New just this week: this is a fantastic video from SalvationByGrace.org, in which Jim McClarty asks about the common understandings of the most popular verse among modern Christians.

“For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.”

That’s John 3:16. Have you heard it? Do you know it? Did you learn it in Sunday school? And what were you told it means?

I can’t tell you how many preachers I’ve heard say that John 3:16 is “the whole of the Gospel in a single verse.” And so they end up reading the rest of the Bible through the lens of John 3:16, and more importantly through the lens of what they assume John 3:16 must mean.

Well I received an email today, from a fellow asking if I’d be willing to make a short video about John 3:16. Because, he said, whenever he presented the doctrines of grace to a friend or a co-worker or a family member, when he got to the point of saying that God was sovereign in salvation, they would invariably run to John 3:16 and say:

“But John 3:16 says whosoever will, or whosoever believes! So doesn’t that mean that anybody that wants to can simply choose to believe? Isn’t that where free will comes into play? Can’t anyone choose Jesus, believe on Him and then receive everlasting life? Isn’t that what John 3:16 means? I mean, after all, if God so loved the whole world, everybody in the world, everybody that ever lived — if He loved them that much that He would give His only begotten Son, then doesn’t He make His son available to whoever wants to believe? I mean, that’s what John 3:16 says, right?”

No. Not actually. John 3:16 is not in conflict with Reformed theology. In fact, John 3:16 works very nicely in our understanding of God’s absolute sovereignty in salvation. But so, so often that verse is pulled from its context. There is no exegesis applied to the verse, and then people assume its meaning. and once you do that, tradition takes over, and people read John 3:16 through the lens of the tradition that says, Every man has an option, has a will, has a choice, and God loves absolutely everybody and He really wants everybody to be saved; so please, just choose Jesus!

Does God do all things solely for love? Is it wrong to confront a non-Christian with the Law?

Should Christians angrily say others aren’t saying enough about God’s love? Did Christ die for love-as-ultimate-virtue?

And are some who say such things guilty — as all Christians are, to some extent! — of salvaging Scripture in favor of a spiritual System?

That seems the main question , underlying all the others, and the subject of ongoing discussion after last week’s column on Speculative Faith, Refuting universalism slanders of C.S. Lewis, part one.

Hello again, Derek — I will try to give some rebuttals and thoughts below.

Yet first, I must also note [...] that for a guy who talks a lot about God’s love, I don’t see a whole lot of that directed toward Christians who also read and seek understanding from the verses that do, indeed, say that the Lord is holy and just and indeed does all things to glorify Himself. Shouldn’t those who are pushing more of God’s “love” show that as much as talk about it?

Secondly, I shan’t try much to defend Todd Friel. He can be annoying. But so can a lot of Christians in this wild thing we call the Church. In the past several months I’ve had in-depth discussions with professing Christians who

a) lied about C.S. Lewis and Narnia,
b) insisted that “turn the other cheek” means letting a battered wife suffer and only pray for God to make the abuser repent,
c) lied about them Calvinists, saying they believed doctrines of demons, blah blah blah (whether you like TULIP or not, that’s just more slander — and yes this was the same guy who promoted letter a).

And yet all of them just might be saved anyway, if they adhere to the essentials of the Gospel. No one should “joke” otherwise just because we happen to disagree with them personally, or even if they still have active addictions or sins (such as to reactionary, System-based conspiracy theories) that are ultimately the Spirit’s job to rout out.

So let’s move past My Guys versus Your Guys, or what-have-you, and might we also move past the argument-from-outrage? You used that a lot in your response, but it’s ineffective against anyone who hasn’t already been persuaded by better means to believe as you do. I could use argument-from-outrage to “prove” anything: man didn’t land on the Moon, God isn’t real at all, it’s “unloving” for God to send anyone to Hell for any duration with or without some “second chance,” etc.

Instead, therefore, I’ll just keep asking you: have you been reading the Bible in a way that respects its authors and Author? Or have you — most Christians do, and I know I have, so there’s no greater shame in it! — read it to salvage for parts for other stories, or else spiritual Systems?

[...]

[W]hat you believe and or I believe and whether it Sounds Sensible is irrelevant here. The fact is that you haven’t attempted to prove your beliefs with Scripture and have wrongly accused me of elevating one Biblical truth over another or trying to find some Secret Knowledge. And yet your continual rejection of the idea that God to this day maintains righteous wrath against the unrighteous — offering a System supposedly supra Romans — is itself elevating one truth, in a System, above others.

A few other issues: yes, I’ve often heard the whole “you’re like the Pharisees” angle. Please do some checking into Scriptures such as Mark 7 and find the real reason Jesus couldn’t get through to the Pharisees. The bad ones didn’t give one crap about the real God’s honor, but hijacked God’s real Law and even made up their own in place of it. The Pharisees were all Law and no love, and that was their problem is the common view only because of repetition and propaganda, but doesn’t match Scripture.

I shan’t belabor that point here, though, only point you to God’s Law and Jesus’ Love at my nonfiction site if you sincerely wish to be challenged by an opposing view that actually shows that God’s real love is far greater than you’d say.

(Excerpt from a lengthy rebuttal comment on Feb. 8 on Speculative Faith. Read the rest of it.)

Yet another potential reason not to care about the Big Game this year: they banned a potential commercial by a Christian group called LookUp316.com. Of course, Fox officials also (again) refused to allow an adultery-endorsing website to air their ad, so I suppose if I had to choose, I’d prefer rejection of both rather than allowing each one.

