YeHaveHeard has been branching out.

Late last month my feature column Bill Gothard and Patriarchy: Re-routed Feminism? appeared on Quivering Daughters. That prompted much discussion about Christian homeschooling/ “character first” teacher Bill Gothard’s public pronouncement that Jesus’ the-greatest-among-you-must-be-the-servant-of-all statement means “that makes the woman the greatest of all because she has served every single person in the world by being in her womb.”

An excerpt, before getting to a few responses to critics (most of them from anonymous):

Perhaps [Gothard] said more, which isn’t shown, about Christ being the greatest Servant, Whom both men and women honor in the ways they serve one another. But if not, he rejected a prime opportunity to point to the Savior his organization claims to follow. Instead he pointed to humans, and to women in particular as in effect the world’s secret rulers — something Christ never meant whenever He taught on true servanthood.

Three passages in Scripture contain Jesus’ reminder that if one wishes to be truly great, he must become the servant of all: Matthew 18: 1-4, Mark 9:33-37 and Luke 9: 46-48.

In each account, of apparently the same dialogue about seeking servanthood as true greatness, Christ was speaking to His disciples. They were men. Women aren’t mentioned. He used a trusting child’s conduct as an example of true humility. Mark 9:37: “Whoever receives one such child in my name receives me, and whoever receives me, receives not me but him who sent me.” And in Luke 9:48 He adds, “For he who is least among you all is the one who is great.”

What are the contexts here? Not gender roles. Not family. Not which gender should serve the most in a human way and thus be greatest. Jesus is pointing to Himself. These passages are about Him. And later, from the minor gift of washing His followers’ dirty feet to His earth-shaking, epic death on a cross for the salvation of His people, to be the ultimate sacrifice for our sin — He proved Himself the One Who saves us, changes us, the Servant of all.

This exegesis shows Gothard’s view to be in flagrant error. But unfortunately this is not unusual for him — Gothard has often proved that salvaging Scripture verses and principles, out of context, is certainly not a practice limited to liberals or emergents.

What might have been equally disappointing, though, is that his defenders in the column didn’t even try to prove he was right.

Instead I read some of the same defense mechanisms I’d heard before, such as:

1. He’s a nice guy.
2. Have you tried to talk with him personally? (Implied: that is required, before you say anything negative.)
3. We’ve followed his teachings and we’re doing find (therefore our Anecdote simply surpasses yours).
4. Various ad hominem attacks against other Gothard critics, either real or perceived.
5. Gothard uses Bible verses in his teachings; therefore he’s touching Base and shouldn’t be questioned.
6. (Implied) Hmm, you must be one of those Christians who doesn’t believe in trying to live a holy life.
7. A derivative of the Gamaliel Game, a frequent (and fatalistic!) defense, based on Acts 5: 33-40, which in essence says “if he’s a bad guy, just ignore him and let God handle it.” Scripture neither condemns nor endorses Gamaliel’s specific advice in that passage, but certainly does elsewhere contradict the notion that Christians should just ignore false teachers!

Part 1 will consist of my response to Anonymous’ second batch of well-written questions. Part 2 will show my response to his/her actual first portion of questions and responses, which had initially been hidden by the site’s spam filter.

Responses to Anonymous

Thanks for stopping by, yet-another-Anonymous. Like most online-only conversations in which I engage, I wish we had the time and ability to add some semblance of relationship as the basis of our interactions, rather than the drive-by-debating common to the internet. Shall we imagine a brief visit between you, and my wife and I, in our living room with coffee or your beverage of choice, as I try to address your concerns?

6. Simply because the author of the article “Taliban Dan…” omits any reference to Bill Gothard teaching about walking in the good works God has created us for or honoring God with our lives does not mean that Bill Gothard (just a sinful, fallible instrument) omits them in his teaching.

From my experience with Gothard’s programs, I recall very little Gospel. This error is not unique to Gothard, but to many Christian leaders: they simply assume their followers/disciples will get that Gospel-of-Grace stuff out there somewhere, and can now move on to the “walking in good works” stuff without emphasis in the work Christ accomplished for us.

I don’t share that (often well-intentioned) perspective. A lover of Christ will be doing all he can (knowing God is at work in him — Philippians 2: 12-13) to preach the Gospel to Himself, living in light of what Christ has done and will do, not keeping that in the past and moving on to the supposedly more-important truth of walking in good works. Grace, as Gothard defines it, does include the power to obey God, but that is not the most important definition. Gothard in practice acts as thought it is.

