In It to Win It

“Not that I have already obtained this or am already perfect, but I press on to make it my own, because Christ Jesus has made me his own” (Philippians 3:12).

All athletes are competitors. They are “in it to win it”. The parallels between sports and the battlefield are many. Every team or army has one objective: to win. One doesn’t join a war to lose. And an athlete doesn’t participate in competitions to get second place. The marathon is a long race covering 26 miles 385 yards. It was introduced at the 1896 Olympic Games to commemorate the legendary run of Pheidippides from the battlefield of Marathon to Athens in 490 B.C.

The parallels between running races and fighting battles were realities in the Apostle Paul’s own day and served as good illustrations of the Christian life. In his letters to the churches, he often jumped back and forth between comparisons of the Christian life to running, boxing, and fighting. He even uses these illustrations in back-to-back verses: “No soldier gets entangled in civilian pursuits, since his aim is to please the one who enlisted him. An athlete is not crowned unless he competes according to the rules” (2 Tim 2:4-5).

In Philippians 3:12, he says the Christian life is like running a long race. What does it take to compete as a Christian in the game of life? Paul identifies three attributes of the Christian athlete.

First, he says the Christian athlete must have the right mentality. Kobe Bryant referred to his competitive edge as the Mamba Mentality. Perhaps above all else in modern sports, Kobe stood out for possessing a relentless work ethic. That’s part of the Mamba Mentality. Paul tells Christians that we too must have a certain mentality in living the Christian life by pointing to himself as an example when he says, “Not that I have already obtained this or am already perfect.”

In the previous verse he identifies the “this” as the resurrection from the dead. When Christians are raised from the dead at Jesus’ final coming, they are perfected to look like their Lord. “[B]ut we know that when he appears we shall be like him, because we shall see him as he is” (I Jn 3:2).

“Practices are meant to be competitive," Bryant says. "If your practices aren't more competitive than the games themselves, you're doing the wrong thing.” This is true for Christians. We are to put ourselves thru the sanctified drills of Bible absorption, prayer, the sacraments, and church fellowship. This mentality not only makes us ready to face the challenges and trials of life both on and off the field; it also prepares us to meet our Lord. We are not saved by our good works, but good works are a result of being saved. And true Christians have the right mentality of working toward greater holiness in this life.

Second, the Christian athlete must have the right tenacity. In short, he or she must be determined: “but I press on to make it my own”. The wording Paul chooses has the idea of “to pursue”, or “to run swiftly in order to catch”. He’s speaking about tenacity­ – a persistent determination. True Christians do not throw the towel in or sit down on the field of life and give up. Rather, they are determined to finish strong. Having the right tenacity means we also have mobility. Scripture tells us to “lay aside every weight, and sin which clings so closely, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us” (Heb 12:1).

Like a runner in the ancient games, we are to lay aside our baggy garments, pull up our loincloth, (or chuck the whole thing if necessary!) in order to be mobile and free in our Christian pursuits.

Third, we find that the only way to stay determined is to have the right security. In other words, the reason we are “in it to win it” is because we know we will win it! Paul bases the reason for his hard Christian running in what has been promised to him and all Christians: “because Christ Jesus has made me his own”.

Christians are in hot pursuit of Jesus only because He has already sovereignly pursued them to be His own. “All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out” (Jn 6:37). Running with this security will allow us to say with the apostle Paul when he came to the end of his life: “I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith. Henceforth there is laid up for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, will award to me on that day, and not only to me but also to all who have loved his appearing” (2 Tim 4:7-8).

Paul was “in it to win it”. He finished well. How are you running? How will you finish?

Distracted by Outside Voices

“I say this for your own benefit, not to lay any restrain upon you, but to promote good order and to secure your undivided devotion to the Lord” (I Corinthians 7:35).

The roots of soccer are traced back to England. But in 1314, King Edward II prohibited the game due to excessive noise. We find this difficult to believe since the fan experience complete with a loud stadium is what adds excitement to all sports. Despite this edict, the game of soccer grew into the most popular sport in the world. In 1848, Cambridge University drafted the first rules of the sport. Then, in 1863, the Football Association (FA) was established in England. In 1904, the world governing body of soccer was formed (FIFA) in Paris, France. Soccer is a game played around the world making it the most popular sport on the planet.

Teams are often upset due to the pressure of large crowds. Creative game directors help achieve this with music, announcements, and even the sale of alcohol to get the home fanbase rowdy. One statistic says that crowd noise plays such a vital role in winning that 85% of the time it’s the home team who wins in basketball. Just as excessive fan noise can often distract athletes from performing their best, Christians also can be distracted by the noise surrounding them.

The Apostle Paul writes to Christians telling them his desire “to secure [their] undivided devotion to the Lord” (I Cor 7:35). One translation reads Paul’s desire: “that ye may attend upon the Lord without distraction”. The phrase “undivided attention” is interesting. It means “may attend upon” and comes from another word that means “sitting constantly by”.

As Christians, we are to give our undivided attention to the Lord, sitting by Him constantly with no distractions and full devotion. Just as fans are unreservedly devoted to their team and show up for games with their undivided attention as they sit and watch, so too are God’s people called to have the same loyalty to their Lord.

In the context of I Corinthians 7, Paul writes about marriage. His overall point is that marriage is a gift from God and a good thing. If one finds a spouse and desires strongly to get married, they should. This is good and right. After all, God created Eve for Adam because He said, “it is not good that the man should be alone” (Gen 2:18). At the same time, there are a few people called to singleness. Paul admits this is a rare thing. But either way, whether married or not married, he writes that Christians “secure [their] undivided devotion to the Lord”.

Athletics requires the sort of commitment found in a marriage since sports involve great sacrifice, perseverance, selflessness, and love of the game. But like a marriage, when Christians make their participation more about themselves than others, their effectiveness diminishes. This is especially true in team sports.

Athletes often feel lonely. The pressures of teammates, coaches, an organization, media, and fanbase can lead to anxiety, depression, and the loss of joy in the game. The key for Christian athletes is to remember that even while they are playing the game and have fans cheering for them that they are to be God’s fan. The same loyalty shown to them by their fans, they in turn, should show to God.

Scripture gives many examples of otherwise successful and gifted people who got distracted. They took their eye off the ball. As a result, their devotion to the Lord was compromised. Samson was distracted by what he didn’t have. He was gifted with supernatural strength but got distracted in his relationship with Delilah (a woman he wanted badly). She cut his hair making him lose his strength (Judges 13-16).

David was a man after God’s own heart but was distracted from what he did have. He had tremendous responsibility as king and should have been on the battlefield directing his troops. It seems the pressures got to him. He needed to get away. Distracted from his heavy responsibilities on his roof top, he saw Bathsheba, and ended up in a sinful relationship that would distract and destroy his life with severe consequences to follow (2 Sam 11:1 ff.).

And then there was Martha who was distracted from what was right in front of her. Instead of sitting at Jesus feet and listening to his teaching like her sister Mary, she got lost in serving Jesus. Luke 10:40 says that Martha “was distracted with much serving”. She was making preparations for Jesus’ visit with them. But her fault was not that she wanted to serve Jesus, but that she was distracted in what she was doing for Him instead of focusing on being with Him. She was deed focused instead of devotion focused. Jesus challenged her to check her heart and commended Mary for just “sitting constantly by His side” (Lk 10:38-42).

Undivided devotion to the Lord (sitting constantly by His side) is a prerequisite for a Christian athlete. One’s communion with God through prayer and study of Scripture will keep an athlete focused even when fans, coaches, and teammates are not so loyal. Recognizing one’s identity in Christ can steel a Christian athlete in the fires of adversity. Don’t be distracted by outside voices. Be with God. Listen to God. And live for the glory of God.

Homerun Christianity

“…aspire to live quietly, and to mind your own affairs, and to work with your hands, as we instructed you” (I Thessalonians 4:11)

Hank Aaron (Milwaukee/Atlanta Braves, 1954-74; Milwaukee Brewers (1975-76) was the MLB homerun record holder for many years. He totaled 755 homeruns during his illustrious twenty-two-year career. Barry Bonds (Pittsburgh Pirates, 1986-92; San Francisco Giants, 1993-07) beat Aaron’s record by playing one less year, and 312 less games, with a total of 762 homeruns. Babe Ruth (Boston Red Sox, 1914-10; New York Yankees, 1920-34; Boston Braves, 1935) is currently listed in third place with 714. Yet, the Bambino was the most consistent hitter with a batting average of .342 compared to Aaron (.298) and Bonds (.305).

But statistics can be deceiving. As great as the names of Aaron, Bonds, and Ruth sounds, it is an inescapable fact that all these legends had many more opportunities to hit dingers but didn’t. In fact, the measurement for how frequently a batter hits a homerun is called AB/HR (at bats per homerun). This baseball statistic is determined by dividing the number of at-bats by the number of homeruns hit. For example, the MLB record holder for AB/HR is Mark McGwire who hit 583 career homeruns. His AB/HR ratio was 10.61. When viewed from this angle, even history’s greatest homerun hitters often struck out, or only got a base hit. Many Christians today try to live “homerun Christianity”. They swing for the fences and go for the big one every time, yet often strike out and fail miserably.

Social media seems to feed the frenzy of the Christian rat race. As a result, people often try to create a name for themselves out of the wrong motivation. Perhaps, they get excited about their faith, so they go to Seminary. But once the hard knocks of ministry hit them they quickly get discouraged and tank out realizing they weren’t called by God.