Here’s the commercial, which now will only air on the internet and become popularized by curious/critical bloggers, such as myself. Actually, there’s nothing to criticize here. The ad is very straightforward. Meant to get you to think, and check out the website — nothing more.

And it doesn’t need to do anything more. If God can inspire entire books of the Bible, with the only goal of fitting into the greater story and pointing ahead to Christ, without mentioning Him or the Gospel explicitly, one can’t fault a 30-second spot for not giving the entire Roman Road.

So I naturally hoped that more information would be available at LookUp316.com, especially the simple explanation for what John 3:16 means.

And it’s mostly good. No heresy here; no false teaching. I wasn’t hoping to find any. For such an opportunity as this — with or without actual Super-Bowl-commercial airtime — I yearn for Christians to gather together enough resources, creativity and gumption and preach the Gospel in new venues. And what is there on this group’s page is enough Gospel to get one saved.

Still I wonder: we’re already telling people about sin that keeps us from God — so why not also say first that all sinners have offended, first and foremost, God Himself, and secondly others?

The root of our troubles is that each of us tends to do what we want to rather than what we ought to.  This is true for everyone, the best and the worst of us.  It is a kind of “law” rooted in human nature.  Every human being at some point “drops the ball” and causes trouble for others.

Sin absolutely is in our nature, and it causes trouble for others. Yet the far worse problem is that we have “together […] become worthless” and fallen “short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:12, 23). That’s a far more serious problem than simply dropping the ball ¹. And LookUp316.com does give that crucial Gospel truth later:

Worse still, we have all wronged God.

Amen! And that’s more than many Christians would say. I just wonder, perhaps, if that should have gone first — if a Gospel presentation must start with God’s majesty, holiness and love, and then contrast what we desire: to use God for other ends, hating Him, and also hurting others.

But regardless, someone could still get saved from the Gospel at LookUp316.com. Thank God they’re out there — even if not airing during the actual Super Bowl / Big Game.

I just hope that not all Christians will try to be the “good cop” and avoid the tougher parts of the Gospel, for at least three reasons:

• Reason 1: I’m sure gracious-but-firm street preacher types can grow tired of always playing bad cop. They could use some backup from the more-popular kinds of Christians, in the public eye. And speaking for myself: I could use this, too.
• Reason 2: It often doesn’t work anyway. Not even Joel Osteen, as hard as he tried on the Piers Morgan (Larry King 2.0) program, could avoid hatred when, despite all his smiles and backpedaling, he dared to say Scripture teaches against homosexuality.
• Reason 3: Jesus Himself was both good cop and bad cop. He talked about the Kingdom of Heaven and the glory of His Father. He also talked about tougher topics such as Hell and the fact that sin is primarily an offense against God’s holy standards.

And yet two facts relating to all this: some Christians repent mainly for their sins against others and are perfectly saved and in the faith — and only later grow to learn the magnitude of their rebellion against God, and thus rejoice even more and thank Him for their salvation.

And yet other professing Christians, once they find out the God-is-holy part, want nothing to do with Him. That’s not my God, they say, wanting only a God Who saves from hurt from Out There and not evil from inside their hearts. And off they go, seeking that elusive God Who is somehow just but doesn’t care as much about their heart-generated sin, and aren’t in the faith.

So is it wrong to leave out the tougher parts of the Gospel? Or for those Christian evangelists who know the tough parts and understand them, and can articulate them winsomely to nonbelievers — are they required to tell the tougher truths of the Gospel the first time around?

This sixth of seven issues inhabiting the otherwise Biblical “young restless Reformed” movement is more vague than the others. I don’t know what to call it besides a Persecution Complex.

And I don’t mean feeling you are persecuted when you are not — for example, saying a non-Christian is rejecting you because of your faith, when really he only thinks you’re a jerk. Instead I mean feeling you should be persecuted or have a harder time as a Christian, when you aren’t.

6. Desiring persecution on purpose (or feeling guilty for not having it).

Last time I had specific examples to illustrate this notion; this time I only have fragments of quotes in my head. So let me just smash them together into a single synthetic paragraph:

The American church is in trouble. We’ve been all about entertaining ourselves, and coming up with programs that cater to our felt-needs, that we’ve missed out on the Gospel. But I want to challenge you that it’s time to step out of your comfort zone. While we’re sitting inside our air-conditioned buildings, eating three meals every day, people in other nations are dying from lack of basic necessities. And while our brothers and sisters in other countries are suffering for their faith, even tortured, the worst thing that could happen to Christians in America is having someone laugh at us for wearing a WWJD bracelet! Now, are you really sold out for Jesus? Are you so devoted to Him and to your faith that you’d stand in the street, or go to a foreign land, and die for your Savior?

Do elements of that sound familiar? I know I’ve heard them, either echoing in my own mind or from pieces of rhetoric found throughout the YRR blogs-and-books world. And there’s so much there to agree with. The American church is in trouble (when has it not been?). Evangelicalism does suffer from too much amusing-ourselves-to-death. And many Christians are too relaxed with their own Americanized Christianity, and persecution, if it did come here, would weed out many from professing faith who, it would turn out, were never truly among us anyway.

Yet can we prove those points, and enhance the Gospel message, without also connoting guilt?