We used the ATI curriculum for 12 years, and chose to get out—not with some personal vendetta against Bill Gothard and the program—but simply because God was leading us to other things—further training for His Kingdom.

Neither do I have a personal vendetta. But those who purport to teach the Bible should be held to high standards. While quoting verses, setting up systems purported to be based on truth, etc., are they applying right hermeneutics? Respecting God the Author of Scripture by reading and understanding it rightly?

The curriculum was full of scripture, and full of teaching about honoring God, His established authorities, and our fellow man.

I’ve shown above how Gothard severely twisted a single Scripture to make it man- (or woman-) centered, instead of echoing the deeper truth Christ was clearly teaching. Unless the reporter was making up that quote, Gothard is guilty of abusing the Word of God, not like a naive “baby Christian” but as a Christian leader.

In saying this, I take what he said at face value: he believes women are the greatest because they “serve” the most. That’s just not Biblical. Jesus was talking not to women, but to His own (male) disciples, saying they should strive to be the servant of all — and He Himself showed them how, and became the Servant of All, exalted over all: men and women.

Gothard is guilty of salvaging other Scriptures to further other goals, and that is wrong, no matter how Biblical those goals might be (such as Opposing Rebellion or Reminded us of Authority). Gothard’s woefully wrong reading of the account of Jesus healing the centurion’s son, for example, is a flagrant violation of how Scripture should be read: emphasizing Christ, as the narrative does, and not simply the Human Authority Structure.

The program was, as accused, full of steps, also, toward success in various aspects of Christian living. Some view this approach to problem solving as legalistic

Some might, but that’s not what I argued above. Similarly, Jesus faulted the Pharisees not merely for solving moral problems in step-by-step ways, but for making up laws and calling them God’s Law, and rejecting the point of the Law anyway: Christ Himself.

but others (and it’s just as valid a perspective) view the step method (merely breaking a problem into bite-sized pieces) as helpful.

Ordinarily I would agree. This would simply be seen as optional methods for doing our part, as Christians, to work out our salvation. But again, two issues:

a) Gothard doesn’t see these steps as optional. He calls them “life principles” and has continued to do this day to say they’re not optional.

b) The steps are often not only extra-Biblical (optional) but anti-Biblical. And adding to what Scripture says and calling it Scripture is just as bad as ignoring what Scripture does say.

Grace-oriented individuals should be careful not to condemn those who prefer a more structured approach.

Whether structured or not, all Christians are called to be grace-oriented individuals. That part is indeed not optional!

And whether or not a parent/person has a specific “structured approach,” if it’s not based in grace, it’s not Gospel-minded — and would warrant a Galatians-style letter from the Apostle Paul asking with love but passion: “Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh?” (Galatians 3:3). Or he would write a letter repeating what he told the Colossians (in 3: 20-23) about wrong, anti-Biblical “structures”:

“If with Christ you died to the elemental spirits of the world, why, as if you were still alive in the world, do you submit to regulations—’Do not handle, Do not taste, Do not touch’ (referring to things that all perish as they are used)—according to human precepts and teachings? These have indeed an appearance of wisdom in promoting self-made religion and asceticism and severity to the body, but they are of no value in stopping the indulgence of the flesh.”

Neither is more righteous as long as both look to Christ as THE problem-solver and THE SOLUTION.

Which, as I’ve argued above, Gothard in-practice and even in-writing does not do.

However, perhaps you, most excellent Anonymous, were able to take what you found good about Gothard’s materials and see them through the lenses of God’s grace. If so, I rejoice! Yet I would ask that you recognize that others have not been so blessed, and are trapped on a graceless treadmill, trying to earn their sanctification through Gothard’s anti-Biblical materials. IBLP does not seem their whole System of beliefs as optional as you and I might see them, free to choose which ones to follow — or even to depart the whole thing and find better curriculum elsewhere.

7. It is simply Ungodly to undermine parents in trying to “rescue” daughters from what we perceive to be an oppressive lifestyle.

I don’t oppose that. Are you referring to something I wrote?

In fact, it’s a main mission of Quivering Daughters here to help carry out such rescues, of daughters who are trapped in not only what’s “perceived” to be an oppressive lifestyle, but what is — according to the Gospel, aided by sanctified common sense! — oppressive and grace-rejecting lifestyles. To see this further, I encourage you to look more on the site, and perhaps read Hillary’s book Quivering Daughters and Don Veinot’s book A Matter of Basic Principle: Bill Gothard and the Christian Life.