Other Christians may long for a position in the church that affords them prestige and attention. Instead of being patient, relying on wise counsel, or waiting for a door to open, they go about gaining a position the wrong way and get burned. Sometimes well-meaning Christians become the office evangelist. Instead of doing their job faithfully, they shirk their job description, are constantly critical of their co-workers, fail to build any meaningful relationships, and are self-proclaimed martyrs when their boss confronts them about their job performance. What has happened here? They are not wrong for desiring to be an effective witness. Rather, they have tarnished their Christian testimony by not performing their job with excellence and instead are marked by hypocrisy. Such a one is not “minding [his] own affairs” (I Thess 4:11), but is guilty of meddling in the affairs of others. Before you know it, he gets fired. Athletes and former athletes are by nature competitive. This is a good attribute to possess in life, but not apart from wisdom. “Whoever trusts in his own mind is a fool, but he who walks in wisdom will be delivered” (Prov 28:26).

These are all examples of “homerun Christians”. Instead of seeking to be consistent, disciplined, and faithful in the little things, they swing for the fences and miss. But what does Scripture say about this? It says, Christians are to “live quietly” (I Thess 4:11) meaning that in contrast to worldly ideas of ambition and fame, they focus on the business at hand that God has placed in front of them. The Bible also says Christians are to “work with [their] hands” (I Thess 4:11). What does this mean? Paul writes these words to Christians who were so obsessed with the second coming of Christ that they quit their jobs. They became so “heavenly minded” that they were of no “earthly good”. Instead of building with their hands, they used their words to tear others down as full-time busybodies.

What tasks has God placed before you? Are you setting a godly example by hustling in the workplace even when you don’t get the promotion you want? Do you faithfully attend practice with sharp focus even though you haven’t earned the starting job you want badly and think you deserve? Are you consistently doing the right thing even when you don’t think the coaches are watching? God is always watching. He sees. He takes notes and is recruiting those who are faithful in the little things to be the ones who make the greatest impact.

Instead of swinging for a homerun every day, focus on getting to first base, then second, then third. Work at making sure you hit the ball of life and then take the next step. Do this one day at a time, and God will open doors for you leading to greater impact for His kingdom. Focus on the little things instead of swinging for something in the distance that you may not get because God has something better right in front of you.

The High Standard of God's Law

We live in strange times. On the one hand, it’s like the days of the Judges when everyone did what is right in his own eyes (Judges 21:25). The law of man transcends the law of God. At the same time, people believe that more legislation will curb evil in society. This stance actually betrays the additional claim of individual rights. Strange times indeed. Confusing times.

As a result, we are faced with three problems that reveal mankind’s confusion and lead to eternal judgement apart from the saving gospel.

The Inward Problem

The inward problem says, “I’m not as bad as the next guy.” This is not just a modern problem since mankind has always naturally measured himself against others just like the Pharisee did with the tax collector in Jesus’ parable (Lk 18). Nevertheless, it is not the proper measuring stick for ethics and morality. God doesn’t grade on a curve.

In our house, the heights of our children are measured several times each year to see how much they have grown. We have used the same board, placed against the wall, to trace their growth. Old marks are not erased, and the board has not been replaced. In the same way, God’s law cannot be replaced. And God’s standards are higher than man-made standards. Jesus said, “You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect” (Mt 5:48).

The law of man should not transcend divine law. Rather, divine commandments transcend whatever man-made standards we create in our hearts. And regardless of what people may claim, we tend to dumb down and suppress the high standards of God’s law hidden in our hearts. So, we are in rebellion when we ignore his law for our own.

“For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus” (Rom 2:14-16).

But the inward problem manifests itself in society.

The Outward Problem

Society says, “It’s your own life. You only have one. Live it the way you think is best.” But the principles of God’s law are not subject to the shifting foundation of cultural or moral relativism. As Christians, we believe in moral absolutism, not moral relativism. God’s moral absolutes are the final say, not the ethical marks of society. Society is not the final arbiter in measuring man’s morality.

People today make a big deal about individual rights even as individual rights are being taken away. Such proves that man cannot live without law. He knows this instinctively. So, he’ll either live with God’s law or new laws laid down by society, University professors, or government legislation. When this happens, chaos and confusion ensue, not to mention the suppression of religious liberty.

But the inward and outward problem forces us to deal with the upward problem.

The Upward Problem

If the inward problem says, “I’m not as bad as the next guy”, and the outward problem says, “Live the way you think is best because it’s your life”, then in the upward problem God says, “You are obligated to obey my law and when you don’t there will be hell to pay.”

But God is not a cosmic killjoy. His law flows from His holy character and is good for mankind. The Apostle tells us, “So the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good” (Rom 7:12). God’s law has not been concealed but has been revealed in the Holy Scriptures. His law is holy, good, and righteous. And all men, therefore, are left without excuse (cf. Rom 1:20).

People speak about the Supreme Court as if our lives depend upon it. In a sense, this is a valid concern. There will be different judgements made based upon the ratio of conservative and liberal appointees. But this is only true temporally speaking. Eternally speaking, there will be a Final Judgement. God’s Supreme Court is a cosmic tribunal with no opportunity for appeal.

Our only hope is to look to Christ in faith since He fulfilled the law for repentant sinners. The saving gospel frees us from our bondage to the law. Those who confess their sin and look with faith to Christ are wedded to Him in an eternal union so “that we may bear fruit for God”. The gospel frees us from the condemning power of the law “so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit and not in the old way of the written code” (Rom 7:4-6). On the judgement day, Christ will serve as the Defense Attorney for all true believers. He will say, “I obeyed the law for you.” On that day we will not claim our own obedience to the law as the reason we are saved from God’s judgement. Rather, we will plead the merits of Christ even as He pleads for us based upon what He did at Calvary.

What Is a True Church?

What Is a True Church?

Such was seriously asked during the wake of the Protestant Reformation. But the church in every generation should also ask this question. In a sermon delivered on Sunday, September 29, 1878, C.H. Spurgeon preached a message entitled “What the Church Should Be”. His text was I Timothy 3:15. In it, he made the following statement:

“There is a synagogue of Satan, and there is a church of God. There are churches so-called which are not of God, though they take upon themselves his name”.[1]

Rather than plucking this quote from goodreads.com to slander true brothers and sisters whose churches do things differently (not unbiblically) than our own church, or to be so gullible as to think every church that goes by that name could in no wise be a synagogue of Satan, we must look at Spurgeon’s statement in its context.

In a moment we will do just that. But let’s first consider the historical reasons Spurgeon (a Baptist minister holding to Reformed doctrine) would even make this statement. This takes us back to the Protestant Reformation where a number of theologians defined with precision the marks of a true church. Their conclusion biblically contrasts “a synagogue of Satan” from a true house of worship. This is important in our own day since false teachers are alive and well. The Scriptures command us“not [to] believe every spirit, but [to] test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world”.[2] But it’s equally helpful for the opposite reason. A certain tribalism marks our day in which Christians of various stripes sometimes unjustifiably slander true churches. There are various reasons for this: pride, selfish ambition, ignorance, and overzealous spirits.[3]

Two dangerous ditches present themselves on either side. On one side is the ditch of over criticism. This is to look down our noses at churches who may be sound in the basics because they possess articles of orthodoxy but at the same time could be more theologically precise from the pulpit, and who could be more solid in their orthopraxy by, for example, more consistently implementing church discipline. Or, to offer another example, their need to tidy up their church government to better reflect the early church structure. Falling into the ditch of over criticism can lead to an unhealthy tribalistic mentality that causes unnecessary divisions that do not promote the cause of the gospel. We have the liberty to identify more or less pure churches without calling every church that doesn’t look exactly like ours a “synagogue of Satan”. Worse still, it is wrong to label a church “a synagogue of Satan” out of liturgical snobbery because you think there is a better way to order the service. We see this in current debates between some in the CREC who view their liturgy as so superior to, say a PCA or OPC church, that they write such churches off as liturgically inferior. “You get worship wrong”, they say. “And what could be more important than worship? So, since your liturgy is plain and not as flashy as ours, your church is corrupt!”

But falling into the other ditch means we aren’t critical enough. We give a pass to churches who make no attempt at possessing biblical church government, promote entertainment instead of exposition, barely mention the gospel, and diminish the primary means of grace by exalting extrabiblical add-ons in their place.

There are four main historical sources to consider when asking the question, What is a true church? Reformed people turn to John Calvin, The Scots Confession, The Belgic Confession, and the Westminster Confession.

 We’ll begin with John Calvin since the other three flow downstream from him. Calvin said:

“Wherever we see the Word of God purely preached and heard, and the sacraments administered according to Christ’s institution, there, it is not to be doubted, a church of God exists”.[4]

Calvin says the pure preaching of the bible and the right administration of the sacraments are the marks of a true church. Admittedly, he does not go beyond stating more than these two marks. He gives the reason why he sticks with only two marks. And that was, he was comparing the true church to the specific false branches of the church in his own day, namely the Roman Catholic church and Anabaptists. Space does not permit a long discussion of Calvin’s ecumenical pursuit of unity with other Protestants with whom he did not fully agree in every area. Such is evident in his letters and other writings, as well as in the above statement (where the two marks are apparent“it is not to be doubted, a church of God exists”). In the same section of the Institutes he reveals his desire for Protestant unity. Calvin asserts:

“The church is called ‘catholic’ or ‘universal’ because there could not be two or three churches unless Christ be torn asunder- which could not happen…They are made truly one since they live together in one faith, hope and love, and in the same Spirit of God”.[5]

It seems that Calvin was looking only for the essentials when he pointed out a true church, not necessarily an exhaustive list of ideal features. This is a good course of action, though it seems at times that many in the Reformed world don’t follow suit. We like to argue. We like to argue a lot. In my estimation, debate is the only path to precision in one’s beliefs. Going back to the sources (a Protestant mantra taken from the Latin ad fontes), means first arguing our convictions from Scripture, and second from the writings of the fathers. So, we rightly argue over big things like the regulative principle, denominational corruption, the person of God, the person of Christ, the gospel, the active obedience of Christ, the law, and other important features critical to orthodoxy. We also should seek to be true to Scripture in the little things regarding church practice and policy. This is precisely why God called and equipped elders to be the eyes, ears, and mouth for the people. It’s not only in accordance with sound wisdom, but also biblical precedent to allow the elders to do their job in leading a church to greater conformity to the Scriptures. This requires debate and biblically informed argumentation. This is not as much of a problem in conservative denominations, especially of the Presbyterian variety (ex. PCA and OPC) due to their confessional standards, long standing traditions, and unified church government, which can often yield a degree of greater theological accountability across the board. This is not to say they are without their problems (consider the PCA’s current mess). However, conservative (and especially Reformed), independent churches must learn to do a better job of yielding to their elders on questionable issues. This is even true with strongly confessional churches since there are various interpretations and applications of church practices (ex. issues surrounding the Sabbath). Disagreements among parishioners can be solved by the elders setting the policies and procedures of the church where Scripture does not speak explicitly. They have the authority to do so, as well as the duty.