Here’s what notions Christians may logically, but not Biblically, deduce from the above material:

1. Christians should always or often expect persecution.
2. Some more-zealous types, again with much Biblical basis and right motives, may even imply or say: If you’re not being persecuted, you must not be doing it right.
3. And by implication, a third notion accompanies those two: If you’re being persecuted, the Bible shows only one right response: face it directly and suffer.

But Christ does not call all Christians, at all times, to suffer in only one way for the sake of His Name. All the cautions in Scripture about persecution never imply the same kinds of suffering happen to every believer, 24/7. If that were true, Paul would not need to remind some believers to “aspire to live quietly, and to mind your own affairs, and to work with your hands, as we instructed you” (1 Thessalonians 4:11). Others wouldn’t need the reminders to respect their employers or love their families (Colossians 3, Ephesians 5). And we wouldn’t expect at least some downtime from persecution to set up church policy (1 Timothy 3) or work out Godly church discipline for those who aren’t behaving as believers should (1 Corinthians 5).

Furthermore, Scripture contains not only one, but at least three different reactions Christians have in response to even overt religious persecution. They’re best shown in the book of Acts. When Christians came under persecution, did they only ever face it head-on? Not at all.

1. Christians can flee persecution and minister elsewhere.

And Saul approved of [Stephen’s] execution.

And there arose on that day a great persecution against the church in Jerusalem, and they were all scattered throughout the regions of Judea and Samaria, except the apostles. Devout men buried Stephen and made great lamentation over him. But Saul was ravaging the church, and entering house after house, he dragged off men and women and committed them to prison.

Now those who were scattered went about preaching the word.

Acts 8: 1-4

Different believers, through circumstances not mentioned here, had different fates thanks to the persecution wrought by Saul and others. Some may have been unwilling or unable to leave Jerusalem, because of family or job restraints. The text singles out the apostles, for example, but doesn’t say why they stayed. Others were “scattered” all over the place, for reasons the text doesn’t give — but it certainly sounds like they were hoping to avoid being captured. And neither the author nor his inspiring Spirit condemns them for this. Instead, God used them.

Ever heard a line like this? The early Church had gotten too lazy by then. That’s why God sent the persecution, to drive them out of their comfort zone in Jerusalem and make them take the Gospel to the nations like He’d commanded them to do.

But the author of Acts never draws this conclusion. Also, at least twice the apostles had already been arrested for preaching, and been warned not to continue (Acts 3 – 5). So Jerusalem was hardly a spiritual comfort zone for believers. Regardless, though, we’re faced with the truth that at least in this case, God used these Christians’ attempts to evade persecution to spread the Gospel to the nations. This gives the lie to implications that you should always face persecution.

2. Christians can complain to the governing authorities.

But when it was day, the magistrates sent the police, saying, “Let those men go.” And the jailer reported these words to Paul, saying, “The magistrates have sent to let you go. Therefore come out now and go in peace.” But Paul said to them, “They have beaten us publicly, uncondemned, men who are Roman citizens, and have thrown us into prison; and do they now throw us out secretly? No! Let them come themselves and take us out.” The police reported these words to the magistrates, and they were afraid when they heard that they were Roman citizens. So they came and apologized to them. And they took them out and asked them to leave the city.

Acts 16: 35-39

But when they had stretched him out for the whips, Paul said to the centurion who was standing by, “Is it lawful for you to flog a man who is a Roman citizen and uncondemned?” When the centurion heard this, he went to the tribune and said to him, “What are you about to do? For this man is a Roman citizen.” […] So those who were about to examine him withdrew from him immediately, and the tribune also was afraid, for he realized that Paul was a Roman citizen and that he had bound him.

Acts 22: 25-26, 29

Paul used his Roman-citizenship card, at least twice. The first time he was very snarky about this — almost like an American Christian who could get a bit too gleeful slamming the ACLU. The second time you can almost imagine him thinking, I’ve already been beaten enough and illegally so, and I’m sick of it, and it’s time for it to stop. Scripture doesn’t draw any conclusions one way or the other about his motives. Yet Acts’ author does not condemn Paul’s choice, or any other believer’s choice to attempt halting persecution by claiming legitimate rights.

One might also point out that in the latter case, the soldiers still didn’t set Paul free. But they did stop beating him, and were thus obeying the civil authority as Scripture teaches (Romans 13). That same standard applies to Christians today, to support the civil government that God has set up, encouraging it to be “not a terror to good conduct, but to bad” (Romans 13:3).

This could entail being persecuted under a bad government. But it could also entail supporting good government by speaking up when someone violates the law — as the U.S. government or any court or person does when it acts contrary to its founding document, the Constitution.

Paul also had a higher purpose to being captured: he wanted to take the Gospel to Rome. Even then, other believers tried to dissuade him from going, and aren’t condemned (Acts 21: 1-16).

Someone I know recently said about suffering victims that they must always “suffer in silence,” because of Jesus’ actions before governing authorities and the “turn the other cheek” principle. Yet the same Bible that outlines this truth shows us that a) Jesus also had a higher purpose, to die for the sins of His people, and at many other times opposed sinful authorities; b) the “turn the other cheek” reaction does not apply to illegal persecutions, but to personal blows to pride.

3. Christians can suffer under persecution, rejoicing that they’re ‘counted worthy.’

[… W]hen [the Jerusalem religious leaders] had called in the apostles, they beat them and charged them not to speak in the name of Jesus, and let them go. Then they left the presence of the council, rejoicing that they were counted worthy to suffer dishonor for the name [of Jesus].

