To What End - Part 4 | Solid Rock Christian Fellowship

To What End - Part 4

Christian Engagement with the World

Jim Densmore • Executive Pastor/Elder
July 14, 2024

20 Minute Read

The Main Idea of this Article

Based on the ways in which Jesus and Paul lived, and centered on what they taught, Christians are to engage with the people in the world through shared cultural touchpoints, while shunning the ways of the world.

Introduction

How should we as Christians participate, and to what degree, and in what manner, with the world and the culture around us? As I have explored this question, I have found an enormous variety of answers, but the two responses that appear most frequently can be summarized as follows:

1) We should separate from the world and limit our participation to just what is necessary to live in the world, and our engagement should be focused on evangelism. This is because we are pilgrims passing through a world that is passing away, and we are to avoid getting involved in earthly affairs.[34]

2) We should intentionally strive to change the world by being cultural warriors, and spearhead cultural and political movements, transforming the culture around us. The well-known quote from

Kuyper is how this view is expressed by some: “There is not a square inch in the whole domain of our human existence over which Christ, who is sovereign over all, does not cry: ‘Mine!’”[35]

Perhaps you identify with one of these responses more than the other, or perhaps your perspective is somewhere in-between.

In this article, building on the biblical foundation laid in my previous article concerning the nature, mission and work of the Church and the government,[36] I will address the first response and argue that while Christians are not to live according to the world’s ethics, this does not mean that we are to withdraw from every aspect of the world. I will also contend that significant engagement with the world and the cultures we live within, is a necessary element of being a Christian, and is modeled and taught in the New Testament.

I will address the second response in the next article.

Definitions

Before proceeding, it will be helpful to define “world” and “culture”.

“World” - The Inhabitants of the Planet

The true light, which gives light to everyone, was coming into the world. (John 1:10 ESV)

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. (John 3:16-17)

The usage of “world” here speaks to the inhabitants—the people—who live on our planet. In this sense, we know we are to engage and participate and love the world because of the Incarnation—Jesus leaving heaven, coming to this world, being found in human form, and dying on a cross for the world.[37]

“World” – Its Ways

Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world—the desires of the flesh and the desires of the eyes and pride of life—is not from the Father but is from the world. And the world is passing away along with its desires, but whoever does the will of God abides forever. (1 John 2:15-17)

I appeal to you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship. Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect. (Romans 12:1-2)

This usage of “world’ is speaking to “the whole circle of earthly goods, endowments, riches, advantages, pleasures, etc. which, although hollow and frail and fleeting, stir desire, seduce from God and are obstacles to the cause of Christ.38 Or, as John himself defines it for us— “the desires of the flesh and the desires of the eyes and pride of life”. In this sense, we are clearly meant to “disengage” or “withdraw” from the ways of the world.

Culture

The New Testament does not have a word for culture, but the idea is found throughout the Gospels and the Epistles. I’m using it to mean the shared beliefs, behaviors, values, typical practices, and goals of a group of people.[39]

When I speak of engagement with the world, I am referring to the people that God has put into our lives, and not the worldly ways of the society around us, which we are to avoid. And we are to do this through the shared values, typical practices and goals of the unique cultural setting within which God has placed us.

Cultural Engagement as Modeled and Taught by Jesus and Paul

Let’s survey relevant New Testament passages to see how Jesus and Paul lived with the world around them, along what they taught about cultural engagement.

Jesus’ Way of Life

Early in Jesus’ ministry, he is teaching in his hometown synagogue in Nazareth, and the people who heard him couldn’t believe someone like Jesus could be teaching such astonishing things, because he was just a common carpenter40 and came from a typical and unremarkable family.[41]

By being seen as a “commoner”, it means that Jesus and his family were not living apart from their culture, but as full participants within their community. Their way of life was the same as that of their neighbors. This would also include living within the restrictions of the Roman Empire.

By being a carpenter or artisan, Jesus would have had relationships with other craftsman, he would have been engaged in commerce, buying supplies and selling his creations, and getting paid for his work. He would have to be familiar with the styles of the day and what was popular with the people. Jesus would have also paid taxes (and he taught others to pay taxes).[42] There is an argument to make that Jesus also interacted with Romans in the building trade, given that the largest Roman city in Galilee (Sephoris) was an hour away from Nazareth.[43]

We know he was fully versed in all the ways of his people because his teachings were steeped in cultural references – shepherding, vineyards, weddings, fishing, gardening. And his Parables were convicting and polarizing because he well knew the religious traditions and practices of his people, so he understood precisely where and how to indict the Jewish leaders for their hypocrisy and love of power.

Jesus was continually accused of associating with unclean people, with whom he regularly shared meals.[44] He would have eaten the same food, drank the same drinks, and respected the same culinary customs of his people. As a guest at a wedding, when prompted by his mother, Jesus performs his first miracle and provides “the fine wine” so that the party could continue! This is not a man who has separated from his culture.[45]

A Roman Centurion asked Jesus to heal his servant and insisted that Jesus doesn’t need to physically come to his home to do it, because he knew that Jesus had the authority and power to do it from where Jesus was standing.[46] If Jesus had only been focusing on his personal holiness and separating from the world and the unclean Gentiles, the Centurion wouldn’t have known who Jesus was.[47]

Because Jesus was so much a part of his culture and because he was a “commoner” who lived, worked, and celebrated with his people, it gave him insight and credibility, and it equipped him to know how best to evangelize because of the numerous and common touch points he shared. If he lived separately from his people, or the larger world around him, he would not have been able to have the ministry that he did.

Jesus’ Teachings - The Sermon on the Mount

‘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.’ (Matt. 5:13-16)

This is a passage that is oft cited by those who believe Christians are mandated to transform culture. Their conclusion is that being “salt and light” means that Christians, as a priority of the Christian life, are to be working in their communities and the public arena, shaping and molding culture and laws and governments into Christ-honoring institutions.

But notice that vv. 13-16 come after Jesus has first taught the Beatitudes in vv. 1-12. I believe that the Beatitudes are Jesus teaching a new ethic for people who will be citizens in a new kingdom that he has inaugurated at his First Coming and will be consummated at his Second Coming.

This new kingdom’s ethic is based on being poor in spirit, mourning, meekness, hungering for righteousness, showing mercy, being pure of heart, peacemaking, and being persecuted for righteousness. This is in direct contrast and contradiction to the condition of much of Jewish culture, not to mention the cultural norms of the Roman Empire.

Therefore, cultural engagement is assumed. Jesus is describing a new way of living that is to be done in such a way, that those living with and around these new citizens, will witness a way of life they haven’t seen before, and attribute it to God. If these new kingdom citizens pull away from and separate themselves from their cultures, their lamp of good works will be put under a basket, which is what Jesus has explicitly instructed them not to do.

But the Beatitudes speak first and foremost to the heart condition of these new citizens. When they are living with these new kinds of hearts, they can fulfill the rest of the Sermon’s instructions, which speak to how they are to treat each other in personal relationships. Transformation of the heart, which then transforms personal relationships, is of first importance to Jesus. If Jesus’ followers live out these teachings, it will

inevitably result in cultural transformation, but the impact on culture is from the ground up and not from the top down, nor is it the point of the Sermon.[48]

Paul’s Way of Life

Paul was a tentmaker.[49] Everything that was said about Jesus’ engagement with his culture because of his artisan’s profession can be said about Paul. In the same way in which Jesus evangelized within the backdrop of Jewish culture, Paul’s intimate knowledge of Jewish religious culture and the ways of the Jewish leadership equipped him to be a powerful evangelist, given that he had reached its religious pinnacles.[50]

When Paul comes to Athens and sees that the city is full of idols his “spirit was provoked within him” and he arranges to teach the Epicurean and Stoic philosophers on the Areopagus about Jesus.[51] Paul is so familiar with their teachings that he quotes their philosophers back to them— “for ‘In him we live and move and have our being’; as even some of your own poets have said, ‘For we are indeed his offspring.’” (Acts 17:28) This would require Paul to have significant prior knowledge of the sophisticated philosophies and literature of the Greeks.

He also knew Roman law.[52] He knew how to engage in public discourse—a large part of both the Jewish and Gentile cultures.[53] Paul used his freedom in Christ to effectively evangelize Jew and Gentile.

For though I am free from all, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win more of them. (1 Cor. 9:19)54

We don’t know all the specifics of Paul’s evangelistic efforts, but clearly, he’s not separating and protecting himself from the cultures of the people he’s evangelizing—he’s intentionally entering and engaging with those cultures so that he can more effectively evangelize, even to the point of becoming like them.

Paul’s Teachings

Paul taught the Christians in the Gentile cities of Ephesus and Thessalonica to work with their own hands—which means engaging and participating with all the related people and areas of their cultures, as Jesus and Paul would have.[55]

In Colossians 4:5, Paul instructs the believers to “Walk in wisdom toward outsiders, making the best use of the time.” In 1 Thessalonians 4:10b-12, Paul urges his brothers to “…excel more and more and to aspire to live quietly, to attend to your own matters, and to work with your own hands, as we instructed you. Then you will behave properly toward outsiders, without being dependent on anyone.” And then in 1 Timothy 3:7, when giving qualifications for elders (overseers), he says, “Moreover, he must be well thought of by outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace, into a snare of the devil.”

Each of these instructions assume cultural engagement and provide clear guidelines for how Christians are to live within cultures that are not Christian—wisely, quietly, and being well thought of. By living this way, the Christians were demonstrating that they did not consider themselves better than those around them, because they lived within the norms of their neighbors and the cultures of their times. This is a reminder to them that they are minority groups that need to be conscious of their reputations.

Because God “wants all people to be saved” (1 Tim 2:4), the church does not retreat from the world but declares the Christian message— “the mystery of godliness” (3:16)—and lives in a way that is appropriate to it (cf. Titus 2:1). Good behavior will thus make the faith attractive to outsiders (Titus 2:10) and ensure that others do not slander believers (cf. 1 Tim 5:14; 6:1; Titus 2:5, 8).[56]

We can therefore conclude that Jesus and Paul modeled and taught that Christians are to engage with the people of the world, and to do it through the cultural norms of that society, with the exception being when those ways are in contradiction to the ways of God.[57] And the primary reason for this is because it is the best method for effectively fulfilling the Great Commission.

Christians Are To Engage with the World Through Culture

All Christians are Cross Cultural Missionaries

As a church we support many missionaries domestically and abroad. Many of them are cross-cultural missionaries. And decades of missionary work have shown that the most effective manner of evangelism is for the missionaries to insert themselves into the local culture so that they can learn how to share the gospel in the manner that will have the most resonance to that specific people.[58] They learn the language, they learn the customs, they learn their songs, their food, their stories, their myths, and they internalize this cultural knowledge to show that they care about the people they are engaging with, and then they introduce the gospel. It’s the longstanding evangelist’s adage: “People don’t care what you know, until they know that you care.”

Even if one takes the view that cultural participation should be minimal and only focused on evangelism, this is self-defeating because the evangelist is still dependent on living in and engaging with culture because that is where the people are. Just as with Jesus and Paul, our common touchpoints in culture are what give us an audience with non-believers. We can’t live away from culture on a mountain-top where we focus on our personal holiness, and then come down and expect to have a hearing from people that we have nothing in common with.

I submit that the Sermon on the Mount calls us all to be cross-cultural missionaries, in our neighborhoods and with the people living in the houses right next door to us. We are to understand our neighbors, and then engage with them according to the new kingdom ethics of the Sermon, which are by their nature counter-cultural, so that our neighbors will see our good works, which will reveal the Father to them.

Relational Evangelism

It’s necessary for us to know what is happening politically, with entertainment, with sports teams, with the arts. It enables us to connect with those we are trying to reach with the gospel.[59] Common cultural activities—hunting, arts and crafts, the latest ideas on how to raise children, going to museums, mountain biking, TV shows— are the best way to establish meaningful relationships with non-believers, and relational evangelism is the primary and best way in which evangelism takes place.

For example, even as we (perhaps) agree with a neighbor about the evils of allowing minors to undergo transgender surgeries without parental knowledge, and we rail against those who enable this, we can also include that we are praying for these children and their parents and are supporting organizations that are reaching out to the children to get them the kind of help they may need. Yes, we can be working politically, but by remembering that at their root these are spiritual battles and not just political battles, we are showing our neighbor that we care about the people and not just the issue. We don’t want to win an argument; we want people to be set free and to know Jesus. This will distinguish Christians from other political groups, and this too will get the attention of our neighbor when they hear us being opposed to evil, but also caring for the individual that is being destroyed by the evil and the lies. This is a message they will not always hear from the world. This is being salt and light.

If we engage in all of our cultural activities in a uniquely Christian manner, i.e., by adhering to the Sermon on the Mount, we are demonstrating that the gospel isn’t something that is just taught in children’s Sunday School. The way in which we engage in these shared activities demonstrate that the gospel applies to all areas of life, perhaps in ways that a non-believer would never have considered.