You see, the God of the universe gave each daughter her parents and each wife her husband. If we are willing to cease trying to give God and Ishmael, and trust Him (Jer. 29:11), He will complete his unstoppable plan of mercy and grace in the ultimate manner.

But the sovereign God works through means, Anonymous. He has given and encouraged (nay required) Christians to practice discernment, rather than being more passive (a la Gamaliel in Acts) and simply let things happen. Should we also apply the more-passive mindset to the pressing issues of our day, such as sex trafficking, racism or abortion? Surely not. Scripture doesn’t leave Christians with that option — though some of us may have different callings in this.

As an aside, I hear Jeremiah 29:11 quoted a lot, but out of context: that promise God made to the Israelites then is weakened when we apply it straight to ourselves without the background that He fulfilled it for them. Furthermore His perfect plans for them also involved plenty of hardship and learning from the ways they had rejected Him — only through better discernment and growth did they have “hope and a future.”

When we interfere in order to help him, we just mess things up.

Again, the point here is not simply reaching out to women (or anyone) who’s in a merely “perceived” oppressive lifestyle, but showing how this lifestyle is not only dangerous, but flagrantly anti-Biblical and not actually honoring to Christ and the Gospel.

8. When we are on the outside looking in to a situation, we make a lot of assumptions. My old English teacher used to say “To ASSUME makes an ASS out of U and ME.” Wouldn’t the Christian way be to spend our hours and days spreading the good news of the gospel and discipling young believers in a God-honoring way to aid in their sanctification instead of devoting entire ministries to breaking down or attacking the ministries of those we don’t understand (and thereby are suspicious of)?

Again, if you are referring to Quivering Daughters, I would ask:

a) Then why are you trying to oppose this ministry? Perhaps you don’t yourself understand what they see, what they know, and to whom they’re reaching. The problem with a Gamaliel-like “if it’s of God you can’t stop it anyway” notion is that it can’t be suggested consistently without self-refuting, and it’s not what Scripture says to follow anyway.

b) Yet again, these are about whether a professed Christian and supposedly Biblical organization is actually following Christ and the Bible. I’ve shown above how Gothard has violated both (as is a proven pattern in how he salvages other Scriptures to fit into moralism machines). If you’d like to engage my ideas in that area, Anonymous, I’d love to listen and reply.

Where is the glory for God in a ministry like this?

The glory to God is the same as Paul gave when he publicly opposed Peter for sucking up to legalistic Judaizers (Galatians 2) or called out a professing Christian for anti-Biblical behavior (1 Corinthians 5) or, in love, warned believers to avoid false doctrine and grow to be like Christ with all truth and discernment (Philippians 1, many other epistles). The God of love is also a God of truth, and a Christian’s discernment can be practiced with love and hope that the deceptive teacher will repent and correct his false teaching.

I know God has used others to correct my own wrong notions about “perfect” families, and even what the future eternal existence of a Christian will be (hint: it’s not just a spiritual nonphysical realm!). Thus I hope also that those professing to believe the Gospel of grace will speak and listen to one another accordingly, not making or hearing arguments based on man-made logic or inference from Scripture, but based on Scripture rightly applied, pointing to the Gospel.

Grace and peace!

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

By Monte E. Wilson ¹

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

Green Berets vs. the Apostles and Prophets

Consider what the apostles demanded of the newly converted Gentiles. At the end of the debate considering what requirements to place on the incoming Gentile believers, the apostles decided to lay no burden on these people other than to require that they abstain from things offered to idols, from blood and from things strangled, and from sexual immorality (Acts 15). Watch your testimony, watch your diet, watch your morals. That’s it.

Can you imagine if one of us had been there? “Now, Jim, my boy, this won’t do. These folks need to be called up to a higher place in God. You apostles go up.to the temple every day to pray, and so should these Gentiles. You own only one coat, one pair of sandals, give most all of your money to the poor, and every time I turn around you are fasting. Why not require the same thing of all these new believers? At least let them know that there is a deeper life to which they can attain through a more spiritually rigorous lifestyle … that is, if they can attain the same level of revelation that we have.”

Or what of Paul’s exhortation to the Thessalonians regarding walking in love with their fellow believers? They were to lead a quiet life, mind their own business and work with their hands (1 Thess. 4:11). Isn’t this the route to true spirituality within a community? Shouldn’t Paul have added that they needed to have special Sunday evening services for the lost, Wednesday night prayer meetings, Thursday night deacons meetings, Friday night home group meetings and Saturday visitation? How in the world did Paul expect these people to grow in love if they weren’t constantly in church together?