Acts 5: 40-41

Here’s the part we all must face: despite options to evade persecution, or stand up for our God-given rights both as humans and as beneficiaries of our nation’s good laws, God may have “counted [us] worthy to suffer dishonor” for His Name. All Christians should pray that if that time comes, they will indeed pass through the test and glorify God with their testimony.

But that’s a far cry from what may be a logical deduction that’s internally self-consistent, but not consistent with all of Scripture, that if persecution is good, let’s go find it, or, if you’re not being persecuted, you must be one of those comfort-zone Christians.

That conclusion just doesn’t follow from Scripture. It relies on selective reading of believers’ actions described in narratives, and isn’t based on any direct prescription in the epistles.

Why do some Christians, Reformed and otherwise, have this belief? Maybe it’s because selective reading of Scripture affects us all, coupled with Ministry Myopia that says my ministry Thing must be your ministry Thing just as much. Yet such Christians may need to consider that:

1. God may test His people with prosperity, not persecution.
2. We shouldn’t overcorrect for the “prosperity gospel” nonsense with the exact opposite, as if we feel we must teach people to fear God’s blessing of possessions or just-plain rest from active service that results in persecution or not.
3. Believers suffering persecution in China may be growing in many ways, but have many drawbacks as well. Some bad theology gets around a lot over there, I’ve heard! Yet believers in countries such as the U.S., which is relatively free of religious persecution, have the advantage of growing in other ways — and helping their brothers and sisters in China or elsewhere from the blessing of a safer position.
4. If we have in the backs of our minds the notion that my real ministry will begin when God brings persecution, we may wait for that far-in-the-future imaginary moment to get moving instead of working with what we have, even in our “comfort zone” lifestyles.
5. Christians should not be afraid of persecution or pleasure God sends our way — which is according to His timing, and not ours.

That last is one of the best reasons, and I can’t cite it here without presenting the quote and source from one of the better blogs around the YRR online universe. (And my YRR friends, you know this: if it’s on the Gospel Coalition, you know it’s Gospel truth!)

Lord, save us from making locale the measure of Christian commitment. God gifts us, nurtures us, and calls us to different places and different kinds of ministry. All matter to God because all people matter to God.

Be willing to suffer, but don’t feel guilty for pleasure. Be strategic, but don’t think our strategies are always God’s strategies. Be willing to do anything, go anywhere, and minister to anyone. It matters more who you are than where you are. City, suburb, or country, if we are growing in godliness we will not be unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ (2 Peter 1:8).

“They Need Good Pastors and Good Churches Everywhere,” Kevin DeYoung, March 9, 2010, on GospelCoalition.org

First, an admission: I probably qualify as a young Reformed, or as author Collin Hansen puts it, “young, restless and reformed.” And yet I’m slowly also becoming one of those pundits who wonder what, in all this wondrous excitement over God’s sovereignty, YRRers might be missing.

For weeks I’ve considered assembling a quick-hits, basic list of suggested problem areas. Now, just today, Justin Taylor linking to a 2008 John Piper video brought this to mind.

Piper’s emphasis: what could cause the young-adult Christian resurgence to break open and “dribble away into nothingness” is a failure to connect God’s majesty to everyday choices. “The disconnect between the majesty of God and the movies you watch, just to choose an example. … Between the majesty of Christ and the carelessly attended, default weekend movie — no questions asked, it’s just the thing to do.” ¹

Taylor prefaces the video:

As you watch it, I’d encourage you to avoid judgmentalism (if the things he mentions don’t apply to you) or defensiveness (if the particular examples are something you seek to do in moderation and any critique feels like fundamentalism). Rather, I’d encourage humble self-examination, and to see if the Lord might be using this older, wise, father-brother in the faith to exhort us and encourage us in a new direction.

Separated from the context of Piper’s ministry, and moreover Scripture itself, any critique of immodest dress, going to bad movies or drinking too much beer will sound “fundamentalist.” And indeed, I think that is included in one of the top risks to “young, restless and Reformed”: basing what we believe on being anti-this or that, rather than being pro-God and His truth.

But Piper hits on a specific risk I hadn’t thought of — though it’s not the worst I worry about:

1. Not connecting God’s sovereignty to everyday discernment.

Another admission: it’s easy for me to feel self-righteous when Piper references “the carelessly attended, default weekend movie.” So far, no movie I’ve attended is from carelessness. But I have a reason: I’m a story nerd. Almost any film I have seen (and now, my wife and I have seen) in theaters has been after anything but careless planning. Inception: anticipated for weeks in advance. Toy Story 3: anticipated for months. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part 1: anticipated for years. The Voyage of the Dawn Treader: anticipated for decades.

It’s rare that we just show up at a theater, pick a movie from the marquee, and go inside and get surprised. To this day people who say “we went to the movies” cause me no little amount of irritation. That’s like saying “we went to the foods”! Why would you do that? No, you choose your foods, taking care not to eat junk that could be poison or that at least you don’t even like!

We went to The Movie — that is, the anticipated-in-advance blockbuster can’t-miss-it incredible story spectacle of the year, that we have researched to make sure there’s no crap, or at least to know which parts to avoid — now that is much better to say. And that’s what I do. Ha, safe!

Or not. Because, you see, my home-viewing preferences just rose up and called me a hypocrite.

Did I really need to see Prince of Persia while eating lunch from McDonald’s that Wednesday afternoon? Not really. It may not be a sin, but did that waste of time honor God in my life?

