“It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery.” ~ Galatians 5.1
Lord Jesus, it’s the Fourth of July – a holiday set aside to remember and revel in the freedom we enjoy as citizens of America. As broken as she is, we’re still thankful for our country and for the privileges we enjoy.
But the gratitude we feel for our USA citizenship pales in comparison with the joy generated by our citizenship in heaven. (Philippians 3.20) We praise you today for making us members of the “chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s special possession“. (1 Peter 2.9) This is our true and lasting identity – our consummate passport and eternal liberty.
Indeed, Jesus, only those you set free are really free. (John 8.36) You took our guilt and gave us your righteousness. We’re no longer condemned for our sin or in fear of death. Hallelujah! Sin’s dominion has been broken in our lives; never again will it be our master. (Romans 6.14) We obey you because we love you – not because of pride, pressure, or pragmatics. Holiness is beautiful, and no longer a burden.
We get to run freely and boldly to the throne of grace – into your holy presence, where we only experience your welcome and joy. We’re free to own our sin and brokenness, and to repent with joy, for you bore our shame and we don’t have to pose or pretend anymore. Three Hallelujahs, for that!
You’ve set us free from seeking fool’s gold and a fool’s reward, by making us characters in, and carriers of, your story. Our tiny fiefdoms of self have been crushed under the grace of your all-things-new kingdom. We’re now free to love others as you love us – forgiving and forbearing, encouraging and hoping. Take us WAY deeper into this particular freedom, Jesus.
By the power of the gospel, we will seek to stand firm in these and the many more freedoms you’ve won for us, until the Day you return to usher in the new heaven and new earth. So very Amen we pray, in your liberating and loving name.
***
NOTE: This prayer was originally composed by Scotty Smith for The Gospel Coalition (7/4/16)
When Samuel Blair assumed the pulpit of Faggs Manor Church in 1740, he found a congregation in a spiritual condition not uncommon in our day. Blair wrote that when he came to the church he found “many good religious people who performed their religious obligation rather well”. Yet they were, in his estimation, somewhat formal and unenthusiastic:
If they performed these duties pretty punctually in their seasons and, as they thought, with good meaning, out of conscience, and not just to obtain a name for religion among men, then they were ready to conclude that they were truly and sincerely religious. A very lamentable ignorance of the main essentials of true practical religion, and the doctrines nearly relating thereunto very generally prevailed. The nature and necessity of the new birth was but litle known or thought of, the necessity of a conviction of sin and misery, by the Holy Spirit’s opening and applying the law to the conscience, in order to a saving closure with Christ, was hardly known at all to most. It was thought, that if there was any need of a heart-distressing sight of the soul’s danger, and fear of divine wrath, it was only needed for the grosser sort of sinners; and for any others to be deeply exercised this way (as might in some rare instances observable), this was generally looked upon to be a great evil and temptation that had befallen those persons. The common names for such soul-concern were, melancholy, trouble of mind, or despair. These terms were common, so far as I have been acquainted, indifferently used as synonymous; and trouble of mind was looked upon as a great evil, which all persons that made any sober profession and practice of religion ought carefully avoid. …There was scarcely any suspicion at all, in general, of any danger of depending upon self-righteousness, and not upon the righteousness of Christ alone for salvation. Papists [Roman Catholics] and Quakers would be readily acknowledeged guilty of this crime, but hardly any professed Presbyterian. The necessity of being first in Christ by a vital union, and in a justified state, before our religious services can be well pleasing and acceptable to God, was very little understood or thought of; but the common notion seemed to be, that if people were aiming to be in the way of duty as well as they could, at they imagined, there was no reason to be much afraid.
[Source: The Forming of an American Tradition: A Re-Examination of Colonial Presbyterianism, by Leonard J. Trinterud; Westminster Press, 1959; pp. 77-78]
Unfortunately, it seems that this same presumption still exists in too many congregations, and among too many professing Christians. Brennan Manning, in his thoughtful book, Ruthless Trust, identifies the problem with the superficial spirituality of pretentious piety:
In a world where the only plea is “Not Guilty”, what possibility is there of an honest encounter with Jesus, who “died for our sins”? We can only pretend that we are sinners, and thus only pretend that we are forgiven.
