject the authorities and civil officers and to subvert justice by introducing common ownership of goods and corrupting the moral order that God has established among human beings” (Ibid.).

This being the earliest of the Reformed confessions, the Westminster Assembly and the Particular Baptists developed much of their public theology upon it. While an argument can be made that it is the most Reformed position, in that it is most faithful to the views and conduct of Calvin and Zwingli, such an argument does not allow for the application of the Semper Reformanda (always reforming) principle. As circumstances changed in Luther’s and Calvin’s political and cultural situations, their understandings of these matters adapted. The Reformed tradition moving forward into the 17th century also adapted to the changing times, returning again and again to the Scriptures to determine the best approach to new considerations as they arose.

______________
In our next article, we will continue our discussion of public theology in the Reformed confessions by examining developments in some of the English confessions of the 17th century.

Band of Brothers: Bound by the Word of God

/ William F. Leonhart III / Leave a comment

The following article is my sermon transcript from this past Lord’s Day. I don’t take my transcripts into the pulpit with me; I take an outline based on the transcript. However, this is the jist of the exposition. It seemed appropriate given some recent events on the interwebs that I post it here. For the record, I am not a fan of how things translate from Microsoft Word to WordPress, but I’ll get over it.

Introduction

I am convinced that many of the “one another” passages of Scripture originally had in view only the local church. Still today, even in this age of social media and the blogosphere, I still believe its primary application is for the local church. However, more and more, I am seeing Christians putting their disdain for one another on public display on the internet. We are often haughty, self-promoting, impatient, cynical, and irreverent in the way that we speak to and about our fellow believers on the internet.

I don’t view this as a practical deficiency within the church. I see it primarily as a theological deficiency. It’s a sign that many of us who name the name of Christ and call God our Father do not truly understand the implications for such a claim when we address one another in public forums. We too easily forget the apostle John’s warnings:

“The one who says he is in the Light and yet hates his brother is in the darkness until now” (1Jn. 2:9; NASB).[1]

“But the one who hates his brother is in the darkness and walks in the darkness, and does not know where he is going because the darkness has blinded his eyes” (1Jn. 2:11; NASB).

“Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer; and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him” (1Jn. 3:15; NASB).

“If someone says, ‘I love God,’ and hates his brother, he is a liar; for the one who does not love his brother whom he has seen, cannot love God whom he has not seen” (1Jn. 4:20; NASB).

We must recognize that, when we lack genuine brotherly affection for one another, we are living like pagans. This commends neither us nor our God to a lost and dying world. However, Peter has a different understanding of how and why we ought to treat one another with brotherly love. As Christians, we are expected to have purified ourselves in obedience to truth. As such, we should bear the fruit of that obedience: brotherly love. We bear that fruit because of the seed that has taken root in our hearts: the word of God.

 

The Fruit of Obedience to the Truth: Brotherly Love

“Having purified your souls in obedience to the truth into a genuine brotherly love, [you] fervently love one another from the heart” (1Peter 1:22; personal translation).[2]

In Obedience to the Truth

Here Peter uses another participle: having purified. He assumes that his readers have already purified themselves. Indeed, this is one of the marks of a true Christian. A true Christian will set himself apart, sanctify himself, and purify himself from all worldliness (Rom. 12:2; 1Cor. 3:18-19). How primarily does he purify himself? By availing himself of the word of God (2Tim. 3:16-17).

“All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work” (2Tim. 3:16-17).

Notice that Peter says we purify our souls “in obedience to the truth.” The truth being spoken of here is found only in Scripture, the very word of God. We are called to be obedient to Scripture. However, if we are to rightly subject ourselves to the word of God, we must rightly understand what the word of God is teaching us. This requires study. This requires work. This requires commitment and discernment.

The world tells us this dogged commitment to truth cannot coincide with a lifestyle marked by love. I have heard seasoned Christians go so far as to say that John 1:14 gives us a paradox because it describes Christ as “full of grace and truth” (NASB; emphasis added). This idea that love and truth are diametrically opposed to one another has bled even into the church. I would argue, however, that the apostles had no concept of truth existing apart from love or love apart from truth. If I tell my friend I love him, and I know he’s blindly walking toward a cliff, I don’t demonstrate my love for him by withholding truth from him.