Full Cultural Disengagement Isn’t Possible

Additionally, it is not feasible to entirely disengage from the culture or the world. This is because Christians are dependent on culture, and because we are a part of any culture we reside within. The Christians that lived within the Roman Empire during the first three centuries of the Church’s existence, lived and fashioned a form of Christianity that was bound by the culture within which they lived. But they also influenced it because by the time of Constantine, even though they had no standing in that culture and no ability to change the laws or the cultural practices, by living out their faith according to the Sermon on the Mount, they completely changed the Roman Empire.[60]

The nineteenth century author Leo Tolstoy attempted to completely withdraw from the world, and even came to have this worldview named after him—The Tolstoyan Movement. But even he couldn’t live up to his noble but ultimately unobtainable ideals, because we are all dependent and interwoven with the culture around us. He withdrew to such a point that he no longer provided for his wife and family, and he died a broken man, with a family that hated him.[61]

How we conduct ourselves at work, or if we start a new business, if we vote, if we hold fund raisers, or work at a community pregnancy center, if we volunteer at Sharlot Hall or the Grand Canyon, if we write a community newsletter, if we coach a little-league team or we create art, or write books—not to mention everything we do at church—we are engaging with the world and the culture around us, and we are shaping it and being shaped by it.[62]

Conclusion

Following the model and teachings of Jesus and Paul, we are called to cross-culturally engage with the people in the world, while shunning the ways of the world, by following the ethics of the Sermon on the Mount, and by connecting with our neighbors through all available common cultural touchpoints. This will make us effective ambassadors for Christ and continue his mission to save the world.

Download this article

Go to part 5

Footnotes

34 Matt. 24:35; 1 Cor. 7:31; 2 Tim. 2:4; 1 Peter 1:2; 2 Peter 3:10; Rev. 21:1-4.

35 Dutch theologian and statesman Abraham Kuyper, who devoted his life to societal and cultural reforms in the Netherlands, and particularly during his time as Prime Minister from 1901 – 1905.

36 Densmore, James. “Biblical Foundations - The Church and the Government.” Keeping in Touch, 1 July 2024. Please contact the church office for a copy.

37 Phil. 2:1-10

38 Strong’s Greek: 2889. κόσμος (kosmos) -- order, the world. (n.d.). https://biblehub.com/greek/2889.htm

39 Dictionary.com | Meanings & Definitions of English Words. (2020a). In Dictionary.com. https://www.dictionary.com/browse/culture

40 The Greek word translated “carpenter” can also apply to a mason, smith or an artisan in general. Strong’s Greek: 5045. τέκτων (tektón) -- a craftsman, spec. a carpenter. (n.d.). https://biblehub.com/greek/5045.htm

41 Mark 6:1-6

42 Matt. 17:24-27; Luke 19:20-26

43 Staff, B. a. S. (2019b, April 22). Sepphoris Inscriptions Reference Rabbis - Biblical Archaeology Society. Biblical Archaeology Society. https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/news/sepphoris-inscriptions-reference-rabbis/

44 Mark 2:15; Matt. 9:10; Matt. 11:18-19; Luke 7:36-50, 15:1-2

45 John 2:1-11

46 Matt. 8:5-13

47 See also Acts 10 where God commanded and then persuaded Peter to not separate himself from “the world”, i.e., the unclean Gentiles.

48 At that time, neither Jews nor Christians would have had any say in the form of government or the content of laws or any significant portions of Jewish or Roman culture. So, this would not have been in the thinking of Jesus or his hearers.

49 Acts 18:1-3

50 Phil. 3:1-14

51 Acts 17:16-34

52 Acts 22:22-29, 25:1-12

53 Acts 14:1, 17:1-2, 19:8, 22:1

54 See 1 Cor. 9:19-23 for the full context

55 Eph. 4:18; 1 Thess. 4:11-12, respectively.

56 Christ and Culture in the NT – Ch. 9

57 Even those differences can be powerful avenues for evangelism, when done without judging our neighbor. You can

explain why you won’t see a particular movie or Netflix show, or why you avoid social drinking, etc.

58 Whiteman, D. L. (2024). Crossing Cultures with the Gospel: Anthropological Wisdom for Effective Christian Witness. Baker Books.

59 Of course, as stated at the beginning of this article, this doesn’t mean that we engage in practices that are contrary to God’s commands.

60 Schnelle, U. (2020). The First One Hundred Years of Christianity: An Introduction to Its History, Literature, and Development. Baker Academic.

61 Wikipedia contributors. (2024, March 21). Tolstoyan movement. Wikipedia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tolstoyan_movement

62 Of course, the influences Christians have on their surrounding culture and vice-versa can result in both good and bad results.

Stay connected by subscribing below so you never miss an update.

Subscribe to Resources Updates

Up Next

From this Collection: Resources

September 27, 2026 • 1 Minute Read

Mutual Accountability

A preview of this content is only available to those with authorized access.

September 27, 2026 • 1 Minute Read

Elders and Deacons

A preview of this content is only available to those with authorized access.

December 15, 2025 • 11 Minute Read

Singing Without Gaps

Introduction Congregational singing is one of the most formative practices in the life of the church. Long before many Christians can clearly explain doctrine, they learn what to believe by what they sing.[1] Scripture itself presents singing as a means by which truth is remembered, rehearsed, and passed on from one generation to the next (Deut 31:19–21; Ps 145:4). For this reason, the question is not simply whether a song feels sincere or emotionally moving, but whether it clearly communicates truth. In recent years, many often-used worship songs function as what I am calling ﬁll-in-the-gap songs—songs that allude to God’s work without clearly naming it, assuming the worshiper will supply the meaning that Scripture ordinarily speaks plainly. This is not a rejection of contemporary music, nor a criticism of sincere worshipers. It is a call to think carefully and lovingly about what our singing is doing to us over time. In Scripture, the gospel is not only the message by which we enter the Christian life, but the truth by which we continue to live, grow, repent, hope, and endure (Rom 1:16–17; Gal 2:20; Col 2:6–7). What Are “Fill-in-the-Gap Songs”? By ﬁll-in-the-gap songs, I mean songs that: Speak of gratitude, freedom, victory, or devotion Use familiar Christian language But do not clearly state what God has done, how he has done it, or why it matters These songs often include phrases like: “For all that you’ve done” “You made a way” “I’m free” “I’m grateful” All of these statements are true. The concern is that they are left undefined. The song relies on the worshiper to mentally supply the cross, forgiveness of sin, Christ’s sacrifice, and resurrection hope. Scripture models a different pattern. Biblical praise repeatedly names the acts of God rather than assuming them (Ps 105:1–5; Ps 136; Rev 5:9–10). Why the Gaps Matter 1. Singing Is One Way We Learn the Faith The New Testament explicitly connects congregational singing with instruction and growth: “Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly, teaching and admonishing one another in all wisdom, singing…” (Col 3:16) Similarly, “Addressing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs…” (Eph 5:19) When the church sings, it is not only speaking to God; it is also teaching one another. Over time, what we sing shapes how we understand God, salvation, and the Christian life. This includes not only how we understand conversion, but how we understand daily repentance, obedience, suffering, assurance, and growth. If the gospel is assumed rather than named, believers may begin the Christian life grounded in Christ’s work, yet slowly drift toward living by memory, emotion, or effort rather than by faith in what Christ has accomplished (Gal 3:1-3). Singing that clearly proclaims Christ’s saving work and helps believers continue to live by grace rather than by feelings or performance. If our songs regularly express devotion without clearly naming God’s saving work, we risk forming warm feelings without clear understanding (Rom 10:17). 2. Gratitude Needs a Clear Reason In Scripture, thanksgiving is never vague. Gratitude always flows from something God has done: “Give thanks to the Lord… for he has redeemed” (Ps 107:1–2) “I give thanks… because of the grace of God given you in Christ Jesus” (1 Cor 1:4) “Thanks be to God for his inexpressible gift!” (2 Cor 9:15) Biblical gratitude is anchored in redemption clearly stated. When gratitude is detached from those reasons, it becomes fragile. In seasons of suffering, worshipers need songs that remind them not only that God is worthy, but why hope remains (Lam 3:21–23; Rom 8:31–39). 3. We Sing for Everyone, Not Just the Mature When the church gathers, it sings for: The longtime believer and the new Christian The confident and the doubting The joyful and the grieving Scripture repeatedly emphasizes clarity for the sake of the whole community. God commands truth to be taught plainly and repeatedly (Deut 6:6–7), and Paul insists that what happens in gathered worship should be understandable so that all may be built up (1 Cor 14:12, 26). Congregational songs should not require advanced theological knowledge to be understood. They should carry the truth clearly, especially for the weakest among us. They should also carry truth clearly to the non-believer. If those who are less spiritually mature may unintentionally fill in the gaps with a deficient understanding of the gospel, what about those who do not yet believe at all? When songs leave their meaning undefined, non-Christians may be able to sing along comfortably, supplying their own interpretations of gratitude, freedom, or hope. In that case, the song can be affirmed without the gospel ever being encountered. By contrast, songs that clearly and explicitly name the gospel[2] do not merely invite participation; they bear witness. They direct the non-Christian not toward personal experience or vague spirituality, but toward the saving work of Christ himself (1 Cor 14:24–25). This Is Not About Old Versus New Scripture commands God’s people to sing new songs (Ps 96:1; 149:1). God has always given his people fresh expressions of praise, and he continues to do so today. Many modern worship songs are biblically faithful, Christ-centered, and deeply helpful for congregational worship. The issue is not age, style, or sound. The issue is clarity. What Scripture consistently emphasizes is truthfulness and intelligibility, not musical era (Ps 33:3–4). A Case Study: Two Modern Songs A Fill-in-the-Gap Example: Gratitude (Brandon Lake) Gratitude is one of the most sung worship songs in churches across the United States this year, regularly appearing near the top of the CCLI charts. This makes it an important example, not because it is obscure, but because it exemplifies what is shaping what many congregations sing on Sunday. The song is sincere and God-directed. It centers on the worshiper’s sense of not having enough words or strength to properly thank God. That posture of humility is not unbiblical (Ps 116:12). However, the song’s focus remains largely on the worshiper’s response: Lifting hands Bowing down Expressing gratitude What the song does not clearly articulate is the reason for that gratitude. Scripture, by contrast, consistently ties praise to clearly named redemption: “Worthy are you… for you were slain, and by your blood you ransomed people for God” (Rev 5:9). In Gratitude, redemption is assumed rather than stated. Even when the worshiper does know the gospel, the song does not require that knowledge to be actively remembered or consciously applied to what is being sung. The language of gratitude may be attached, without intention, to personal experiences, emotions, or recent blessings rather than to the saving work of Christ himself. Scripture repeatedly warns God’s people not merely against ignorance, but against forgetfulness. “Bless the Lord, O my soul, and forget not all his benefits” (Ps 103:2). Israel did not forget that the Lord existed; they forgot what he had done (Ps 106:7). The New Testament issues the same warning, urging believers to pay close attention lest they drift away from what they have heard (Heb 2:1) and cautioning against beginning with Christ’s work but subtly shifting toward another ground of confidence (Gal 3:1–3). A simple illustration may help. Imagine thanking someone warmly for rescuing you, but never mentioning from what you were rescued. Over time, the gratitude may remain sincere, but the rescue itself fades from view. Eventually, thankfulness may attach itself to how safe you feel now, rather than to the costly act that made safety possible. In the same way, when songs do not clearly name Christ’s saving work, gratitude can quietly drift from being anchored in the cross to being shaped by mood, circumstance, or perceived closeness to God. This does not mean the worshiper is insincere. It means the song leaves room for gratitude to become subjective rather than anchored, shaped more by experience than by the gospel. Our songs should actively draw what we know about the gospel into our worship, anchoring gratitude in what God has done rather than leaving it vulnerable to forgetfulness or drift. A Clear Modern Contrast: In Christ Alone (Keith Getty / Stuart Townend) In Christ Alone is also a modern song, written in our lifetime,[3] yet it follows a different and more biblically shaped pattern. Rather than beginning with the worshiper’s response, the song begins with what is true outside of us, namely who Christ is and what he has done. The song walks the church through the story of redemption in clear, concrete language: Christ’s incarnation (John 1:14) His sinless life (Heb 4:15) His substitutionary death for sinners (Isa 53:5–6; Rom 3:24–26) His resurrection and victory over death (1 Cor 15:3–4) The worshiper’s secure hope and assurance in him (Rom 8:1, 38–39) By doing this, the song anchors worship in realities that do not change with the worshiper’s emotions, circumstances, or spiritual condition. Before the worshiper is invited to feel confidence, gratitude, or hope, the song tells us why such confidence is warranted. This guards the church from subjectivism in several ways: First, the song places the weight of faith on Christ’s finished work, not on the worshiper’s present experience. Assurance is grounded not in how near God feels, but in what Christ has accomplished once for all (Heb 10:10–14). Second, the song gives the congregation shared, public language that shapes understanding together. Salvation is not left to private interpretation or personal projection. The gospel is clearly stated and corporately confessed (1 Cor 15:1–4). Third, the song trains worshipers to interpret their lives through the gospel, rather than interpreting the gospel through their lives. Because the song begins with Christ and ends with unshakeable hope, it teaches worshipers to measure feelings and circumstances against what God has done, not the other way around (Rom 8:32). Finally, In Christ Alone gives words for worship when personal experience offers little help. In seasons of suffering, doubt, or dryness, the worshiper may struggle to generate gratitude from within. A song anchored in objective truth allows the church to sing what is true even when it is hard to feel (Ps 42:5; Hab 3:17–19). In this way, the song does not merely express faith; it forms and protects it, guarding worship from drifting toward subjectivism and keeping praise anchored in the unchanging gospel. What I Am Encouraging (and What I Am Not) I am not saying: Every song must say everything (John 21:25) Every modern song is unhelpful Emotion has no place in worship (Ps 98:4) I am saying: The church’s regular singing should clearly proclaim the gospel (1 Cor 15:1–4) Songs of response should grow out of songs that clearly state God’s saving work (Ps 40:3) Gratitude should be built on named redemption, not assumed understanding (Ps 103:2–4) A Simple Question to Ask A practical question for evaluating congregational songs is this: If someone sang this song for a year, would they understand the gospel more clearly or simply know that they feel grateful? Scripture repeatedly urges God’s people not to forget what he has done (Ps 78:4–7). Our songs should help us remember. Conclusion The church does not sing only to express what we feel, but to remind ourselves of what is true. Songs that clearly name God’s saving work help worshipers remain anchored when emotions are strong and when they are weak (Heb 2:1). They do so by continually returning the church to the gospel as the source not only of forgiveness, but of daily faith, obedience, repentance, and hope. The goal is not to sing fewer songs of gratitude, but to sing gratitude that knows exactly what it is grateful for. Not to reject what is new, but to ensure that what we sing can carry the full weight of biblical faith across generations. Fill-in-the-gap songs assume the gospel. The church’s songs should clearly tell the gospel.Download this article Footnotes [1] Several years ago, on a flight, I happened to sit next to Stuart Townend (co-author of In Christ Alone and How Deep the Father’s Love for Us). I asked him why he writes modern hymns. He said the church needs better theology and therefore the church needs better songs. People do not go home singing the points of a sermon, but they will go home singing the verses of a song. [2] The gospel is the announcement that Jesus Christ has accomplished everything necessary for our salvation through his life, death, and resurrection, and that this same grace now shapes how we live, suffer, love, work, repent, worship, and persevere until he makes all things new. It is about more than just ‘getting saved,’ but about how Christ’s work applies that salvation to every facet of life. [3] This wasn’t during the lifetime of every reader, © 2001 Thankyou Music, Keith Getty / Stuart Townend.

