Tag Archives: Worship

Infused with PC, Not JC!

Posted on by
Reply

To measure anything correctly, we must have the appropriate instrument and the appropriate standard. As a simple example, a portly gentleman can put his mind at ease by standing beside an obese person, whereas, to stand beside a wiry / thin person would cause the opposite reaction.

The same requirement for an accurate standard of measurement needs to be applied to the Church today. It is easy for individual congregations and denominations to find false measuring rods. We can attach ourselves to some mega-church that has the latest and greatest version of church-growth-philosophy and convince ourselves that such size means that ‘God is truly with us.’ Conversely, we can attach ourselves to some small, struggling congregation and content ourselves that all our problems stem, not from disobedience, but from the fact that we, alone, are that small, faithful remnant always to be persecuted.

Similarly, we can look at the lack of impact that the Church is having, especially in the West, upon our societies and culture. We can blame governmental interference. We can point our fingers at the so-called militant left. We can complain that the local paper will not run our pieces. We might even complain that God has not given us enough young folk to successfully complete our planned leaflet drop. All this, however, is simply illustrative of the fact that the Church has adopted the wrong standard of measurement.

The Church has one singular standard of measurement and that is God.[1] Explained more fully, it is God’s morality revealed in His Law[2] and ultimately in His Son, Jesus Christ.[3] We can distil this just a little more by saying that God’s morality revealed in His Law and in Jesus demarcates that which is pleasing to God and that which is not – life v death, obedience v disobedience; blessable v condemnable; His presence v His absence.

Now, most orthodox Christians reading this are not going to have their heads explode. Indeed, even some at the more Liberal end of the scale, who still acknowledge Scripture, will at least give a little nod. So, what is the problem? Well, the problem, in a nutshell, is the issue of theory versus practice. That which is outlined above is truth and it is the theory on which we should work as the Church. However, in practice, it is not.

The Church’s guilt lies in Her breaking one very pertinent and serious commandment – something which should never be is! – and that commandment is found in both Deuteronomy and Revelation:

You shall not add to the word which I am commanding you, nor take away from it, that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you.

I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God shall add to him the plagues which are written in this book; and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book.[4]

Both texts are extremely specific in their warnings, but, sadly, the true fear and reverence for God and His standards are largely missing from the Church; thus omission and substitution become very real options. When we adopt the practice of omission and substitution, rather than submission and obedience, we place ourselves in a very precarious position. We turn from the path of life to one of death. We begin to subtly deny doctrine, which, by its very nature, becomes a subtle denial of God and the attributes of His Being.

In our day, the perceived problem is that the Church is infused with PC and not JC. Jesus Christ came to do the will of the Father, despite the great personal cost to Himself. Pain, suffering, and alienation were His because He loved His Father and was committed to obedience and the actions required by obedience:

“For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me;[5]

“My food is to do the will of Him who sent Me, and to accomplish His work.[6]

“Father, if Thou art willing, remove this cup from Me; yet not My will, but Thine be done.”[7]

This meant that Jesus was willing to affirm God’s morality as it is expressed in God’s Law and demonstrated in His own life, no matter what the consequences. Are we as equally committed to this process? No! We have moved from JC to PC. We have allowed our culture, sinful and rebellious, to lay out a charter before the Church in which this evil World demands that its sensitivities, ideals, and agendas be respected, at all costs. Disappointingly, and to the detriment of the Many, the Church has largely laid her signature to this charter.

Here, three experiences will be relayed and the ramifications of each explained:

  1. Preaching Evangelism and only Evangelism:

When it comes to this fist topic, many may ask as to the nature of the problem. Is not evangelism Biblical? Well, yes, it is Biblical, but it is still a problem. Heresy!! “How can something that is Biblical be wrong?!” Very easily. Above we quoted texts that warned about adding to or taking away from Scripture. Well, in the same vein, underemphasising or overemphasising something can be wrong. Grace is a Biblical doctrine, but this writer often speaks of the “heresy of grace” precisely because it is overemphasised to the point where antinomianism and blatant disobedience are excused under the guise of ‘grace’.

Thus, in recent years, there has been a real trend to use almost every sermon as a goad to guilt Christians into the streets to evangelise. All sorts of things are laid out before the Christian to send them on one of these all-expenses-paid guilt trips. Yet, despite decades of emphasis upon evangelism; courses on evangelism; 12 foolproof techniques to evangelism; car-boot sale evangelism; puppet-show evangelism; not to mention the probable millions invested in and spent on evangelism, the Church is not prospering. Numbers dwindle. New converts are rarely seen. Why? Precisely because of the emphasis upon evangelism.[8]

Confused? Do not be so. You see, through various Biblical texts, the Church of older ages came to speak concerning “whole counsel of God”. This is what preachers should be preaching – the whole counsel of God and nothing less. This means that everything God has revealed should be fodder for the preacher. Not so anymore. Through being enamoured with PC and not JC, we have now subscribed to the “hole counsel of God”. The term sounds remarkably similar, but this new version leads to a completely different place.

The “hole counsel” is exactly what it says: It leaves big holes in God’s counsel! These holes are left when the PC fanatics take their scalpels to God’s counsel in the like of a surgeon cutting out cankers. Let us be clear. There are no cankers in the whole counsel of God, yet those infused with PC rather than JC perceive that there are cankers. Consequently, they excise this bit and that bit and then vainly try and make it look more appropriate with some ill-fitting and hastily applied patches, hurriedly sewn into place.

To some, this might just seem like just a piece of wild poetry that may sound pleasing, but which lacks substance. Fair enough. Let us then look at some practical examples.

1. When the Westminster Divines wrote their catechism, their first question was: What is man’s chief and highest end? They answered that it was “to glorify God and fully to enjoy Him forever.” This quote accurately reflects what Scripture teaches. God should be, indeed, must be, First! Yet, what we find in the preachers infused with PC is a subtle shift away from God being first. Their priority becomes sinful man and his desires.

We see this, for example in our worship services. Worship should be God-centred. We come to show the worth of God. Worship, by definition, is, therefore, for those who know God through Christ and wish, as a consequence, to express that worth. Not so, to the PC brigade. We want to welcome rebellious sinners (the unsaved) into our midst. We do not wish to offend them, so we will make some changes to accommodate them in the hope that we do not offend them. In this instant, our gaze is no longer firmly fixed on God and what He says is appropriate for and in worship, but we have turned to the rebel to ask for his opinion. Whether we go any further than this is irrelevant. Our eye is taken off God. We have, in essence, committed idolatry, because we have allowed something else other than the dictates of God to influence or decision making.

2. Following this turning from God to the sinner, it is inevitable that the Church will no longer stay true to the Doctrines that God has declared. When we seek to court the rebel, we will, of necessity, not wish to offend them. After all, they will not stay long in our midst if their conscience, lifestyle, and thought patterns are constantly assailed.

Thus, it all starts with a toning down. We may start with the Doctrine of Sin. The Bible says sin is “lawlessness”.[9] Oh, but we cannot tell the rebel that he is the living equivalent of the despotic bad guy in the old Western. So, we tone it down. Sin is … feelings of self-doubt; feelings of inadequacy; a failure to love oneself appropriately, and so on. Having first toned things down, it then becomes requisite to be vague and nonspecific. Having changed the definition of sin, then we must deal in turn with the doctrines of Hell and Salvation, which both the impinge upon the Person and Work of Jesus the Christ.

Jesus came to save us because of sin – a state of being that places us in opposition to God and thereby unable to ever enjoy His presence because, as a sinner, we now hate everything concerning God. The unsaved go to Hell as punishment for their rebellion. To be saved, one must be washed in the blood of Christ to once more be in a position of desiring and enjoying God’s presence. Hmmm, but we have just made sin a subjective, emotional-come-mental state that has nothing to do with transgressing God’s Law. Which means, God is not really going to send someone to eternal punishment because of self-doubt. What then of Jesus? If sin is redefined, Hell lessened or eradicated, what role does Jesus play. We do not really need a Saviour in that big sense, because … you know, umm, sin is a bad feeling, so now Jesus is nothing more than a cosmic psychologist whose always open?!?

Of equal importance, at this juncture, is the whole question of the applicability of God’s Law. Through the influence of PC, God’s Law has, in the main, been pushed off stage and hidden from sight. Why? Precisely because the ultimate aim of PC is at odds with the aim of JC. Just as in the ‘evolution v Creation’ debate, here too, there is no common ground between PC and JC; yet there are Christians and others that are trying to yoke these concepts together. However, to do so means the eradication of the point of conflict, which, in this instance, is God’s Law.

As we saw above, Jesus came to save the sinner as he is defined Biblically – a transgressor of God’s Law. This means that the sinner must pay the debt for his infraction of the Law. It means that if he cannot, someone else must or the sinner will be justly condemned. Enter Jesus! He alone has the credit, through a life of obedience, to offer Himself in the stead of the debtor. This is restitution or propitiation that is in accord with God’s Law. But wait … There is more!

Interestingly, in the PC universe there is a great emphasis upon evangelism. Yet, as we noted, it is often ineffectual. Why? Precisely because of its meddling with and downplaying of God’s Law. The Law of God defines sin. The Law of God outlines the remedy for sin. So far so good. Yet, what is missing today is the third part: God’s Law is the only thing that shows the rebellious sinner how destitute he is in the sight of God and thereby magnifies Jesus the Christ as the only One through Whom he can have peace with God. Consider these words:

Therefore, the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, that we may be justified by faith.[10]

Now we know that whatever the Law says, it speaks to those who are under the Law, that every mouth may be closed, and all the world may become accountable to God; because by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight; for through the Law comes the knowledge of sin.[11]

Paul’s version, the version of a man enamoured with JC and not PC, is vastly different to that of the moderns. Paul did not consider God’s Law to be passé, a mere relic of the past that belonged to some angry, lightning-bolt throwing god. No, Paul understood it to be essential to his Gospel, for it was the very thing that showed the sinner his need, magnified Jesus as the sinners only hope, and as the means through which the Holy Spirit works to draw men to Christ.

The Apostle’s theory of salvation was wholly Biblical and focussed rightly on God’s Law – the sinner is so because he transgressed the Law; his restitution is outlined in the Law; being a sinner he thinks he is alright until he is confronted with God’s Law, which, like a huge mirror, shows him warts and all; thus, the sinner is shown that Jesus and his cross are the only means of salvation.

Compare this with the evangelism of PC: The Law is passe, it is now about grace; they don’t want to offend the sinner otherwise he may stop listening, so they push Law and doctrine aside; they preach Jesus as Saviour, but will not dangle the sinner over the precipice to gaze into the pit of Hell, so what is it exactly that Jesus saves from and why is He necessary?

Evangelism apart from the Law of God is an exercise in Humanistic psychology and amounts to little more than making people feel good about themselves while they stand in the mud and mire. It does not bring change; indeed, it cannot bring change precisely because it does not magnify Christ. The man who feels content or is made to feel content with himself whilst in the mud and mire, will never cry out or experience the wonder of the Psalmist: The Lord, He heard my Cry! The Lord, He lifted me out of the miry pit. The Lord, He gave me a firm place to stand. The Lord, He set me upon the Rock, which is Jesus the Christ. The Lord, He put a song of worshipful praise in my mouth.

3. For this third point, we will do an about face. If the preachers are predominantly preaching on evangelism, their preaching always heading in one direction, especially a direction akin to that outlined above, let us pause and ask, “What, then, are they not preaching?” If the whole counsel of God becomes the “hole” counsel, if pursuing the evangelistic mantra means changing doctrine, lessening consequence, and becoming vague on specifics, we must confront an equally grave consequence, namely, the man of God is never equipped for his task here on earth.