But Reformed people also like to argue over little things. And little arguments can turn into big divisions and factions not envisioned as proper or noble by the apostle Paul.[6] Such disagreements inside of a local church can fracture a local church, effectively splitting the elders (session) from the congregation. And such disagreements among like-minded local churches can fracture the universal church as local churches situated in the same community are at each other’s throats. Such does not serve well the impact of the Great Commission. Calvin warns us:

“The pure ministry of the Word and pure mode of celebrating the sacraments are, as we say, sufficient pledge and guarantee that we may safely embrace, as church any society in which both these marks exist. The principle extends to the point that we must not reject it so long as it retains them, even if it otherwise swarms with many faults.”[7]

So, Calvin’s identification of a true church stripped down to the essentials is a good precedent in judging the faithfulness of any church. But Calvin’s answer to the identity of a true church was later enlarged by six men led by a pupil of John Calvin, the Scotsmen, John Knox. These men formulated the Scots Confession (1560), which added the third mark of church discipline:

“Because that Satan from the beginning has labored to deck his pestilent synagogue with the title of the kirk [church] of God and has inflamed the hearts of cruel murderers to persecute, trouble, and molest the true kirk and members thereof, as Cain did Abel, Ismael Isaac, Esau Jacob (Gen. 4:21, 27), and the whole priesthood of the Jews, Christ Jesus Himself and His apostles after Him (Matt. 23; John 11; Acts 3), it is one thing most requisite that the true kirk be discerned from the filthy synagogue by clear and perfect notes, lest we being deceived receive and embrace to our own condemnation the one for the other…The notes therefore, of the true kirk of God, we believe, confess and avow to be first, the true preaching of the Word of God…Secondly, the right administration of the sacraments of Christ Jesus…Last, ecclesiastical discipline…Wheresoever then these former notes are seen and of any time continue (be the number never so few, about two or three), there without all doubt is the true kirk of Christ, who according to His promise is in the midst of them…such as was in Corinth, Galatia, Ephesus, and other places (Acts 16, 18, etc.; I Cor. 1; Acts 20).[8]

To the true preaching of the Word of God and right administration of the sacraments is added church discipline as a third defining mark of the true church. This third mark agrees with Calvin in spirit since he devotes a lengthy section to church discipline in the Institutes.[9] This is why churches within the Calvinistic tradition typically refer to three marks of a true church, instead of just the two that Calvin explicitly mentions in his statement on how to identify a true church.

In similar fashion, the Belgic Confession, written around the same time as the Scots Confession, also highlights three marks of a true church. It was authored by another pupil of Calvin, a French-speaking, Reformed pastor, Guido de Brès. On the identity of the true church, the Belgic states:

“The marks by which the true Church is known are these: If the pure doctrine of the gospel is preached therein; if it maintains the pure administration of the sacraments as instituted by Christ; if church discipline is exercised in punishing of sin.”[10]

Once again, we note the same three marks: purity of doctrinal preaching, pure administration of the sacraments, and the exercise of church discipline.

The simplicity by which Reformed churches traditionally operate is stunning in our own day since so much of the church depends upon rock bands, smoke machines, lights, programs, TED talk type sermons, small groups and a host of other carnal gimmicks baptized in the name of Christ – all of which diminish the primary means of grace, which God hath ordained for the spiritual benefit of His people.

But what does a true church require according to Reformed teaching? First, that the Word of God be rightly, accurately, and purely preached. Second, that the sacraments of baptism and the Lord’s Supper be rightly administered in accordance with a proper understanding of justification by faith (no baptismal regeneration here), and the exercise of church discipline by the elders of the church.

Finally, the Westminster Confession (1646), perhaps surprisingly so, bears softer language than the other confessions in identifying a true church. Following Calvin, it uses the word catholic to describe the church (meaning “universal”) giving a nod to the needed unity among Protestants. Additionally, it speaks about the purity of the church as something that should be measured in degrees (“more or less”). Also, chapter 25 doesn’t explicitly mention church discipline as a mark even though chapter 30 addresses discipline at length.

“This catholic Church hath been sometimes more, sometimes less visible. And particular churches, which are members thereof, are more or less pure, according as the doctrine of the gospel is taught and embraced, ordinances administered, and public worship performed more or less purely in them.”[11]

So, rather than casting stones at other assemblies of worship who they didn’t agree with wholeheartedly, the Westminster divines demonstrated a proper ecumenical spirit, one that did not compromise the Scriptures or skirt their own convictions as rooted in the bible, yet one that also recognized the reality of true Christians of every stripe being members of “more or less pure” churches.

Now, let’s return to Spurgeon’s sermon that began this article because there is no doubt that he was not only fully aware of, but also promoted, confessional teaching in his ministry. The London Baptist Confession followed in the family tree of the above confessions quoted. Therefore, there was both an historical and biblical context to his words when he said:

“There is a synagogue of Satan, and there is a church of God. There are churches so-called which are not of God, though they take upon themselves his name”.[12]

In his sermon, Spurgeon compares the true church to the temple of Diana that young Timothy could see from his post in Ephesus. This was a pagan temple dedicated to a pagan goddess, not another local church down the street trying to be faithful to the Scriptures. In fact, Spurgeon even points out the fact that true Christians who are members of true churches should pursue unity, not division. In the same sermon, he says:

“Happy are we if we are members of that church, yes, members of Christ himself by the living faith which unites us to the living God. Never let us speak disrespectfully of the church of God, nor think of her with anything other than love and with intense devotion for her interests, for she belongs to God. Let us pray for her peace and prosperity, since she is the city of the great King. Let us ask the Lord daily to make his own church more and more visible and powerful in the midst of mankind, so that she may come out ‘fair as the moon, clear as the sun, and terrible as an army with banners.’”[13]

Interestingly, the Belgic Confession even defines persecution of the true church as a mark of the false church. False Christians “persecute those who live holily according to the Word of God”.[14]One of the marks of a false Christian, one could say, is that they troll true Christians with slanderously induced false charges. This is to say, they are sometimes too quick to slap a non-Christian label on one who is otherwise sound and orthodox, but not a member of their tribe. This ought not be so among Reformed brethren.

Spurgeon’s main points uphold the three marks of Calvin and the Confessions. I have no doubt the three marks were on his mind. He has three main headings. The first is The Glorious Name of the Church- “the church of the living God”. He defines a true church this way:

“What is a true church? [A] Christian church is an assembly of faithful men: of men who know the truth, believe it, affirm it, and adhere to it.”[15]

Here he emphasizes that the truth of Scripture is upheld by true churches. The true church is composed of those who know the truth, believe the truth, affirm the truth, and live according to the truth. Simply put, a true church is made up of bible believing Christians.

His second heading is Her Design In Reference to God. This follows his first heading wherein he says that a true church is in subjection to the authority of God’s Word. Spurgeon compares God to a father who has authority in his own house. He says:

“A man’s house is, also, the place of his paternal rule. In the church we are under the present rule of our heavenly Father…If [one] is a father he expects that his word should rule his household. In the blessed household of God our Father, our Lord is the sole ruler. In God’s house we know no law except God’s law; and we acknowledge no legislator except Jesus…Blessed is that rule, and blessed are those who submit to it, doing his commandments, listening to the voice of His word. May God grant us grace to stand up for the crown rights of King Jesus, and the paternal authority of God over his own church.”[16]

Spurgeon’s final heading is The Design of the Church In Reference to the Truth. Here he emphasizes the important duty of true churches to uphold doctrinal standards and practices with heartfelt conviction. He says:

“What does the expression mean – the pillar and foundation? I think it means, first, that in the church the truth should reside. In the church of the living God it always does abide, even as a pillar does not move from its place.”[17]

Throughout the body of Spurgeon’s sermon, he mentions all three marks. First, he mentions the importance of the pure preaching of the Word. He says that “a church is unchurched which is not faithful to the truth…when the grand old doctrines of the gospel are also despoiled.”[18] He goes on to say:

“Do you notice nowadays, how all the great truths are being spirited away? Men use the words, but they mock the ear, for they reject the sense: they hand us nuts; we crack them and we find that the worm of modern thought has eaten out the kernel…It is nothing but the name of a church when the doctrines of God’s infallible word are trodden in the dust.”[19]

Second, he says a true church rightly administers the sacraments. He explicitly says, “A church ceases to be a church of Christ in proportion also as she alters the ordinances of God.”[20] Note that here he stops short of saying that churches who practice infant baptism are false. Spurgeon held to believer’s baptism and sometimes made disparaging remarks about the practice of infant baptism. But to my knowledge, he stopped short of saying that Presbyterians were false brethren or a synagogue of Satan. If he did, it was not because of their view of baptism but because of their errant view of the gospel, or perhaps a compromising stance with the world concerning other orthodox issues.