Christians can get nitpicky. We can correct people for things that don’t need correcting, especially on social media. When we become overcritical of our friends and family, this could be a sign of an unloving spirit. We can certainly fall into the trap of speaking the truth in an unloving way, but that does not mean that we throw the baby out with the bathwater. Often, to speak the unadulterated truth is the most loving thing we can do.

However, when confronted with the truths of Scripture to the degree that most Reformed Christians are in Western society today, we ought to be the most loving, most caring, most merciful Christians people meet. We spend so much time studying and relishing in the gospel and the great mercies that we’ve been shown by God. Ought we to show mercy to our fellow man as well?

We take a great fire into our bosom when we study the truths of God’s word. Can a man take a fire into his bosom and not be burned? And can we regularly take the refining words of God into our hearts and not be permanently changed? Yet, many of us claim to read the word regularly and affirm the historic doctrines of the faith, but we don’t seem to know the first thing about loving our brothers. We would rather treat the truth of God as an academic endeavor or a reason to debate. We often treat God’s truth as a tool for changing others when we should first be changed by it. We first need to internalize God’s truth and let it purify us.

Brotherly Love

This gets us to the heart of this obedience to truth. We are called to be obedient to the truth not merely for the sake of knowing and loving God more. Rather, as we are purified in obedience to the truth of God, it should cause us to love both Him and one another more.

The truth of God teaches us of our original state holiness and joy in the garden (Eph. 4:24). It further teaches us the value of each human being, in that we’ve each been created in the image of God (Gen. 1:26-27). God’s truth goes on to teach us how we have all fallen short of God’s glory and marred His image in ourselves (Rom. 3:23; 8:29). Finally, we discover from God’s truth how each of us are utterly helpless to save ourselves apart from God’s amazing grace through the gospel (Mk. 10:26-27). This knowledge ought to compel us to have a deeper appreciation for our brothers and sisters in the faith, and to extend a greater amount of mercy toward them, even in their sin (Mt. 5:7).

Furthermore, when we recognize the fact that we are each born into a new family through Christ, our love for one another takes on yet another aspect. We have gone from merely having common life experiences to having a common Father in heaven. We are brothers and sisters in Christ in a very real, very eternal sense. As such, we are bound to one another not merely by some human contract, but by a divinely established familial bond (Mk. 10:28-30).

As brothers and sisters, then, we have obligations to one another. Think of it this way. The only way that earthly brothers or sisters can remove themselves permanently from their siblings is to remove themselves from their parents’ house. As long as we call ourselves children of our Father in heaven, we are likewise bound to our Christian brothers and sisters. This means that we have certain obligations to one another. We’re a family.

This means that, when I see a brother sinning, I not only have an obligation to stop him from sinning. I also have an obligation to do so in a manner that helps him retain as much dignity as possible. A common knee-jerk reaction to sin among Christians is to see a brother headed over a cliff and think it’s our job to give him the final shove. That is not brotherly love. Brotherly love means to reach out to that brother, show him the error of his ways, seek reconciliation, and ultimately to seek restoration (Gal. 6:1-2):

“Brethren, if a man is overtaken in any trespass, you who are spiritual restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness, considering yourself lest you also be tempted. Bear one another’s burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ” (Gal. 6:1-2).

 

The Root of Obedience to the Truth: The Gospel

“having been born again not with perishable seed but imperishable through the living and eternal word of God. Because,

All flesh is as grass,

And all their glory is as a flower in the grass.

The grass withers,

And the flower falls,

But the word of the Lord abides forever.

And this is the word that was proclaimed to you” (1Pt. 1:23-25; personal translation).

We have been born again into an eternal, spiritual family. That which brought about our new birth is likewise eternal and spiritual: the living and eternal word of God. Were we born into this new family through flesh and blood, we would have nothing in which to be confident, for flesh and blood both perish. Rather, “as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God” (John 1:12-13; NKJV).

We are born of an imperishable seed. We are born of God (John 1:13) “through the living and eternal word of God” (vs. 23). In other words, it was through the word of God that God brought about our salvation. The word was the seed that was planted in our hearts’ soil (Mt. 13:1-23 – “Parable of the Sower”). This word, once it takes root and extends deep into the soil of our hearts, reaps in us eternal life!