Matt Kottman

Lead Pastor/Elder

October 8, 2025 • 5 Minute Read

What is Theological Triage?

What Is Theological Triage? Dr. Gavin Ortlund, PhD & Dr. Brian Arnold, PhD | February 15, 2021 When I (Brian) worked as a paramedic, we did triage in the field. Here is what I mean. We used tags in four different colors to mark the severity of a person’s injuries. A black tag was used for someone who had already deceased. A red tag was given to someone who had experienced serious trauma and was in critical condition. A yellow tag was a more significant issue. An individual marked with a yellow tag needed to get to the hospital, but the situation might not be as urgent. Green tags were for those we called the “walking wounded;” we might be able to treat and release them with a first aid kit. Because of that time I spent as a paramedic, the term theological triage has always resonated with me. Dr. R. Albert Mohler, Jr., president of Southern Seminary, is classically given the credit for developing the theological triage metaphor. It’s a way of thinking about theology—a heuristic for students, ministers, and parishioners—that gives different weights to various levels of theological doctrine. Let’s walk through four levels of theological triage one by one the way that I (Gavin) did in my book Finding the Right Hills to Die On: The Case for Theological Triage (Crossway, 2020): Black Tag: Essential Doctrines Some doctrines are first-rank. In other words, they are essential to the gospel itself and therefore essential to being a Christian. If you don’t affirm these, you’re really outside of orthodoxy. One example of a first-rank issue would be the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. This doctrine is our basic conception of God that distinguishes Christians from other religions. We find this doctrine defended in Christianity’s earliest creeds and councils. Another example is justification by faith—the basic claim that we’re made right with God by grace and that we’re not meriting our salvation. That’s at the heart of the gospel itself. Remember what Paul says about this doctrine in his letter to the Galatians: “If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let them be under God’s curse!” (Gal. 1:9). Paul feels strongly that the gospel and justification are front-line issues! Red Tag: Urgent Doctrines Second-rank doctrines are urgent for the health and practice of the local church. What you believe about these doctrines doesn’t determine whether or not you are a Christian, but it might affect what kind of church you go to. Christians usually separate over these doctrines at the local church, denominational, and/or ministry level. Examples include the way we understand baptism and church government as well as what we believe about the role of women in ministry. When there are differences in urgent doctrines that make a practical difference for faith and practice, it’s hard to come together and coexist in the same local church, denomination, or ministry organization. These kinds of disagreements often make it impossible to remain together, because you cannot practice both views at once. It’s legitimate to recognize one another as fellow believers but then we bless one another and go our separate ways as part of different church groups. I (Gavin) am a Baptist, but I’ve been deeply influenced in my faith by many wonderful Presbyterians. So, we can love people who differ from us on second-tier doctrines deeply. And even though we don’t go to the same churches or even belong to the same denomination, we recognize that we’re still together within the larger family of God. We’re all part of the Christian faith. Yellow Tag: Important Doctrines Third-rank doctrines are important to Christian theology, but they’re not important enough to justify a separation or division among Christians. We should certainly study these doctrines. We shouldn’t stop thinking about them, but we don’t need to divide over them. Two pastors at the same church could have a different view on the end times—a different perspective on the millennium in Revelation 20 for example—but their local church unity and fellowship aren’t hanging on whether or not they agree about that passage. This disagreement might affect a sermon on an end-times Bible text, but it’s not nearly as consequential for everyday life and ministry. Another example of a third-rank doctrine is the length of the days of creation in Genesis 1. We want to study that, and we even want to get it right, but two Christians can have a very different view on that issue and still fruitfully interact with each other, take the Lord’s Supper together, and serve together in the same local church body. We’d even put the Calvinism-Arminianism debate at the third-tier level. Calvinists and Arminians can often be a part of the same church and serve together fruitfully. However, we should note that with this issue, your beliefs tend to impact your overall theological worldview. And, for that reason, the implications can sometimes move this debate up to the yellow tag level. Green Tag: Not Important for Our Gospel Witness and Ministry Collaboration Fourth-rank doctrines are those things that don’t matter at all as it relates to our gospel witness and ministry collaboration. Certainly, all truth is God’s truth and no doctrine is superfluous. But these doctrines—while they may be interesting to think about—have very little bearing on life and ministry. Back in medieval times, for instance, there was a lot of discussion about how many angels exist or whether or not redeemed human beings are meant to replace the number of fallen angels. Even today we might think about how many different kinds of angels there are and what the differences are between cherubim and seraphim for example. Those sorts of debates might be stimulating and they do affect the way we understand particular Bible passages. However, they don’t make a big impact on how we follow Jesus. How does theological triage help you articulate which doctrines are worth dying for?Download this article