All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.[12] This is a well-known text. It is often used as proof text for the doctrine of the Inspiration of Scripture. However, to focus on that point is really to miss the point of the point. Scripture is inspired; it is God-breathed. Therefore, it is able to fulfil the purpose for which it has been given, viz, that God’s people are equipped and perfectly fitted for the work in which they are called to engage.

The simple question, then, is, ‘How is the man of God made adequate, if he is never exposed to the whole counsel of God?’

Let your light shine before men in such a way that they may see your good works and glorify your Father who is in heaven.[13] Another well-known text. Jesus lays this command at our feet as He concludes His discourse on the essential nature of the Christian as salt and light. Note well, please, that verse fifteen emphatically makes the point that lights are not lit to be placed under an up-turned bucket. No, they are placed high, in the open, so that the light reaches to the furthest possible extent.

Applying this text, we are once more faced with the fact that the Christian must be obviously different from the man of the World. The Christian must possess personal holiness. He must be righteous and upright. He must be Christlike. Not in some metaphorical or spiritualised manner, but in heart and reality. The very cruel irony of the evangelism bandwagon is seen right here. Earlier, the point was made to the effect that we see little fruit from evangelism today precisely because of the overemphasis on evangelism. This may have confused some. However, it is really very simple. One of the key ingredients to true Biblical evangelism has always been the quality of the lives lived by the Christian.

Peter speaks of giving a reason for the hope that is in you “to anyone who asks.” Why would anyone ask about that hope if your life is hopeless? If the victory of Christ Jesus is not evident; if light is not your nature; if you are a decaying and not preserving (salt); if you are unequipped, because you have not been corrected and trained so as to be perfectly adequate, why would anyone come and ask about the quality of your life that is so patently absent? Peter’s challenge begins with these words: Sanctify – set apart – Christ as Lord in your hearts! These words naturally lead to the discovery of another eroded doctrine, thanks to PC, and that is the Doctrine of Sanctification – our being set apart wholly unto God for His work, His purposes, and His glory.

With the erosion of sanctification and the lowering of the spiritual bar, it is often very hard to distinguish Christian from non-Christian. As the Church has become infused with PC and not JC, we see the impact more and more. Christians are no longer victorious over the World; they are conquered by the world. They are weighed down with worry, they have the same hang-ups as their neighbours, they take the same anti-depressants, they attend the same psychologists, and even the moral codes, that once marked the Church as different, no longer stand. As a boy, divorce, marital unfaithfulness, domestic violence, and apostasy were rarely heard of in the Church. Now, one does not need to look too far to uncover any of these vices.

Jesus said to Peter: “Tend My lambs” and “Shepherd My sheep.” [14]

Jesus, speaking through Paul, gave us this insight: And He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ; until we all attain to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fulness of Christ. [15]

Please note the emphasis upon Christ’s people. They are to be tended, shepherded, and equipped for the work of service. Please also note the emphasis upon maturity and how that maturity culminates in Jesus the Christ. This means teaching men how to be good heads of households, good husbands, and good fathers. It means teaching women the art of submission and true beauty in their roles as wives, mothers, and fellow heirs of the Kingdom. It means teaching on what makes a good employee, citizen, and societal participant. It means teaching and training God’s people how to glorify God even in the most mundane of circumstances.  It means teaching them how to apply God’s morality every day. None of these things can be attained through PC. They can only be attained in and through JC.

When the preacher becomes enamoured with the modern evangelistic bandwagon, and other non-Biblical bandwagons beside, people suffer. The rebel suffers because he never hears what he needs to hear in order to convict him of his sin and lead him to repentance in Jesus Christ. PC cannot do this. JC can and does. The Christians suffer because they are no longer conformed to JC,[16] finding in Him light and life, victory and purpose; rather they are given PC, where they are erroneously taught that being helpless, victimised, weighed down, and burdened will give them a place of commonality with the rebel and therefore an opportunity to evangelise. Sadly, the PC scenario is akin to two drug addicts lying in a filthy room, both shooting up, one enjoying it, the other speaking about the virtues of being clean, but with no credibility to his words precisely because his situation is no different.

  1. Disunity and denouncing Brothers:

The second experience involves the ‘Israel Falou’ saga. This topic has been tackled elsewhere, thus, for this article focus will fall upon the current disunity in the Church that is associate with PC and not JC.

The Sunday following Israel Falou’s publication of a Biblical text on social media, we went to church. The sermon that day focussed upon this publication and the subsequent furore. Many things were said in a vain attempt to sound orthodox, but all this unravelled when the preacher basically stated that ‘Israel Falou had brought the name of Jesus Christ into disrepute’.[17]

If this is indeed a fact, then, logically, every time a preacher preaches a text that confronts both sin and sinner, he too would be lowering Christ’s name. Yet, (puzzled expression) isn’t the preacher meant to confront the sinner with the truth of Who Jesus Christ truly is and why He alone can reconcile unto God? Is he not meant, in all things, to present truth and reality?

Therefore, the question must be asked, ‘What was the preacher’s real beef with Falou’s comments?’

Sad to say, the answer boiled down, mostly, to another modern error, “Its not what he said, it’s how he said it!” This saying has become more popular over the last couple of decades and it too must be denounced as a pernicious evil. Inherent in this saying is the idea that truth can be dismissed if the hearer does not appreciate the tone in which something is said. Thus, the veracity of the statement and the statements message become secondary to the terms in which it is couched.

Off course, we must not be unnecessarily belligerent when delivering the message of Scripture. We are told, are we not, to speak the truth in love. Yet, it is precisely at this point that we encounter the dilemma. If we truly love, we will speak the message that needs to be heard and that message is the truth as God has revealed it. We can turn this 180 degrees. We receive the message from Jesus and because we love Him, we will speak that message as it was given, without alteration. In both these instances, love and the message go hand in hand. This is Biblical. This fulfils the two great Commandments. Loving God and neighbour, we speak what is required of us by God and that which will benefit our neighbour because it is God’s Word – the Word that saves and edifies.

Here, we must also underscore the fact that Bible’s emphasis in speaking and preaching falls upon the attitude of the speaker and not the hearer. The Bible is abundantly clear that fallen and rebellious man does not seek reconciliation with God. In fact, the rebel’s hearing of God’s Word is akin to a vampire being flung into the midday sun or Gollum being tied with an Elvish rope – “It burns us!” In such situations, the rebel hearing God’s truth will, unless there is a work of grace by the Holy Spirit, recoil from that word and protest vehemently at the sound in his ears. This is the case. This was the case. This will ever be the case.[18]

Please, you are implored, understand this point well! The sinner’s reaction to the Gospel – the Whole Counsel of God – can never be the measure of success or the reason for changing either the presentation of or the Gospel itself. Never!

Enter the gospel infused with PC. Here, as we noted above, the gaze has left the Holy Father and now rests upon the sinner. With this change of focus comes an unbiblical emphasis, viz, the sinner’s reaction must be considered. We want the sinner to listen to the message, so we encourage his feedback so that we can tweak and modify, discard and rearrange, all in the vain hope that the message may get through, not because of the power of the Holy Spirit, but because of our craft as men.

Let us use some picture language. How do we allow a vampire to walk unharmed in the streets? There are only two ways. He must walk in darkness (the cover of night) or we must blot out the sun, both of which amount to the same thing. Similarly, Gollum cannot abide the Elvish rope because the natures of each are incompatible one with the other. So, too, the Gospel will never sit aright in the sinner’s ear. The nature of each is incompatible one with the other. Hence, the sinner must, by the power of the Holy Spirit, have his inherent, sinful nature changed. Consequently, the reviling’s of the sinner should never be considered a just cause to edit or modify the Gospel – indeed there never is a just reason for such an act. We are forbidden to add to or take from God’s Word. Paul tells us that even if an angel brings us another Gospel, that one is to be accursed.[19] Why then would be undertake such an evil task to satisfy the burning ears of a sinner? Yet, undertake, they do, and in so doing the PCites rend the body of Christ and nullify the Chief means of grace – the preaching of a full and unfettered Gospel.

As the illustration of the Israel Falou saga shows, this preacher was willing to take his stand against a fellow Christian who was proclaiming God’s Word because he believed that his efforts at effective evangelism would now be hampered by such negative press. This preacher was concerned that his efforts at bridge building would now collapse because Israel Falou took a public stand on a supposedly sensitive topic. This affront to PC could not go unchallenged. Armed with his diatribe and not the Word of God, this preacher ascended his pulpit and essentially shamed a brother in Christ because he had the courage to stand up and stand upon God’s Word.

Such actions are infused with PC not JC. They smack of the pride of man and of ego, not of the humility that Christ expects of His own. These actions tear at Christ’s church; they rend the body, and they sow discord. Denounce a man if he is a heretic, by all means, but denounce a brother for stating what the Bible says! Alas, how the mighty have fallen.

  1. Preaching the Text – Kind of, maybe?

This last example comes from the Seminary classroom, the Homiletics class to be precise. Students are paired. One student picks a text to be preached, the other has the responsibility of preaching that text. Camped out by two students, it was fascinating to listen to their discussion. Student A put forward one of his favourite texts. It was a Psalm, a good Psalm, a well know Psalm. What was of interest was Student B’s response. Recollecting the events as accurately as possible due to the passage of time, Student B first recoiled. Then there was a subtle hint that maybe Student A should pick a different text. Then came the stronger offer, “Maybe something from the New Testament.” The onlooker’s spidey-senses tingled. The mind began to question, “Why this hesitation?” The answer that came to mind immediately was PC not JC.

Student B pushed back a little more, but, thankfully, Student A stuck to his guns. After all, this was a text that he chose because it meant a lot to him personally. Now for the test, the actual preaching. Would it deal with the text and fill it with JC or would the PC infiltrate so that the audience would witness some fast and furious footwork of the type that would make Fred Astaire proud.

The text? Psalm 139. Please feel free to read it now:

O Lord, Thou hast searched me and known me. Thou dost know when I sit down and when I rise up; Thou dost understand my thought from afar. Thou dost scrutinize my path and my lying down, and art intimately acquainted with all my ways. Even before there is a word on my tongue, Behold, O Lord, Thou dost know it all. Thou hast enclosed me behind and before, and laid Thy hand upon me. Such knowledge is too wonderful for me; It is too high, I cannot attain to it. Where can I go from Thy Spirit? Or where can I flee from Thy presence? If I ascend to heaven, Thou art there; If I make my bed in Sheol, behold, Thou art there. If I take the wings of the dawn, If I dwell in the remotest part of the sea, even there Thy hand will lead me, And Thy right hand will lay hold of me. If I say, “Surely the darkness will overwhelm me, And the light around me will be night,” Even the darkness is not dark to Thee, And the night is as bright as the day. Darkness and light are alike to Thee. For Thou didst form my inward parts; Thou didst weave me in my mother’s womb. I will give thanks to Thee, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; Wonderful are Thy works, and my soul knows it very well. My frame was not hidden from Thee, When I was made in secret, And skillfully wrought in the depths of the earth. Thine eyes have seen my unformed substance; And in Thy book they were all written, the days that were ordained for me, when as yet there was not one of them. How precious also are Thy thoughts to me, O God! How vast is the sum of them! If I should count them, they would outnumber the sand. When I awake, I am still with Thee. O that Thou wouldst slay the wicked, O God; Depart from me, therefore, men of bloodshed. For they speak against Thee wickedly, And Thine enemies take Thy name in vain. Do I not hate those who hate Thee, O Lord? And do I not loathe those who rise up against Thee? I hate them with the utmost hatred; They have become my enemies. Search me, O God, and know my heart; Try me and know my anxious thoughts; And see if there be any hurtful way in me, and lead me in the everlasting way.[20]

Reading the Psalm may even be a litmus test for the reader. Did you find the Psalm encouraging or were there some … ‘Oh, what is that theological term? Oh, yes!’ … icky bits?