It seems that Micah 6.8 is quite clear and straight-forward in its summary of living as God’s People in this world:
He has shown you, O man, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To do justice, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
Yet, for some reason, many Christians, and too many churches, operate as if doing justice and mercy are components of some sort of optional deluxe Christianity plan – something for those who want to enlist in a branch of the spiritual special forces, but not something expected of every ordinary follower of Christ.
“Celebrate deeds of mercy and justice. We live in a time when public esteem of the church is plummeting. For many outsiders and inquirers, the deeds of the church will be far more important than our words in gaining plausibility (Acts 4:32–33). Leaders in most places see “word-only” churches as net costs to their community, organizations of relatively little value. But effective churches will be so involved in deeds of mercy and justice that outsiders will say, “We cannot do without churches like this. This church is channeling so much value into our community that if it were to leave the neighborhood, we would have to raise taxes.” Evangelistic worship services should highlight offerings for deed ministry and celebrate by the giving of reports, testimonies, and prayers. It is best that offerings for mercy ministries are received separately from the regular offering; they can be attached (as is traditional) to the celebration of the Lord’s Supper. This connection brings before the non-Christian the impact of the gospel on people’s hearts (i.e., the gospel makes us generous) and the impact of lives poured out for the world.”
I have not looked up the social science data to back up my premise, but I strongly suspect that the pervasive perception of Evangelical Christianity – at least of American Evangelicals – is that we are far “more heavenly minded than of any earthly good.”
That’s a caricature, I know. But it is an understandable caricature. The influence of certain eschatalogical (i.e. “Last Things, or “End Times”) theories over the past one-hundred-plus years, and the corresponding popularity of fiction like the Left Behind series, has caused many people – both outside and inside the Church – to assume Christianity, or at least Evangelical Christianity, is more concerned about escaping this fallen and broken world than living redemptively in it.
But, even if I am accurate about my assumption of the perception of escapism, I do not believe that the perception itself is accurate. At least, it is not true of me; nor is it true of most of my friends.
Through the past several months, the church where I presently serve has been engaged in a sermon series study of the Book of Revelation, led mostly by my colleague, J.D. Funyak. Throughout this study I have been reminded, time and again, that the Bible really does not present us with an escapist mindset. Even the Book of Revelation, with all the apocalyptic imagery, when considered in proper context, paints a very real and down-to-earth picture of living life in this world. Therefore, since the Bible does not teach anything like an escapist mindset, Christianity does not – or should not – hold to any kind of escapist mindset.
As Christians, we are to develop our Worldview, our theological systems and theological emphases, and our corresponding practices, to be in accord with what is taught in the Scriptures. And the Scriptures do not teach us an escapist eschatology. Rather, I am convinced, that a proper biblical understanding of End Times is:
… more focused on preparing for Christ than for an anti-Christ;
… more focused on the Mark of the Lamb than the mark of the beast;
… more focused on engaging and preparing for the redeeming of the world than escaping it;
… and, more focused on Hope than fear.
For those who might want to explore a little more into this subject, I suggest the following articles:
I appreciate Justin Taylor for causing me to consider two seeming conflicting perspectives from two 20th Century giants of the Christian faith: A.W. Tozer and C.S. Lewis:
A. W. Tozer, from The Knowledge of the Holy:
What comes into our minds when we think about God is the most important thing about us.
The history of mankind will probably show that no people has ever risen above its religion, and man’s spiritual history will positively demonstrate that no religion has ever been greater than its idea of God. Worship is pure or base as the worshiper entertains high or low thoughts of God.
For this reason the gravest question before the Church is always God Himself, and the most portentous fact about any man is not what he at a given time may say or do, but what he in his deep heart conceives God to be like.
We tend by a secret law of the soul to move toward our mental image of God. This is true not only of the individual Christian, but of the company of Christians that composes the Church. Always the most revealing thing about the Church is her idea of God.
C.S. Lewis, from The Weight of Glory:
I read in a periodical the other day that the fundamental thing is how we think of God.