And third, he points out that discipline is a mark of a true church. Again, though a committed Baptist, he stops short of saying that Presbyterian churches are false churches because they allow children of believing parents to be non-communicant members. Instead, he speaks about the importance of not allowing the unregenerate to take over:

“An unholy, unregenerated church can never be the pillar of the truth. If there is a failure in vital godliness, if humble walking with God is neglected, the church cannot long remain a healthy church.”[21]

What can we learn from Spurgeon’s sermon and the larger Reformed world of confessions on the nature of a true church? Let me leave you with five practical takeaways:

1. If the church you belong to does not bear the above three marks, you need to leave it. There is no use wasting away spiritually in an atmosphere that does not hold up the essentials. Such indeed is a synagogue of Satan and not part of the true church of the Lord Jesus Christ. You are being disobedient when you stay, and obedient when you leave.

2. If you are in a church that identifies with these three marks, then don’t leave it. You do more damage than good to your own soul and potentially those around you when you leave a biblical church for unbiblical reasons. This causes confusion and questions from others who may also leave.

3. Choose to be charitable in your dealings with like-minded brothers and sisters who attend churches that bear the three marks. Get over denominational squabbles and community infighting between Christians. This mars your Christian testimony before the watching world. Learn to have a right ecumenical spirit, one that does not compromise Scripture, but also one that does not seek or cause unnecessary divisions with true brothers or sisters in Christ.

4. Be careful not to become a church pundit, thinking you are the world’s expert in discerning the healthiness of a church. Look to your leaders. Talk to your leaders. Respect your leaders. Be grounded in the Scriptures and be reasonable and not overly critical. Pray for the Spirit to grant you wisdom and confess your personal sins before you point out the perceived faults of your own church. If your church bears the three marks (even if imperfectly so), ask yourself if your own heart bears the three marks of love, grace, and wisdom.

5. Do not keep looking for the perfect church. In fact, it’s not a bad option to be committed to one that has room to grow in the three marks. If a church is working toward the three marks and not compromising doctrine, consider it a good place for you to grow even as the church grows in God’s grace. To borrow Spurgeon’s mantra, don’t look for the perfect church, and if you find one, then don’t join it lest it become imperfect.

[1] https://www.spurgeon.org/resource-library/sermons/what-the-church-should-be/#flipbook/

[2] I John 4:1, ESV

[3] I Corinthians 13:1, ESV

[4] John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, 4.9, 1023, Edited by John T. McNeill, Translated by Ford Lewis Battles.

[5] Institues, 4.2, 1014.

[6] I Corinthians 1:11-13

[7] Institutes, 4.12, 1025.

[8] The Scottish Confession (1560), Article XVIII, 198-199, Reformed Confessions of the 16th and 17th Centuries in English Translation, Vol. 2 1552-1566, Compiled and Introductions by James T. Dennison, Jr.

[9] 4.12-29

[10] The Belgic Confession (1561), Article XXIX, 442, Reformed Confessions of the 16th and 17th Centuries in English Translation, Dennison.

[11] The Westminster Confession of Faith (1646), 25.4, 264, Reformed Confessions of the 16th and 17th Centuries in English Translation, Dennison

[12] https://www.spurgeon.org/resource-library/sermons/what-the-church-should-be/#flipbook/

[13] https://www.spurgeon.org/resource-library/sermons/what-the-church-should-be/#flipbook/

[14] Belgic, Art 29.

[15] https://www.spurgeon.org/resource-library/sermons/what-the-church-should-be/#flipbook/

[16] https://www.spurgeon.org/resource-library/sermons/what-the-church-should-be/#flipbook/

[17] https://www.spurgeon.org/resource-library/sermons/what-the-church-should-be/#flipbook/

[18] https://www.spurgeon.org/resource-library/sermons/what-the-church-should-be/#flipbook/

[19] https://www.spurgeon.org/resource-library/sermons/what-the-church-should-be/#flipbook/

[20] https://www.spurgeon.org/resource-library/sermons/what-the-church-should-be/#flipbook/

[21] https://www.spurgeon.org/resource-library/sermons/what-the-church-should-be/#flipbook/

Meet the Puritans Review

Click the link below for a fresh article I wrote for the Master’s Seminary:

https://blog.tms.edu/a-book-review-for-meet-the-puritans

A Time for Civil Disobedience! A Response to Jonathan Leeman’s Response to the Bold Stance of John MacArthur and Grace Church

Yes, I know. The title comes across awkward. Writing a response to a response is sort of like writing a thank you letter to someone for writing you a thank you letter. It could go on and on. When does it end? Perhaps never. You may even forget what the original thank you letter was thanking you for. 

So, at the risk of appearing awkward, I’d like to pen a response to Jonathan Leeman’s response to John MacArthur and the elders of Grace Church’s recent statement Christ, not Caesar, is Head of the Church. I urge you to read it. It might also be helpful to read A Time for Civil Disobedience? A Response to Grace Community’s Elders, though I plan to quote both throughout this brief response.

I first came across Pastor MacArthur’s statement through an email to Master’s Seminary Alumni prior to its public release. Leeman’s response came less than twenty four hours later. I have read both statements several times. 

I am a graduate of the Master’s Seminary and have the deepest respect and admiration for John MacArthur. Before attending Master’s, I was profoundly impacted by his preaching, books, commentaries, and character. I think he will go down in history as the greatest expositor of the twentieth century. He has also taken many courageous stands during over five decades of faithful ministry – really too many to count. I have been privileged on several occasions to interact with John MacArthur both in class and in more private settings and can honestly say he is one of the most sincere, gentle, and honest men I have ever known. But don’t take my word for it. His reputation proceeds him.

I also want to say a word about Grace Church and its elders in particular. I know several elders there personally and have attended elders’ meetings and interacted with several of them on numerous occasions. They compose a group of very godly men. I have regularly attended the Shepherd’s Conference for nearly a decade and the Grace membership serving pastors at the conference reflects the leadership of their elders: godly, servant minded, sincere, and faithful.

In light of these factors, I dare not try to speak on behalf of the elders of Grace Community Church. That is not my place, nor is it my attempt. They can choose to respond to Leeman if they desire, though I do not personally think it is necessary. In fact, Leeman addresses his article not to the elders of Grace Church (though the title may lead you to believe that), but to other Christians who may follow their example. I do not believe he was looking for a response from Grace Church elders. My purpose in writing is more personal and general. I fear that Leeman’s sentiments could influence Christians in the wrong direction. That is the reason I am writing this. I do not speak on behalf of Grace Church. I speak on behalf of Christians in the United States. I speak to pastors in particular. I appeal to members of American churches. I speak to my own congregation. I do so because it is my responsibility as a minister of the gospel.

Jonathan Leeman is the editorial director for 9Marks and attended The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary where we both earned our Master of Divinity degrees. In the Fall of 2003, less than two weeks after my first semester began, a representative of the Center for Church Reform handed me a booklet as I was on my way to class. It was entitled Nine Marks of a Healthy Church. I devoured its contents. Later, the Center for Church Reform changed its name to 9Marks. I still have that original booklet in my library – its aged yellow pages and smeared blue ink in the margins reveal its oft referenced character. 

Though I appreciate 9Marks and consider Jonathan Leeman a scholar, churchman, and brother in Christ, I have been concerned for quite some time about his association with the Gospel Coalition, a notoriously woke organization. Leeman has made statements himself that I would take issue with. Of course, this should not be surprising. It would be impossible to agree on everything. Though I have never met Leeman (at least to my knowledge) I find his podcasts with Mark Dever very interesting and easy to listen to. I find myself agreeing with him in many areas, but I think his response to Grace Church’s statement is extremely concerning, and even dangerous to religious liberty. Let me explain. 

On the one hand, Leeman’s opening paragraph seems to betray the purpose of his response. He openly admits that “MacArthur provided a wonderful statement affirming Christ’s lordship over governments; our duty to disobey governments when governments forbid worship; and the government’s lack of jurisdiction over a church’s doctrine, practice, and polity.” So far so good. But if that is truly the way Leeman feels, then his article could have ended there. But it didn’t. He goes on to critique and question the wisdom of MacArthur’s public stance and intended action to gather for corporate worship in defiance of the civil magistrate.

Leeman even says:  “I also respect the decision of the Grace Community elders to “respectfully inform [their] civic leaders that they have exceeded their legitimate jurisdiction” and that “faithfulness to Christ prohibits [them] from observing the restrictions they want to impose on [their] corporate worship services.” That might be the right decision. I believe it’s a judgment call, but if they feel bound of conscience to gather their church, then they should gather (see Rom. 14:14, 23).” 

Now we’re getting somewhere. At least he admits to respecting the decision of Grace Church eldership to release their statement informing civil leadership of their intent to express loyalty to Christ over Caesar. He even agrees that such is a judgement call and perhaps the right decision. Okay great. But it’s that last statement which is concerning. Appealing to Romans 14 and Christian liberty, Leeman implies his thesis, namely that if Grace Church makes that decision then fine, but other Christians somehow may decide it’s okay to submit to Caesar instead of Scripture if Caesar says, “Don’t gather”. Later in the article, he suggests, “Again, all these are judgment calls. My point is merely, let’s leave room for churches to make different decisions a la Romans 14.” He also says, “I’m sympathetic with Grace Community’s concern about the indefinite elongation of this time. Still, if the state does have the authority to tell church leaders, ‘If you try to bind the consciences of church members by telling them they should attend a gathering that could physically harm them, we will intervene,’ then we should be patient even as that time extends for a while.”  What are we to conclude but that Leeman appeals to Christian liberty in order to argue for the viability of Christians to violate the clear command of Scripture to not forsake assembling together (Hebrews 10:24-25)? How can he do this? He can only do so by implying that Romans 14 is somehow more important than Hebrews 10. And this appears to be exactly what he is doing. 