This is a good Psalm, indeed a great Psalm. Student A does well to treasure this Psalm for the comfort, hope, and guidance that it brings to him. Indeed, it can be said with confidence that Student A treasures this Psalm precisely because he is full of and enamoured with JC. This, however, cannot be truly said of Student B. What became evident through this activity within the homiletics class was the fact that PC had begun to take a place in Student B’s heart.

The evidence for this conclusion was partly presented in his opening statements to Student A when he wanted to change the text to a New Testament text. The second, but more conclusive evidence, was found in the sermon itself. Student B preached all the way through the text, verse by verse, until he came to these verses: Do I not hate those who hate Thee, O Lord? And do I not loathe those who rise up against Thee? I hate them with the utmost hatred; They have become my enemies. At this point, no words were offered that might have explained the text; nor was any help given to the listener in the form of an interpretive key. There was not even an acknowledgement that, as a student, the understanding of this part of the text eluded him. No, these words simply sailed through the Bermuda Triangle of PC and vanished form the text.

Is this assessment harsh? No! As with all these movements there are discernible patterns. We noted earlier how PC turns one’s eyes from our holy God and refocuses them on rebellious men. We noted how Doctrine must be altered, modified, toned down, and reinterpreted. Along with this comes a preference for the New Testament. Why? Because Jesus is there? Maybe? Predominantly, however, the desire for the New Testament, we fear, is less motivated by the presence of Jesus and more by the absence of strong language, such as that found in Psalm 139.

PC tells us that the Old Testament is full of violence, hate, and darkness, whereas the New Testament is tolerance, love, and light. When your mantra is ‘evangelism and only evangelism’, then tolerance, love, and light, trump the mislabelled violence, hate, and darkness.

Proof of this can be found in the Israel Falou saga, mentioned above. The man quoted an exclusive New Testament text and was howled down by those from without and within the Church. It was the New Testament that was quoted, but it did not measure up to the tolerance, love, and light scenario, so the messenger had to be shot—some of those involved in the denouncing from within the church still have enough orthodoxy not to denounce the text of Scripture, but they do not want anyone pointing out that their PC emperor is not wearing any clothes.

Here, in essence, is the problem with PC. Before it modified any of the Doctrines mentioned in this article, it had already made some significant modifications to the Biblical Doctrines regarding fallen man and God Himself.

The first rejection was the Bible’s description of fallen man as being dead in trespass and sin and under the condemnation of God. It was decided that such a description was hardly appealing. Extremely hard to hold a conversation of the “How to win friends and influence people” type, when your description of them makes the despotic bad guy in the Western look good.

The second rejection or modification courtesy of the PCites was to arrange an ‘image consultant’ for God. He needed some help in trying to portray a better image to the wider reading public. Thus, the anger issues, the lightning bolts, the ‘I hate …!’ comments, the ‘My people disappoint Me!’ remarks, and the thing with all the rules— ‘What’s that about?’— all had to go. Of course, there is nothing new here. Marcion took a pair of scissors to his Bible; Declared the God of the Old Testament to be a sort of tribal deity with anger management issues; and proclaimed Jesus to be sent from a different “god”, the Father. The New Testament was considered to be under the influence of the Jewish god, hence the scissors. Paul was the only true apostle of Jesus, but even his works were not spared the scissors. The only real difference, thanks to the PC brigade, is that we are no longer allowed to call people heretics—the appellation that was correctly applied to Marcion.

Now, please understand, Student B may not raise his right hand and swear to all these points. Most do not and will not. Nonetheless, the evidence suggests that there has already been a subtle shift in his thinking. Logically, if the Holy Spirit does not convict him of this shift, then his future ministry is, more than likely, to be tainted by this movement. It may begin with omitting a few lines from a text here and there, but gradually, a few lines will become whole texts, then complete topics and before long the whole counsel is nothing but the hole counsel.[21]

By contrast, Student A is far more assured because his stand is infused with JC. He understands, truly, that love to God comes before love to any other.[22] That is precisely why he finds no trouble with hating God’s enemies. The true believer in Jesus Christ will hate what God hates and love what God loves. The fact that Student A, along with the Psalmist, declare hatred for God’s enemies is nothing less than an absolute declaration of their love for God. The PCites cannot see past the word “hate” to grasp and understand that what is on display in this text is actually an unequivocal chorus of love. Do we not gather in worship and sing the words of Psalm 1: How blessed is the man who does not walk in the counsel of the wicked, Nor stand in the path of sinners, Nor sit in the seat of scoffers! But his delight is in the law of the Lord, And in His law he meditates day and night.[23]

One cannot love God whilst batting for the other team. One cannot truly love God whilst espousing the playbook of the other team. No. Love to God is singular. The command is to love God with all your heart, mind, and strength. Thankfully, men like Student A understand that point, precisely because they are infused with JC and not PC. A man and his God; loved and loving; known intimately by his God, warts and all, and loved. Searched and found wanting, yet loved. A man. Yes, just a man, but a man who loves God absolutely. A redeemed man, acknowledging all his faults, with but one prayer on His lips – Father make me more like Jesus! This man knows His God encompasses him. This man knows that his God is everywhere. This man knows that should his foot slip, all he will know are the everlasting arms around and about. This man knows that God knit him in the womb. This man knows that before his eyes ever opened, he was loved absolutely by his God. Therefore, this man, Student A and those of his ilk, will absolutely hate what God hates and they will do so because they are filled with the Spirit of JC, a Spirit that loves and obeys the One, True, and Living God.

Lord, please, please, fill the land with men like this; men of whom the world is not worthy; for they are the true evangelists. They are the true culture changes. They are the true light bearers. They are so, because they are infused with and therefore diffuse the light and life of Jesus Christ, and like Him, their Saviour, they have no greater pleasure or purpose than to honour their God.

Conclusion:

If the Church is to return to and be faithful to Her mission, then She must repent of Her sins, forsake false standards, cling to what is good, and have nothing to do with the vain philosophies of the World. She must return to and measure Herself always by the correct standard. She must be willing to see through words to content and action. What do I mean? Simply this: It is easy to witness historic God- words and to hear the lingo of the so-called faithful, but Jesus looked at and He looks for the fruit. Does your Christian life, does your congregation’s life, bear the marks, the fruit, of being enamoured with Jesus the Christ or has it settled for orthodox type words whilst all the time holding to the doctrines of PC culture?

Jesus Christ is the Way, the Truth, the Life, THE Standard. Brethren, accept no substitutes!

Footnotes:

[1] Leviticus 19:2; Matthew 5:48.

[2] Deuteronomy 8:3 quoted by Jesus in Matthew 4:4.

[3] Hebrews 1:1-2; John 10:37-38.

[4] New American Standard Bible. (1986). (electronic edition., Dt 4:2; Re 22:18–19). La Habra, CA: The Lockman Foundation. See also Dt 12:32; Prov 30:6. All Scripture references are from this source.

[5] John 6:38 (NASB)

[6] Jn 4:34.

[7] Lk 22:42.

[8] When we speak of this overemphasis on evangelism, we have two things in mind. First, there is the goading to be about saving the lost as the Christians highest and only pursuit in life – an unholy message that often does more harm than good. Secondly, this emphasis on evangelism often sees the application of the sermon boiled down to, “Come to Jesus and be saved!” Such a constant emphasis in application robs the Christian. How so? I’ve been a Christian for x number of years, I may be a new Christian, so the question, “What comes next?” is never answered.

[9] 1 John 3:4.

[10] Ga 3:24.

[11] Ro 3:19–20.

[12] 2 Ti 3:16–17.

[13] Mt 5:16.

[14] Jn 21:15–17.

[15] Eph 4:11–14.

[16] Romans 8:29.

[17] A lengthy phone conversation was also undertaken.

[18] Acts 17:32-33 clearly portrays the two outcomes of preaching. See also Acts 14:1-2; Acts 2:12-13; John 10:31-39.

[19] Galatians 1:8.

[20] Ps 139:1–24.

[21] This aspect can even bee seen in how a preacher approaches the text. One such preacher was witnessed rearranging the text, that is, preaching through it is a different order, so that he could end on the verse he wanted with the emphasis he wanted.

[22] Matthew 10:37 ff.

[23] Ps 1:1–2.

Controversial “Theo-” Words (Pt. 3)

Posted on by
2

In this third part, we shall look again at these controversial “Theo-” words and continue in our endeavour to show how the modern attitude, which generally despises these terms, is in fact a digression from Biblical truth and historic Christianity.

Our first answer in relation to the extent and application of God’s law began by focusing upon our love for God. If we truly love God with all our being and God rules our hearts and minds, we can only be Theocratic and Theonomic in our outward expression of His manifest love. After all, if God rules our hearts and minds, we are already, as individuals, Theocratic and Theonomic, so it is only logical that the truth that governs the inner man ought to flow out through our words and actions.

This then hints at the first stumbling block – are we loving God so completely that He rules our hearts and minds? The reason that Theocracy and Theonomy are a challenge for many Christians in regard to the public arena has to do with the fact that they are not yet Theocratic and Theonomic in the inner man. The inner man, truly yielded to Christ the King, will live out the Theo- words in all of life. In fact, unless he be an utter hypocrite, it is impossible to do otherwise. Conversely, the inner man, not truly yielded to Christ Jesus the King, will remain committed to and under the rule of the Auto- words.[1]

Another stumbling block seems to be that, for many Christians, we have succumbed to a lie which tells us that law and love are opposed to each other. Most find it odd to have obedience tied to love, fealty tied to surrender. Thus, we have trouble with Jesus’ “If you love Me you will keep My commandments” because we try to rework our definition of obedience to fit with our skewed concept of love. Correspondingly, we have fallen for modern, erroneous notions that like driving wedges between concepts. Thus, obedience is opposed to love; law is opposed to grace; freedom is opposed to requirement, and so forth. This is what the moderns teach, but it is false. God loved us so much that He placed the requirement of the Law on Jesus so that He could show us grace and mercy. If we love Jesus, we will obey Him, just as Jesus loved the Father and obeyed Him. Our freedom from law is found in our obedience to God’s law. God’s law is grace because adherence to it keeps us safe[2] and nurtures us in the life of Christ.

So, please, let us grasp the idea that a profession of love to and for God means that we love Him exclusively, explicitly, and absolutely. To love God after this manner means surrender to His will and standards, which can only mean obedience to His revealed Law. To reject this package is to follow apostate Israel into adultery and idolatry and to contradict Scripture’s clear teaching.[3]

Moving on, a second answer comes from John. The apostle states that “sin is lawlessness.”[4] What law, then, are we “less” in order to be considered a sinner? Is it Man’s law or God’s law? The Westminster Divines asked and answered this question thusly: “What is sin? Sin is any want of conformity unto, or transgression of, the law of God. (1 John 3:4)” So, to be lawless is to sin and to sin is to be “less” the law of God.