What about my viewing the entire Avatar: The Last Airbender series over the past few months? Oddly enough, that’s a little different. While the cartoons’ mystical elements don’t mesh with Biblical truth, a surprisingly powerful and emotional theme of sin, repentance and forgiveness quickly emerged and, to me, not only honored God the ultimate Reconciler, but makes me tear up even now to imagine the depth of sin for which He forgave me — and similar forgiveness I should give others. Also the writers’ storytelling genius has helped in my own writing.²

One can’t connect God’s sovereignty to everyday discernment by simply trying to avoid the Bad Stuff. Instead a Christian’s basis is mostly proactive. Yes, it’s good to ask whether God would be displeased by a particular movie, TV show, story or song. But isn’t it better to ask whether God would be pleased? Paul didn’t encourage us to avoid the bad stuff nearly as much as he said Christians should focus on the Gospel, and with that in mind, focus on truth and beauty.

Yet frequent opposing notions of discernment, in theology or anything else, lead to risk no. 2:

2. Basing most beliefs upon reactions.

A common theme at YeHaveHeard and my personal rhetoric has been this: Christians should not base what they believe about God on what the Bad Guys have done. That could devalue God into merely the positive alternative to Bad Stuff, or just as a means to beat the Bad Stuff.

Rather, our emphasis should be on loving and seeking God for His own sake. Getting rid of the bad stuff — our own evil hearts before we’re saved, and our sin-shrapnel after — is vital, but ultimately tangential. After all, we’ll spend less than 120 years doing that. For eternity we’ll only have God Himself and His new created-world. No sin to fight. No Bad Guys to debate against.

No matter what one’s theological persuasion, “Calvinist,” “Arminian,” or whatever, the constant temptation is there to reduce truths about God, or even zeal and love for Him, into a means for other ends: beating the bad guys.

I see this a lot among theological liberals, or “emergents.” Many of them seem to have gone back over their more-orthodox Christian backgrounds, found the legalism (real or perceived) and then based what they believe now on a reaction against that. Now their mode of existence is fighting against Injustice (again, real or perceived) and telling other Christians how they’ve got it wrong in the past. I want to ask them: what would you do if Christ returned tomorrow, eliminated all injustice, and ushered in the New Earth? Are you sure you wouldn’t be bored?

But many “new Calvinists” share similar attitudes. Struck anew with Biblical evidence for God’s sovereignty in salvation, they see the difference between this and others’ previous failures. Some obviously overshoot, calling for the abolishment of altar calls, Billy Graham movies and the Left Behind series. Others are more subtle and don’t realize it. They might be angry against the Church for its (real or perceived) failures, and miss what previous Christians did get right.

That same question applies to us all, especially those who — like myself, I hope! — love deep doctrines, correcting errors and helping others: What would I do if Christ returned tomorrow, eliminated all wrong beliefs, and ushered in the New Earth? Am I sure I wouldn’t be bored?

If my answer is that such an existence sounds boring — “Ugh, no one to fight” — then my priorities are definitely out of order. I’ve confused the means for the end, and it’s time to realign. Yes, we destroy arguments that raise themselves up against God’s truth (2 Cor. 10:5), and preach the Gospel despite false beliefs (2 Tim. 4: 1-5), whether from secularists or wishy-washy Christians. But the conflict isn’t the end of the story. Christ Himself is that end.

Friday: Young-restless-Reformeds may forget that in Christ they are no longer totally depraved — thus guilt should lead first to gratitude in Christ, not just desires to do better. Also, might some young Reformed Christians forget the coming New Earth, which will transform more than just human souls?

(Continued from part 1.)

Theologian Wayne Grudem, author of Systematic Theology and two condensed versions, and most recently Politics According to the Bible, debunks in the latter’s chapter 1 this belief:

Why should Christians do politics? What we really need is persecution.

Or: Christians’ only calling is to preach the Gospel and prepare for persecution.

Or perhaps: If we get too much into politics, we’ll inevitably neglect the Gospel.

In reply to that last, I must say that I’ve come to see how even Reformed Christians, who have an amazing heritage of figuring out where sin comes from (the human heart) sometimes show a strange propensity toward shifting evil’s causes toward a Thing, such as politics. And reacting against that, they may (this doesn’t apply to everyone) subtly begin to think that getting rid of the Thing, such as downplaying or ignoring certain vocations, is the way to fix our problem.

Scripture would seem to disagree strongly. Government is God’s servant (Romans 13) and Christians have many different gifts and callings, all driven by the Gospel, that help build the Church (1 Corinthians 8). If Christians in the past have opted to idolize a calling, such as politics or social work, instead of the Gospel, is that the Thing’s fault? No! It’s the Christian’s fault.

Preach the Gospel, not as a replacement for good Things, but as the way to transform them.

That was the warm-up act (and I’ll likely have more thoughts on this soon). Now for Grudem.

7. Doesn’t the Bible say that persecution is coming?

Sometimes people ask me, “Why should we try to improve governments when the Bible tells us that persecution is coming in the end times before Christ returns? Doesn’t that mean that we should expect governments to become more and more anti-Christian?” (They have in mind passages like Matt. 24:9–12, 21–22; 2 Tim. 3:1–5.)

The answer is that we cannot know when Christ will return or when the events preceding his coming will occur (see Matt. 24:36; 25:13). What we do know is that while we have opportunity, God tells us not to give up but to go on preaching “the whole counsel of God” (Acts 20:27) and doing “good works” (Eph. 2:10) and loving our neighbors as ourselves (Matt. 22:39). That means we should go on trying to influence governments for good as long as we are able to do so.