By God Himself, it is not! How God thinks of us is not only more important, but infinitely more important. Indeed, how we think of Him is of no importance except in so far as it is related to how He thinks of us.
It is written that we shall “stand before” Him, shall appear, shall be inspected. The promise of glory is the promise, almost incredible and only possible by the work of Christ, that some of us, that any of us who really chooses, shall actually survive that examination, shall find approval, shall please God. To please God . . . to be a real ingredient in the divine happiness . . . to be loved by God, not merely pitied, but delighted in as an artist delights in his work or a father in a son—it seems impossible, a weight or burden of glory which our thoughts can hardly sustain. But so it is.
Are these thoughts contradictory of one another? If not, how do we reconcile them? And assuming these statements can be reconciled, and shown not to be contradicting, what wisdom can the Christian gain that might shape the way we live?
In light of the seeming incessant increase of social and political tension, acrimony, and even violence, I find this thought from the folks at The Bible Project on how Jesus wants his followers to respond to injustice and injustices – both real and perceived – to be a worthwhile reminder:
“Jesus invites his followers to expose and challenge injustice in creative and nonviolent ways. The examples Jesus shares are specific to the first century, and we are invited to use wisdom to find creative ways to stand our ground and expose the wrong while not mistreating others. Creative nonviolence exposes injustice while creating opportunities for restoration. It is an effective and generous way to respond to injustice that reveals the love and peace of God’s kingdom.”
What do you usually do immediately after your Sunday morning church service ends? If you’re like most of church-going humanity, you probably have a routine. Upon the final “Amen”, you arise from your regular spot and your body follows a subconscious script. You may go to the nursery to pick up a child, maybe you have your weekly chat about the high school sports team with the person seated in the row behind you, or perhaps you hightail it toward the coffee to snag a to-go cup on your way out the door.
There’s nothing wrong with being a creature of habit, but many of us have the same routine at the end of a church service as we do at the conclusion of a sporting event or any other public gathering. We gather our belongings, utter some niceties, and shuffle toward the exits. That’s a problem. More specifically, it’s a bad habit.
Since the church body is a family of brothers and sisters in Christ, the end of the formal part of a service is not the end of church but rather the beginning of a new segment of the family gathering. When the structured gathering ends, an indispensable aspect of Christian vitality and growth—fellowship—continues.
Don’t get the wrong idea. You don’t have to be an extrovert who seeks people out like a goldendoodle puppy to faithfully participate in the fellowship of the church. You just have to be intentional.
If you’re one of the many believers with a bad habit of neglecting the broader fellowship of the church after the service, here’s one simple suggestion: set apart ten minutes after the gathering concludes and devote that time to getting to know others in the church family. This is a ten-minute commitment to invest in your eternal faith family and show hospitality to those not yet in the family.
To help set these ten minutes apart, it may help to consider what not to do, in order to be free and available for fellowship with the body of Christ.
1. Don’t Talk to Your Besties
There’s nothing wrong with having close friends in the church (in fact, there’s much right about that), but the weekly gathering is the one time each week when all the people you don’t naturally bump into are gathered in one place. Don’t miss that opportunity to experience the fullness of the body of Christ by getting to know those who are unlike you or from different life stages and interests. Not only will you benefit from a more diverse fellowship, but over time the supernatural unity of the Spirit will be gloriously on display as members of a church family have genuine care and concern for those outside their immediate circles. Let your closest friends know that right after the service (and, ideally, before the service as well), your aim is to engage the larger fellowship of the church family. Maybe this will encourage them to do the same!
2. Don’t Talk to Blood
Similarly, in those first ten minutes after the service, skip the chit-chat with your family. This is not to denigrate your family. If you get to regularly attend church with your extended family, that is a gift from God to be cherished. But very often, one’s family becomes the relationally safe enclave that undermines more intentional branching out into the broader church family. If your habit is currently to huddle up with your family to chat after church, it’s time to replace that habit with a better one. You’ll talk to your family later, so in those first moments after the official time is done, reorient your family outward toward the broader fellowship of the church family.