If you are in doubt, consider the next verses from John: “And you know that He appeared in order to take away sins; and in Him there is no sin. No one who abides in Him sins; no one who sins has seen Him or knows Him.” Says John, ‘God appeared to take away sin; God does not sin; the one who loves God does not sin; the sinning one does not know God.’ Confused? No need to be. It is very simple. Sin is Lawlessness. Sin is the lack of conformity unto or the transgression of the Law of God. If we are God’s, we are Lawful and sinless; if we are not God’s we will be Lawless and sinful.

Therefore, Biblically and historically, the Church, in the case before us the Early and Reformation Churches, has recognised that it is God’s law alone that provides the standards by which all things are to be measured. The transgression of God’s law brings sin and is sin, which equally equates to the fact that God’s law must be and is the only standard of righteousness.

Consequently, no individual, no family, no part of the Church, and no State can claim to be honouring God if they are not living under God’s King and honouring God’s law.

A third answer would be in regard to the Ten Commandments. Most Christians, erroneously, state that the Ten Commandments are the Moral Law of God, but importantly, most admit that this Moral Law is still binding upon all men.

The question that springs to mind is, “If the Ten Commandments are the Moral Law of God and are still binding, why do we pick, choose, and discriminate between these Ten?”

What do we mean when we ask this? Well, let’s do a little survey. Below is an abbreviated list of the Ten Commandments. Please have a quick look and ask yourself, “Which of these are still valid for today?” Place a tick beside those you believe are valid.

  1. No Other God’s;
  2. No idols; (No false worship)
  3. Do not take the Lord’s Name in vain;
  4. Remember the Sabbath to keep it holy;
  5. Hour your father and mother;
  6. No murder;
  7. No adultery;
  8. No thievery;
  9. No false witness;
  10. No coveting.

If we are consistent with the belief professed that these Ten Laws are equal to God’s Moral Law and that they are, consequently, still binding upon all men, then everyone should have ten ticks. Do you have ten ticks? If not, why not?

Now, we will make it tougher. All of these Ten Laws had penalties applied to them. How many of these Laws do you believe are still valid and abiding along with the original punishments? How many ticks do you now have? Less than the first time? If so, why?

The point of the exercise is to demonstrate how we will give hearty approval to ideas and concepts, but often, when those concepts are to be applied, we become shaky and our resolve evaporates.

For most Christians, there will be an affirmation that God’s Moral law is still binding. Christians will tell you that murder, thievery, and adultery are wrong. Some would even agree that the penalties given in the Law should still apply. Yet, here, we are already seeing the gap of opinion widen. For example, most Christians would agree that capital punishment for murder is right, but few would agree that capital punishment for adultery is right. How then do we justify this difference?

Most Christians agree that God alone must be worshipped and that idolatry is wrong. Yet, how many Christians believe that mosques and Buddhist temples should be banned in Australia because God is God and false worship is incorrect? Not many, judging from conversations and experience. Why this inconsistency?

The fourth Commandment establishes the Sabbath as a day to be hallowed, but to this most Christians would say, “Sabbath! What Sabbath?” Even though this is the Fourth of the Ten, Christians question it readily and they do so with no apparent reason. Why is this one Commandment not relevant any longer?

Again, these questions and points are not irrelevant. Experience has taught us that many Christians will give a hearty, “Yes! God is King. He must be honoured and obeyed!” but when it comes to practice, they will not oppose the mosque because this is Secular Australia. We will be told that we must accept homosexuality because God has either changed His mind on the subject or that we are no longer in Israel. These answers then entitle us to the privilege of once more listening to the hackneyed “love and tolerance” speech of the moderns.

Yet, we must ask, “How do we justify this type of double standard?” If God is God and He is jealous for the integral holiness of His Character – reflected in and by His law – how do we dismiss, change, or denigrate the first or any of the Commandments? Equally, for those enslaved to the “New Testament Christian” concept, we ask, “Where in the New Testament are we taught that God has abandoned His holiness, that God no longer cares about morality, that God has whittled the Ten Commandments to Four Plausible Proposals? The answer is, “Nowhere!”

It seems that we arrive at these points of inconsistency precisely because most Christians and most of Christendom are not committed to the Biblical concepts of Theocracy and Theonomy. Consequently, when we seek to live our lives we operate on principles that make us inclusive, implicit, relative or conditional, and plural, rather than being exclusive, explicit, absolute, and singular.

Turning again to the Church of the Reformation, we will find two snippets of wisdom that are very helpful and which will assist us to see that the principles of the moderns are new. The first is from the Westminster Shorter Catechism and asks, “Where is the moral law summarily comprehended? The moral law is summarily comprehended in the ten commandments. (Deut. 10:4, Matt. 19:17)”[5]

This first help comes in the word “summarily”. The Reformation Church did not believe that the Moral law was the Ten Commandments; it believed that the Ten Commandments were a summary of the Moral law.

Thus, the Commandment on adultery, for example, becomes case laws that proscribe fornication, bestiality, and homosexuality whilst conversely promoting and upholding marriage, family, and sexual purity. The Commandment on thievery becomes a command not to shift a boundary stone or to offer a bribe in order to pervert justice.

When understood in this manner, we see that the case laws are not irrelevant abstractions for the Old Testament people, which had no continuity to the Moral law, but were, rather, an application of God’s holy character to life and were themselves Moral Laws.[6]

The second help comes from the Westminster Larger Catechism and asks, “Of what use is the moral law to all men? The moral law is of use to all men, to inform them of the holy nature and the will of God, (Lev. 11:44–45, Lev. 20:7–8, Rom. 7:12) and of their duty, binding them to walk accordingly; (Micah 6:8, James 2:10–11) to convince them of their disability to keep it, and of the sinful pollution of their nature, hearts, and lives: (Ps. 19:11–12, Rom. 3:20, Rom. 7:7) to humble them in the sense of their sin and misery, (Rom. 3:9,23) and thereby help them to a clearer sight of the need they have of Christ, (Gal. 3:21–22) and of the perfection of his obedience. (Rom. 10:4)”[7]

The Reformation Church is most helpful in clarifying this point. As noted above, we today want to drive wedges between concepts. Consequently, we will not preach Law, contrary to Biblical commands, because we want Man to experience God’s love. Because we will not preach Law, we must then try and invent ways to evangelise. When these manmade inventions fail, we simply move on to ‘Version 2.0’ rather than repent and seek God’s wisdom. However, in contradistinction to the modern concept, the Church in former ages realised the validity of the Law as a God appointed instrument of righteousness by which men will see Jesus the Christ and His perfection as their only hope.

Therefore, if we want to see God in Christ glorified, we must understand the importance, centrality, and abiding validity of God’s Moral Law, which is summarised in the Ten Commandments. If we would see a holy people and a holy nation that willingly bow before Jesus in heartfelt gratitude at the wonder of His salvation, then the one firm Biblical directive we have is, “Preach the Law!” (Galatians 3:24.)

God almighty is not divided; neither is His word; neither are the Persons of the Trinity; neither are His revelations. As God is One, so is all that He has given to Man for wisdom and instruction. The Old Testament does not teach one way to God and the New another. Jesus does not appear on the pages of the New Testament other than as the Messiah who was foreshadowed and promised in the pages of the Old. Jesus does not arrive with a different Law or set of principles, indeed Jesus could not, because He came to make known the Father; Jesus came as the exact representation of the invisible God![8]

Hence, any view that denounces Theocracy and Theonomy must be dismissed as attacks upon God’s Kingship and Rule over His creation through Jesus Christ, His Son, and, by extension, through His saved people. The Church in history has understood these points and has given us sound wisdom and we will ignore it to our peril.

God is King! He does rule and He must rule. We, the Church, are redeemed that we might “reign with Christ”[9] and our apprenticeship is now. If we love God, we will honour and obey God’s King, Jesus Christ, by living according to all that God in Christ has commanded.

Therefore, Theocracy and Theonomy are fundamental concepts that play an essential role in imbuing us with the essence of our identity as sons and daughters of the Most High God. We seem to forget that we were created and ordained as God’s viceregents, those given rule over God’s creation for God’s glory – fruitful, multiply, subdue, rule! We forget that our redemption is a restoration and re-empowerment to achieve this task. We forget that we are a people redeemed and called to worship (to declare the worth of God)—Worthy art Thou, our Lord and our God, to receive glory and honor and power; for Thou didst create all things, and because of Thy will they existed, and were created! (Revelation 4:11); called to display His wonder upon the earth by reflecting His Kingship; called to live in obedience as a witness to Man that God is rightly to be obeyed for He alone is the true Sovereign; called that the display of God’s righteousness in us will convict men of their sin and show the exceeding wonder and perfection of Jesus, God’s Saviour and King.

Controversial “Theo-” words (Pt. 1)

Controversial “Theo-” words (Pt. 2)

Controversial “Theo-” words (Pt. 4)

Footnotes:

[1] It would seem that too many have fallen for the heretical, “Take Jesus as your Saviour, but the lordship of Christ is an optional extra” line. Yet, the truth is that Scripture only knows a Saviour that can save because He is first and foremost God the King.

[2] My father spent a few years in the police force. He recounts a conversation with one old sergeant in which this experienced man said, “If you ever find someone at the bottom of the river, they will have fiddled with the till or with someone’s wife.” Thus, according to his observations, if we ‘do not steal’ and ‘do not commit adultery’, we have less probability of swimming with the fishes in an unhealthy manner.

[3] John 14:15 — If you love Me, you will keep My commandments; John 15:10 — If you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love; just as I have kept My Father’s commandments, and abide in His love; John 14:21 — He who has My commandments and keeps them, he it is who loves Me; and he who loves Me shall be loved by My Father, and I will love him, and will disclose Myself to him; John 14:23 — If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him, and make Our abode with him; 1 John 5:3 — For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments; and His commandments are not burdensome; 2 John 6 — And this is love, that we walk according to His commandments. This is the commandment, just as you have heard from the beginning, that you should walk in it. Please note the consistency of the theme: to love God is to obey or keep his commandments.

[4] 1 John 3:4.

[5] Question and answer 41.

[6] I do not wish to labour his point, but would beg your indulgence for a practical demonstration of this point. The Westminster Larger Catechism, Q&A 104, reads: “What are the duties required in the first commandment? The duties required in the first commandment are, the knowing and acknowledging of God to be the only true God, and our God; (1 Chron. 28:9, Deut. 26:7, Isa. 43:10, Jer. 14:22) and to worship and glorify him accordingly, (Ps. 95:6–7, Matt. 4:10, Ps. 29:2) by thinking, (Mal. 3:16) mediating, (Ps. 63:6) remembering, (Eccl. 12:1) highly esteeming, (Ps. 71:19) honouring, (Mal. 1:6) adoring, (Isa. 45:23) choosing, (Josh. 24:15,22) loving, (Deut. 6:5) desiring, (Ps. 73:25) fearing of him; (Isa. 8:13) believing him; (Exod. 14:31) trusting (Isa. 26:4) hoping, (Ps. 130:7) delighting, (Ps. 37:4) rejoicing in him; (Ps. 32:11) being zealous for him; (Rom. 12:11, Num. 25:11) calling upon him, giving all praise and thanks, (Phil. 4:6) and yielding all obedience and submission to him with the whole man; (Jer. 7:23, James 4:7) being careful in all things to please him, (1 John 3:22) and sorrowful when in any thing he is offended; (Jer. 31:18, Ps. 119:136) and walking humbly with him. (Micah 6:8)” Here the Divines are speaking of Man’s duty to God as it is outlined in the first Commandment. We would simply like to draw your attention to the list of texts to which they refer in order to prove their statements. The Moral Law, summarily comprehended in the Decalogue, is proved to be true for the whole of Scripture.