He goes on to suggest that “civil disobedience may not be the only legitimate or moral course of action at this moment.” I actually agree with this statement in principle and so would the collective eldership of Grace Church since for weeks they tried other legitimately moral actions. For example, they tried to obey the civil magistrate when it appeared to them that moral action compelled them, in light of all the reports of health risks early on, to love their fellow neighbor by being extra careful not to spread the virus. There have been many cases throughout church history where churches did not meet in order to prevent contagious diseases from spreading. And MacArthur was clear from the beginning that he believed that it was in the best interests of the church to walk carefully through these issues. Grace Church has not met for months. But MacArthur’s statement argues, “History is full of painful reminders that government power is easily and frequently abused for evil purposes. Politicians may manipulate statistics and the media can cover up or camouflage inconvenient truths. So, a discerning church cannot passively or automatically comply if the government orders a shutdown of congregational meetings—even if the reason given is a concern for public health and safety.”

In other words, the Grace Church elders simply came to the conclusion that the government was being less than sincere in their mandates for churches not to gather. Now someone may argue that churches should never have shut down to begin with. In fact, there are many who have poo-pooed MacArthur’s stand for another reason, not because they disagree with it in principle, but rather because they feel that such a statement should have come sooner and that Grace Church should have never shut down from the beginning. I do not intend to address that topic. It is a separate issue because such is not Leeman’s quibble. Besides, my opinion on that does not matter. I’m not interested in publicly dissecting all the reasons and protocols any number of churches have chosen in order to navigate through these waters. Those debates can take place privately, within my own congregation, and among friends who ask my opinion. 

My bigger concern is the angle by which Leeman, and I’m assuming others, view the actions of Grace Church. Behind Leeman’s assertion is that there exist other legitimate moral actions for Christians to take other than civil disobedience when Caesar oversteps his bounds by telling churches not to assemble. That is a frightening argument. Either Christ is Lord of all, or He’s not Lord at all. Either He is the Head of the church, or He is not. What possible moral action legitimately exists over against the Sovereign Lord’s command that the church assemble? Let me quote MacArthur’s statement again:

“The church by definition is an assembly. That is the literal meaning of the Greek word for “church”—ekklesia—the assembly of the called-out ones. A non-assembling assembly is a contradiction in terms. Christians are therefore commanded not to forsake the practice of meeting together (Hebrews 10:25)—and no earthly state has a right to restrict, delimit, or forbid the assembling of believers. We have always supported the underground church in nations where Christian congregational worship is deemed illegal by the state.”

“When officials restrict church attendance to a certain number, they attempt to impose a restriction that in principle makes it impossible for the saints to gather as the church. When officials prohibit singing in worship services, they attempt to impose a restriction that in principle makes it impossible for the people of God to obey the commands of Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16. When officials mandate distancing, they attempt to impose a restriction that in principle makes it impossible to experience the close communion between believers that is commanded in Romans 16:16, 1 Corinthians 16:20, 2 Corinthians 13:12, and 1 Thessalonians 5:26. In all those spheres, we must submit to our Lord.”

Curiously, Leeman the churchman, goes on to deny the structure of the local church. This seems odd in light of the breadth of material he has devoted to the local church’s structure – material that I personally view as largely helpful and biblical. Indeed, that is the very reason 9Marks exists. “Equipping church leaders with a biblical vision and practical resources for building healthy churches” is their exact mission statement.[i] So how can Leeman say, “it’s true that MacArthur’s church cannot meet, but Christ’s church can meet.” Okay. I guess that is true on the surface, but that’s not what MacArthur argues for. He’s not denying that Christians can meet in homes. He’s saying that the government has no right to take away from the church her central duty, which is to assemble together in public worship. Leeman seems to be muddling together concepts of the universal and local church that are foreign not only to his own arguments in 9Marks publications, but more importantly the Bible itself. He suggests that Grace Church could meet outdoors before affirming, “There is nothing sacrosanct about the particular and present forms of our congregations.” 

Really? So, there is nothing sacrosanct, and additionally hypocritical, about the government keeping liquor stores open while forbidding the church to gather to drink wine at the communion table? There is nothing sacrosanct about forbidding churches from gathering to sing when Scripture commands the church to address “one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs” (Eph 5:19; Col 3:16)? What about prayer? Is there nothing sacrosanct about the government forbidding the Bible’s command for elders to pray over sick members anointing them with oil (Js 5:13)? Or should they use hand sanitizer instead? 

What about preaching in corporate worship? Is there nothing sacrosanct about this? Paul tells Timothy not to neglect his spiritual gift of preaching (I Timothy 4:14). Are we to assume that Timothy could obey this by livestreaming from his living room indefinitely, or were Paul’s words intended for Timothy to obey within the context of his local assembly, and specifically corporate worship? In fact, the purpose of pastor-teachers as outlined in Ephesians 4 is to build up the body of Christ to use their spiritual gifts (Eph 4:11ff.). Sure, this can be done (and should be done) outside of corporate worship. But corporate worship is first and foremost on his mind. How else do you serve one another with your spiritual gifts unless you are assembled together?

Interestingly, after the Holy Spirit inspired apostle Paul commands the church to sing to one another, he concludes by issuing another injunction. He tells them to “submit to one another out of reverence for Christ” (Eph 5:21). Christians are to submit to one another as they gather in corporate worship for mutual edification. And they are to do so as they sit in submission to Christ under the authority of His preached Word. They are to do so out of reverential awe and fear of God. But this seems to be the opposite of what many Christians are arguing. Some are suggesting the opposite – to have reverential fear of government, not God, lest persecution come.

I do not make that last statement lightly. That is precisely Leeman’s argument. He says: “Third, addressing this matter of what’s wise or “beneficial” (see 1 Cor. 6:12), I personally wonder if defying government orders for the sake of a pandemic is the most judicious opportunity to exercise those muscles. The politics of LGBT tells me our churches may have more occasions to defy government requirements in years to come. Do we want to spend down our capital on pandemics?”

This statement comes after Leeman lauds the decisions of J.D. Greear and the other elders at the Summit Church to cancel their worship services for the rest of the year. The reason this is strange is because Greear has a checkered past in his dealings with the LGBT movement (https://crosspolitic.com/podcast/crosspolitic-pro-choice-insanity-jd-greear-queering-the-sbc-and-interviews-with-rep-matt-shea-and-pastor-jon-speed/). But both Leeman and Greear are Southern Baptists, so that may explain Leeman’s support of him over MacArthur. Even still, it sounds strange for Leeman, who would presumably be more in agreement with MacArthur theologically and ecclesiastically, to affirm Greear’s positions over MacArthur’s. But even more concerning is Leeman’s suggestion that church leaders choosing to obey Caesar over Christ is a matter of a wiser and more beneficial path based on the principle of I Corinthians 6:12.

Additionally, Leeman makes a straw man argument by raising the issue of a pandemic. He earlier admits that MacArthur and company do not view Covid-19 as the threat it once appeared to be. He even seems okay with this position. So why does he then revert back to calling it a pandemic? Is it a pandemic or not? The statement by the Grace Church elders make it clear that they do not trust the government. And anybody who has followed the history of California’s governor, Gavin Newsom, must admit that his actions towards churches blatantly appears as hostile. This is the consensus among essentially every Christian I know regardless of their view regarding the severity of a potential pandemic. 

Leeman frames our current situation as a pandemic on the scale of those witnessed throughout history. But even the most extreme statistics do not bear this out. He then questions the wisdom of disobeying government mandates in such a health crisis as we find ourselves in. He suggests there are more important issues, like those related to LGBT, that the church needs to save its energy to fight for in the future. But unless I’m missing something, one of the purposes behind MacArthur’s document is to create an opportunity to communicate to government officials the church’s commitment to Christ in all things and at all times. What makes Leeman think Christians and church officials will stand up to the government when, as he predicts, in the future they mandate pastors not to speak publicly against the sin of homosexuality? Will the same excuses be made? When that day comes, will pastors argue from I Corinthians 6:12 that the Bible’s stance on gender issues is not a prudential or beneficial hill on which to die? On that day, will they use the same argument Leeman is making that the future holds more important battles for the church to fight? 

I fear these will be the exact arguments made if the church refuses to stand against Caesar on the issue of governmental prohibited gathered worship. Indeed, in some ways this is a more important battle than the LGBT battle since if churches are prohibited from gathering, what platform will they have to defend the Bible’s stance on the sin of homosexuality?

I also have difficulties with Leeman’s argumentation that the danger of Covid-19 is comparable to bombings of English cities during World War II. Yes, churches followed black-out orders and sometime did not meet. I will agree that was a war and not meeting was required at times to protect congregants, especially women and children. (Though it’s also true that Martyn Lloyd-Jones famously continued preaching in the middle of bomb raids!) And I further agree that we are in serious straights today. I actually believe Leeman’s analogy is comparable in one sense because I believe we are in a war as well – a spiritual war. The battle for religious liberty has far greater consequences, if lost, than the health risks of Covid-19 have. The virus will not last forever. But if religious liberty is taken away, it may never return. Is that the legacy church leaders today are willing to leave to their children and grandchildren?