It’s this word of God that Peter says is living and eternal. He takes this description from Isaiah 40. In Isaiah 40, Isaiah is prophesying about the coming of the Messiah and His forerunner: John the Baptist (vs. 3; cf. Mt. 3:3). Isaiah goes on to prophesy regarding the Messiah:

“The glory of the LORD shall be revealed,

And all flesh shall see it together;

For the mouth of the LORD has spoken.”

The voice said, ‘Cry out!’

And he said, ‘What shall I cry?’

‘All flesh is grass,

And all its loveliness is like the flower of the field.

The grass withers, the flower fades,

Because the breath of the LORD blows upon it;

Surely the people are grass.

The grass withers, the flower fades,

But the word of our God stands forever’” (Isa. 40:5-8).

Isaiah prophesied these words as words of deliverance for the people of God. They had been in exile, and now they were going to see their deliverance. God’s people had seen tremendous warfare and received from the Lord’s hands “double for all her sins” (Isa. 40:2). Now, God speaks comfort to His people, “that her warfare is ended, that her iniquity is pardoned.” Now, we know that this peace to come was Christ Himself, given that this is the passage used to refer to His forerunner in Matthew 3:3. Christ is the glory of the Lord that shall be revealed (Isa. 40:5).

The people of God, then, have just experienced a great trial in their exile to Babylon. They had seen much death and much war. They had experienced a tremendous defeat and been carried away by a foreign people. Looking forward to the Messiah to come, they are now told to set aside any faith they had previously put in flesh that fades, and to trust in the abiding, imperishable word of God.

In like manner, we are told to lay aside any trust that we may have placed in the flesh. Our confidence is not in the flesh, but in Christ. The Jews will not be saved on account of the fact that they share in flesh and blood with Abraham. They will only be saved if they believe like Abraham in the Seed of Abraham, which is Christ (Gal. 3:16, 29):

“Now to Abraham and his Seed were the promises made. He does not say, “And to seeds,” as of many, but as of one, “And to your Seed,” who is Christ” (Gal. 3:16).

“And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise” (Gal. 3:29).

John the Baptist told the Pharisees and Sadducees, who were trusting in the flesh, “Brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Therefore bear fruits worthy of repentance, and do not think to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ For I say to you that God is able to raise up children to Abraham from these stones” (Mt. 3:7-9).

Many today even think they will get to heaven on account of fleshly association. They reason that they were raised in church by godly parents and, thus, they must be good to go. Let us not fool ourselves into thinking that we can ride into heaven on our parents’ faith. We must have faith ourselves, but not in ourselves. We must each put our faith in Christ for our own salvation. We will not get into heaven on the merits of the flesh, whether ours or another’s.

The Lord, through Isaiah, said:

“All flesh is as grass,

And all their glory is as a flower in the grass.

The grass withers,

And the flower falls,

But the word of the Lord abides forever” (1Pt. 1:24; personal translation).

We are then to trust in the preached word, not in some genetic heredity. Our inheritance is heavenly, eternal, secure, and abiding. It is as secure and abiding as the very word of God, but it is for those who believe and for those who believe alone. Will there be a great remnant of Jews who will be saved before the return of the Lord and the consummation of all things? Many believe this to be the case. It certainly seems so from my study of Romans 11. However, those Jews who come to salvation in the end will be saved, not on account of their flesh, but on account of their belief in the Lord Jesus Christ.

This is the word that was proclaimed to us: our salvation in Jesus Christ! It’s on account of this word and on account of our belief in this word that we come to be included in this great family of God. It’s because of this word of truth that we have heard and now obey that we are purified and compelled to a fervent brotherly love toward one another.

The word here rendered proclaimed is the verb form for the word εὐαγγέλιον, from which we get our English word evangelism. In essence, it means good proclamation, and it’s where we also get the word gospel (or good news). So then, we know that we have come to be brothers and sisters in Christ through the preaching of the gospel, the truth of God from the word of God.