3. Don’t Talk Shop
While circumstances will arise that need the attention of a staff member or ministry leader, the goal in the minutes prior to and following the service is to be freed up for fellowship. It’s common for those involved in the formal functions on a Sunday (music ministry, kids ministry, elders, deacons, staff, etc.) to ‘talk shop’ with others who are also involved in leading and serving. But again, this is the one time each week that the building is filled with the faith family! The shop talk can wait or be accomplished with an email. You might even need to politely tell a fellow ministry leader, “Let’s discuss this later. I want to go meet those people before they leave.” In doing so, you’re not only prioritizing what matters, you’re setting the tone for a culture in which all the ministry leaders are flock-oriented.
Habits are what we do without noticing. Most people are not actively trying to have shallow relationships with the church family. But without realizing it, many people are missing the gift of rich church fellowship due to unexamined Sunday habits. I encourage you to devote ten minutes after the service for conversing with others in the faith family—and soon you’ll likely find that ten minutes is not nearly enough.
***
This post was written by Andy Huette, Senior Pastor of Christ Community Church in Gridley, Illinois, and orignally published by Mattthias Media. Here is the link to the original post: The Ten Minutes After Church Ends.
“Perhaps one of the greatest barriers to faith is not the things we don’t know but the things we think we know yet we’re wrong about… We think of heaven as a pleasure factory rather than life with God… We think of Christians as people who have got the heaven job done, while we think of discipleship as optional extra-credit work for spiritual overachievers.”
I have learned that I am one who learns best from outlines. Perhaps not in all subjects, but I think certainly when it comes to learning history. I can often recall many of the stories, but I am sometimes slow to remember how things played out and how things connect. Outlines helps to remind me of the the bigger picture, the broader narrative, which is vital to understanding.
Os Guinness, in his excellent book, Renaissance, concerning the church in midst of the present challenges unprecedented in Western Culture, notes the culture changing and culture shaping power of the gospel, when the gospel is both declared by God’s People and is actively shaping God’s People. When many of our churches are caving in pursuit of “relevance”, which is hoped will cause people to “like” the church, so we can keep our numbers up, I think Guinness offers a both prophetic and strategic word:
What we have here in the teaching of Jesus and the Scriptures, and amplified in Augustine, is the very heart of the secret of the culture-shaping power of the gospel in the church. When the church goes to either of two extremes, and is so “in the world” that it is of the world and worldly, or so “not of the world” that it is otherworldly and might as well be out of the world altogether, it is powerless and utterly irrelevant. But when the church, through its faithfulness and its discernment of the times, lives truly “in” but “not of” the world, and is therefore the City of God engaging the City of Man, it touches off the secret of its culture-shaping power. For the intellectual and social tension of being “in” but “not of” the world provides the engagement-with-the-critical-distance that is the source of the church’s culture-shaping power.
In short, the decisive power is always God’s, through his Word and Spirit. But on her side the church contributes three distinct human factors to the equation: engagement, discernment, and refusal.
First, the church is called to engage and to stay engaged, to be faithful and obedient in that it puts aside all other preferences of its own and engages purposefully with the world as the Lord commands.
Second, the church is called to discern, to exercise its spiritual and cultural discernment of the best and worst of the world of its day, in order to see clearly where it is to be “in” and where it is to be “not of” that world.
Third, the church is called to refuse, a grand refusal to conform to or comply with anything and everything in the world that is against the way of Jesus and his kingdom.
I don’t do politics on social media (nor in the pulpit), but I feel an exception is warranted – on social media, anyway. With the exception that I don’t really care that Donald Trump has not previously held public office, nor do I care that neither Ben Carson nor Carly Fiorina have ever held public office, pretty much everything else Peter Wehner writes in his Op Ed for the New York Times, Why I Will Never Vote for Donald Trump, reflects my sentiments. I am disturbed by Trump’s behavior, and even more so by some of his supporters who have compromised core values and beliefs to empower him.
I know. This is politics. And Trump’s supporters have every right to support him, for whatever the reasons. For a time I was open to the possibility, despite questions about the basis of his present positions. I accept that people change. But with no history, or substantive rationale for changes in convictions, I can only wonder how long it will be, or what circumstances might arise, before we see some of these key convictions shift back.