August 18, 2025 • 38 Minute Read

Free Yet Transforming

1. Introduction In the ongoing struggle to faithfully articulate the heart of the Christian gospel, evangelical churches today face recurring challenges from theological systems that risk distorting the message of salvation by grace through faith. One significant movement in this arena is “Free Grace Theology” (FGT),[1] which, in its quest to protect the doctrine of sola ﬁde ("faith alone"), has redefined saving faith as a mere act of intellectual assent, separated from repentance, obedience, and transformation. While FGT affirms that salvation is exclusively the gift of God, received through faith apart from any works, it interprets biblical faith in such a narrow manner that it routinely severs justification from sanctification, and assurance from perseverance in the Christian life. This paper seeks to offer a comprehensive historical, biblical, and pastoral critique of FGT. With a spirit of charitable concern, and a commitment to the clarity and fullness of the gospel, the following analysis argues that the witness of Scripture and the testimony of historic Christianity both affirm that authentic faith in Christ is inseparably linked to repentance, transformation, and obedience—in other words, that while faith alone justifies, justifying faith is never alone. This paper will examine FGT in terms of its definition, development, theological claims, exegetical arguments, and practical consequences, seeking to uphold the historic Protestant and biblical account of salvation which, far from undermining grace, vindicates it by showing that grace not only pardons but also transforms. As this paper will argue, FGT is a departure from an orthodox view of salvation, however this does not mean that those who hold this view, and are repenting of sin and hoping in Christ are not saved. There are many faithful Christians who hold this view and we should treat them as brothers and sisters in Christ. However, this in no way validates FGT. It does however call us to engage and discuss these issues with Christian charity. For if you have all knowledge and all faith but have not love, you are nothing (1 Cor 13:2). 2. Historical Context 2.1. The Development of Lordship Salvation The Lordship Salvation movement emphasizes that saving faith in Christ is never abstract or merely intellectual but involves submission to Christ as Lord resulting in repentance from sin. Though the term “Lordship Salvation” gained widespread attention in the 1980s, the concept itself is deeply rooted in historic theology. Even in the earliest centuries of the church, leaders connected faith and repentance inseparably. Clement of Rome (c. 35 – c. 99 AD) wrote: Let us attend to what is good, pleasing, and acceptable in the sight of Him who formed us. Let us look steadfastly to the blood of Christ, and see how precious that blood is to God which, having been shed for our salvation, has set the grace of repentance before the whole world… from generation to generation, the Lord has granted a place of repentance to all such as would be converted unto Him.[2] Ignatius of Antioch (c. 35 – c. 108 AD) called believers to repent and turn to a true faith in Christ’s passion, implying that without repentance, faith is not genuine.[3] Justin Martyr (c. 100 – c. 165 AD) stated, “Those who are found not living as he taught should know that they are not really Christians, even if his teachings are on their lips, for he said that not those who merely profess but those who also do the works will be saved.”[4] Tertullian (c. 155 – c. 240 AD) likewise saw repentance as integral to forgiveness, “we confess our sins to the Lord… of confession repentance is born; by repentance God is appeased.”[5] Gregory the Great (c. 540-604 AD) wrote, “For whosoever mourns past transgressions, yet forsakes them not ... subjects himself to the penalty of more grievous sin They cleanse themselves in vain by their weeping, if they wickedly defile themselves in their living.”[6] The Reformers consistently taught that genuine faith produces repentance and obedience as evidence of salvation. Martin Luther’s comments in his Galatians commentary yield insight. Galatians 5:6 reads, “For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working through love.” Luther points out that a true faith is a working faith. He wrote, “[H]e that will be a true Christian, must be a true believer. Now he believeth not truly, if works and charity [love] follow not faith….”[7] Similarly, confessional documents such as the Westminster Confession of Faith affirm that faith always involves a turning from sin: “Faith, thus receiving and resting on Christ and His righteousness, is the alone instrument of justification: yet it is not alone in the person justified, but is ever accompanied with all other saving graces, and is never without hope, love, and repentance.”[8] The London Baptist Confession of 1689 states, “These good works, done in obedience to God’s commandments, are the fruit and evidence of a true and living faith.”[9] Even the Arminian founder of the Methodist Church, John Wesley said, “We are justified without the works of the law, as any previous condition of justification; but they are an immediate fruit of that faith whereby we are justified. So that if good works do not follow our faith, even all inward and outward holiness, it is plain our faith is nothing worth; we are yet in our sins.”[10] Billy Graham put it this way, “Only as we bow in contrition, confession, and repentance at the foot of the Cross, can we find forgiveness.”[11] Historically, this understanding formed the consensus of orthodox Christianity: true faith is inseparable from repentance which results in life transformation. 2.2. The Emergence of Free Grace Theology FGT, by contrast, is a late twentieth-century development. The Grace Evangelical Society (GES), founded in 1986 by Robert Wilkin, and prominent figures such as Zane Hodges, sought to counter what they perceived as a legalistic distortion in Lordship Salvation.[12] Hodges and his colleagues argued that the gospel guarantees eternal life to anyone who believes, regardless of repentance, discipleship, or obedience. Key works like The Gospel Under Siege (1981) and Absolutely Free! (1989) explicitly articulate this position. FGT is therefore reactive in nature: it was formulated as a response to the Lordship Salvation emphasis popularized by John MacArthur’s The Gospel According to Jesus (1988) and other evangelical leaders who stressed the inseparability of faith and obedience.[13] FGT claims its view shows the “freeness of grace,” but it redefines that freeness in a way that deviates from historic orthodoxy, reducing it to intellectual assent, by removing repentance from it. The name “Free Grace Theology” is a name that its proponents came up with for themselves. One should not read the phrase free grace in the title and assume that other understandings of salvation are importing a merited grace idea. Free grace is what they see themselves as defending, however this paper will make clear that FGT fails to live up to its namesake. 2.3. Distinguishing FGT from Historic Orthodoxy It is important to recognize that FGT does not reject the freeness of God’s grace; rather, it reinterprets grace. Historic Christian theology affirms that salvation is a free gift of God, not merited by works (Eph. 2:8–9).[14] Yet, that grace is never inactive. Genuine grace inevitably produces repentance, good works, and obedience to God’s commands. The novelty of FGT lies not in its affirmation of free grace but in its separation of grace from repentance and the ongoing transformation of the believer’s life—a separation unsupported by Scripture and historic confessions. 3. Biblical Evidence for the Inseparability of Faith and Repentance 3.1. The Gospel Call Mark 1:15 “and saying, ‘The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel.’” (Mark 1:15) Jesus inaugurated his public ministry with a concise yet profound proclamation, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel” (Mark 1:15).[15] This verse immediately links repentance with faith as the response to the gospel. The command to “repent and believe” is not sequential in a purely chronological sense but relational and conceptual: true belief necessarily entails turning from sin and turning toward God. Jesus’ use of both terms together indicates that faith cannot exist in isolation; it is a holistic orientation of the heart and life toward God. The Greek word metanoia means to “feel remorse, repent, be converted.”[16] It is a reorientation of life. When combined with faith, it emphasizes that genuine trust in God produces an active rejection of sin and a life turned toward obedience. In other words, repentance is not an optional add-on to faith; it is an intrinsic aspect of faith in Christ. 3.2. Apostolic Teaching 3.2.1. Acts 14:15 “Men, why are you doing these things? We also are men, of like nature with you, and we bring you good news, that you should turn from these vain things to a living God, who made the heaven and the earth and the sea and all that is in them.” (Acts 14:15) In Lystra, Paul declares the gospel as a call to turn “from these vain things” to “a living God.” While the word “repentance” is not explicitly used, the concept is embedded in the language of turning. Here repentance is a transfer of trust—from dead idols to the living Creator. This illustrates why repentance and faith are inseparable: to repent is to redirect trust from one object to another. In biblical terms, repentance is faith forsaking one object and embracing another. 3.2.2. Acts 20:21 “testifying both to Jews and to Greeks of repentance toward God and of faith in our Lord Jesus Christ.” (Acts 20:21) The Apostle Paul summarizes his evangelistic mission as “…testifying both to Jews and Greeks of repentance toward God and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ” (Acts 20:21) Paul explicitly pairs repentance with faith, framing them as complementary responses to the gospel. The Greek construction of this phrase demonstrates that repentance is directed toward God and faith is directed toward Christ. This dual focus indicates the holistic nature of conversion: one turns from sin to God while simultaneously trusting in Christ for salvation. This pairing is elsewhere in the New Testament, particularly in the preaching of Peter (Acts 2:38) and John the Baptist (Matt 3:2), consistently presenting repentance and faith as inseparable dimensions of a biblical response to God’s call. 3.2.3. Acts 26:20 “but declared first to those in Damascus, then in Jerusalem and throughout all the region of Judea, and also to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, performing deeds in keeping with their repentance.” (Acts 26:20) As the gospel call was given both to Jews and Gentiles, everyone is called to repent and turn to God. To turn away from one thing is to turn to another. The act of repentance is also the act of turning to God. Both of these can be encapsulated in the concept of genuine faith. The text does not communicate repentance and turning to God as two separate and distinct things. This is clear in how the verse ends by reemphasizing genuine repentance. He is not speaking about repentance then turning to God as a separate concept, then returning again to repentance. There is more continuity in the argument than that. He is speaking of one thing which is a turning from sin which is (in the same act) a turning to God. One cannot turn to God if he is not simultaneously turning from sin. 3.3. Faith Manifested in Works 3.3.1. Matthew 7:17-20 “So, every healthy tree bears good fruit, but the diseased tree bears bad fruit. A healthy tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a diseased tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus you will recognize them by their fruits.” (Matt 7:17-20) Jesus is speaking about false prophets in this passage, but he speaks about a general reality. We produce what we are. If a person has faith in Christ, meaning the Spirit of God dwells in him and he is a new creation, having a new heart (Rom 8:9; 2 Cor 5:17; Ezek 36:26), then he will bear fruit that is consistent with this new nature. Therefore, according to Jesus, it is not unreasonable to look at a person’s fruit/works for insight into whether that person is a genuine Christian. Some arguing against this would suggest that this expects perfect obedience. But the Scriptures are clear that we stumble in many ways (Jas 3:2). Our whole lives are lives of repentance and sanctification. 3.3.2. James 2:14–26 James 2:14–26 famously addresses the relationship between faith and works, “So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead” (Jas 2:17). James does not deny justification by faith; rather, he emphasizes that true faith inevitably produces good works (life change). Saving faith is never inactive—it manifests itself in obedience, love, and action. The rhetorical argument of James, “Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered his son Isaac?” (2:21), illustrates that faith and obedience are intimately linked. Abraham’s willingness to act was the evidence of his saving faith. 3.4. Grace Is not in Vain: 1 Corinthians 15:9–10 “For I am the least of the apostles, unworthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace toward me was not in vain. On the contrary, I worked harder than any of them, though it was not I, but the grace of God that is with me.” (1 Cor 15:9–10) After defining the gospel and affirming its supremacy to the Corinthians (1 Cor 15:1–8), Paul turns to his own experience as living proof of its power. Once a persecutor of the church, he confesses, “his grace toward me was not in vain.” (1 Cor 15:10). If God’s grace had left Paul unchanged, it would have been empty and ineffective. Instead, that grace transformed him and energized his labor. In other words, saving grace is never without effect—it always produces change. 3.5. A Grace that Works: Ephesians 2:8–10 “For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.” (Eph 2:8–10) The Apostle Paul leaves no doubt that salvation is by grace. Yet Ephesians 2:8–10 gives the full picture. We are not saved by works, but by grace through a faith that works. We are not saved by works but for works. The conjunction “for” in verse 10 grounds the statement of verses 8–9: works do not save, rather that salvation itself creates us anew resulting in good works. Works are not the cause of salvation but its inevitable result. The same grace that saves also works within us to produce what pleases God. 3.6. Professing and Believing Are not the Same Thing 3.6.1. Titus 1:16 “They profess to know God, but they deny him by their works. They are detestable, disobedient, unfit for any good work.” (Tit 1:16) Titus is being warned that a profession of faith is only as good as the works that prove that profession. The belief that a person can be in Christ, professing to know God, but not having repented of his sins is categorically denied by the Apostle Paul. A true faith gives evidence of its existence. 