It’s only through this word that any of us are ever saved. According to Romans 10:

“How then shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach unless they are sent? As it is written:

‘How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the gospel of peace,

Who bring glad tidings of good things!’” (Rom. 10:14-15).

We must then hear the word of God to be saved. We must hear the gospel. It goes without saying then that, if we want to see others in our lives come to salvation, they too must hear the gospel. How shall they believe on Him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher? Let us then go forth with boldness and proclaim to our friends, family, coworkers, and neighbors the only word that has any power to save them from their sins.

Conclusion

Those who receive this word and obey it will be purified and set apart into the family of God. Each new convert to the gospel of Jesus Christ is a new brother or sister in our great family. We need to treat them as such. We need to treat one another as such, because that is what we are. We are a family, and as sons and daughters of the God of love, we ought to be the greatest example of love the world has ever seen. So be holy as your Father in heaven is holy (1Pt. 1:16). But also let us love one another, because our Father in heaven is love.

[1]All citations from Holy Scripture from the New King James Version of the Bible, except where otherwise noted.

[2]Personal translations translated from UBS4.

Lessons for the Developing Complementarian Journey

/ wifewithpurpose / Leave a comment

Along this journey of examining the beliefs of complementarians and egalitarians, I’ve gone through a bit of a personal transformation. But mostly, I’ve learned a lot about myself, the pressures of this world, and how truly difficult it is to be changed by the Word of God and conformed to the image of Christ in this age. It is very difficult, but we know that with God, all things are possible and that He always accomplishes His purposes. So, I would like to offer some brief lessons that I have learned during our short course of marriage so far that may be of some benefit to Christian women who are struggling with their own native egalitarian tendencies while growing in grace as complementarians.

  1. Determine the source of your current beliefs and feelings

The first lesson I have learned is to figure out where the things that I believe and the feelings I have regarding my role in the marriage come from, and I think this is important for every person to consider. Do your views come from how you were raised? Perhaps, your views come from your larger cultural/societal upbringing? Do your views come from past responses to bad experiences and circumstances? Maybe they come from the Word of God? And possibly, do they come from several different places all at once?

Wherever your beliefs and feelings come from, it is important that you are able to identify them properly because this greatly aids you in being able to discern whether or not those beliefs and behaviors should be changed, discarded, or kept as you move forward in your Christian walk. Moreover, going through this process of asking and answering questions will allow you to begin to deal with past issues that you may have stuffed deep into the recesses of your mind and never wanted to deal with in the first place.

  1. Accept the past as the past

Now that I’ve mentioned dealing with the past, I’ve remembered how important this lesson has been to both my husband and me: accept your past as the past.

Having worked at a women’s college and being as chatty as I am, I’ve heard countless stories from people about their “past” throughout my life. And I can honestly tell you that there are a lot of hurt people walking around this world, and I am included in that number. I’ve gone through situations that have caused me to walk in fear for most of my life and had me wrestling with paranoia, extreme anxiety, burdensome guilt, a seared conscious that would not heal, and haunting memories that always stole the peace away from my heart and mind. But I had this one blessed truth to hold on to:

There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. – Romans 8:1

And I quickly learned to hold onto this truth as well:

Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come. – 2 Corinthians 5:17

I pray that if you are finding yourself struggling to let go of things, especially guilt, and even when you feel accused and condemned in your own mind that you would cling to the truth of the gospel, the very good news that we have in Christ. If you have truly repented of your sins, you have a brand new life in Christ…a brand new life that you are fully able to live to His glory by His grace alone. So by His grace, cling to this truth, believe it, and continue to confess it.

  1. Read and understand the Word the right way

I think that the worst thing I ever did was to read all of the passages in the Bible that pertained to wives and women and try to just live them out. It was dumb. And it is incredibly disheartening. I mean, just take a look at Proverbs 31:10-31, and try to start doing everything on that list today. You will wear yourself out!

What I’ve learned is to rightly read the Word of God. Don’t just read a couple of verses here and there to figure out what you’re supposed to be doing, but read the whole chapter or even the whole book/epistle to get a clear understanding of what the Lord is saying. If you are reading Ephesians 5:22-24 alone, without considering the foundation that is laid in Ephesians 1-3 and the subsequent call to walk worthy of what we have received in the Lord beginning in chapter 4, then you won’t understand why submitting to your husband is important, and you definitely won’t have a good reason for why you are doing it in the first place. I encourage you to read all of God’s Word, and especially remember to read in context.