[7] Question and answer 95.

[8] See: Colossians 1:15 and Hebrews 1:1-2.

[9] See: Revelation 3:21; Revelation 20:6; 2 Timothy 2:12.

Your Sunday Best (Pt 5)

Posted on by
Reply

As Man has shifted his focus in worship from a transcendent, absolute, holy God to himself and to his own gratification, we have witnessed a patent transformation, not only in the form of worship, but also in the form of the worshipper.

In recent years, I have had many discussions on the topic of an appropriate dress code for worship. Most have been with the younger generation and, of these, some have been family members. The objections put forward are telling in themselves. Apparently, one has to be comfortable in order to worship. One must recognise that God looks on the heart. One must not offend a brother who has less than you. One must be able to connect with the stranger who comes in off the street, and so on.

The common denominator in all of these objections is that they focus on man. As such, they are all exploitable because there is no quantifiable standard. What constitutes “comfortable”? Is not “comfortable” a subjective term? Hence, I could state that I am quite comfortable when I am butt naked in a hot bath. Does this now become an acceptable form for my appearing at Church? God looks on the heart – does that mean that our “wayside pulpits’ now carry the words, “Worshippers Welcome. Clothes Optional”? Wear nothing or everything, for God only views the heart. Our poorer brother! Must I now ring him every Sunday and ask what he is wearing, just so I do not turn up dressed slightly more upmarket and create an offence? As for the stranger, if my connection is not even skin deep and relies completely on my “threads”, well …!

About now, the scorn and derision will be forthcoming from those who hold to these views. Apparently I am overstating the case; going to the nth degree; and just being, ‘plain ridiculous’! Am I? Not in anyway. What I want to show is that when we move from God, the immutable and absolute standard, we move into the subjective. When we move into the subjective there is no absolute, no right or wrong, there is only the opinion of the individual.

In the context of worship, this means that each individual decides for himself what it is that God should receive in worship, the method by which He should receive it, and the quality of the thing offered, right down to the worshippers attire. However, as we have already seen, when the opinions of the individual are at the forefront of the decision making process, God’s revealed standard means little. In fact, God is not in view because the individual is consumed by the exalted self.

In opposition to this, when we come to worship God truly, none of these objections even come into view. When we are consumed by the offering of praise and worth to our Saviour God, these objections pale into insignificance. When I am consumed with God, my comfort is of little importance. When I am consumed with God, I realise that my heart and everything else about me, is laid bare before God’s all seeing eye. When I am consumed with God, I am not looking at clothing labels and nor is my brother. When I am consumed with God, the stranger will be welcomed in compassion – “for you were strangers once”![1]

Tragically, the result of worshipping God in accord with our standards rather than the Biblical standard is that we Christians have begun to reflect an extreme casualness in the way we worship God. This is seen both in how we present for worship and what is offered as worship. This is the consequence of taking our eyes from God and fixing them upon Man. Subtly, we have imbibed a false doctrine that maligns God as unimportant and dismisses His holiness as a standard for our conduct and appearance.[2] As a result, the modern Christian, especially the young, present to worship God, bleary eyed, yawning, late, and dishevelled, but supposedly ready to worship in spirit and in truth. Methinks not!

Okay, yes, it is easy to criticise. It is easy to point fingers. In this case the finger pointing is essential and that for two reasons: First, to highlight a major sickness (issue) within the modern Church; Second, to show that it is a problem by pointing to the Biblical data.

You see, when I have had the aforementioned discussion and I posit that the Bible does have something to say about dress codes, I am invariably met with a blank stare, a look of derision, sheer disbelief, or a ‘New Testamenty’ – “God looks at the heart!” thus endeth the discussion![3]

So let us look at the evidence.

First, let us look at our culture. Now, to be sure, culture is not authoritative. However, it is instructive. It has rightly been said that “culture is religion externalised and made explicit”.[4] This means that when you view culture, you are viewing the application of the major ideologies or religion(s) of that culture.

Now, very few, if any, would dispute that our culture has undergone a transformation, and that not in a good way. Most would perceive that there has been a general downturn in morals, ethics, and standards. This is particularly so when we talk about law, justice, honesty, and so on. What of the dress standard? Is it not also true that we have seen a major decline in the way people dress? Gangsters are mimicked. Hats are worn sideways and backwards. Faces are shielded by hoods as though the wearer were allergic to light or ashamed of their very being. Modesty has all but become a forgotten term.

What is at the root of this downturn? It has, no doubt whatsoever, to do with the fact that as a nation we have abandoned God. In exactly the same way that this piece contends that Christians have pushed God aside in worship, so we have pushed God aside nationally as a people. We threw out the old religion, Christianity, with its holy God and His pernickety rules and embraced new religions that gave Man freedom – Secularism, Humanism, Evolution, and others. Each let Man off the leash, to run free in the park, but what was the consequence? What happens when a fallen creature is given unbridled freedom?

Well, look around you. The downward spiral you witness every day is a direct result of this nation swapping religions.  Murder, mayhem, theft, despair, PC, homosexuality, promiscuity, divorce, abortion, etc., etc., are all a result of the new religion. The incongruity for us as Christians is that we quite happily recognise this downturn in regard to the big moral issues, but we skirt the question when it comes to the lesser and more personal item like a dress code.

For those old enough, think back to the term, “Your Sunday best”. Whenever you were required to go anywhere of note, you would speak of ‘putting on your Sunday best’. Implicit in this statement is the fact that the best was reserved for Sunday, God’s day, and for His worship. Culturally, we had a regard for God. Culturally, there was honour for God. Sunday was a day of rest and worship. It was a sanctified day, a day set apart to God, and as a culture we reserved our best for that day.

It is also noteworthy that at that time, the dress code was generally of a higher standard. Modesty was in vogue. People did not appear down the street in their pyjamas. Hats were worn for a purpose and as part of a standard. They were even worn correctly.

Yes, people can mock, but it does not alter these facts. Simply put, when God was honoured in our nation, we saw a higher standard all around, including in personal hygiene and appearance.

Sadly, the national trend of jettisoning God was expedited by the Church’s capitulation on many fronts, but particularly in regard to worship. As a child I remember that many preachers wore robes and or dog collars. Yes, even in some Protestant denominations. At the very least the minister would wear a suit.

Then came the influence of the new religion, and regrettably it held sway over a good number of the clergy. They began to argue for dumping the robes and dog collars. Sure, they started off in suits, but as they had no objective standard, it was not long before the tie was abandoned, the jacket became uncomfortable, it was cheaper to by jeans, and so on.

As the dress standard amongst the clergy waned, so did their standard in a number of other areas. With the clergy actively lowering their standards, it would not be long before preaching on these topics evaporated. Without preaching, “How would the people hear?”

This is a simple cause and effect scenario. Lamentably, it is more than a scenario. It is a matter of history.

As stated, this is not authoritative, but it should show, to any who are genuinely interested, that when God was honoured our standards and the standards of our society were far higher. The degradation caused by apostasy is not just seen in sexual perversion and the aborting of the unborn. It is seen in us, Christ’s people, as we succumb to the standards of the new religion instead of maintaining the holy standard of righteousness given by God.

Let me ask, seriously and genuinely, “Where would your “Sunday best” gain you admittance?”  The footy? The pub? The museum? Would you wear it to court, if summoned? Would you wear it to a wedding or civic function? Would you wear it to meet Premier, Prime Minister or Queen?

Second, let us turn to the Biblical evidence.

At the outset, we must state that a major problem with many topics like the one before us is that Christians have been robbed of an ability to study the Bible. Proof texting became the rage. In so doing it taught Christians that if a doctrine was not stated in a single text of a few words, then it must not be in the Bible.[5] Consequently, Christians, in studying this topic, would look up a concordance under “dress code for worship” hoping that they would find a reference to Hezekiah 12:24 – When thou comest unto worship, wearest thou thy bestest suit, adorned (pronounce the ed) sufficiently with a tie of matching character.

Of course, purists like myself look predominantly to verses 25 and 26:

When thou comest unto worship, wearest not upon thine feets the cultural icon of the ‘thong’, nor adornest thy body with that abominable shit of T. Knowest thou not that any buttonless shirt be unholy.  Also present not they body clad in the jean even though it dost have the holy name ‘Levi’ writ upon it. Be thou shaven or bearded. Comest thou not unto worship with thribble growth.

However, having looked and found nothing, they conclude that the Bible is silent. Yet the Bible is not silent. Not even close.[6]

Our first text is Genesis 35:1-4. There we read:

Then God said to Jacob, “Arise, go up to Bethel, and live there; and make an altar there to God, who appeared to you when you fled from your brother Esau.” So Jacob said to his household and to all who were with him, “Put away the foreign gods which are among you, and purify yourselves, and change your garments; and let us arise and go up to Bethel; and I will make an altar there to God, who answered me in the day of my distress, and has been with me wherever I have gone.” So they gave to Jacob all the foreign gods which they had, and the rings which were in their ears; and Jacob hid them under the oak which was near Shechem.[7]

The first thing to notice is the context of this text. It is firmly planted in the context of redemption and worship. God calls upon Jacob to move to Bethel – the House of God – and to build an altar there. In response to this call by God, Jacob undertakes a covenantal clean up. Jacob gives three commands to all under his authority:

  1. Remove all Idols;
  2. Purify yourselves;
  3. Change your garments.

For those committed to the view that dress is unimportant in the worship of God, point three becomes a real challenge. If God only looks at the heart, why is Jacob concerned with how his people look?

However, if we are going to give the text the respect it is due we will see that there is a logical progression. First, true worship calls for the destruction of all other gods and idols. This is but a precursor to the Sinaitic command, “You shall have no other gods before Me. You shall not make for yourself an idol, or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth. You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God”.[8]

Having put away the external symbols of falsehood, the people were called upon to purify themselves. They were to repent, to turn fervently to God and embrace all His ways. They were to hold Yahweh as the one true God. The Hebrew word behind our term “purify” is quite strong. Wilson states that it means “to be ceremonially clean, clear, or purged from moral pollution; to be cleared from the penal consequence of sin.”[9] Not only this, the form of the verb means that they are to cause themselves to conform to the required state. Therefore, they must purify themselves, make themselves clean, and make themselves acceptable.

Before moving on to discuss the garments, I would like you to note the pattern and principle established so far. These people were pagan or, more appropriately, polytheists. Although Jacob had met Yahweh, he had allowed his wife to have a household idol. This being so, it was unlikely that he had taken a tough stand with any of his servants who were from foreign nations. Their casual attitude to religion was manifest in their external appearance. Not only did they have household idols, but presumably they carried trinkets and talismans. The reference to “the rings in their ears” is most likely due to the fact that they were a talisman or an actual depiction, in miniature, of a foreign god.

Clearly established, then, is the principle that the inward belief was represented by the outward and external action and dress of the people. Therefore, when Jacob called his people to repentance and purity they had to cast off the old appearance that promulgated the false religion and clothe themselves in a manner that disseminated their dedication to Yahweh.