3.6.2. James 2:19-20 “You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe—and shudder! Do you want to be shown, you foolish person, that faith apart from works is useless?” (Jas 2:19–20) Believing can have more than one meaning. A belief that merely acknowledges the truth of something is no different than the type of belief that demons have, and even the demons shudder! That is to say, they tremble before God. The point James is making in this text is that this kind of faith is of no value. Genuine faith brings with it evidence of that faith. He is not saying that we are saved by works, rather that works are the necessary result of faith. A true faith is a repenting faith. 3.7. Assurance Through Obedience 3.7.1. 1 John 2:3–6 “And by this we know that we have come to know him, if we keep his commandments. Whoever says “I know him” but does not keep his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him, but whoever keeps his word, in him truly the love of God is perfected. By this we may know that we are in him: whoever says he abides in him ought to walk in the same way in which he walked.” (1 Jn 2:3–6) The Apostle John reinforces the connection between faith and life transformation, “And by this we know that we have come to know him, if we keep his commandments. Whoever says “I know him” but does not keep his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him,” (1 John 2:3–4). John’s epistle underscores that genuine knowledge of God—saving faith—produces obedience. Faith is not merely an intellectual claim; it is relational and transformative.[17] The moral and spiritual fruit of obedience functions as both evidence and assurance of salvation. Those who claim belief without obedience may lack true faith, a concern that FGT underemphasizes by separating belief from life change. 3.7.2. Romans 1:16–17; 16:25–27 “For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith for faith, as it is written, “The righteous shall live by faith.” (Rom 1:16–17) “Now to him who is able to strengthen you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery that was kept secret for long ages but has now been disclosed and through the prophetic writings has been made known to all nations, according to the command of the eternal God, to bring about the obedience of faith— to the only wise God be glory forevermore through Jesus Christ! Amen.” (Rom 16:25–27) The Apostle opens Romans with a declaration of the gospel’s surprising power: it is “the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes” (Rom 1:16). He immediately adds that “the righteousness of God is revealed from faith for faith, as it is written, ‘The righteous shall live by faith’” (Rom 1:17).[18] From the outset, Paul emphasizes that salvation is entirely by faith—faith that both saves and sustains the believer’s life. This, he says, is the gospel. When Paul closes the letter, he frames the gospel he has proclaimed from start to finish as producing “the obedience of faith” (Rom 16:25–26). Faith in the gospel inevitably issues in obedience. Where there is no obedience, there is no assurance that saving faith is present. Salvation is by grace through faith, but that faith is living—it produces repentance and grows a life of obedience. 3.8. Recap Across both the Gospels and the Epistles, the biblical witness consistently affirms: 1. Faith and repentance are inseparable — Conversion is one unified act of turning from sin to God and trusting in Christ. 2. The gospel call is holistic — The apostles consistently proclaim repentance toward God and faith in Christ as one response. 3. Saving grace always transforms — The grace that saves also re-creates, energizes, and produces a new life. 4. Works flow from salvation — Good works are the inevitable result of genuine faith, never its cause. 5. Empty profession is exposed — Claims to know God without accompanying change are rejected as false. 6. Obedience gives assurance — A life marked by “the obedience of faith” confirms that grace has been truly received. These passages collectively demonstrate that FGT’s claim—that faith alone, in a purely intellectual or one-time sense, guarantees salvation—does not align with Scripture. Faith is always accompanied by repentance, and this inseparability has been recognized historically as a core component of Christian orthodoxy. 4. Theological Analysis: The Problem of Separating Faith and Repentance 4.1. The Nature of True Faith True saving faith, according to Scripture and historic theology, is both cognitive and relational. It involves knowledge of God’s truth, trust in Christ’s redemptive work, and submission to God’s authority. New Testament scholar Thomas Schreiner synthesizes the church fathers on this, “They gladly affirmed that salvation was of the Lord. They also, in line with the Pauline witness, confessed that salvation was by faith instead of by works. At the same time they concluded that good works were necessary for final salvation. These affirmations need not be seen as contradictory.”[19] In contrast, FGT emphasizes intellectual assent or a singular moment of belief as sufficient for eternal security. By divorcing faith from repentance, FGT misrepresents the biblical nature of faith, creating the possibility of a saving faith that is empty or dead. 4.2. The Risk of False Assurance One of the most significant pastoral dangers posed by FGT is the illusion of guaranteed salvation despite a life devoid of repentance or obedience.20 Individuals may assume they are saved based solely on a historical (even momentary) profession of faith, without any ongoing evidence of spiritual growth or transformation.[21] Scripture repeatedly warns against such superficial faith. Jesus cautions that, “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.” (Matt 7:21) James similarly emphasizes that faith without works is dead (James 2:26). When faith is divorced from life change, as in FGT, professors[22] are susceptible to false assurance, mistakenly equating mere intellectual assent with salvation. FGT goes so far as to say that those who abandon the faith are still saved! Bob Wilkin and Ken Yates, leaders in FGT said “If someone believed in Jesus for eternal life—even if they later throw away or abandon their faith—they are still saved. Eternal life is eternal.”[23] This has mammoth implications for it communicates to those without communion with Christ (including atheists!) that if they prayed a prayer of salvation sometime in their lives, that they are eternally secure.[24] They communicate to those who deny the gospel (even though they prayed a prayer as a five year old at a VBS, or who profess faith but happily live in an adulterous relationship) that they are saved from God’s wrath.[25] Therefore, their theology in these cases essentially tells people that as long as they meant that prayer at some point in their life, even if they no longer mean it, they are eternally secure. This is possibly the greatest error in the FGT system. 4.3. Powerless Grace Advocates of FGT maintain that saving faith is a simple act of believing in Jesus for eternal life, and that any change in life, while desirable, is not a necessary or inevitable result of that faith. They seek to preserve the freeness of the gospel by keeping repentance—especially in the sense of turning from sin—separate from the condition of salvation. In their view, grace saves apart from repentance (which they call a work), and moral transformation belongs in the realm of discipleship, not justification.[26] While this concern to protect grace from works-righteousness is understandable, it results in a conception of grace that falls short of the biblical witness. In Scripture, grace is not merely God’s favorable disposition toward sinners; it is his active power that rescues, renews, and reorients the heart toward himself (Eph 2:8–10; Titus 2:11–14). By allowing for a form of “salvation” in which the sinner may remain unchanged, the FGT position presents a grace that is cheap because it requires no surrender of the heart, valueless because it produces no true holiness, and powerless because it does not free from sin’s dominion. In this framework, whatever transformation occurs after faith is understood as the result of a believer’s voluntary effort rather than the inevitable fruit of God’s Spirit at work in the repentant believer (Phil 2:12–13). This shifts the decisive cause of holiness from God’s sovereign work to human will. The gospel becomes reduced to a legal transaction that secures a heavenly future but may leave the present life untouched. Scripture, however, portrays grace as saving “completely” (Heb 7:25, NIV)—not only pardoning sin but breaking its power and producing new obedience.[27] Grace that does not transform is not the biblical grace of Christ; it is a diminished substitute that promises the benefits of salvation without delivering the reality. 4.4. Recap Separating faith from repentance creates a theological system that: 1. Misrepresents biblical faith as purely cognitive. 2. Generates false assurance divorced from life transformation. 3. Makes grace powerless to transform lives. Faith and repentance are two sides of the same coin. Faith, while entirely a gift of God’s grace, always results in a life reoriented toward God. Assurance, therefore, is not abstract but observable in the life of the believer, creating both confidence and spiritual accountability. 5. Answering Common FGT Objections While FGT affirms salvation by grace through faith alone, it often resists identifying repentance as an essential aspect of saving faith. Below are common objections and biblical responses. 5.1. Faith alone is the sole requirement for eternal life, and adding repentance makes the gospel a works-based message. FGT insists that requiring repentance as part of the gospel undermines the freeness of grace. They define repentance as a human work incompatible with salvation by grace alone through faith alone. Response: Biblical repentance is not a meritorious work that earns salvation—it is the God-enabled turning of the heart toward Christ in faith. Scripture never presents repentance as something added to faith but as an inseparable aspect of saving faith itself (Acts 20:21; 26:20). Repentance is not about earning God’s favor; it is the Spirit’s gift that accompanies genuine trust in Christ, expressing itself in a turning from sin to God (Acts 11:18; 2 Tim. 2:25–26). To divorce repentance from faith is to redefine both terms in ways foreign to the apostolic gospel. 5.2. Repentance means only a change of mind, not turning from sin. Repentance is merely a change of mind. FGT teaches that metanoia in the New Testament refers to an intellectual acknowledgment of Christ or agreement with the gospel, not a turning from sin. Eternal life depends solely on faith in Christ, and any ethical or behavioral reorientation is considered a separate issue, relevant to discipleship. Response: In the New Testament, metanoia carries more than the sense of a mere change of mind. It describes a reorientation of life toward God and away from sin. Genuine saving faith always includes this turning—trusting Christ is inseparable from turning from sin. Repentance is not an optional add-on or a later stage of discipleship; it is part of what it means to truly believe. 5.3. The Gospel of John, written to bring people to faith, never mentions repentance. FGT appeals to John’s Gospel as the model evangelistic book, noting that it calls people to “believe” nearly 100 times but never once commands them to repent. They conclude that repentance is unnecessary for eternal life. Response: John’s emphasis on believing does not exclude the reality of repentance—it assumes it.[28] Belief, as John presents it, is never mere mental assent but a wholehearted trust that involves coming to the light and abandoning darkness (John 3:19–21). Jesus’ call to be “born again” (John 3:3) entails a radical transformation, which in other biblical contexts is described as repentance. When the Samaritan woman believed, she left her life of sin (John 4:28–29); the healed paralytic is told to “sin no more” (John 5:14); when the man born blind believed, he confessed Christ publicly (John 9:38). Jesus says “Whoever loves his life loses it, and whoever hates his life in this world will keep it for eternal life. If anyone serves me, he must follow me…” (John 12:25-26). Jesus essentially says eternal life is connected with change of loves. Love for Jesus replaces love for self. The absence of the explicit term “repentance” does not indicate absence of its reality, just as the absence of the term “faith” in some evangelistic sermons (e.g., Acts 17:30–31) does not remove the necessity of faith. We must not build our doctrine on an argument from silence in a single book but on the plenary teaching of Scripture, which consistently unites repentance and faith in the gospel call (e.g. Luke 24:46–47; Acts 2:38; 17:30–31).[29] 5.4. Calling unbelievers to repent confuses the gospel with discipleship. FGT holds that repentance belongs to the realm of following Jesus after conversion, not to the initial reception of eternal life. They argue that including repentance in the gospel call burdens unbelievers with discipleship demands before they are even saved. Response: Jesus and the apostles made no such separation in their preaching. Christ began his ministry with “Repent and believe in the gospel” (Mark 1:15) and told would-be followers to count the cost (Luke 14:25–33). Peter’s Pentecost sermon to unbelievers included the command to “repent” for the forgiveness of sins (Acts 2:38). The call to turn from sin and self to God in Christ is not an advanced stage of Christian growth—it is the very essence of initial saving faith. Discipleship begins at conversion. 5.5. Linking repentance to faith front-loads the gospel. FGT fears requiring repentance will cause people to think they must reform their life before believing. Response: Biblical repentance is not self-reformation prior to faith; it is the faith-response itself. A sinner does not first make himself worthy—he turns to Christ in the very act of trusting him to save. The prodigal son “came to himself” and returned to the father as he was (Luke 15:17–20). Repentance is not cleaning oneself up to be accepted but fleeing to the only one who can cleanse. 5.6. Repentance is good and necessary but separate from the call to faith. FGT teaches that all people ought to repent, but they restrict repentance to a post-conversion or discipleship category. In their view, repentance relates to fellowship with God, spiritual growth, or avoiding temporal discipline—not to receiving eternal life. The gospel call to unbelievers, they argue, is solely to believe in Jesus for everlasting life, without reference to turning from sin. Response: The apostolic preaching unites repentance and faith in the same gospel call. Paul testified that he proclaimed to “both Jews and Greeks… repentance toward God and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ” (Acts 20:21). Likewise, when addressing unbelievers, he declared that God “commands all people everywhere to repent” in view of the coming judgment (Acts 17:30–31). The New Testament does not present repentance as an optional follow-up to belief but as the heart-orientation of turning to Christ in faith. By separating repentance from the gospel, FGT allows for people to be saved who never repent of their sin. 5.7. Assurance comes only from Christ’s promise, not from fruit. FGT insists that examining works for assurance undermines confidence in Christ alone. Response: Scripture grounds assurance both in Christ’s finished work (objective) and in the Spirit’s fruit in the believer’s life (subjective). John writes, “By this we know that we have come to know him, if we keep his commandments” (1 John 2:3). The Apostle Paul tells us that we are to “work out your own salvation with fear and trembling” (Phil 2:12).