If all the Christians who influenced governments for good in previous centuries had just given up and said, “Persecution is coming and governments will become more evil, so there is nothing we can do,” then none of those good changes in laws would have come about. There would still be human sacrifice and burning of widows alive and slavery and racial discrimination protected by law. That mentality would have been a defeatist, fatalistic attitude, and it would have led Christians to disobey many of God’s commands for how we are to live our lives during this present age. Instead of giving in to such a hopeless attitude, courageous Christians in previous generations sought to do good for others and for governments, and God often blessed their efforts.

8. But won’t political involvement distract us from the main task of preaching the Gospel?

At this point someone may object that while political involvement may have some benefits and may do some good, it can so easily distract us, turn unbelievers away from the church, and cause us to neglect the main task of pointing people toward personal trust in Christ. John MacArthur writes, “When the church takes a stance that emphasizes political activism and social moralizing, it always diverts energy and resources away from evangelization.” [MacArthur, Why Government Can’t Save You, 14.]

Yet the proper question is not, “Does political influence take resources away from evangelism?” but, “Is political influence something God has called us to do?” If God has called some of us to some political influence, then those resources would not be blessed if we diverted them to evangelism—or to the choir, or to teaching Sunday School to children, or to any other use.

In this matter, as in everything else the church does, it would be healthy for Christians to realize that God may call individual Christians to different emphases in their lives. This is because God has placed in the church “varieties of gifts” (1 Cor. 12:4) and the church is an entity that has “many members” but is still “one body” (v. 12).

Therefore God might call someone to devote almost all of his or her time to the choir, someone else to youth work, someone else to evangelism, someone else to preparing refreshments to welcome visitors, and someone else to work with lighting and sound systems. “But if Jim places all his attention on the sound system, won’t that distract the church from the main task of preaching the Gospel?” No, not at all. That is not what God has called Jim to emphasize (though he will certainly share the Gospel with others as he has opportunity). Jim’s exclusive focus on the church’s sound system means he is just being a faithful steward in the responsibility God has given him.

In the same way, I think it is entirely possible that God called Billy Graham to emphasize evangelism and say nothing about politics and also called James Dobson to emphasize a radio ministry to families and to influencing the political world for good. Aren’t there enough Christians in the world for us to focus on more than one task? And does God not call us to thousands of different emphases, all in obedience to him?

But the whole ministry of the church will include both emphases. And the teaching ministry from the pulpit should do nothing less than proclaim “the whole counsel of God” (Acts 20:27). It should teach, over the course of time, on all areas of life and all areas of Bible knowledge. That certainly must include, to some extent, what the Bible says about the purposes of civil government and how that teaching should apply to our situations today.

This means that in a healthy church we will find that some people emphasize influencing the government and politics, others emphasize influencing the business world, others emphasize influencing the educational system, others entertainment and the media, others marriage and the family, and so forth. When that happens, it seems to me that we should encourage, not discourage, one another. We should adopt the attitude toward each other that Paul encouraged in the church at Rome:

Why do you pass judgment on your brother? Or you, why do you despise your brother? For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God. . . . So then each of us will give an account of himself to God. Therefore let us not pass judgment on one another any longer, but rather decide never to put a stumbling block or hindrance in the way of a brother (Rom. 14:10–13).

For several different reasons, then, I think the view that says the church should just “do evangelism, not politics” is incorrect.

Christians who say we should do evangelism, not politics, may miss out on Biblical ways God uses to promote the Gospel and allow His grace to influence our nations, argues Wayne Grudem in Politics According to the Bible.

You can read his whole first chapter here (PDF download), courtesy of Justin Taylor.

First Grudem offers Biblically based and -inferred thoughts on “Five Wrong Views about Christians and Government,” some of which I relisted and quoted here.

Perhaps the fourth view he addresses is more commonly occurring to solid, well-meaning and Gospel-driven Christians, who want to avoid the Church’s un-Biblical overemphasis on politics in the past. As a result, they may ignore what the Bible does say about influencing world leaders for good, and God’s ministry through “secular” governments as Paul reminds us in Romans 13.

In chapter 1, Grudem busts several Christian myths about politics — again, most of them very understandable, especially when compared with opposite excesses — reminding us:

1. [This view has] Too narrow an understanding of “the Gospel” and the kingdom of God.

“The Gospel” in the New Testament is not just “trust Jesus and be forgiven of your sins and grow in holiness and go to heaven” (though that is certainly true, and that is the heart of the Gospel and its foundational message). No, the Gospel is God’s good news about all of life!

2. The “whole Gospel” includes a transformation of society.

Of course we must proclaim forgiveness of sins through faith in Christ alone. Of course this is the only way that people’s hearts will be truly transformed.

But forgiveness of sins is not the only message of the Gospel. That is because Jesus is looking for transformed lives and through them a transformed world.

3. Which parts of the Bible should the church not preach about?

“What parts of the Bible have you decided not to preach about because you are ‘just going to preach the Gospel’?” Have you decided that you won’t preach on Romans 13:1–7? Or that you won’t preach on 1 Peter 2:13–14? What about Genesis 9:5–6?