When this principle is properly understood, it makes absolute sense that the command to “put way idols” and to “purify yourselves” is followed by a command to “change your garments”. The change of heart was to be reflected by the discarding of one external appearance and the embracing of another. Thus, Keil and Delitzsch remark:

The burial of the idols was followed by purification through the washing of the body, as a sign of the purification of the heart from the defilement of idolatry, and by the putting on of clean and festal clothes, as a symbol of the sanctification and elevation of the heart to the Lord (Josh. xxiv.23).[10]

It was necessary that the change in heart be reflected by an external change. It is strange, then, that this concept seems so foreign to the modern Christian, for we are talking nothing other than sanctification. The believer of any age should be marked as different by the fact that the external and observable is different. If it be but the same as the pagan, how are they to be distinguished? If “the old has gone and the new has come” why is there nothing distinctive about the new? If, in terms of Psalm 40, we have been lifted from the pit, out of the miry clay, been given a rock upon which to stand, and have had a new song placed in our mouth, why is it that we are tuneless and look as though we have just competed at a mud wrestling tournament?

Despite what those of the opposite view may think, these are valid questions. The simple reality, established as Biblical warrant by this text, is that our outer attire should be a part of our Christian witness and worship. Just as our actions and our words should always be to God’s praise, so should the way we dress. This article focuses primarily on worship, but the principle has currency for the rest of life. We are to be a Christ exalting people who bring Him glory by taking dominion over this earth in His name. Taking dominion is nothing other than bringing Christ’s rule by His principles over the world – starting with ourselves.[11] Nowhere should these principles and our obedience to them be more evident than in our corporate worship on the Lord’s Day.

Rather than dismissing this text and the principle embodied in it as a cultural anachronism, we would do much better to cherish it and through it better and more elegantly worship the One Living and True God, through Jesus Christ, in the Holy Spirit.

Love for God should make conformity to this principle an offering a joy and not a burden. Focus upon God’s worth should, indeed, makes us forget about ourselves. Rushdoony rightly said: “Respect for God from the time of Genesis to the present has meant such cleanliness as a sign of respect.”[12]

Our second text is found in Exodus 19:10-15:

The Lord also said to Moses, “Go to the people and consecrate them today and tomorrow, and let them wash their garments; and let them be ready for the third day, for on the third day the Lord will come down on Mount Sinai in the sight of all the people. “And you shall set bounds for the people all around, saying, ‘Beware that you do not go up on the mountain or touch the border of it; whoever touches the mountain shall surely be put to death. ‘No hand shall touch him, but he shall surely be stoned or shot through; whether beast or man, he shall not live.’ When the ram’s horn sounds a long blast, they shall come up to the mountain.” So Moses went down from the mountain to the people and consecrated the people, and they washed their garments. And he said to the people, “Be ready for the third day; do not go near a woman.”[13]

Moses has led the people out of the land of bondage and to redemption. He has led them to the foot of Mount Sinai and to their God. At this point, the people are about to meet God in a very personal way. In preparation, Yahweh sets forth His principles of worship so that the people can enjoy their worship of Him without fear. Consequently, the requirement of holiness is stressed by a command to “consecrate” and another to “wash” their garments.

When these texts are viewed together we see that they are set in the context of redemption and worship.  Whether that be at the familial level (Jacob) or at the corporate / national level (Moses) the principle remains the same. Redemption / salvation is to worship and that worship is to take place in accord with the standards that God has set.

Equally, it must be seen that God’s standard not only impacts the composition and structure of worship, but that the worshipper’s comport is also in view. In both these texts, it is God who states that the external appearance of the worshipper must reflect the consecrated or holy estate into which the worshipper has been brought.

As we move forward in redemptive history, we see Yahweh hand down His Law to His people. In that Law there are strict guidelines for worship and purification. Not surprisingly, we encounter many occurrences in which the washing of the outer garment is required in order to complete the purification rite.[14]

Those who disagree with the position espoused will claim that these are ceremonial laws that have passed away and are no longer binding. Even if that be granted, would we not be wise to apply ourselves to understanding the principles involved and applying them to our modern situation?

In reality, it is hard to see how these key elements can be dismissed as passé. Are we not talking about redemption and worship? Are these not concepts that transverse the Testamental divide of the moderns? Are we not talking of core principles that transcend time and reach into eternity precisely because we are speaking of the attributes and character of God?

With these questions in mind, let us leave the Old Testament and look to the New Testament. This shift is not because we are not satisfied with the Old Testament data as some of our readers may be, but because it is important to see that the Scriptures are unified on this subject.

When people think of the New Testament teaching on the subject of clothing, many will think of that solid New Testament principle, which states that “God looks on the heart”. This is a fundamental New Testament statement that shows forth the unity of Scripture. It does so because this solid New Testament passage is actually found in 1 Samuel 16:7!

The second principle that many would focus upon is that found in the book of James. In chapter two, verses one through nine, James speaks of the rich man and the poor man in the assembly. However, his argument does not have to do with the standard of dress or cleanliness, but with the attitude displayed by Christ’s people. Instead of palavering to the rich and despising the poor, the Christian should have been courteous to both. Judging by external motives alone is declared by James to be “bad reasoning”.

Why pander to the rich man when he is the one who exploits / dominates people and takes them to court in person? Why despise the poor man when he is in fact an heir of the promise, called from the foundation of the world, and washed clean in Jesus blood? The point of James’ argument is simple – our discernment should be spiritual and not simply based on sight.

Does James contradict our thesis? No. As stated, James is speaking to a different issue. If we were to focus upon the issue of clothing in worship and ask James for advice, I am sure it would go along the lines of the rich man helping the poor man to take a step up.

Does the New Testament have any other data that may help us? Yes, it does. Let us start with the opaque and work toward the perspicuous.

Matthew 22:1-14 contains the parable of the Wedding Feast. As this is a parable, we need to make sure that we do not stretch the evidence or deal falsely with the text. However, that does not mean that evidence or principle cannot be gleaned from the passage.

Of interest for us are the verses eleven and twelve, which read: “But when the king came in to look over the dinner guests, he saw there a man not dressed in wedding clothes, and he said to him, ‘Friend, how did you come in here without wedding clothes?’ And he was speechless.”

At the outset, we must understand that this text presents some difficulties. Commentators are unsure as to how to bridge the gap between verses ten and eleven. Were the guests to hurry home and dress appropriately? Did the King provide the garments? These are questions of debate.

What is not unclear, given the King’s response, is that there was a standard of dress appropriate to a wedding function. Calvin says:

There is no point in arguing about the marriage garment, whether it is of faith or a holy and godly life; for faith cannot be separated from good works and good works proceed only from faith. All Christ wants to say here is that we are called by the Lord under the condition that we be renewed in our spirits into His image, and therefore, if we are to remain in His house … we are to practice the new life so that our appearance … may correspond to our honourable calling.[15]

Calvin’s words, at this point, echo what has already been established, namely, that our external appearance (dress or behaviour) must reflect the reality of Jesus Christ as a holy and righteous King. As Kingdom participants, we are to be different and identifiable by that difference. Importantly, that difference should reflect the higher standard held by the Christian precisely because Jesus is his King.

A second text in the opaque category may be that found in Matthew 17:2 – “And He was transfigured before them; and His face shone like the sun, and His garments became as white as light.”

We will not attempt any great commentary on this passage. We simply wish to pause long enough to note that whatever happened to Jesus in the transfiguration also affected Jesus’ clothing. Jesus’ face shone and so did Jesus’ garments.

Transitioning from the opaque to the perspicuous, our first port of call is James 5:2 – “Your riches have rotted and your garments have become moth-eaten.” In this text, James is condemning the rich by showing how “their sins will find them out.” James points out that their riches are really nothing of significance for they will not pass God’s test. Their clothes are rotting and their gold and silver have rusted (v 3).

Like the parable of the Wedding Feast, this text is a negative example that shows the Biblical principle that the internal and external are inextricably linked.

Last, we would present a number of texts from the Book of Revelation:

  • Revelation 3:4-5– But you have a few people in Sardis who have not soiled their garments; and they will walk with Me in white; for they are worthy. ‘He who overcomes shall thus be clothed in white garments.
  • Revelation 4:4 – And around the throne were twenty-four thrones; and upon the thrones I saw twenty-four elders sitting, clothed in white garments, and golden crowns on their heads.
  • Revelation 6:11– And there was given to each of them a white robe; and they were told that they should rest for a little while longer, until the number of their fellow servants and their brethren who were to be killed even as they had been, should be completed also.
  • Revelation 7:9, 13-14 – After these things I looked, and behold, a great multitude, which no one could count, from every nation and all tribes and peoples and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed in white robes, and palm branches were in their hands … And one of the elders answered, saying to me, “These who are clothed in the white robes, who are they, and from where have they come?”  And I said to him, “My lord, you know.” And he said to me, “These are the ones who come out of the great tribulation, and they have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.
  • Revelation 22:14 – Blessed are those who wash their robes, that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter by the gates into the city.

Despite the reservations of many, the Book of Revelation is not a deep mystery to which there is no understanding. On the contrary, much of its teaching is plain. Essentially, we see in the Book of Revelation King Jesus waging war against the enemies of God. As part of that picture we are introduced to the magnificence of the salvation won for us by Jesus and the heavenly scene of glorified saints at worship.

These themes are presented to us right from the start when Jesus comes to seven struggling congregations and speaks to them in person. In those places we see that the heavenly warfare is played out on the earthly stage. We see covenant sanctions, both positive and negative, set before the people as a spur to righteousness and as a deterrent from sin.

In the congregation of Sardis there is a delusion present. Most think they are alive when in fact they are dead. However, Jesus points to a few who have not “soiled their garments”. Their reward is that they will “walk with Jesus in white”. Then Jesus encourages us all by stating that the one “who overcomes shall thus be clothed in white garments”.

Similarly, the church of Laodicea shared a related delusion. They thought themselves rich and clothed in fine raiment when in fact Jesus condemns them as poor and naked (3:17). Jesus urges the Laodiceans to come to Him for all their needs, including “white garments, that you may clothe yourself, and that the shame of your nakedness may not be revealed” (v 18).

These words to the Church are important for us as they give a setting for all the following references to “white robes”, “washed robes”, and “white garments”.[16]

It is important that we allow Scripture to speak and to show us the continuity found in the Book of Revelation. In that place, the saints are always in white. Soiled clothing and nakedness (the two inappropriate standards) are replaced by white robes washed and made clean in the blood of the Lamb.

Please take this in. We are not introduced to clean and changed hearts, though that be true. We are not given intricate details on justification by faith, though that be true. Rather, we are shown the true nature of our redemption in a simple picture – we are given clean white clothes to wear.

When this evidence is brought together the consistency from Genesis to Revelation cannot be denied. God clothed Adam and Eve in the garden and He clothes the saints in Revelation. Throughout we see that the outer garment is a sign of the heart’s relationship to God. The naked must be clothed. Those with soiled garments must remove them and wash them or they must change them for a new set. Likewise, we see that this change of clothing is always associated with God and His worship.

In conclusion, we once more need to challenge those who would readily dismiss the teaching of these texts. After all, we are talking about two concepts that are familiar to every Christian – holiness and sanctification. As the redeemed of God in Christ, the fact that we are reclothed through regeneration should also be evident in us possessing a sanctified and elevated approach to God’s worship. In short, our standard of dress on a Sunday should reflect the fact that we are bought with a price, that we are washed and sanctified, and that we have no greater joy than to meet with God’s people to show forth His eternal worth.