Leeman also tries to argue in general terms that restrictions against churches across our nation are no different than those for restaurants, bars, and gyms. But such is patently not true. What do we do with government mandates not to sing in churches, or for churches not to gather at all? How is that the same as telling restaurants they can remain open at fifty percent capacity? And what do we do with the recent ruling by the Supreme Court regarding the church in Nevada? Amy Howe at the SCOTUSblog quotes justice Gorsuch’s dissenting statement on the decision:

“Justice Neil Gorsuch filed a separate dissent in which he described the dispute as a ‘simple case’: Although ‘a 10-screen ‘multiplex’ may host 500 moviegoers at any time,’ houses of worship are limited to 50 people, ‘no matter how large the building, how distant the individuals, how many wear facemasks, no matter the precautions at all.’ ‘The world we inhabit today, with a pandemic upon us, poses unusual challenges. But there is no world,’ Gorsuch concluded, ‘in which the Constitution permits Nevada to favor Caesars Palace over Calvary Chapel.’”[ii]

That last remark is compelling. “There is no world in which the Constitution permits Nevada to favor Caesars Palace over Calvary Chapel.” It’s sad to me that conservative voices not necessarily Christian are making bolder and more biblical statements than some pastors. 

It seems many Christians are more concerned about what the world thinks than about what Christ thinks. Leeman asks, “As those restaurant and gym owners cast a glance over at our churches, will our refusal to abide by the same restrictions which are causing them financial distress help the witness of the gospel, especially if we could find other ways to comply, such as meeting outdoors?” 

Perhaps Leeman is right. Maybe those in the world will despise churches. Perhaps this will cause the church to have a reputation less than ideal. But should we expect something different? The early church was pushed to the margins of society and fallaciously accused of sexual immorality because they greeted each other with holy kisses. Pagans rumored that Christians participated in orgies during their gatherings, which they referred to as love feasts. But in reality these were pure celebrations associated with the communion meal. Jesus said, “If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love you as its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you” (John 15:18-19).

As I write this, a friend texted to inform me that local officials in Los Angeles are threatening to turn off the power at Grace Community Church for their insistence to disobey mandates and gather for corporate worship. Pulling the plug on the church sound system is exactly what is at stake. Some civil magistrates (not all of them) are intent to silence the preaching of the gospel. They want to silence God. There are rivals to King Jesus. They are competitors. But to be sure, Christ will win this battle. The gospel will prevail. 

Even still, this is not a time for Christians to wax eloquently about what sort of policies their church has come up with to navigate Covid-19. Instead, this is a time to for the church to take a stand. This is the moment for our generation of Christians. What will we do with it? Indeed, this is a golden opportunity. We have intercepted the foolish Hail Mary of the civil magistrate’s authoritative overreach. They have been exposed. In one sense, they are on the defensive now. But will our team fumble the ball on our way into the end zone? Victory for religious liberty must be achieved for the sake of the next generation of Christians and gospel witness. I agree with Leeman when he says that gospel witness is important. But my view is that of MacArthur’s regarding the effectiveness of gospel witness when he writes in the statement, “How can the true church of Jesus Christ distinguish herself in such a hostile climate? There is only one way: bold allegiance to the Lord Jesus Christ.” 

MacArthur is right. Gospel witness does not involve showing the world how much we love Caesar, but rather how much we love Christ. This requires bold allegiance. Perhaps Leeman is right as well. But that all depends on punctuation. Leeman titled his response, A Time for Civil Disobedience? But I do not think we should make this a question any longer. It should be an assertion: this is A Time for Civil Disobedience! The matter is one of urgency, not hesitation. 

[i] https://www.9marks.org/about/

[ii] https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/07/justices-decline-to-intervene-in-dispute-over-nevada-covid-19-restrictions/

What the World Needs Now: A Treatise on the Christian World Order

Recently, I preached on the three main Christian views regarding the “millennium”. I usually do not preach on eschatology unless the text I’m preaching drives me there, which in this case it did. Premillennialism, amillennialism, and postmillennialism all contain fundamentally different theories concerning Christ’s rule in the “millennium”. Each position has its own take on when Christ rules, where He rules from, and even exactly how He rules the “millennium”.  But even premillennialists do not deny that Christ ascended and rules from heaven now. 

I am privileged to pastor a Reformed congregation. And if you know anything about Reformed folk, then you know that we have strong convictions. We tend to wear our doctrine on our sleeves. It would make sense, therefore, for our church to have a policy requiring any man serving as an elder to possess Reformed convictions when it comes to the breadth and depth of his theology. However, a man can serve as an elder at Christ Reformed while maintaining any of the three main positions on eschatology. In other words, the eldership does not consider one’s eschatology a disqualifying factor, so long as it fits within the framework of orthodoxy. I understand that not every church operates the same way, but most Reformed churches do not view eschatology as a dividing factor.

Matthew 13:31-33 is a favorite passage of postmillennialists in particular. Here Jesus teaches the parables of the mustard seed and leaven. Both parables make a very simple point regarding the incremental growth and influence of the kingdom of God. But one should not insist that Matthew 13 is a passage only for postmillennialists. It is a biblical passage, which means it carries authority for all three positions on eschatology. Every Christian, in one degree or another, affirms the influence of the kingdom of God in the world here and now. No self-respecting Christian that I know of would wish for anything other than a kingdom influence upon society – especially in the current societal upheaval we find ourselves in today. And why not? The Bible teaches that Christian influence upon society will be the by-product of faithfulness. But Scripture also teaches that working toward such influence is mandated by the King Himself.

 “You are the salt of the earth, but if salt has lost its taste, how shall its saltiness be restored? It is no longer good for anything except to be thrown out and trampled under people's feet. “You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hidden. Nor do people light a lamp and put it under a basket, but on a stand, and it gives light to all in the house. In the same way, let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven”.[i]

I fear, however, that many Christians operate with a certain defeatist mentality regarding the success, and even appropriateness, of kingdom influence. Fear is a powerful human emotion.  Many Christians speak as if the events going on in the world today threaten the kingdom of God somehow. Some suggest that raising political issues only serve to divide the church at a time we cannot afford to be divided. Now, do these professing Christians actually believe the church is doomed? Perhaps not. How could a genuine Christian have faith in Christ, but doubt the words of Christ? After all, Jesus promised that He would build the church and that the gates of Hades would not prevail against it.[ii] I do think, however, that many within the visible church have been conditioned to operate according to an unbiblical escapism. They view this world as one cursed by sin, and rightly so. The best thing that could happen is for God to secretly rapture the saints so that we can leave this God-forsaken world. But such a mindset can be dangerous. Believing in a secret rapture of the saints is not dangerous in and of itself, and I’m not mocking those who affirm such a rapture. But theology does matter. What we believe will inevitably determine how we live. And in this case, how we view our present circumstances (and the potential of future circumstances) is predicated upon our grasp of how much kingdom influence upon society we believe to be a good thing. 

For starters, God has not forsaken this world. And furthermore, Christians have an obligation and responsibility to urge those around them to submit to the headship of Jesus Christ. This was Peter’s take as he preached to yet converted Jews on the Day of Pentecost. 

Let all the house of Israel therefore know for certain that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified.[iii]

Is it possible that some have not given due consideration to Christ’s session, or rule at the right hand of the Father following His glorious ascension? I think that such is not only possible, but is the reality of this generation of Christians. The result of this is often seen in lifestyles of escape; disengagement rather than engagement. Fear rather than courage rules the day. After all, we dare not offend anyone in our politically correct culture. And why does it matter what happens on the world stage anyway, especially if Christ’s return is immanent? Soon we’ll be done with this world. So, instead of taking Christ at His Word that the influence of God’s kingdom will grow incrementally over time and that Christians have a responsibility to participate in kingdom mandates, many disappear, disengage, and lament the condition of the world. But there must be a better way. And I think there is. Once a Christian grasps the import of Christ’s coronation as King – a coronation in which He was given all authority and all power in heaven and on earth[iv] – the way forward takes a different direction. Rather than operating according to an escapist, survivalist, or prepper mindset, a Christian who recognizes Christ’s right and reality of ruling over all things will shift to a hopeful, engaging, and courageous mindset.

In 1943 the eminent theologian of Westminster Seminary, John Murray, published a short piece entitled The Christian World Order[v]. Murray defines the Christian world order as “a world order that in all aspects and spheres is Christian.”[vi] While a complete Christian world order free from the vestiges of sin and corruption is impossible until the second advent of Christ, Murray argues nonetheless that Christians should still work toward a Christian world order in the life that we live now. Murray maintained – and I believe correctly so – that one need not be a postmillennialist to work toward a Christian world order.

A Christian world order will culminate in a new heavens and new earth following Christ’s second coming.[vii]But this does not mean that Christians have no work to do now. Christians should work toward what God has promised. I will allow John Murray to comment further on this matter:

“Our dilemma would seem to be indeed perplexing. If we have to wait for the supernatural forces that Christ’s advent will bring in its train before the order of absolute right and holiness will be ushered in, is there any sense in speaking of a Christian world order except as an eschatological hope? Particularly and most practically, is there good sense in working towards the establishment of a Christian order when we know that, in the completeness of its conception, it is not attainable in what we generally call this life? We must be bold to say that the Christian revelation does not allow us to do anything less than to formulate and work towards a Christian world order in this life that we now live. It is not difficult to demonstrate the validity and even necessity of this thesis…The rule and standard for us are the irreducible claims and demands of the divine sovereignty, and these irreducible claims are that the sovereignty of God and of His Christ be recognized and applied in the whole range of life, of interest, of vocation, and of activity. That is just saying that the demands of the divine sovereignty make it impossible for us to evade the obligation to strive with all our heart and soul and strength and mind for the establishment of an order that will bring to realization all the demands of God’s majesty, authority, supremacy, and kingship. And this, in a word, is simply the full fruition of the kingdom of God, wherever we are, and in the whole compass of thought, word, and action.”[viii]

But how does a Christian world order come about? Let me suggest several areas of reformation needed in the world today in order for us to work toward this. These areas of reformation are not contingent upon the might of man, but the Spirit of God. The Spirit brings about a Christian world order. For a fuller discussion on this, read Murray. I am building my case to a great degree on the foundation he laid. I pray that even if you disagree with my arguments and conclusions that you will nonetheless prayerfully consider your role in propagating gospel influence in your own corner of this world.