  1. Talk to your spouse

If my husband and I ever wrote a book offering marital advice, every other chapter would be entitled: Talk to your spouse! I know it sounds funny, but it is really easy to get advice from other people about what works in their marriage relationship (or what didn’t work) and apply it to your own marriage. And I just want to tell you to STOP!!! DON’T DO THAT!!!

Ladies, if you are married, you are the wife of one man…not everybody else’s man. Talk to your husband. Seriously, talk to your own husband. Get those kids distracted, get a good dessert, and sit down and talk to your husband. Talk about each of your expectations in the marriage. Talk about each of your desires. Talk about what you each want from the other. And I’m not going to tell you those conversations will go perfectly smoothly, but it is far better to have those conversations than to have unmet expectations and feeling unappreciated because you’re doing things that your spouse generally doesn’t like or never wanted you to do in the first place. (Been there, and done that.) Just go talk. It always helps your marriage, and it will help you.

  1. Don’t be afraid to work

One thing that I had to learn was to stop expecting personal miracles once I became a wife and especially after I became a mother. Just because I was a Christian and desired to have a godly marriage and become the perfect, godly housewife did not mean that God just snapped His fingers and changed me overnight. In fact, I haven’t experienced any miracles at all. I wasn’t transformed in a day, or even a week, few months, or years.

Instead, by God’s grace and through divine providence, I’ve learned to challenge myself over the years to do things I never wanted to do. So I’ve learned to make basic dresses for my daughter because it was cheaper than buying new clothes every few months for every growth spurt while we’re paying off debt. I’ve learned how to make bread (without a stand mixer or bread machine, I should add), and I even have a nice burn mark on my arm as a reminder of when I caught the dough on fire in the oven. I’ve expanded my repertoire of things I know how to cook well while also compiling a list of dishes that came out really badly and never ever need to be done again. It’s been hard work, and I’m accepting the fact that it will always be hard work. I encourage you to embrace it.

Challenge yourself to learn something new. Better yet, challenge yourself to get better at the things that could benefit your family the most. Use your family as your motivation to keep pressing forward and learn as you go. Some of you may feel motivated to start a garden to cut back on your food budget. Others might want to try cooking more to cut back on spending money at restaurants. I’ll be learning how to navigate the stock market and make wise investments because that’s something we want to do in the future. I say all of this to say, stop expecting overnight miracles. You are going to have to work at it.

  1. Don’t be afraid of changing

Let me perfectly honest here: Marriage will change you. Parenthood will change you. Your priorities change. How you want to spend your free time changes. Your definition of ‘fun’ changes. Even my love languages changed before and after marriage and after having our daughter. In a nutshell, I’ve changed, and I know that I’m going to keep on changing as the years go by. And so will you.

Now, we can bemoan these changes, or we can accept the fact that God is always at work within our lives. Through His mysterious providence, He brings things into our lives and removes things from our lives to force us to change, to cause us to bear fruit for His glory. And His way of doing it is absolutely perfect and fail-proof. Always remember we serve a faithful, omnipotent God who is mighty to save and relentless in accomplishing His own purposes in our lives for His own glory. And that means that we are all being changed.

In conclusion…

Ultimately, as Christians, we know that the world is opposed to God and His way of doing things. We know this to be true because we once also opposed it. However, we have been brought into the household of faith, and we are called to walk worthy of that calling that we have received. I encourage all of you, but most especially my fellow sisters in the faith, to keep on walking faithfully to the Lord. Be fully convinced in what you believe and why you believe it. Endure the hardships, the backbiting, the insults, and the lack of support from loved ones as you strive to glorify God through your marriage and in your role as a wife and mother. Remain encouraged by the knowledge that you do not strive and labor alone because many are striving with you and many have gone on to claim their reward in heaven. Finally, I pray that this series has been encouraging for all of you, and that the short lessons provided in this blog offer you some encouragement as you continue in your walk. Blessings!