4. God leaves Christians here on earth both to do evangelism and to do good for others.

When people trust in Christ as their Savior and have their sins forgiven, why does God not snatch them up to heaven immediately? Why does he leave them here on earth? Is it only so that they would preach the Gospel to others? Well then, what are those people supposed to do after they trust in Christ as Savior? Is their only purpose on earth to preach the Gospel to others, or does Jesus want us to do some other things, such as loving our neighbors as ourselves (see Matt. 22:39)? ¹

5. God established both the church and the government to restrain evil.

I agree that one significant way that God restrains evil in the world is through changing people’s hearts when they trust in Christ as their Savior (see 2 Cor. 5:17). But we should not turn this one way into the only way that God restrains evil in this age. God also uses civil government to restrain evil, and there is much evil that can only be restrained by the power of civil government, for there will always be many who do not trust in Christ as their Savior and many who do not fully obey him.

6. Christians have influenced governments positively throughout history.

I cannot agree with John MacArthur when he says, “God does not call the church to influence the culture by promoting legislation and court rulings that advance a scriptural point of view.” [MacArthur, Why Government Can’t Save You, 130.] When I look over that list of changes in governments and laws that Christians incited, I think God did call the church and thousands of Christians within the church to work to bring about these momentous improvements in human society throughout the world. Or should we say that Christians who brought about these changes were not doing so out of obedience to God? That these changes made no difference to God? This cannot be true.

(Tomorrow: Grudem provides Biblical, provocative responses to objections such as, “What the church really needs is some persecution, and it’s wrong or useless to try to improve our governments and avoid that.”)

By Monte E. Wilson ¹

(Continued from part 1, part 2, part 3, part 4, part 5 and part 6.)

Salt, light, leaven

Given our proclivity to define Christianity in terms of the stupendous and cataclysmic—miraculous deliverances, Damascus Road conversions, Great Awakenings—we are uncomfortable with metaphors that speak of imperceptible growth and gradual advance. However, these are the metaphors given to us.

Green Beret Christians often prefer the quick fix to painful surgery and long-term recovery. They hate the notion of patient plodding. In fact, given their addiction to the intense feelings produced within the renewal movement, they refuse to accept any so-called wisdom that plans in terms of organic, seasonal growth. The only metaphors they find acceptable are military ones. But even with this metaphor, we must remember that not everyone is called to be in the Special Forces.

God has called all of us to be salt, light and leaven.

To be salty is to have godly character, to be a faithful person. Salty people display covenantal love and loyalty to God and to others. By letting our light shine we display His grace by our good works so that the world will see and glorify the Father. As leaven, we seek to obey God in every area of life. We. are good seed planted in the soil of our neighborhoods, cities and nation.

Neither my specific calling and gifting, nor yours, are the standard for all Christians to aspire. Even if some are Green Berets, they make up only a very small portion of God’s Army. Let us all run the course set before us and try not to run someone else’s race or require that everyone compete on our track.

You may be a rogue Green Beret if …

You are obsessed with The Cause more than with Christ.

You judge churches and fellow believers by the standard of your Cause.

You are driven rather than inspired.

You rarely leave the battlefield, and, when you do, you never take off your uniform.

You define yourself solely in terms of your Cause.

Your house is a boot camp rather than a home.

You go through friendships like a nicotine fiend goes through a pack of cigarettes.

You define “enemy” as all who disagree with you.

You judge other Christians by the intensity of their personalities rather than by the godliness of their character.

You have more commandments than God does.

You feel it your mission in life to rid the church of tares.

You believe that Sabbaths are for wimps.

You believe that those who indulge in hobbies are failing to “redeem the time.”

Your motto is, “It all depends on me.”

You believe that stoicism is a godly attribute.

You always describe the faith in terms of military metaphors and similes.

You cannot laugh at yourself.

You cannot sit alone quietly in a room and do nothing.

You secretly admire the Inquisition’s treatment of “heretics.”

You think General Patton would have made a great pastor.

Author

Dr. Monte E. Wilson is director of Global Impact, a ministry that teaches developing nations how to apply biblical truth to every area of life. He is also editor of Classical Christianity, a teaching publication designed to introduce ecumenical orthodoxy to the evangelical church. Dr. Wilson can be reached at Classical Christianity, P.O. Box 22, Alpharetta, Georgia 30009. He can be reached by E-mail at: MonteThird@aol.com. He has previously contributed to Reformation & Revival Journal.

By Monte E. Wilson ^{1 2}

(Continued from part 1, part 2, part 3, part 4 and part 5.)

Repelled or attracted?

One day at St. Petersburg Beach, Florida, I was sharing the gospel with a young man. He had struck up a conversation about something he had seen on television, and the conversation had turned to spiritual matters. In the twinkling of an eye a bus filled with overzealous young people pulled up and disgorged the occupants. Before you could say, Just-as-I-am-without-one-plea, they had passed out gospel tracts to about a hundred shocked people and were back on the bus pulling out of the parking lot. As they drove off into the sunset, they hung out the windows yelling at everyone, “Jesus is Lord!”

What made those kids (and us) think that unbelievers will be attracted to the gospel by strange behavior? Why did we think that someone who is biblically illiterate will respond positively to the question, “Have you been washed in the blood of the Lamb?” Do we actually think someone will be motivated to seek salvation because he read a sign taped on the side of a car that reads “John 3:16”? Do people run to their prayer closets when they read a bumper sticker that says “God Is My Provider” on the back of a rusted out 1988 Buick?