Reformation In Prayer

A Christian world order begins with a reformation in prayer. The prayer Jesus taught us to pray in Matthew 6 is a good place to start. This past Sunday I had the privilege of teaching our youth class during the Sunday school hour. My assigned topic came from the Westminster Shorter Catechism and pertained to the third petition: “Your kingdom come, Your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven”.[ix] Countless activities have replaced an emphasis on one of the most basic means of grace – praying for God’s kingdom to come and for His powerful will to be done on earth. How many minutes a week does your church spend in prayer in just their corporate worship services alone? I’m almost afraid to ask.

As I taught, I realized my own failures to confidently pray this way. I sensed within myself a sinful apprehension to pray about certain issues lest I be called a racist, radical patriot, or divisive Christian. From this I must repent. From this all Christians must repent. If Christ told us to pray this way, then that means two things. First, we are to pray this way. And second, we are to expect Him to answer these prayers. Why would God ask us to pray for something that will not happen? The kingdom of God is meant to have an influence upon this world in the here and now. Christians are to be proclaimers of truth regardless of the costs. We are to pray for repentance in our nation. We are to pray for the salvation of our political leaders. We are to pray that gospel light penetrates the darkness of sin that covers our land. We are not to live as defeatists. We are to pray big prayers – like, “God please change the world” type prayers.

For everyone who has been born of God overcomes the world. And this is the victory that has overcome the world—our faith. Who is it that overcomes the world except the one who believes that Jesus is the Son of God?[x]

If you look at the church today, you do not see an emphasis on prayer. Furthermore, the content of prayers in many churches follow more along the lines of “Come, quickly Lord Jesus.” Such is not a bad prayer to pray so long as we are also praying for the influence of God’s kingdom upon this earth. Do we believe that Christ’s authority can be seen in the world today upon earth?  If not, we should. And if we have trouble believing it, perhaps we should pray for it and see what happens. After all, Christ commands us to pray this way. A Christian world order will only come about through prayer.

Reformation In Cultural Engagement

The influence of the kingdom is not established the way the kingdoms of the world are. Jesus’ kingdom comes through prayer as we have just seen. But His kingdom also comes by war, but not the type you might be thinking. The Christian’s war is one of words, not swords. 

For though we walk in the flesh, we are not waging war according to the flesh. For the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh but have divine power to destroy strongholds. We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ.[xi]

Christian leaders cannot afford to be silent any longer. Cancel culture or not, we are in a war of words against worldly ideologies. And the only weapon we have is the sword of the Spirit, which is the Word of God”.[xii] We are in desperate need of robust cultural engagement. We must do this while we still have a voice. God gave you your voice. He redeemed your voice. Your mouth is not yours, it’s His. Christians must boldly use their voice for the kingdom, like heralds. Of course, this includes preaching the gospel above all else. 

But I don’t think it stops there. We must speak out against the political, radical, anti-God agendas pervasive in our society. For example, it is a violation of God’s holy law to murder babies. Abortion is the greatest crime of this generation. Republicans are not innocent, but the Democratic party is the party of abortion. Democrats run on that platform. History will not be kind to us. And it shouldn’t be. We deserve God’s severe judgement for tolerating and placing in office those who reach beyond their limits into the womb of a mother to take a life put there by God. Why are we surprised that people take to the streets to literally tear down civilization? And why are we further surprised that those who have the power to stop it don’t? Toppling a statue is a great crime. I particularly despise such an action out of my love for history. But such does not compare to the crime of cutting babies up. When a society lowers itself to murdering the innocents, anything is possible. We should not be surprised about any form of wickedness. We have turned our heads from what we cannot see in a murder mill, then act appalled when some young thug climbs onto Christopher Columbus and spray paints his face. How dare he, we say. And rightly so. But where was our voice and action when that little life was taken in the backroom of a murder mill at the hands of a butcher who calls himself a doctor? God help us.

I recently saw an interview of two high profile University professors, one teaches at the University of California at Santa Cruz, and the other at George Mason University. The host was asking them questions regarding the breakdown of education in our country. There has been a growing, but presently an even greater intensification of leftist indoctrination in colleges. College campuses are essentially “one party campuses”. This creates a platform for the extreme leftists, who operate according to Marxist principles. The agenda is simple: condition the youth of our culture in Marxist principles. One of these professors said that recent studies have verified that a quarter of college professors in the United States openly acknowledge that they are Marxists. This does not take into account perhaps another quarter who teach Marxist principles but would never admit publicly to being Marxist.[xiii]

Western Civilization is in a battle against Marxism. Christians may not be able to change all that passes as “education” on college campuses, but we can start where God has placed us. We can seek to have a gospel influence within the educational spheres God has placed us. The most fundamental and natural place for Christian education is the home. I am not talking about homeschooling, though such is increasingly looking like the best and most logical option. I’m talking about the duty of parents to establish a Christian world order within the home. 

Reformation In Fatherhood

In light of the recent riots in Minneapolis, a brother-pastor in my own state of Florida simply tweeted, “America looks like it needs a dad.” Spot on! If a Christian world order is going to materialize, then it will require godly fathers doing their jobs. 

Truly, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.[xiv]

Fathers have both the delight and duty of speaking to a captive audience every night at the dinner table. So, what will fathers speak about to their children? Perhaps the apostle Paul’s words might help. 

Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord.[xv]

I wander how many of those rioters actually knew their dads? And how many of those dads were successful in not provoking their children to anger? I’ll let the TV or I-phone screen answer that question. The anger of rioters was preceded by some nefarious provocation. For sake of simplicity, we’ll call it fatherly negligence.  It is obvious that God has given Christian fathers a weighty responsibility to evangelize their children. But it’s sort of difficult to do that when fathers are not around, either physically or spiritually. Let’s be clear. God’s kingdom does not grow apart from regeneration. God’s kingdom is not dependent upon political revolution or patriarchial requirements, but spiritual renovation. Men are not saviors. The God-Man alone is Savior. Salvation only comes through the gospel in which alone resides power to make a new creation. But God established the family as the first main institution of society. God is the Creator behind that life that men and women produce through procreation. And with that physical life comes a responsibility to do all one can to ensure it receives spiritual life. Both physical and spiritual life come from God. Was this not Jesus’s point to Nicodemus in John 3? Even still, if a Christian world order is to be a reality, it will begin with the presence – not the absence – of fathers. God gave Adam a home not merely to nurture and tend the garden, but also to cultivate godliness within the heart soil of his wife and children. Fathers must act as the priests of their homes, teaching the law of God and training their children to love the Lord Jesus Christ. The home needs a massive reformation. And such reformation begins with fathers, and then extends to mothers. Sadly, the family seems to be a thing of the past in our culture. Broken homes are the norm, and have been for quite sometim now.

It may interest you to know (and should, by the way) that Marxism seeks to abolish the family. The Western nuclear family is viewed as the enemy of Marxist ideology. Through the influence of families in general and fathers in particular, the Marxist argues, an unhealthy patriarchal structure is established which in turn produces class inequality. Is it not ironic that the same rioters who want so-called class equality are the same ones who did not have a father providing for them in order to prevent their poverty? It is not the presence of fathers that leads to poverty, but the absence of them. I’ll grant that there is enough blame on dads to go around. But the dads who are present, provide, and protect are not to blame. Those who instill biblical principles and teach the gospel are not the problem. Marxism disagrees. And since it is being taught in the education system, it is mostly younger people protesting. Many do not know their fathers, so they may not know better. But Christian fathers know better. And Christian fathers will be held accountable for how they educate their children in the ways of the Lord.

Feminism is integrally tied to Marxist thought. The feminist also blames men and families. Women are oppressed in Christian homes in particular. A poor black woman is even more at the crossroads of intersectionality. Why? Because she is oppressed in at least three ways. She’s black. She’s a woman. And she’s poor. Christian fathers are to blame for this. And so it goes. If you want to know the result of such thinking, then just look at Western civilization today. What we see before our eyes is the result. Marxism is winning. Where are the dads who will stand up and say enough is enough? Well, it must be Christian fathers who understand their mandate as members of the kingdom of God. Christian fathers must train the next generation in biblicism, not Marxism. And if you happen to be a parent who sends your children to the public schools, your work will be cut out for you. All the time you spend deprogramming them from Marxist ideals could be swapped for the time spent pouring biblical truth into their souls if you selected a better form of education. A Christian world order will not happen any other way.

Marxism refuses to recognize that the origins of man are not tribal, but familial. God created the family. And He did not give multiple partners to Adam, but one. The community does not own all things equally. Sexual intercourse is not meant to be a shared enterprise within the community. But women want their liberty. And so do men. Why is this shocking? A cry for so-called liberty and freedom from oppression will always lead to free sexual oppression. This is just the way it works. The family is in the way of freedom. But the Bible paints a different picture, of course. The family – a spouse and children – is the most fulfilling investment of human existence. The family was not instituted after man’s fall into sin, but before it. The family is not a modern invention of capitalism. It is a concept as old as the Garden of Eden. And when viewed rightly, and taken seriously, it brings the most fulfillment. Forget freedom for a moment, and liberation. God promises fulfillment. And fulfillment is always a freeing experience. Freedom comes when one lives according to the standards of God’s law and original design.