[30] Also, Christians are called to “Examine yourselves, to see whether you are in the faith” (2 Cor 14:5). This is not shifting trust to works but recognizing the Spirit’s transforming presence as evidence of genuine faith. 5.8. Repentance as Part of Salvation Encourages Judgmentalism Tying repentance to salvation risks making Christians judgmental, constantly evaluating whether others are truly saved based on their behavior. This could undermine assurance and make salvation appear dependent on works rather than Christ’s promise of eternal life by faith alone. Response: It is true that Scripture warns against hypocritical judgment with a condemning spirit. Jesus says, “Judge not, that you be not judged” (Matt 7:1). Yet in context, he calls us to remove the log from our own eye “then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye” (Matt 7:5). Far from banning all judgment, Jesus commands a righteous kind of judgment that is humble, self-aware, and restorative. Likewise, Paul writes, “For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? God judges those outside” (1 Cor 5:12–13). Repentance plays a key role in this discernment: it is not the ground of salvation, but the fruit of genuine faith. To affirm a profession of faith while ignoring a lifestyle of unrepentance is to confuse grace with license. True grace produces repentance and obedience as its fruit (Titus 2:11–12). Therefore, requiring repentance does not foster judgmentalism but ensures that the church exercises righteous judgment, safeguards its witness, and lovingly affirms the integrity of genuine faith. 6. Defense of Orthodox Free Grace[31] 6.1. Salvation Is Free, Yet Transformative Historic Christianity affirms that salvation is entirely by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone (Eph 2:8–9). This grace is undeserved, unmerited, and freely given by God. However, the grace that saves is never alone. Rather, it transforms the believer, producing repentance, obedience, and sanctification. Titus 2:11–14 states: For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation for all people, training us to renounce ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright, and godly lives in the present age, waiting for our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ, who gave himself for us to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people for his own possession who are zealous for good works. Here, grace is described as active and instructive, not passive. God’s gift of salvation is accompanied by training, purifying, and motivating the believer toward holiness. Orthodox soteriology recognizes that faith necessarily includes a turning away from sin and toward God—a turning that is both inward (repentance of heart) and outward (obedience in life). 6.2. Faith and Repentance Are Two Sides of the Same Coin As established in the Biblical Evidence section, passages such as Mark 1:15, Acts 20:21, James 2:14–26, and 1 John 2:3–6 consistently link faith and repentance. 6.3. Biblical and Pastoral Implications 1. Faith and Repentance Are Evidential — Assurance is grounded in God’s promises and confirmed by evidence in the believer’s life (1 John 2:3–6). 2. Transformative Grace Guards Against Legalism and Complacency — Grace is free, but it calls believers to action. It is neither coercive nor passive; it produces repentance and obedience naturally. 3. Pastoral Responsibility — Pastors must encourage both assurance and obedience. FGT’s model risks neglecting the pastoral call to nurture life transformation alongside the free gift of salvation.[32] By maintaining both the freeness of grace and its transformative power, the historic church preserves the biblical gospel in its fullness, while offering true, sustainable assurance to believers. 6.4. Recap Historic soteriology can be summarized as follows: 1. Salvation is free — entirely a work of God’s grace through faith. 2. Faith is always transformative — producing repentance, obedience, and good works. 3. Assurance is rooted in God’s promises and evident in the believer’s life — not in a mere intellectual or historical act of belief. This stands in contrast to FGT, which emphasizes freeness while minimizing the transformative aspects of faith. By integrating both biblical truth and historic orthodoxy, the Christian church safeguards the integrity of the gospel, ensuring that salvation is free, yet never cheap. 7. Pastoral Applications The theological distinctions between FGT and historic orthodoxy have significant implications for pastoral ministry, discipleship, and Christian formation. Understanding these implications ensures that believers are both assured and accountable, reflecting the fullness of God’s grace. 7.1. Preaching the Gospel Pastors must proclaim the gospel in a way that emphasizes both the freeness of salvation and the necessity of faith that transforms. While FGT stresses freeness, historic orthodoxy maintains that true faith cannot exist apart from repentance and life transformation (Mark 1:15; Acts 20:21). Preaching should invite listeners to trust Christ fully, while also turning from sin, illustrating that God’s grace is both free and active. 7.2. Encouraging True Assurance Assurance of salvation is central to the believer’s confidence and spiritual growth. True assurance rests not on a single intellectual act but on God’s promises confirmed in a life of faith and obedience (1 John 2:3–6). Pastors should help believers evaluate their faith by examining evidence of transformation, guiding them away from the false security promoted by FGT. 7.3. Discipleship and Spiritual Formation Discipleship involves nurturing faith that bears fruit. By emphasizing the inseparability of faith and repentance, pastors can cultivate spiritual disciplines, obedience, and holiness. This ensures that grace leads to lifelong growth, not complacency or moral stagnation. 7.4. Evangelism and Clarity Evangelism must convey that salvation is wholly by grace while calling for repentance and trust in Christ. Misrepresenting faith as mere belief, as FGT sometimes does, can lead to confusion or superficial conversions. Historical orthodoxy ensures that the gospel call invites both trust and transformation. 8. Conclusion FGT is a recent reinterpretation of salvation, separating faith from repentance and emphasizing assurance based solely on intellectual belief. While its proponents adopt the language of “free grace,” their theology departs from the historic teaching of the Christian church and the consistent witness of Scripture. The Bible clearly presents faith and repentance as inseparable, with genuine faith producing life transformation, obedience, and evidence of God’s work in the believer’s life (Mark 1:15; Acts 20:21; James 2:14–26; 1 John 2:3–6). Historic orthodoxy affirms that salvation is truly free, yet it is never inactive. God’s grace brings life change, calling believers to turn from sin, trust Christ fully, and bear fruit in obedience. For the pastor, teacher, and church leader, this understanding provides a foundation for preaching, discipleship, and pastoral care that protects believers from false assurance while nurturing a deep, transformative relationship with Christ. God’s grace is free, but it is also powerful—transforming hearts, producing holiness, and securing eternal life. As the church proclaims the gospel faithfully, it must hold in tension the freeness of grace and the necessity of faith that works through love, ensuring that believers are secure, transformed, and growing in Christ.Download this article Footnotes [1] Free Grace Theology will be referred to as FGT for the rest of this paper. [2] Clement of Rome, Letter to the Corinthians, Ch.7, https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1010.htm, accessed 08/18/2025. [3] Ignatius of Antioch, The Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans, Ch.5, https://www.catholica.com/epistle-of-ignatius-to-the-smyrnaeans/index.html, accessed 08/18/2025. [4] Justin Martyr, First Apology, Ch.16, https://biblehub.com/library/richardson/early_christian_fathers/the_first_apology_of_justin.htm, accessed 08/18/2025. [5] Tertullian, On Repentance, Ch.9, https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0320.htm, accessed 08/18/2025. [6] Gregory the Great, The Book of Pastoral Rule, III.30, Admonition 31. https://ia902307.us.archive.org/13/items/Elijah_Elisha/St.%20Gregory%20the%20Great%20-%20The%20Book%20of%20the%20Pastoral%20Rule.pdfaccessed 08/18/2025. [7] Martin Luther, Commentary on Galatians (Grand Rapids: Kregel Classics, 1979) 314. [8] Westminster Confession of Faith, Ch. 11, Sec. 2. [9] London Baptist Confession (1689), Ch. 16, Sec. 2. [10] John Wesley, Sermon 35,https://wesley.nnu.edu/john-wesley/the-sermons-of-john-wesley-1872-edition/sermon-35-the-law-established-through-faith-discourse-one/ accessed 08/18/2025. [11] Billy Graham, “Wit & Wisdom: Grace of God,” 12/09/2015, https://billygrahamlibrary.org/wit-wisdom-grace-of-god/ accessed 8/13/2025. Some FGT may argue that this a Calvinist understanding of salvation. Billy Graham is listed here because he was not Calvinist to illustrate that this is the understanding of Evangelical theology. [12] Zane C. Hodges, Absolutely Free! A Biblical Reply to Lordship Salvation (Dallas: Redencion Viva, 1989). [13] See also Wayne A. Grudem, “Free Grace” Theology: 5 Ways It Diminishes the Gospel (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2016). Michael Horton, Christless Christianity: The Alternative Gospel of the American Church (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2008). R. C. Sproul, Faith Alone: The Evangelical Doctrine of Justiﬁcation (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1995). Thomas R. Schreiner and Ardel B. Caneday, The Race Set Before Us: A Biblical Theology of Perseverance and Assurance (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2001). [14] See Athanasius, On the Incarnation, §5, 9. Augustine, On the Grace of Christ and Original Sin, I.24. Leo the Great, Letter to the Bishop of Aquileia (Letter 1), II.3. [15] All Scripture references are from the ESV unless otherwise stated. Mark 1:15 is representative of other passages in the gospel where Jesus links faith and repentance together. See also: Matt 4:7; Luke 5:32; 11:32; 13:3; 15:3-7, 8-10; 17:34; 24:46-47. [16] According to BDAG (the gold-standard academic Greek lexicon), there are two definitions given for metanoia. The first is “change of mind,” but there are no biblical uses mentioned. The second definition is “feel remorse, repent, be converted.” There are numerous New Testament uses of metanoia fitting this definition attested to. S.v. “μετανοέω,” Arndt, William, Frederick W. Danker, Walter Bauer, and F. Wilbur Gingrich. in A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000. [17] See above James 2:19-20. [18] In Romans 1:17, the phrase “from faith for faith” can be translated as “beginning and ending in faith,” see the footnote in the ESV version. The NIV renders this as “by faith from first to last.” [19] Thomas Schreiner, Faith Alone—The Doctrine of Justiﬁcation: What the Reformers Taught … and Why It Still Matters (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2015), 23. [20] Zane Hodges, Absolutely Free: A Biblical Reply to Lordship Salvation, 2nd ed. (Corinth, TX: Grace Evangelical Society, 1989, 2014) 101. [21] Bob Nyberg, “A History of Free Grace,” (2021), https://www.gracelife.org/resources/grr/?id=31, accessed 08/18/2025. [22] Those who profess faith. [23] Bob Wilkin and Ken Yates, “If You Throw Away or Abandon Your Faith, How Can You Still Be Saved?” 2/7/2023, https://faithalone.org/radio/if-you-throw-away-or-abandon-your-faith-how-can-you-still-be-saved/, accessed 8/14/2025. [24] FGT proponents would also say that such people ought to repent and live for the Lord so that they have eternal rewards in heaven. However, the error here is still grave. [25] There are plenty of Scriptures that warn that those who practice such things will not inherit the Kingdom. See 1 Cor 6:9-10; Gal 5:19-21; Eph 5:5. [26] Hodges, Absolutely Free, 82. [27] The word in Hebrews 7:25 translated as “completely” in the NIV, is translated as “to the uttermost” in the ESV, and “forever” in the NASB. All these senses are carried by the Greek word in this passage. Therefore, to save completely and forever is in view here which has implications for the life of the saved person here and now. For more on this see: David L. Allen, Hebrews, NAC (Nashville: B & H Publishing Group, 2010), 429, and Thomas R. Schreiner, Hebrews, EBTC (Bellingham: Lexham Press, 2021), 233. [28] I am appreciative of Wayne Grudem’s insights here. See Wayne A. Grudem, “Free Grace” Theology: 5 Ways It Diminishes the Gospel (Wheaton: Crossway, 2016), 48-54. [29] Similarly, possibly the most evangelistic book, the book of Acts, never mentions the love of God. If a theology for evangelism were derived strictly from Acts (ignoring the rest of Scripture), then the conclusion (using the logic above with reference to repentance and John’s gospel) would be that the love of God has no part in evangelism. This is further evidence that we must have the whole counsel of God (Acts 20:27). [30] The gospel beauty of this is found in the following verse “for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure” (Phil 2:13). This means that part of our salvation is to work out what God has worked in. In other words, even our works are God ordained responses to God, but this passage implies that these responses accompany a saving faith. [31] Orthodox is in reference to “right doctrine.” This is not a reference to the Greek or Russian Orthodox Church. [32] A salvation that is separated from the process of being conformed into the image of Christ essentially severs justification from sanctification. In other words, sanctification becomes a second type salvation (or at least a second tier salvation). If salvation is merely about going to heaven, then it begs the question: How is this eternal life? Jesus said “this is eternal life, that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent” (John 17:3). If eternal life is about knowing the triune God, and knowing him is to be in relationship with him, then how can there be salvation for those who do not walk with him? Such a gospel is both a powerless gospel (because it affects no change) and a Christ-less gospel (because there is no relationship with Christ).