We have argued elsewhere that heaven, rather than being a tantalising dream, should be a standard for our present reality and lives. The import of this statement is simple. If it is true of heaven, then it should be a goal here and now. To say this is simply to express the prayer Jesus taught us in different language – Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven.

When we glimpse heaven through the pages of Scripture we see the exalted saints of glory gathered together in white gleaming robes, surrounded by angelic beings, worshipping God and the Lamb in purity. This is our goal. This should be that for which we strive earnestly and unceasingly now.

Salvation is worship. Salvation is worship in purity. Worship is showing forth God’s worth. How do we show God His worth, when we offer Him second best and worse? Did not Yahweh condemn Israel for brining blemished sacrifices? Yes. Yahweh even went so far as to say, ‘How many of your governors would be happy with these offerings?’[17] Yet here we are, the enlightened of the space age, and we will not understand two basic concepts: 1. God demands and deserves the best of everything; 2. All offerings must be offered in accordance with His command.

Part 6

[1] Deuteronomy 10:19

[2] Much of this harks back to comments made previously to the effect that large portions of Christendom have dismissed large portions of the Bible, namely the Old Testament. As they dismiss its teaching as authoritative they are a priori unwilling to listen to and learn from the principles taught therein. As it is in Israel that man is primarily taught how to worship an absolutely holy God, closing those pages can only be detrimental for our understanding and practice of worship.

[3] It may be worth noting that this “New Testamenty” text actually comes from the Old Testament and can be found in 1 Samuel 16:7. It is picked up thematically in Luke 16:15, but it is not directly quoted.

[4] Henry van Til, The Calvinistic Concept of Culture.

[5] This was before the new religion of the exalted self caused them to lay there Bible’s aside and rely on their own judgement.

[6] Once more, a part of the problem is that the “New Testament” Christian will not read the Old Testament or simply dismisses its teaching. Thus, vital and pertinent evidence is discarded.

[7] The New American Standard Bible, (La Habra, California: The Lockman Foundation) 1977.

[8] Exodus 20:3-5.

[9] William Wilson, Wilson’s Old Testament Word Studies (MacDonald Publishing Co, McLean, VA.) SV: Pure, Purge, Purify.

[10] Keil and Delitzsch, Old Testament Commentaries (6 vols) volume 1, pp. 242-243.

[11] For those questioning the legitimacy of this process, may I point you to Jesus’ words in the Great Commission – Teach the nations to obey (keep / guard / protect) all that I have commanded.

[12] Rousas John Rushdoony, Genesis (Ross House Books, 2002) p. 230

[13] The pertinent verses for our discussion are 10, 14, and 15. The rest are included to give a context and to help the reader grasp the gravity of the situation.

[14] Please see: Leviticus 15:5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, & 13 as examples. Compare with Leviticus 17:16.

[15] John Calvin, Matthew, Mark, Luke, Vol 2. P. 109. Italics added.

[16] There are also several references to “bright / white linen” etc.

[17] Malachi 1:8.

Man’s Priority (Pt 4)

Posted on by
Reply

Sola Scriptura. This is the Christian’s, indeed, Man’s only rule for life and faith. Within the pages of Scripture, Man finds meaning and purpose. Man finds his priority for life.

The truth of this is evident simply by looking to our society. We have become used to people asking the question: “Why am I here?” Surveying society, we find people not only searching for an answer to that question, but also living a life in answer to that question.

When the Nihilist exists in what is little more than amalgamated moments of despair, he is living out his answer to the question. When the Materialist exists by gathering to himself an ever increasing number of objects, he is living out his answer to the question. When the Secularist exists in his Closed System, he is living out his answer to the question. When the Evolutionist exists in his Chaos, he is living out his answer to the question. When the alcoholic exists in his stuporous state, he is living out either his answer or lack of an answer to the question.

The tragedy encountered here is that each one thinks he either has an answer or has successfully avoided the question, when he has but grasped the air. Even more sorrowful is the fact that rebellious Man, turning his back to Scripture, has rejected the source of Truth and the one place in which he can find meaning and purpose, and priority. Sad, very sad!

Yet, there is a greater calamity still. Such calamity is witnessed when we view the redeemed man also turning his back to Scripture. The rebellious sinner does so precisely because he is a rebellious sinner. This is understandable. This can make perfect sense. The child of God turning his back to His Father’s voice! This is calamity. It is altogether preposterous. Yet, it happens – indeed is happening! Everyday across our nation, Christians go about their business without seeking the counsel of God. Having been bewitched by the philosophy of this age, they indulge their perceived freedom to govern their lives as they see fit. Consequently, they fail to live out the purpose for which they were created and redeemed.

Why am I here? Why are any of us here? What is our individual and collective priority? To worship the One True and Living God in purity through obedience![1]

As noted in the Part 3, Christians today have fallen into the age old temptation that plagued Israel – they have mistaken fervent, industrious, religious activity for true worship. Christians (and those claiming to be Christians ) turn up to church on Sunday; they run programmes; they busy themselves in worthwhile activities; they put money in the plate; they sing with gusto; yet this avails naught because God is displeased with these people for they do not worship Him aright. Whilst they come to His house, offer praises in His name, and comply with certain Biblical commands, the reality is that these are outward motions only. The heart is in a different place and comes to each of these activities with false motives and a different agenda.[2]

Now, I am sure that some will baulk at this assessment. Yet, this is the very evaluation that God made of Israel on several occasions. Israel conformed to the outward standards, but they did not follow in true heartfelt obedience to God’s Law. Yahweh, consequently, told them to stop brining their sacrifices and observing their New Moons because they were a burden to Him. [3] Fervency was not intimacy; practice was external not personal; adherence was rational not relational; and praise was contrived not congenial.

The pertinent question seems to be, “Why do we think that we are immune to that same folly?” When we have puppet shows instead of preaching; when the service is so burdensome that we need an in house coffee hut and an intermission; when we sing a majority of songs that start with “I”; when our personal enjoyment becomes the ‘yardstick’ of a good service; when we become willing to abandon important doctrines so as to attain a better turn out; when some of our churches have sound systems that would cause recording studios to blush; when we fracture Christ’s body; when we fracture families; when we condone sin and effectively trample the blood of Christ underfoot – How is it that we believe, contrary to all available evidence, that we are immune to that same folly?[4]

The Church is currently beguiled by unbelief precisely because She has imbibed deeply of the spirit of this age. Without question, successive generations, raised on a diet of Secular Humanism and rank Individualism, have brought these philosophies to the life of the Church. Man has been elevated. He is no longer a worm. Man is magnificent. Man is the measure. Man’s rational mind can solve all problems. Man therefore assumes the mantle of the “one” to be worshipped.

As a result, subtly to be sure, God’s glory is eroded. God is no longer the single focus. Man crept in slowly. Starting as a mere apparition in the corner of the eye, he slowly moved to become the focal point. As this process was taking place, the equal and opposite reaction began. God was shifted sideways until He became but a speck in the corner of the eye – present to the view, but no longer to be the mono-focus.

Given Man’s elevation, all that spoke poorly of Man had to be eradicated or toned down. Certain doctrines were dropped, modified, or spoken of only in hushed tones. The words spoken from the pulpit underwent change. The hymns known throughout the Church were slowly abandoned. New songs were written that reflected the new beliefs. Doctrinal standards were pushed into the background and remained only as a token of respect to the past. The result of this development is that we have a generation that imitates the external motions of a previous generation, but which function on a very different set of motives.

Subtly, Christianity has become completely subjective, focussing on “me” and “I”. Christianity has become a cosmic power to meet the needs of the individual. I tithe in order to get. I go to the church that I like for my enjoyment. I attend the place where I am comfortable. When seeking a new place to attend, they scope out any prospective congregations with the I. These prospects must be aesthetically pleasing to the I or they will not suffice. If any subsequent changes are made causing that congregation to cease being pleasing to the I, then a motion is put to leave and find somewhere else. The result? They I’s have it. The motion passes.

Worse than this atrocity – the individual Christian becoming the focal point in worship rather than God – was the second phase. Having elevated Man and having dropped those doctrines and terms that offended Man, it was not long before the distinction between Man the saint and Man the sinner disappeared. Thus, the most glaring change that has occurred in this regard is that sinful man has been elevated to be the centre of attention. The Christian does not focus upon an absolutely holy God nor does he focus upon his own redeemed brethren. Rather, sinful, unregenerate Man holds pride of place.

Sermons are no longer aimed at the true, obedient worship of God or edifying and equipping the Christian; rather they are aimed at saving and or pacifying the sinner. Quizzically, as the sinner does not like certain doctrines, they are dropped or minimised so that the sinner can be comfortable. The sinner, in the extreme case, is even offered certain jobs so that they will feel at home within the Church.

This happens across our nation every Sunday, yet people seem absolutely reluctant to admit to the obvious consequences of this process. God demands holiness and separateness, so we must ask, “On what basis do we form an amalgam?”[5] God’s word reveals that certain things must be preached as the means of salvation, so it must be asked, “How do we save a sinner if these requirements are dropped?”[6]

This is not rocket science. It is a case of dealing with hearts that have become hardened unto God; hearts that are listening to Man and not God.[7]

In opposition to this anthropocentric view and coddling of the unregenerate, the Bible instructs us specifically that Man’s priority is to worship the One True and living God and this in absolute purity. There is to be no “guess work”, “stabs in the dark”, “rough enough is good enough” or “God looks on the heart” type theology–which translates into Man doing what he thinks is right and acceptable.

On the contrary, Scripture, in words, signs, and figures, vociferously insists that God alone is to be worshipped and worshipped in the manner prescribed by Him. During the Reformation this principle came to be known as the Regulative Principle of Worship. Sadly, over time men have tampered with this concept to the point that it is either forgotten or obscured.

Nonetheless, the words penned by the Westminster Divines, enunciating the Biblical principle, hold true and should not be ignored:

…But the acceptable way of worshipping the true God is instituted by Himself, and so limited by His own revealed will, that He may not be worshipped according to the imaginations and devices of men, or the suggestions of Satan, under any visible representation, or any other way not prescribed in the Holy Scripture. (Deut. 12:32, Matt. 15:9, Acts 17:25, Matt. 4:9–10, Deut. 15:1–20, Exod. 20:4–6, Col. 2:23).[8]

What is amazing about this teaching is not the dogma itself, but the fact that it is so patent, so prevalent, so perspicuous, and so emphasised in Scripture, yet men seem unwilling or unable to grasp it.

Adam walked with God in the cool of the evening – fellowship / worship. This relationship was intimate. There was no barrier or hindrance. Then Adam transgressed. What happened next? Man was ashamed to dwell in intimacy with God. Fallen man could not reside before a holy God nor meet the demands for fellowship and worship. Man’s response? He hid. He is still hiding. Man distances himself from God because he cannot bear the light of truth that shines forth from God’s righteous Being and shows Man to be a sinner. It is important to note that nothing has changed in this regard. Sinful Man still hides from God in the 21st Century.[9]

This principle is clearly seen. Why do we not admit it and believe it? Adam hid. Adam did not make his way to God. At the first hint of God’s presence, Adam scarpered! This is the sinners MO when dealing with God. Likewise we see that it was God who called Adam’s name. It was God who made the blood covering for Adam and Eve.

In terms of our thesis, this is a noteworthy point. If sinful Man runs from God and His worship, “How do we humans believe that we can make God’s worship appealing to a rebellious sinner?” We compromise. We empty our churches and our worship services of the things that would offend the conscience of sinful Man. Hence, in orthodox circles we adopt many of the practices outlined earlier; in heterodox circles we abandon standards altogether and happily teach the principles of homosexuality, feminism, Secularism, Evolution and the like. In short, there is an attempt to legitimise paganism.