Then the Lord God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him.”[xvi]

The family is the primary social order, so when it breaks down the rest of society crumbles with it. This is what we are witnessing before our eyes today in the West.

Godly families are salt and light to a cursed world. That tree Jesus spoke about in His parable in Matthew 13, the one He says will one day fill the whole world, could be called a “family tree”. The family tree of God often grows – indeed most naturally grows – through individual family units where fathers and mothers and children obey God’s Word. If this isn’t the case, then why does Scripture place such a strong emphasis on the Christian family? 

Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her.

Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord.

Children obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. Honor your father and mother (this is the first commandment with a promise), that it may go well with you and that you may live long in the land.[xvii]

Reformation in the Church

The reason Marxism rejoices in churches being burnt rather than being built is precisely because they know what the Scriptures teach regarding the family. And they do not want the message propagated any longer. Unfortunately, the church has capitulated to such pressure in many quarters. But how can the family remain pure when the church tolerates, or even promotes immorality? 

But sexual immorality and all impurity or covetousness must not even be named among you, as is proper among saints.[xviii]

One obvious blemish of the visible church is Revoice. Revoice does not need a reformation, it needs a rebuke.[xix]When the self-proclaimed visible church says that its mission is to “support and encourage gay, lesbian, bisexual, and other same-sex attracted Christians—as well as those who love them—so that all in the Church might be empowered to live in gospel unity while observing the historic Christian doctrine of marriage and sexuality”, then you know: a) sexual immorality will be tolerated in the visible church,  b) the family will break down as a result, and c) confusion will abound since the church cannot encourage gay, lesbian, bisexual, and other same sex attracted Christians to continue in their sinful lifestyles while at the same time maintain a biblical ethic of marriage and sexuality. When large denominations harbor swaths of people and pastors who promote and participate in Revoice principles without holding them fully accountable, you know the church is in trouble. Perhaps it will not be rioters who burn down these churches. Perhaps the King will make war with them with the sword of His mouth. He’s done it before with a church named Pergamum.[xx]

The church has a Head. His name is Jesus Christ. He is the King. He has a law. He has standards. The church is subject to His pressures and priorities, not the culture’s. Now, the church is not the state and the state is not the church. The church does not have the right to wield the sword, just as the state does not have the right to administer the sacraments. But both have been ordained of God. And both must function under Christ’s headship within their own domains of influence and authority. The church is not to take over the world in crusade-like fashion. Nevertheless, the church does have an obligation – yea a mandate from her King – to seek to establish Christian order within herself. When the domain of the church is infiltrated by worldly principles it is not the world’s fault. Such is the church’s fault. And the only remedy is repentance. The Bride of Christ has muddied her wedding garment.

The church cannot change the world in her own power. The power lies in the gospel. But she can change her ways. She must change her ways in order to be salt and light in society. She must proclaim the gospel. She must proclaim the standards of God’s law. She must proclaim the world order to which ultimately Christ’s headship obligates in every sphere of life including the family, the church, and the state.[xxi] She must do this both in her liturgy and lifestyle. She must preach and live truth. Marxism is not just the enemy of the state and family. It is also the enemy of the church. The church must speak against it by pointing to the One true King and His laws. The church is to have one voice with the prophets Isaiah and Micah.

Come, let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob that He may teach us his ways and that we may walk in His paths. For out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem.[xxii]

 Reformation of the State

The fifth area of reformation that I want to suggest is necessary for a Christian world order is the government. Following the family and the church, the state is the third institution ordained by God that must submit to His authority. Scripture is clear that all governments are to recognize that their authority and power comes from God. 

 There is only one Lawgiver and Judge, He is able to save and to destroy.[xxiii]

The state has an obligation both to preserve and promote civil obedience. This include the concepts of peace and liberty, and law and order. But many Christians wrongly assume politics do not belong in the pulpit. Think for a minute how ridiculous such an assertion sounds. Civil authorities are supposed to enforce laws, right?. They are supposed to uphold morals. They are actually obligated to do so according to Scripture. Does morality have anything to do with the Christian message? Of course, it does. There is only one Lawgiver ultimately. It stands to reason, therefore, that politics belong in the pulpit in some sense because politicians oversee legislation. 

Do civil magistrates have an obligation to promote good and punish evil? Romans 13 more than suggests so. 

For he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer.[xxiv]

Rioters and looters are not simply against government, they are simultaneously against God. They are not laying a foundation for any moral change; they are tearing down the morality built in this country through the influence of Christianity. They are not heroes, but criminals. The state receives its authority from God, therefore civil authorities are in rebellion against God when they tolerate a violent mob mentality.

For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.[xxv]

And while we are on the topic of government negligence and transgression, we may dare to ask if Christians are allowed to expect, and even hold accountable, governmental authorities to tell the truth? Our country has an entire department named the Department of Justice. It is increasingly becoming clear, however, that this is just a fancy name. It has a nice ring to it, but such a department means nothing if it is empty of truth. Justice is about truth. And truth is rooted in the ninth commandment where God tells us not to bear false witness.[xxvi] Does it not appear strange to you that somehow it is okay for crowds to gather on streets with the express purpose of either directly breaking the law or at a minimum challenging the law, yet it is considered a major health risk to attend a Trump rally? How much energy and breathing and sweating and close contact is required to burn and loot as opposed to sitting in a stadium listening to a speech? I’ve never rioted and looted, but it looks like quite a bit of energy is expended in such actions. I have sat in plenty of indoor stadiums. They are pretty comfortable and I’ve never had a problem with people breathing heavily right on top of me. Does anyone still think there has not been some level of bearing false witness by certain government officials during Covid-19? If there was any doubt, there should not be any more.

The job of the state is to guard the rights of the individuals, not the mobs. Civil authority has its own zone. Its authority has been given to it by God. It is not to cross lines with either the authority of the church or the family. This is why the United States has always endorsed the basic principle of religious liberty. The family also has its zone of authority. Children do not belong to the village; they belong to their parents. Owning private property is also a legitimate right in a sane, civil, and moral society. In the eighth commandment God tells us not to steal.[xxvii] So, when we take what rightfully belongs to others and give it to those who did not work for it, we are not first and foremost in rebellion against Capitalism or a free market, we are in rebellion against God Himself. God’s law gives to the individual the right to own the property he worked to purchase. God’s law also gives to the individual the right to own his home. But these liberties are being threatened. God’s law also forbids us from committing adultery in the seventh commandment.[xxviii] So putting all of this together, a man has his own wife in his own home, and I am not to invade that home and take what lawfully belongs to him. I am not to take his wife or his house or his children. I am not to loot his business because I think what he has should belong to me. 

The point is that God alone is sovereign over every square inch of this world. All authority was given to Christ both in heaven and on earth upon His resurrection and just prior to His ascension. He is the Lawgiver. And many of His laws have built into them certain inalienable rights for citizens of any government. Forget the Constitution of the United States for a moment. The Bible serves as our constitution here. Governments, therefore, have no right to take away certain rights. It may not sound popular, but the civil authorities are under obligation to acknowledge Christ’s headship. And acknowledging the King of King’s headship practically means acknowledging and upholding the King’s laws. This is not a page out of the postmillennial playbook; it is a Scriptural principle through and through. Did Christ come to conquer souls alone? Did He not also come to conquer families and governments? Did He not come to conquer the nations? Please help me if I am reading my Bible wrongly. Does the gospel eventually remove the effects of sin in some parts of the world, or in every part? Whether we believe it or not, God has promised to subdue the nations. All governments will yield to Him one day. Working toward a Christian world order is part of the Great Commission. It is not negotiable. Such is fundamentally what Jesus was speaking about in the last words He gave while on this earth.

And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.[xxix]

The responsibility of seeking a Christian world order within the three God-ordained institutions of the family, the church, and society is a great one. This prerogative may rest with citizens of God’s kingdom, but the power comes from God alone. Christians must embrace their responsibility while also acknowledging that the results will come from the King. He’s ruling and reigning. 

 For He must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet.[xxx]

May we trust Him. May we pray. May we work hard. May we not be silent about the gospel. May we publish truth. To quote the devout Christian, General Stonewall Jackson (while people still actually know who he is), “Duty is ours; consequences are God’s.” 

 For He who is in you is greater than he who is in the world.[xxxi]

[i] Matthew 5:13-16, ESV.

[ii] Matthew 16:18

[iii] Acts 2:36

[iv] Matthew 28:18

[v] Originally published in The Presbyterian Guardian, October 10, 1943. It can be accessed in Collected Writings of John Murray, Vol.1: The Claims of Truth, Banner of Truth, 356-366.

[vi] Murray, 356.

[vii] 2 Peter 3:13

[viii] Murray, 357-358.

[ix] Matthew 6:10

[x] I John 5:4-5

[xi] 2 Corinthians 10:3-5

[xii] Ephesians 6:17

[xiii] Life, Liberty, and Levin, Episode Aired June 21, 2020. https://www.foxnews.com/shows/life-liberty-levin

[xiv] Matthew 18:3

[xv] Ephesians 6:4

[xvi] Genesis 2:18

[xvii] Ephesians 5:25, 5:22; 6:1-3

[xviii] Ephesians 5:3

[xix] https://revoice.us/about/our-mission-and-vision/

[xx] Revelation 2:16

[xxi] Murray, 362.

[xxii] Isaiah 2:3; Micah 4:2

[xxiii] James 4:12

[xxiv] Romans 13:4

[xxv] Romans 13:1

[xxvi] Exodus 20:16

[xxvii] Exodus 20:15

[xxviii] Exodus 20:14

[xxix] Matthew 28:18-20

[xxx] I Corinthians 15:25

[xxxi] I John 4:4