Matt Kottman

Lead Pastor/Elder

April 16, 2025 • 28 Minute Read

Mutual Membership

The elders would like to propose in this paper that part of what makes up a local church is the mutual agreement of members to be organized as a church. The elders would like the members to consider changing the way we receive new members and remove members from the local church. Currently, this is a decision made entirely by the elders, but we believe we would be more faithful to Scripture if the congregation was involved. On Sunday, January 25, 1880, what is now called Solid Rock Christian Fellowship (then Lone Star Baptist Church) held its first service. The minutes taken on that day read “On Sunday January 25th, 1880, the following brethren and sisters met together for the purpose of organizing themselves into a church…” Did you catch that? On January 24th there was no church and on January 25th there was a church. So, what happened that there was a church formed on that Sunday? What Is a Local Church? In order to answer that question, we must take a moment to ask the question: what is a local church? Is it just any group of Christians who gather together? If that is so, then a group of Christians in a pickleball club could classify as a church. Is it having a non-profit 501(c)3 status? If that is the case a Christian non-profit organization could be considered a church. Is it having a religious building? In England I have seen many church buildings converted into apartments and mosques. Besides, when this church was organized, it met in a schoolhouse on Miller Valley Ranch (similar to many church plants today). Some Definitions with a Common Thread There are several things that make up a church, but one of them is the commitment we make to one another as members of a church. This is why many churches implement a church covenant so that what is implicitly expected of the members of a church is helpfully made explicit. Looking at various documents of Baptists since the reformation show this agreement. 1644 London Baptist Confession That Christ has here on earth a spiritual Kingdom, which is the Church, which He has purchased and redeemed to Himself, as a particular inheritance: which Church, as it is visible to us, is a company of visible saints, called and separated from the world, by the Word and the Spirit of God, to the visible profession of the faith of the Gospel, being baptized into the faith, and joined to the Lord, and each other, by mutual agreement, in the practical enjoyment of the ordinances, commanded by Christ their head and King.[1] Notice some of the threads highlighted here: 1. they are separated from the world; 2. they are visible saints; 3. the Word and Spirit are at work; 4. they believe the gospel; 5. there is mutual agreement; 6. baptism and the Lord’s supper are administered; 7. they are joined to the Lord and each other. This last one is of particular interest for our question at hand. They are joined together by mutual agreement. This is the idea underlying a covenant of fellowship. It is an intentional agreement between members, who make up a church. We see examples of this in other documents from Protestant history, specifically in the Baptist tradition. 1689 London Baptist Confession The members of these churches are saints by calling, visibly manifesting and evidencing (in and by their profession and walking) their obedience unto that call of Christ; and do willingly consent to walk together, according to the appointment of Christ; giving up themselves to the Lord, and one to another, by the will of God, in professed subjection to the ordinances of the Gospel.[2] In this confession, they “do willingly consent to walk together” and “giving up themselves to the Lord, and one to another.” This carries the same basic meaning as the phrase “by mutual agreement” above. 1833 New Hampshire Confession of Faith We believe that a visible church of Christ is a congregation of baptized believers, associated by covenant in the faith and fellowship of the gospel; observing the ordinances of Christ; governed by his laws; and exercising the gifts, rights, and privileges invested in them by his word; that its only scriptural officers are bishops or pastors and deacons whose qualifications, claims and duties are defined in the Epistles to Timothy and Titus.[3] This is the confession of faith our church adopted at its inception in 1880. But notice the similar clause “associated by covenant in the faith and fellowship of the gospel.” The same sense of mutual agreement is expressed here also. 2000 Baptist Faith and Message A New Testament church of the Lord Jesus Christ is an autonomous local congregation of baptized believers, associated by covenant in the faith and fellowship of the gospel; observing the two ordinances of Christ, governed by His laws, exercising the gifts, rights, and privileges invested in them by His Word, and seeking to extend the gospel to the ends of the earth. Each congregation operates under the Lordship of Christ through democratic processes. In such a congregation each member is responsible and accountable to Christ as Lord. Its two scriptural offices are that of pastor/elder/overseer and deacon. While both men and women are gifted for service in the church, the office of pastor / elder / overseer is limited to men as qualified by Scripture. The New Testament speaks also of the church as the Body of Christ which includes all of the redeemed of all the ages, believers from every tribe, and tongue, and people, and nation.[4] This is the confessional document of the Southern Baptist Convention. While we are not in the SBC it illustrates a historic consistency. The SBC used the clause in the New Hampshire Confession of Faith word for word: “associated by covenant in the faith and fellowship of the gospel.” Mutual Agreement In each of these documents, it is instructive that one of the elements that constitute a church is a mutual agreement of the members, or for the sake of the title of this paper, there is a mutual membership. Ultimately, there is a recognized group (membership) that constitutes being part of a local church. This is why we practice regenerate church membership. That is to say, that only those who are made alive by the Spirit (regenerated) can become members of a church. As these people mutually agree together in being part of a local church, they can then grow together. But how do we mutually agree? How is a person brought into church membership (with agreement) and how is a person removed from church membership (with agreement)? To understand this, we need to look directly at some biblical texts. The Keys of the Kingdom The above discussion about confessional statements is helpful in framing the kind of question we should be asking ourselves, but the answer ultimately comes down to what the Scriptures teach and secondly how we walk in the things taught by Scripture. Regarding the issue of voting in and out members, Matthew 16:13-19; 18:15-20; 28:18-20 and 1 Corinthians 5 speak with clarity. Any discussion about the question of people becoming part of a local church or leaving (or being removed from) a local church must consider these passages. To ignore them would be to ignore some of the most relevant passages on this question. Matthew 16:13-19 Jesus asks his disciples “Who do you say I am?” (Matt 16:15). Peter, by the work of the Spirit, replies “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God” (Matt 16:16-17). Jesus then follows up Peter’s confession with those monumental words: “And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” (Matt 16:18).5 This is the first use of “church” in the New Testament, which tells us it is significant! It is doubly significant because Jesus says he will build his church. If we want to understand how he builds his church, we have to look at this passage. Jesus Builds His Church Jesus then goes on to explain how he will build his church. What he says can sound cryptic or confusing. Jesus tells Peter, “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven” (Matt 20:19, italics added). This passage has been wildly misinterpreted over the years as some spectrums of the Christian church seek to bind and loose things left and right. But context is king. We must ask: What are the keys? What is being bound? What is being loosed? The Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven Keys speak to authority and stewardship. It is kind of like when a teenager says, “Dad gave me the keys to the car.” There is an authority to drive the car implicit in the giving of the keys, and there is a responsibility as a driver. A better analogy would be to view a local church like an embassy of the Kingdom of Heaven. Over the twenty years, our family lived in Europe, we often had to go to the U.S. Embassy. Whether that embassy was in Vienna or London, we would have to go there in order to issue new passports, get birth certificates or any business that pertained to our dealings with our role as U.S. citizens living abroad. When one of our children were born, we would stand in front of the consular general, show documentation for our newborn, and swear before the consular general that the child was indeed our child. At that point, the consular general exercised the “keys” of the kingdom of the United States and issued us a “Consular Report of Birth Abroad” (a fancy name for a birth certificate). The consular general is a U.S. citizen, but as a citizen, he did not have the authority to issue our child a birth certificate or passport. If we encountered the consular general in a Viennese coffee shop, he had no authority. The authority was connected to the embassy. In other words, in the embassy, he speaks and acts with the kingdom’s authority. The local church is the embassy of the Kingdom of heaven, and we are the ambassadors of the Kingdom. As a local church we function in this world as an outpost (or embassy) of heaven. We are heaven’s citizens, and as the church we hold the keys of the Kingdom. Binding and Loosing So, what does it mean that we bind and loose? This is the function of keys. They unlock doors and they lock doors. Holding the keys of the Kingdom, we have a delegated authority from the King. We have authority to take a heavenly reality and make it binding on earth. The consular general who issues the passport (or denies the passport) as a function of the keys of an earthly government, is binding and loosing. The reality of citizenship is affirmed by the issuing of the passport. It is clear that we, as a church, have the Kingdom keys to take what is true in heaven and pronounce that truth on earth (binding and loosing). But what is being bound and what is being loosed? To explain this, we must look at the very next time Jesus uses the words bind, loose, and church. Matthew 18:15-20 The Three-fold Process of Church Discipline This is a well-known passage in dealing with issues of sin in the church, “If your brother sins against you…” (Matt 18:15). Jesus lays out a pathway for dealing with sin in the church. Jesus lays out a three-step process for this. Step 1. Go to the brother (or sister) who has sinned one to one. (Matt 18:15). Step 2. If he does not listen then take one or two others with you (two or three to one, Matt 18:16). Step 3. If he still will not listen then take it before the church (the church to one, Matt 18:17). This is a process. This does not mean step one on Monday, step two on Tuesday, etc. We are to be patient and loving in our implementation of these steps. The goal is not to check the boxes, but to work toward restoration. Jesus first used the word “church” in Matthew 16:13-19, and he associated it with “binding and loosing.” Therefore, it is significant that the only other time Jesus uses the word “church” in all the Gospels is two chapters later (Matt 18:17). It is also significant that he speaks of the church in terms of binding and loosing (Matt 18:18). The gospel of Matthew intends for us to connect the church with the function of binding and loosing. Binding and Loosing Clarified Matthew 16 left us with a question as to what was meant by binding and loosing. That the church has the keys to bind and loose was clear, but it is not until Matthew 18 that the actual work of binding and loosing is given clarity. The context here is after the third step of church discipline where the matter is brought before the church—if a person persists in his sin, the church is to treat him as a Gentile and a tax collector—an unbeliever (Matt 18:17). That means that when the person is brought before the church (not just some members of the church, that’s step two), the church makes a pronouncement which in essence is “Because you are persisting in unrepentant sin, we cannot affirm your profession of faith.” That is what it means to treat him as a Gentile or tax collector. That pronouncement, Jesus says, is an act of binding and loosing “whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven” (Matt 18:18, italics added). No matter how small the church is, this is an act of agreement by it. This is why Jesus says, “if two of you agree” (Matt 18:19). A church requires at least two believers in agreement. The oft quoted verse “For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I among them” (Matt 18:20) is a verse speaking about the church exercising Kingdom authority in church discipline. To be clear, it is the church that removes somebody from membership not individuals. Like the consular general in the Viennese coffee shop, there is no authority there—the authority rests in the embassy. Our authority rests in the church, the gathered members conducting the business of the Kingdom. Matthew 28:18-20 A Delegated Authority The Great Commission reveals the delegated authority given to the church. Jesus declares, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go, therefore, and make disciples…” (Matt 28:18-19a). Jesus possesses all authority and entrusts the church with this authority. In Matthew 16 and 18, Jesus affirms that whatever the church binds on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever it looses on earth will be loosed in heaven. This reinforces the principle that all authority ultimately belongs to Jesus, who delegates it to the church. This delegation forms the foundation for binding and loosing—demonstrating that the church operates under Christ’s authority. As the embassy of heaven, we function with the authority of the Kingdom for the glory of the King! This delegated authority is exercised through making disciples, baptizing, and teaching (Matt 28:19-20). Discipleship begins with conversion, baptism serves as the recognition of Kingdom citizenship (akin to an embassy issuing a passport), and teaching instructs citizens on how life in the Kingdom operates. In this mission, Jesus assures, “I am with you” (Matt 28:20), echoing his promise in Matthew 18:20: “Where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them.” Thus, the Great Commission not only establishes the church’s authority but also affirms Christ’s continual presence in that authority. 1 Corinthians 5 A First Century Church Exercising the Keys Paul’s two letters to the Corinthians offer profound insight into how a church should function. In 1 Corinthians 5, Paul addresses a case of unrepentant sin within the congregation. A man, claiming to be a believer, is persisting in sin. But the church thinks it gracious to overlook his actions and fails to address the issue. Paul corrects this approach, instructing, “Let him who has done this be removed from among you” (1 Cor 5:2). Because this man continues in sin, he should no longer be considered part of the believing community. Paul emphasizes that this action is to be taken when the church is assembled “in the name of the Lord Jesus”—that is, under Christ’s delegated authority (1 Cor 5:4). At first, this directive may not seem pastoral or gracious, but in reality, it is both! Paul explains, “You are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord” (1 Cor 5:5). In other words, by formally removing him from church membership, the congregation signals that his life is not in line with his profession of faith. He no longer enjoys the spiritual protection of church fellowship. The hope is that this severe measure will awaken him to repentance. This is the final step in the Matthew 18 process, meant to make clear that he is deceiving himself by continuing in sin. Since this decision is made corporately (1 Cor 5:4), the church body is aware of the situation. Members can pray for the individual and call him to repentance. Unchecked sin is a threat to the entire church— “A little leaven leavens the whole lump” (1 Cor 5:6). The church must be cleansed of persistent, unrepentant sin because Christ died to make His people holy (1 Cor 5:7). Thus, removing the unrepentant sinner serves to first, protect the church, second to prevent the sinner from a false assurance of salvation, third to protect Christ’s witness in the community, and forth to strengthen the members (more on this below). Paul instructs that this individual should not be treated as a brother in Christ (1 Cor 5:9-11). Jesus similarly commands that such a person be regarded “as a Gentile and a tax collector” (Matt 18:17). This does not mean shunning him but rather interacting with him in a way that lovingly calls him to repentance—just as we would with any unbeliever. Some may object that such action seems judgmental, but this is precisely the church’s responsibility! Paul clarifies, “For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge?” (1 Cor 5:12). As ambassadors of heaven, entrusted with Christ’s authority to bind and loose, the church is called to exercise righteous judgment in matters of discipline, always aiming for restoration and the glory of God. We Are Called to This This is not something to be done individually—it is the responsibility of the church as a whole. That is why Matthew 18:17 instructs bringing the matter before the church and why 1 Corinthians 5:4 emphasizes acting as an assembled body. This principle applies both to welcoming new members and to removing members. Together, the congregation affirms those who join and those who depart. Some may leave because they have moved on to another faithful church, while others may be removed through formal church discipline. Understanding Church Discipline What Church Discipline Does When I speak of church discipline in this context, I am referring specifically to formal church discipline, where a serious issue is brought before the church. In a broader sense, church discipline includes any formative or corrective engagement that encourages one another’s growth in Christ. We practice discipline whenever we instruct, correct, rebuke, or train one another in righteousness (2 Tim 3:16). However, here we are focusing on formal church discipline. Church discipline serves four primary purposes, all aimed at the spiritual well-being of those involved: protecting the church, protecting the church’s witness, removing the church’s protection, and strengthening the members. Protecting the Church When your body has an infection, it is crucial to treat it—left unchecked, it will cause greater harm. In the same way, church discipline seeks to remove spiritual infection for the health of the body. As Paul said, “a little leaven leavens the whole lump” (1 Cor 5:6). To guard the church from participating in and being affected by the presence of sin, church discipline seeks the holiness of the church. Protecting the Church’s Witness When a church tolerates open sin among its members, it damages its testimony to the world. For example, if a member—let’s call him Rupert—is known to be engaging in extramarital sex while remaining in good standing within the church, the church’s credibility is compromised. This was precisely the situation in 1 Corinthians 5:1. The watching world sees such hypocrisy and concludes that the church is no different from the rest of society. Some will (rightly) accuse the church of hypocrisy, preaching one thing but practicing another. By addressing unrepentant sin, church discipline upholds the church’s witness and maintains the integrity of its message. Removing the Church’s Protection When the church disciplines an unrepentant sinner, it is removing the spiritual protection that comes with being part of the church. This action is not punitive but redemptive—it is meant to call the individual to repentance (Matt 18:15-17). Being part of the church provides encouragement, accountability, and the assurance that comes with walking in fellowship with other believers. However, when someone persists in sin without repentance, remaining in the church can lead to false assurance of faith (1 John 1:5; 2:19). By removing them from membership, the church signals that the individual’s life is not bearing the marks of true repentance and saving faith. Additionally, removal allows the natural consequences of sin to lead the person to repentance, much like the story of the prodigal son (Luke 15:11-32). In that parable, the son only recognized his need for the father after experiencing the emptiness and hardship of his rebellion. Likewise, church discipline aims to bring the unrepentant to the realization that life apart from Christ and his people is empty and destructive, leading them to return in genuine repentance. Strengthening the Members At first, this may seem like a surprising outcome of church discipline. However, this is not about wielding authority in a domineering way—it is about cultivating sobriety and responsibility among church members. Before the church acts, each member must first examine their own heart (Matt 7:1- 6). Church discipline is not an opportunity for self-righteousness but a call to humility. It reminds believers that they, too, must walk in repentance and grace. Additionally, church discipline places on the members the responsibility of restoration. Rather than simply casting someone out, those who know the individual are encouraged to pursue reconciliation. As James 5:19-20 says, “My brothers, if anyone among you wanders from the truth and someone brings him back, let him know that whoever brings back a sinner from his wandering will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins.” Church membership is not just about personal faith—it is about mutual holiness and joy in Christ. Through discipline, the church collectively commits to guarding one another’s walk with the Lord, ensuring that no one drifts away unnoticed or unloved. When Church Discipline Is Used However, not every issue warrants formal discipline. For church discipline to be appropriate, the matter must be biblical, outward, significant, and unrepentant. Biblical The issue must be one clearly addressed in Scripture, not merely a matter of personal conviction. For example, drunkenness is a biblical sin, whereas drinking a glass of wine falls under Christian liberty. Church discipline should never be used to impose personal preferences or convictions as if they were biblical commands. I once heard of a church excommunicating a seventeen-year-old for attending a high school dance. In such a case, discipline was misapplied, as the church was binding the person’s conscience to something Scripture does not forbid. Outward The sin must be provable, supported by clear evidence or reliable witnesses (Matt 18:16). Discipline should never be based on hearsay or speculation. Ensuring that accusations are outward prevents arbitrary or unjust discipline. For example, greed is primarily an inward sin, making it difficult to discipline someone for it directly. How can you determine if a person is truly acting out of greed? However, if that greed manifests in clear, outward actions—such as embezzling church funds or exploiting others for financial gain—then formal church discipline becomes necessary. In such cases, the sin is no longer hidden but has tangible, harmful effects that must be addressed. Significant The offense should be serious enough to harm the reputation of Christ’s church or misrepresent the gospel. Not every sin requires formal discipline; wisdom and discernment are necessary to determine when an issue rises to this level. For example, if a brother tends to have a negative attitude, even though we are called to walk in confident hope, this may warrant a conversation between brothers. However, it would not be significant enough to require church discipline. Unrepentant The life of the Christian is centered on the gospel call to repentance. Unrepentant sin is an indication of a hardness to the gospel of Jesus. Unrepentance points to a lack of understanding of who Jesus is and what Jesus has done. This is different from a person who is weak and repentant but keeps stumbling. This is the person who stubbornly persists in his sin. The Scriptures are clear that formal church discipline is the responsibility of the whole church. The elders lead the way, but the church (that is: membership) does not sit on the sidelines. They have an important part in this process The Goal of Church Discipline The ultimate goal of church discipline is the restoration of the individual. A powerful example of this is found in 2 Corinthians 2:5-11, where someone who had been under church discipline in Corinth repented. This may even be the same man mentioned in 1 Corinthians 5! Upon his repentance, Paul exhorts the church to “turn to forgive and comfort him” (2 Cor 2:7) and “reaffirm your love for him” (2 Cor 2:8). This is a beautiful picture of what church discipline is meant to accomplish—not punishment, but repentance, restoration, and renewed fellowship. A Real-Life Example I once attended a members' meeting at another church as a guest. During the meeting, the congregation voted to remove a man from membership due to unrepentant adultery. Later in that same meeting, something remarkable happened—a man was brought in who had been removed from membership three years earlier for the same sin and had repented. The elders and people in the church who knew him continued reaching out to him and praying for him. He stood before the congregation and read a heartfelt testimony of his repentance. Then, following the church’s process, he stepped out of the room while the members voted on his restoration to membership. When the vote was affirmed, he was brought back in—and the entire congregation stood in applause! Truly there is more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents (Luke 15:7)! This moment moved me to tears. The hard love of church discipline had served its God-given purpose. Members of the church had continued to pray for him, pursue him, and call him to repentance. These two cases—one man removed in sorrow, another restored in joy—beautifully demonstrated the heart behind church discipline: a commitment to holiness, love, and redemption. Bringing Members into the Church If the church exercises the keys in binding and loosing with regard to church discipline, then it only makes sense that the church also exercises the keys when bringing people into membership. Our Current Process Membership Classes When someone is interested in becoming a member, they participate in the membership classes (if you have not participated in one of these classes in the last three years, then we encourage you to do so). The classes are meant to give perspective members a good understanding of who we are as a church. Those classes cover six lessons. Declaration of Faith—Any perspective member has to know what we believe as a church and be in agreement with the church’s doctrine. Covenant of Fellowship—Members commit to the covenant of fellowship. Ours makes what is implicitly expected of members in a church and makes it explicit. Why Join a Church—Living out God’s intended purposes for his church requires commitment to one another through formal and meaningful membership. Church Leadership and Mission—This class explains how our church polity works and the importance of each of us to be engaged in the Great Commission. Church History—This class gives a very brief overview of church history and focuses on the history of Baptist churches and specifically the history of this church. Life Together—This class explains the dynamics of living in community together, including using our gifts and how we deal with relational conflicts. Elder Interview After completing the membership class and signing the Declaration of Faith and Covenant of Fellowship, the candidate meets with one or two elders for an interview. This meeting serves several purposes: To address any lingering questions the candidate may have. To provide an opportunity for personal interaction with an elder. To confirm that the candidate is not under church discipline at another church. To assess whether the candidate has truly experienced regeneration (conversion).[6] Elder Recommendation and Vote If the interviewing elder is confident that the candidate’s profession of faith is credible, he will present the individual’s application and testimony to the full body of elders for consideration. The elders review the relevant details and, if there are no concerns, they vote to affirm the new member. Our Recommended Changes Given the biblical principles outlined in this document, we affirm that elders should lead in the membership process, as they currently do. However, when it comes to the final decision of receiving or removing members, we believe the assembled members should vote, in accordance with the New Testament pattern. Removing Members The process of church discipline is carried out with care, patience, and conviction. If an individual remains unrepentant after due process, the elders will bring a recommendation for removal before the congregation at a member meeting. First Meeting: The elders present their recommendation, allowing time for those in the church who know the individual to personally call them to repentance. Second Meeting: If the individual remains unrepentant, the congregation will vote to remove them from membership. This process provides an opportunity for pastoral engagement and restoration while ensuring that church discipline is carried out with wisdom and grace. Receiving Members The elders will continue to carefully examine candidates for membership. However, instead of voting them in directly, the elders will recommend candidates to the congregation in advance of the member meeting. If any church member has biblical concerns about a candidate, they can discuss them privately with the elders before the vote.[7] If no concerns arise, the congregation will vote to receive the new member. Biblical and Historical Alignment This process is not new—it has historical precedent both in church history and in our own church’s past practice. By following this model, we more faithfully steward the biblical principles found in Matthew 16, 18, 28; 1 Corinthians 5; and 2 Corinthians 2. We will know the membership better. We will engage the membership with the responsibility we ought to feel for one another. We will be participating in membership that is meaningful and substantive. We will be exercising the delegated authority of the keys that Jesus commanded in a more faithful and clear way.Download this article Footnotes [1] 1644 London Baptist Confession, §33. [2] 1689 London Baptist Confession, §26.6. [3] 1833, New Hampshire Confession of Faith, §13. [4] 2000 Baptist Faith and Message, §6. [5] I will not try to answer the question as to whether the church is built on Peter or on his confession here. If it is Peter, it is still pointing to what Peter confessed, thus the outcome is the same. Jesus will build his church with those who profess by the Spirit that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God. [6] Many individuals in churches assume they are Christians without having truly been born again. This interview is one way the elders seek to ensure that membership is reserved for those who have been regenerated by the Holy Spirit. In some cases, these meetings take on an evangelistic nature, particularly when the candidate is a cultural Christian who may not yet understand the true gospel. [7] This also guards the church against gossip.