Of course, one of the greatest attributes of many modern Green Beret Christians is living as if Jesus were coming back today, Being a disciple of Hal Lindsey, I knew this was it. We had only a few years left. (This was 26 years ago.) Why, pray tell, should we give ourselves to such mundane matters as developing a career, raising a family, seeing our children get married, building an inheritance to leave our grandchildren and getting involved in matters that concerned the welfare of the cities we lived in? What were these lukewarm Christians thinking about when they so easily tripped off to work or bought a new car or put money in savings or ran for a political office? Had they no sense of the times in which we were living? Obviously they must be in need of a revival or the infilling of the Holy Spirit. Or maybe they are not even saved!

I remember one day reading where Jeremiah told the people of Israel who were captive in Babylon to get a life. While the false prophets were running around telling the Israelites they were about to escape from their captivity, Jeremiah said, “Go build houses and live in them, plant gardens and enjoy their fruit, build families so you can multiply in number, and seek the welfare of the city where God has caused you to be carried away captive” (Jer. 29:4-9). Are these words of wisdom for a people who are to come-out -from-among-them -and-be-separate? Certainly we can’t take this tack, can we? This passage was the beginning of the end of my running around the country telling people they had better live like those who were not long for this world. The burning question became, “What if we are still here one hundred years from now?” What sort of world have we left our great-grandchildren? What sort of churches will we leave the generations who follow? Have we left a business to expand, or debts to payoff? Have we left a good foundation for our children to build upon, or will they have to live their lives clearing away the rubble of debris left through our disinterest?

(Monday: Whose ministry style was “better,” John the Baptist or Jesus Himself?)

(Loosely continued from yesterday’s column, Law and love — did Jesus contradict God?)

How many steps is it from confused Christianity to non-Christianity? When it comes to the question of how Jesus Christ and His love relate to God’s Law, it’s only a few:

1. Biblical truth: Jesus came not to abolish the Law, but to fulfill it (Matthew 5:17).
2. Step down, still true, but less clear: Jesus came not to uphold the Law, but to fulfill it.
3. Step down, questionable: Jesus came not to uphold the Law, but to love.
4. Step down, more questionable: God now doesn’t uphold the Law, but only loves.
5. Step down, un-Biblical belief: God doesn’t punish breakers of the Law, but only loves.

In just one simple, four-step process, with slight modifications — perhaps over generations, perhaps over only a few years in one church — a Biblical position becomes un-Biblical. Thus a slight confusion about how Jesus relates to the Law turns into universalism.

And some Christians may act or think like Universalists even if they do not believe everyone in the world will somehow, someday, eventually be saved.

For example, nowadays there’s a derivative view out there that greatly resembles universalism. Proponents refer to this by other names, such as the wider mercy view. From what I’ve read, that refers to God’s mercy supposedly being wider than we often think, and in fact, the most extreme versions of this view claim that people can be saved without consciously repenting of their sins and professing faith in Jesus Christ.

Teaching vacuums

I can understand a few factors contributing to this view.

1. “God is love.” Evangelicals have long overcorrected for notions — which apparently arose from somewhere in the past — that God was a mean tyrant. But for years many of our best and brightest have been saying “God is love” without defining love, or the “rest of” God — including His character traits of holiness, justice and sovereignty.
2. “Make a decision.” Many have overdone the call for a response to the Gospel, as if God Himself is not powerful enough to save someone unless he/she “opens the door” to let Him do it. In response, some others may ask, even if only subconsciously, “why do we think God so powerless”? And to compensate for one extreme, some may lapse into yet another extreme idea: surely God is big enough to save people without their response.
3. “What about those who have never heard?” Though answers to this question can be tricky, Christian leaders and teachers should not shy away from it. A vacuum of teaching about God’s sovereignty and man’s sinfulness (which says: those who have never heard are still guilty for what they do know) leads to the wrong answers filling the space.

From some professing Christian universalists, or “wider mercy” proponents, I’ve heard the reasoning: oh no, this doesn’t mean we believe God is unjust, or fails to punish evil. One person once told me he believes God will punish evil, just not in the ways we assume, etc.

But our intent should not be to maintain a Theology System, whether or not it has all the reasonable facsimiles we’d like of all the moving parts. Rather: does a System follow Scripture?

Apparently enough evangelicals have expressed doubts about whether conscious repentance and belief in Jesus really is the only way to God, that author/pastor John Piper has written a book on the topic. Last week The Gospel Coalition posted a review, which I’ll excerpt here. Based on Scripture alone — not hopes, emotional appeals, or definitions of Biblical terms and themes based not on Scripture but outside sources — it’s wrong to claim anyone is saved without a conscious repentance and faith in Christ.