To help us ascertain our ideas of true “spirituality,” consider two ministers. One man fasts quite often; in fact, he borders on being an ascetic. He preaches to everyone he knows, and is constantly challenging them to repent of , their sins or to expect hell. He rarely passes up an opportunity to expose the immorality of the state’s political leaders, and he never passes up the chance to expose the hypocrisy of church leaders. He is a “Type A” sort of guy who lives an in-your-face religion. His testimony is one of a “prophet” who burns with holiness.

The other man frequents parties and loves socializing with unbelievers. At these parties he frequently refrains from confronting a single soul with the message of the gospel. Other than one protracted fast in the beginning of his ministry, he seldom practices that spiritual discipline. He doesn’t preach often and when he does talk of spiritual matters he tells stories about everyday life. Unlike the first minister, his testimony is a bit muddy. There are questions about the propriety of his having women travel with his ministry team, and the word is that he may like wine a bit too much.

Question: Given our ideas of spirituality, which of these men is more spiritual? Is it John the Baptist or Jesus? Why is that we believe John the Baptist’s lifestyle is the one God expects of us all? Both were obeying God, both fulfilled their calling.

In the early days of the church, when one could be imprisoned and executed for confessing Christ alone as Lord, how did the Christian community “let their light shine”? Did they engage in door-to-door evangelism? Did they hold open-air crusades? How did the average Christian become “salt and light”? Did you know that their church meetings were closed, private affairs?

How did Christians in the first century influence their communities? When the Romans threw their unwanted newborn babies under the bridges, leaving the infants to be carried away by wild dogs, the Christians waited in the shadows, took the children home and raised them as their own. This testimony, over a period of time, won the hearts of many.

What else did they do? They lived peaceable and self-governed lives. When conflicts arose that could not be resolved, the aggrieved parties went to the elders, the church court (1 Cor.). These courts were renown for providing justice. You can imagine how attractive this would be to a society that was utterly corrupt. Gradually, many of the Romans began appealing to these courts for adjudication of their conflicts.

What did these people do to disciple their nation for Christ? They acted justly, they loved mercy and they walked humbly before God (Micah 6:8). They lived their day-to-day lives as Christians. They married, had children, went about fulfilling their vocations, went to church and watched for opportunities to do good to others. No big marches, no boycotts of grocery stores who sold meat to be offered to idols, no Christian entertainment at the Colosseum. Political offices were not an option.

I am not suggesting that organized evangelism is wrong. I am not saying that a John-the-Baptist style of confrontational or sacrificial living is wrong. I am saying that not everyone is called or gifted for such things. I am also saying that for the vast majority of Christians, what God expects of us is to live our normal lives as Christians.

(Tomorrow: Wilson’s conclusion, and “You may be a rogue Green Beret if …” checklist.)

By Monte E. Wilson ¹

(Continued from part 1, part 2 and part 3.)

There is therefore … condemnation

What happens when a local church is captured by the notion that all of its members are to live like David Livingstone? Is it enough that this church faithfully partakes of the Lord’s Supper, baptizes, sits under the Word of God every Sunday, visits the sick and shut in, leavening the area where God placed it? No, it is not. Every member must be like Livingstone, or Blessit, or Graham, or Müller.

We not only evaluate our churches by the inapplicable standard of one man’s calling, but we also evaluate them by the standard of the “renewal movement.” We started out in youth rallies, moved to charismatic conferences, and then on to seminars about reforming the church and nation. We are Movement oriented.

Renewal movements are exciting, fresh, intense. But this is not the normal Christian life. So when my particular church ceases being “on the cutting edge” of whatever it is God-is-doing-in-the-earth, I take off looking for the next “wave,” the next movement, the next spiritual rush. I want to ride the waves, not build the church.

I believe that a vast majority of evangelicals are addicted to the psychological highs which come with the new renewal movement: the new churches it produces, the new paradigm, the new practices, etc. There is absolutely no commitment to the church as the church because it is the church. No. We see our local church as a movement Which has ceased moving us—so it is time to move on.

Green Beret Christians evaluate themselves and their churches by the standard of a renewal movement or revival. If they are not experiencing the conscious presence of God, something is wrong with them or the church: I am in sin, they are in sin, someone is in sin! If there are not times of intense focus upon religious things, they are “being distracted by the world.” If they are not learning new music every Sunday, “God has departed.” If souls are not being converted at a good pace, “We have no heart for the lost.” What do they do? They go start another franchise of The Church of What’s Happenin’ Now, or The Church Which Is Doing It Right.

What happens to the normal Christian when living a normal life as a Christian is thought to be far less than what God requires? They have only two options. They can (a) fake it, secretly living with the condemnation of their commonness, or (b) leave the church altogether. Of course, there are a few brave, mature souls who refuse to bow to the extra-scriptural demands of the elite and patiently wait for us all to run out of steam.

Given this mindset, are we surprised to learn of the havoc we have brought into the church? Can we see that when we demanded a church of pure spirituality that we embarked on a road inevitably leading to schismatic behavior? When we withdrew our loyalty from churches because they were filled with tares, were we not requiring more than God Himself requires this side of eternity? What would happen if we judged our own souls with the same perfectionistic standard we hung like the Sword of Damodes over our local churches?

Can we see the damage caused by our pride and ignorance? Meat-eaters shunning milk-drinkers; the spiritual elite leaving the “carnal” church to start their own “First Church of the Green Berets” —a church where one’s spirituality (to place the best possible light on it) is judged by the standard of one particular calling and gifting rather than his saltiness in day-to-day living. Will there be growth in grace in this sort of atmosphere?

(Tomorrow: Did Biblical apostles teach only “Green Beret” Christianity?)