Man cannot come to God as he pleases.[10] Man cannot offer as acceptable worship that which is devised in his own mind.

Think, here, of the first murder. What was the setting? Worship! Abel, acceptable to God, presented an acceptable offering according to God’s design.[11] Cain did not. Cain became enraged, but he only had himself to blame. His offering was not accepted because he had adopted the “stab in the dark” approach. He had decided “rough enough was good enough”. Cain believed that God should simply accept his offering because he had made an effort to present something.

In other words, typical of fallen Man, Cain believed, not in obeying God’s revelation, but in the fact that Man can oblige God to look upon him with favour purely on the basis of Man offering a token gesture in God’s direction. Let’s be clear. In every form, this formula is favour or salvation by works! It is Man’s vain attempt to obligate God into rendering favour / salvation to Man on the basis of something that Man has done.

Note the pattern, please. First, Cain pays no heed to God’s standard for acceptable worship – showing his disbelief in God’s word as the only authority. Second, Cain despises the warning given by God to the effect that sin is crouching at the door. Third, having shown a gross disregard for the voice of God on these two occasions, Cain casts off all restraint, strikes out at his brother, killing him, rather than admit that he is a sinner. Cain was culpable. Cain stopped up his ears to the voice of God. Yet, like most sinners, he chose to blame the ‘righteous man’ for being righteous. Cain chose to blame Abel because Abel’s righteousness clearly showed Cain’s sin.[12]

Clearly demonstrated for us in this episode are several facts. Of importance, please note again, the sinner does not run to God, rather he runs from God. Also, the sinner cannot bring any worthy sacrifice that will be acceptable to God. In fact, as the sinner is the impediment to worship, refusing to hearken unto God’s instruction, he cannot offer anything that is acceptable and will therefore only and always react negatively when corrected. Thus, in terms of our worship today, why is it that we seek to cajole and placate the sinner? Why do we insist on a pragmatic means that runs contrary to Scripture? Why do we place the sinner before obedience to God?[13] More importantly, if we are so concerned for the sinner, why do we deceive him?

Lastly, please take serious note of the progression. Cain refused to listen to God and men died. When Cain refused to listen to God’s instruction and correction, he set himself on a course of destruction that ended in death. The instruction of God for worship was not heeded. The voice of God for correction and warning was openly dismissed. Such brazenness toward God could only manifest itself as a total disrespect for man – in this case, the life of his brother.

When we stop our ears to God today, on what path do we step? What consequences will come as a direct result?

Moving forward in history, let us consider the Exodus. When God called His people out of Bondage in Egypt, on what basis did He do so? Worship! God commanded Pharaoh to let His people go so that they may “go a three days’ journey into the wilderness, to sacrifice to the Lord our God.”[14] The intent of this statement is even more clear when Pharaoh finally caves, saying, “Rise up, get out from among my people, both you and the sons of Israel; and go, worship the Lord, as you have said.”[15]

At this momentous point in history, God reveals this singular point – salvation is to worship. One cannot be saved and not worship. One cannot worship unless saved. Salvation is worship, but it is a very specific worship. It had to be as God commanded. It happened not in bondage but in freedom. It happened in God’s land, not in a foreign land. It happened in accordance with God’s standards, not Man’s.

When Israel reached Mount Sinai they were given the Law. Why? So that they would live and worship rightly. What was God’s chief complaint and the reason Israel was expelled from the land? They did not obey God and worship Him appropriately, exclusively, obediently or willingly.

Again, how do we overlook this potent and recurring subject? How do we insist that the priority of the Church, the State, the Family, and the Individual, is something other than total obedience to and worship of the One True and Living God, revealed to us in Jesus Christ? How do we dethrone this God and put the rebellious sinner in His place? How do we do this in light of all that Scripture reveals on the matter of God’s worship in purity, by His people, in accordance with His standard? How do we? We do it precisely because of unbelief. We will not yield to the voice of the Lord.

Jeremiah’s words should make us tremble:

An appalling and horrible thing has happened in the land: The prophets prophesy falsely, and the priests rule on their own authority; and My people love it so![16]

(Part 5)

[1]           The word worship comes from worth-ship. It’s related to worthy as in “worthy is the Lamb.” To worship God means to give Him what He is worthy to receive.

            Worship is what will eventually unite the whole creation. The hearts of all men and the direction of all that lives will form a perfect harmony not around a conference table but around a throne. The end of [goal] life is worship. The goal of living is praise.

            When we offer proper worship, we are completely free.

            For a picture of freedom by worship, we should attend a football game at a stadium. Try to forget how unimportant the issue is, and disregard, for the present, the silliness of the spectacle. Just watch the crowd—all those people different from each other in color, opinion and character. On an ordinary day, in an ordinary room, you could not get six of them to say the same thing on any topic. But now they are unreservedly united while they cheer their team on. For a moment, at least, they are entirely free from every private worry. Nobody even thinks of the mortgage payments. The hope and happiness of every one of them is wrapped up in their team’s victory. The fans in the stadium are a perfect parable of freedom by worship.

            The goal of the cosmos is the praise of God. The universe will be free when all our streams of thought and all our aspirations converge on the throne of God.

            Today we may already experience something of the freedom and unity of worship. In those rare moments when our prayers turn to praise, we are free. Health, house, money, misery, even sin and guilt are forgotten when we climb the stairway of praise.

            In those moments when we have nothing to ask and everything to give, we make the great discovery that we were made for God—and that He and the Lamb are worthy of the worship of all that exists. And we find unity! Effortlessly we find each other in the praises of our God.

Andrew Kuyvenhoven, Daylight: Daily readings with the Bible (Paideia Press, St Cathrines, Ontario, Canada) November 9; Text: Revelation 5:11-14. Italics original. Bold added. Also available at: http://www.reformationalpublishingproject.com/pdf_books/Scanned_Books_PDF/Daylight.pdf

[2] Isaiah 29:13 ff; C.f Mathew 15:7-9.

[3] Isaiah 1:11-15; Jeremiah 6:20; Amos 5:21-24; Amos 4:4-5; Malachi 1:10; Isaiah 66:3; Micah 6:6-8; Jeremiah 7:8-11.

[4] We will attempt to answer this in the following paragraphs. The short answer is, “unbelief”! We have turned away from Scripture and adopted the standards of the world. Therefore, when we measure our efforts and or activities they seem acceptable only because we are using a false measuring device. We think we are above Israel precisely because we are affected by the same stupor – a stupor that blinds our eyes and dulls our minds to God’s reality.

[5] 2 Corinthians 6:14 -18: Do not be bound together with unbelievers; for what partnership have righteousness and lawlessness, or what fellowship has light with darkness? Or what harmony has Christ with Belial, or what has a believer in common with an unbeliever? Or what agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God; just as God said, “I will dwell in them and walk among them; And I will be their God, and they shall be My people.  “Therefore, come out from their midst and be separate,” says the Lord. “And do not touch what is unclean; And I will welcome you.  18 “And I will be a father to you, And you shall be sons and daughters to Me,” Says the Lord Almighty. See Isaiah 52:11 as the source quote, making this a Biblical standard. C.f 1 Corinthians 10:21-22 and Revelation 18:4.

[6] The most obvious example would be Paul’s statement that the “Law is a schoolmaster to bring us to Christ” (Galatians 3:24); yet we rarely use the term law let alone preach on it and from it. Here, the chain is complete. Having abandoned faith in the OT, we are in need of a new means to convert sinners. Thus, we invent rather than repent. We turn to our own ideas instead of turning back to God and His Word. A note must also be given on the sentence used. Man cannot save sinners. That alone is God’s work. However, if you listen to the moderns you would think that salvation was but a formula – do this, add that and voilà! This highlights the problem. Men were commissioned by God to preach the Gospel – foolishness to Man but the power of God unto salvation. Why? Salvation is not in believing, as such, but in receiving the righteousness of God through Jesus Christ. This is the “gift” Paul speaks of in Romans. The point being that we have subtly capitulated to the false doctrines that espouse that Man can act for his own salvation. Consequently, we use programmes and entertainments to try and convince Man to be saved.

[7] Ezekiel 3:4-11: Then He said to me, “Son of man, go to the house of Israel and speak with My words to them. “For you are not being sent to a people of unintelligible speech or difficult language, but to the house of Israel, nor to many peoples of unintelligible speech or difficult language, whose words you cannot understand. But I have sent you to them who should listen to you; yet the house of Israel will not be willing to listen to you, since they are not willing to listen to Me. Surely the whole house of Israel is stubborn and obstinate. “Behold, I have made your face as hard as their faces, and your forehead as hard as their foreheads. “Like emery harder than flint I have made your forehead. Do not be afraid of them or be dismayed before them, though they are a rebellious house.” Moreover, He said to me, “Son of man, take into your heart all My words which I shall speak to you, and listen closely. “And go to the exiles, to the sons of your people, and speak to them and tell them, whether they listen or not, ‘Thus says the Lord God. Ezekiel 5:11 – So as I live,‘ declares the Lord God, ‘surely, because you have defiled My sanctuary with all your detestable idols and with all your abominations, therefore I will also withdraw, and My eye shall have no pity and I will not spare.

[8] WCF 21:1. Westminster Assembly, The Westminster Confession of Faith, (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.) 1995.

[9] If you have any doubt about the veracity of this statement, I beg you, please read Romans chapter one and pay full attention to what Paul has to say, especially at verse 32.

[10] John 6:44; John 14:6; Numbers 4:17-20; Leviticus 21:16-24.

[11] At this point, we must do justice to the text by acknowledging that the offering is tied to the offerer. The text says that God had “regard for Abel and his offering”. The word order suggests that the offering was acceptable because the offerer was acceptable. The same thing is said of Cain. God did not just disregard Cain’s offering. God had disregard for Cain himself. This is important for our thesis as it categorically shows that the offering cannot transcend the offerer. In short, even the perfect offering will be impeded by the imperfect offerer. Once more, then, we are confronted with the Biblical fact that sinful Man cannot find acceptance with God on his own terms.

[12] This is the modern principle in action. Holiness shows the sinner’s deficiency in the eyes of a Holy God. Therefore, everything that would have this effect must be eradicated. Cain destroyed Abel in order to remove the holy object that convicted him of his sin. We are doing this very thing today when we drop or change doctrines. When we change our language. When we reduce our standards. The tragedy is that in doing so we are taking away God’s appointed means of salvation and we are failing to allow this absolute holiness to be a spur to genuine awe and wonder in worship. The result of this is that we rob sinner and saint.

[13] Again, people will baulk at this. Yet it is true. I have witnessed many sermons of late that are almost universally applied to the sinner. It is rare to hear the sermon that encourages the Christian to be a better father, husband, son, employer, employee, friend, companion, lover etc. The current decline in Christianity’s impact on our world is explicitly tied to this subject. As we have turned from God, we have forgotten what we are to be, thus sermons seek to convert sinners (but rarely achieve as the Gospel has been made null) but Christians are not taught to be mature and Christ like. Hence, the downward spiral begins by denying God’s absolute right to be worshiped; it continues in the paucity of true worship; consequently the Christian’s maturity and sanctification are passed over. In the end, there is no salt and light, so the world becomes smelly and dark.

[14] Exodus 3:18.

[15] Exodus 12:31.

[16] Jeremiah 5:30-31.