More disturbing to me than Trump are some of his supporters. Here I do not mean the rank-and-file Trump supporters, who enjoy the bravado, and with whom the simple catch phrase “Make America Great Again” resonates. I too am entertained, or at least I have been, to a degree. And I appreciate the vision of restoring the greatness of the USA – even if I am a little unclear whether Trump’s definition of what would make America great and my definition are similar; and even if Trump’s specific plans to usher in such restoration seem a little fuzzy to me. I am disturbed most by those who are endorsing Trump, even when Trump clearly does not represent their core values and beliefs. In other words, I am most chagrined by Christians – especially those claiming to be Evangelicals – who are compromising their faith to endorse Trump.
Now let me be clear here. Every citizen of the USA has a right to support whatever candidate they want. I do not believe Christians have a responsibility to restrict their vote to only Christian candidates. Therefore, I support the right of my fellow Christians, even fellow Evangelicals, to support Trump, if they believe he would be the best leader for our country. (Check out Mark Tooley’s thoughtful piece: Trump, Evangelicals & Security.) What I do not accept are Christians – especially Evangelicals – who will rewrite the Faith to justify their support.
The poster boy of my ire is Jerry Falwell, Jr.
In recent months Falwell has made some asinine statements and decisions. Among them was to invite Trump to speak at Liberty University, where Falwell is currently president, on Martin Luther King Day. Again, I need to be clear. I support Liberty University’s decision to have Trump speak, just as I appreciated them inviting Bernie Sanders to speak. A university is a place of ideas, where a variety of viewpoints should be allowed to be expressed. So as long as a clear distinction is made between a chapel service (during which any speakers should intelligently and faithfully exalt the One True God) and a convocation (where any variety of ideas could be expressed) I have no problem. But given Trump’s history, or at least his reputation, of bigoted statements, it seems more wisdom could have been exercised about the date when Trump would be invited to speak. A day that is designated to highlight efforts to bring about racial reconciliation does not seem the most sensitive or appropriate. Of course that is just a judgment call. (For anyone interested, my friend Marc Corbett, a Liberty University alumnus, wrote an excellent piece for The Gospel Coalition. Take a moment to listen to Marc’s lament: Why I Will Protest a School I Love.)
Most disturbing to me is Falwell’s recent total redefinition of Christianity in his justification for inviting Trump to speak on MLK Day, and in his subsequent official endorsement of Trump. Again, I believe Falwell has the right to support, and even endorse, whoever he wants. In his formal endorsement Falwell said only that:
“[Trump is] a successful executive and entrepreneur, a wonderful father and a man who I believe can lead our country to greatness again.”
But Falwell’s previous justification and reasoning was this:
“I have seen firsthand that his staff loves him and is loyal to him because of his servant leadership. In my opinion Donald Trump lives a life of loving and helping others as Jesus taught in the great commandment.”
Falwell has since offered an explanation, an Op Ed in the Washington Post. And I concur with much of his reasoning, even if I would not land on the same candidate. Nevertheless, his reasoning and his freedom – both as an American and as a Christian – to endorse Trump does not negate Falwell’s compromise of the gospel, and his misuse of the scripture.
Preaching through Paul’s Letter to the Galatians, I have received quite a bit of feedback – more than I receive during most series I have done. Much to the relief of my thin skin, I have received no criticism (to date). Most of the comments have been appreciative, either for the reminder of things that we need to remember, or for clarity on matters previously not understood. (Either way, this is music to any ministers ears!) The rest are questions – good questions; well-intentioned questions – concerning the role of our obedience. One godly man, a man I respect and enjoy, offered concerns about the possibility of people “hearing” cheap grace, knowing neither I nor our church believes grace is ever cheap.
These interactions have reminded me of what Martyn Lloyd-Jones wrote regarding the possible charge of anti-nomianism:
If your presentation of the Gospel does not expose it to the charge of Anti-nomianism you are probably not putting it correctly.