Is conscious faith in Christ necessary for salvation? According to Piper, it is. His argument comes in four parts. First (chapter four), Christ’s first coming triggered a shift in the history of salvation. The “mystery of Christ” has been revealed,  (Rom 16:25-27; Eph 3:4-10). The “times of ignorance” are past, and God now calls all peoples to turn to him (Acts 17:30-31). Jesus “is now openly installed and declared as Judge, and he alone can receive the appeals for acquittal” (76).

Second (chapter five), the case of Cornelius (Acts 10) shows that true God-seekers still need the gospel. Cornelius was not saved apart from the gospel. He was saved through it.

Third (chapter six), the apostolic message was that men are saved by Jesus’ name (Acts 4:12; Rom 9:30-10:21). Nowhere do we see men saved unaware. All are saved by an explicit confession of Christ. And this comes only through the preaching of Christ.

Fourth (chapter seven), the missionary vision of Paul and John called for repentance and faith of all. Their message was “Repent and believe, and you will be saved.” It was never, “Great news, you’ve already been saved!” They preached the necessity of explicit repentance and faith to both Gentiles (Acts 26:15-18) and Jews (Acts 13:38-52).

As if that Biblically based reasoning wasn’t enough to overthrow “wider mercy,” I’m also still trying to figure out why “wider mercy” proponents seem to deny man’s free will. Do they really believe in a God who won’t respect a person’s meaningful choice to go on hating Him?

No one is saved apart from conscious faith in Christ and the Gospel. Jesus died not to show us that God had moved on from all that Law stuff, but to fulfill the Law’s requirements and to make possible a person’s repentance and faith. To imply that all are saved, or will be saved, is a blatant lie, trying to be more “spiritual” than God — and it does not love others.

What’s your reaction upon hearing this oft-repeated evangelical slogan:

“God so loved the world (that) he gave his only begotten son. What are you willing to give?”

A response likely depends on whether you’re a Christian or non-Christian, as written last week. For Christians, you might know that it doesn’t really mean you’re supposed to “match” Jesus’ gift with your own. That would be horribly insulting to Him, and useless besides. Instead, we do good works out of gratitude to Him.

But do Christians always think that way? I know I don’t. Instead I too often feel guilt for not doing as many “good works” as I should, not because I haven’t been loving and honoring God enough, but because I think that I should Be Better Than That.

So if a Christian can still drift into that way of thinking, imagine a nonbeliever’s reaction to any vague-at-best phrase that goes like “Jesus gave it all for you, now what will you give to Him?”

A nonbeliever could take it lightly as just another work-harder religion, or worse, try to follow it.

So what might be more-Biblical ways to tell about Jesus’ gift and call others to action?

What’s the Word?

How did the first Christians say people should respond to the Gospel of Christ’s death for sins?¹.

“Repent and be baptized.” Confess your sins; turn from them. Be saved and confirm it publicly.

Very similar: repent from your sins, turn from them, and God will send Jesus to you.

Acts 8: 26-40 skims over some details, but shows the apostle Phillip stressing another part of the Gospel for an Ethiopian eunuch²: the fact that a passage from Isaiah was prophesying Jesus’ death.

In Acts 10: 34-43, Peter is at it again, giving a quickly summarized presentation of the Gospel. His audience is Gentiles who already believe in the God of the Jews, and maybe that’s why Peter hits harder on the same this-was-foretold-by-the-prophets angle (verse 43).

At the end of Acts 17, the apostle Paul barely talked about Jesus at all — at least that we read. He may have talked more about Him later, but his main point to the Greeks: repent (verse 30).

Further in

For those whom the apostles expected to know about God’s Law, or the pagan Greeks who don’t even know about God period, the apostles didn’t say anything like Jesus gave it all for you, so what will you give for him? That’s not a clear Gospel message. It’s also confusing. To a non-Christian, it will only reinforce a “default” religion of trying to sacrifice to impress God.

Yes, believers are meant to give their lives to Christ and do good. True religion, John and James separately say in many ways, is carried out in love for God, each other, and good works.

But even that is not really a sacrifice. All believers’ good works are ultimately God’s work in them (Philippians 2:12). The explorer/missionary David Livingstone (whose birthday was yesterday) seems to have understood this; even he famously said, “I never made a sacrifice.”

So let’s ensure that, for Christians and non-Christians alike, we never speak or act as though we do need to “match” Jesus’ sacrifice with our own!