(NOTE: Anti-nomianism means “against law” or “anti-law. It is a $20 word for someone who sees no use or present value for God’s law or commands in the Christian Life.)
This semi-famous saying is excerpted from Lloyd-Jones commentary on Romans. Lloyd-Jones’ insights are so well expressed that they are worth revisiting even now and again. Below are his thoughts from Romans 3 (which include the above statement):
A very good way of testing any view that you may hold is this one: Is this view humbling to me, glorifying to God? If it is, it is probably right. You won’t go far wrong if whatever view you are holding is glorifying to God, humbling to man. But if your view seems to glorify you and to query God, well (there’s no need to argue or to go into details) it’s wrong. It’s a very good universal rule– that!
My last word of all is, again, a word primarily to preachers – indeed it’s a word to everybody in the sense that if ever you are putting the Gospel to another person, you’ve got a very good test whether you are preaching the Gospel in the right way. What’s that? Well, let me put it like this to you: If your presentation of the Gospel does not expose it to the charge of Antinomianism you are probably not putting it correctly.
What do I mean by that? Just this: The Gospel, you see, comes as this free gift of God – irrespective of what man does.
Now, the moment you say a thing like that, you are liable to provoke somebody to say: “Well, if that is so it doesn’t matter what I do.”
The Apostle takes up that argument more than once in this great epistle. “What then,” he says at the beginning of chapter 6, “shall we do evil – commit sin – that grace might abound?” He’s just been saying: “where sin abounded grace does much more abound.” “Very well,” says someone. “This is a marvelous doctrine, this ‘Go and get drunk, do what you like the grace of God will put you right.’” Anti-nomianism.
Now, this doctrine of the Scriptures – this justification by faith only, this free grace of God in salvation – is always exposed to that charge of Anti-nomianism. Paul was charged with it. He said, “You know, some people say that’s what I’m preaching.” Paul’s preaching was charged with Anti-nomianism…So I say, it is a very good test of preaching.
You see – what is not evangelical preaching is this: It’s the kind of preaching that says to people, “Now, if you live a good life; if you don’t commit certain sins; and if you do good to others; and if you become a church member and attend regularly and are busy and active you will be a fine Christian and you’ll go to Heaven. That’s the opposite of Evangelical preaching – and it isn’t exposed to the charge of Anti-nomianism because…it is telling men to save themselves by their good works…And it’s not the Gospel – because the Gospel always exposes itself to this misunderstanding from the standpoint of Anti-nomianism.
So, let all of us test our preaching, our conversation, our talk to others about the Gospel by that particular test…If you don’t make people say things like that sometimes, if you’re not misunderstood and slanderously reported from the standpoint of Anti-nomianism, it’s because you don’t believe the Gospel truly, and you don’t preach it truly.
In the Cross is salvation, in the Cross is life, in the Cross is protection from our enemies, in the Cross is infusion of heavenly sweetness, in the Cross is strength of mind, in the Cross is joy of spirit, in the Cross is the height of virtue, in the Cross is perfection of sanctity. There is no salvation of the soul, nor hope of everlasting life, but in the Cross.
After learning I would be beginning a new sermon series this week, a study of the book of Galatians, a friend and colleague who is an Army Chaplain asked me if I had read the relatively new book, No Other Gospel. Though I had seen it, I admitted I was not really familiar with it. He suggested it would be a good parallel book to coincide with the series of messages we will be offering at Grace Covenant between now and Easter.
I picked it up, skimmed it this afternoon, and expect to commend it to our congregation – at least to those who want to do a little digging of their own over the next few months. (I’ll read it more thoroughly as well.)
“When God planned the great work of saving sinners, he provided two gifts. He gave his Son and he gave his Spirit. In fact each person of the Trinity was involved in the great work of salvation. The love, grace and wisdom of the Father planned it; the love, grace and humility of the Son purchased it; and the love, grace and power of the Holy Spirit enabled sinners to believe and receive it.
The first great truth in this work of salvation is that God sent his Son to take our nature on him and to suffer for us in it. The second great truth is that God gave his Spirit to bring sinners to faith in Christ and so be saved.”
GRACE & PEACE 