Matt Kottman

Lead Pastor/Elder

April 29, 2024 • 14 Minute Read

To What End - Part 1

We live in a time of considerable turmoil, both politically and culturally. The news is replete with headlines that only a handful of years ago would have been unimaginable. And our cultural trajectory appears to be unrelentingly “slouching towards Gomorrah”, as Robert Bork perceptively diagnosed in his well-known 2003 book of the same title.[1] The current state of affairs shocks many of us, and it raises the perennial question of how should the church engage with the culture in which we live? And what does the current state of worldly affairs reveal about the current state of the American Church? Eric Metaxas, a cultural commentator, self-described ecumenical Christian, and eclectic author of over thirty books,[2] provides an answer to this question in his book Letter to the American Church (Salem Books, 2022). His response is based heavily on the research he conducted for his bestselling biography of the WWII era German Lutheran pastor, theologian and anti-Nazi dissident, Dietrich Bonhoeffer.[3] Metaxas exhorts the American Church to learn from Bonhoeffer’s example and see the obvious future societal calamities on the horizon and to speak fearlessly, in faith, to the governing powers and institutions. Metaxas’ additional admonition is to not repeat the mistakes of the German Lutheran Church, which was too closely aligned with the values of the German State, and had become a “Christless Christianity”. The German Church had also ignored Bonhoeffer’s prophetic warnings to push back against the societal evils, which then resulted in calamity for Germany and the rest of the world. Metaxas’ view can be summarized as follows. The American Church should be like Bonhoeffer in criticizing American culture. The American Church should not be like the German Church and ignore Bonhoeffer’s warnings to return to our First Love, and to speak out against the evils in the world. The church should repent from its unjustifiable and mistaken withdrawal from the world, return to our First Love, and speak out forcefully, in faith, demonstrating that we actually believe in God. Pastoral Considerations While this polarizing topic of cultural engagement can be seen from a number of perspectives—political, cultural, historical, eschatological,[4] and even from the perspective of our individual courage, faith, and obedience (or lack thereof)—what is at stake is nothing less than God’s purposes for his church. Within this context, it is the God-ordained role of the elders of a church to evaluate and discern if the counsel of Metaxas’ book is aligned with what God has divinely revealed for his church at the local level. “Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God, which he obtained with his own blood.” (Acts 20:28) Note that the church is the family that God has “obtained with his own blood.” This is a sobering reminder to those that God has put over his flock of how precious his church is to him, and to the infinite cost that he has expended on purchasing a people for himself.[5] Therefore, one must tread with the utmost humility and care when declaring what God has purposed for his blood-purchased people. Additionally, Metaxas’ rebukes of the American Church can create in his readers (this reviewer included), an emotional and visceral response of outrage to the perceived failures of the American Church. However, Metaxas’ reproaches can and should be first directed at our individual failures to stand up to the culture, because we are a part of the American Church. In an effort to not attend to our personal guilt and disapproval about our lack of faithful and courageous engagement, we can readily transfer our inwardly focused anger outwardly at the Church, and consequently onto our local church leaders. We can be expecting them to do what we should be doing. Our response to this question of the church and culture should begin with what our individual responsibilities are, particularly given that we live in a representative republic where we have the inestimable privilege of having a substantial say in our government and its policies. Only then should we give attention to an institutional response. Jesus’ rhetorical question of “Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye?” is painfully applicable to this situation.[6] Therefore, our (perhaps) justifiably stirred-up anger and emotions and righteous indignation must be tempered with a well-considered and biblical response to the issues facing the church and should not be driven by an emotional or ill-conceived or reckless reaction to the immediacy with which we think we must respond to our cultural situation. We must always keep in mind that it is to Jesus, who is the head of his Church, that we will all give an account. Therefore, we must endeavor to ensure that we are not futilely expending our time and resources on activities that are contrary to God’s desires. The answer to the question of the role of the Church in regard to cultural engagement is not primarily about societal or political consequences, or even the future of the “American Church” or of America, it is of cosmological and infinite importance. Ultimately, it is about God’s declared purpose for his church, and therefore about the role of the leaders that God has put in place to shepherd his church, and about the role of each of us in being obedient to God’s call on our lives. These are the primary considerations with which Metaxas’ book will and must be evaluated. And this is the underlying reason for calling this series “To What End?” All discourses—cultural, apologetic, political, doctrinal, ecclesiological—should be considered through the lens of this question. What are we trying to accomplish with this discourse, and does it align with God’s revealed purposes? An Evaluation of Metaxas’ Answer The Role of the Church The first premise of Metaxas’ answer is based on his understanding of God’s call for the American Church. “We should underscore the idea that the centrality of our nation in the world does not mean that we are intrinsically exceptional, but rather that God has sovereignly chosen us to hold the torch of liberty for all the world, and that the Church is central to our doing this.”[7] Metaxas’ provides a rejoinder to those who would disagree with this statement. “If anyone would feel that believing God has chosen the American Church for such a vital role somehow smacks of an egotistical nationalism, they have already bought into the Marxist and globalist lie that America is nothing special – or is probably a force for evil at this point.”[8] There are two primary problems with these statements.[9] The first problem is that God’s purpose for the American Church and America is simply an assertion for which biblical or other substantiation is not—nor can it be—provided. It presupposes that Metaxas knows with certainty what God is doing with America and the American Church at this specific moment in history. Humility should be our guide when making pronouncements of what God is doing in his creation and should be confined to the unequivocally clear, timeless, and historically orthodox teachings of Scripture. We must take great care to not equate America and the Church too closely.[10] The second problem is that the validity of this claim must be evaluated by starting with a biblical definition for the role and purpose of the Church. Even though Metaxas properly raises this question in Chapter One, “What is the Church?”, he doesn’t answer with a Scriptural definition of the church. The best answer this reviewer can ascertain is that the church is truly the church when it is faithfully speaking out against the world. But this doesn’t address who and what the church is, but states what the church does. A correct understanding of the first element (what the church is) is essential to getting the second element correct (what the church then does as a result of what it is).[11] Because this fundamental premise that God has “sovereignly chosen” America/the American Church for the specific purpose of confronting culture is simply asserted and not substantiated, the resulting prescribed actions may be faulty and should be given very careful consideration.[12] History as Harbinger The warnings from the WWII era have validity for us today. We have much to learn from the courageous life and message of Bonhoeffer, who fearlessly spoke out at great risk to his life, and we can learn from the intransigence of the German Church which ignored Bonhoeffer’s warnings about the degradation of its obedience to Christ. The German Church had adopted, implicitly and explicitly—or was silent—regarding the abominable beliefs of the Nazi regime. We see something similar happening today in portions of the American Church as it adopts the world’s value on issues of humanity and sexuality, through militant feminism, LGBTQ issues, transgenderism, and even abortion. The abandonment of Christ is the underlying issue that led to the silence of the German Church in the face of the evils of the Nazi state, as both Bonhoeffer and Metaxas correctly point out. The call to the Church—then and now—to return to Christ is appropriate and essential. But this is where Metaxas’ prescription falls short, lacks specificity, and is misguided. His exhortations for the church to rebuke the world’s values are timelessly relevant to the institutional church and should be heeded, but his remedy is to urge the church to not keep focusing on “Bible studies and sermons”, on “business as usual”, and to not “hide behind the idol of evangelism.” This counsel is misguided. It’s not the activities that should be shunned, it’s the content of these activities that needs to be revivified. The American Church today (and the German Church of old) are adopting the views of the world because of what is being taught in our Bible studies and sermons, and because of a feckless and “easy believism” evangelistic message. In short, the fullness of the gospel is being neutered and made subservient to the world’s ideals. These disciplines need to be fully saturated with the gospel and it needs to be preached and taught and modeled by the churches and their leadership that the gospel is for every aspect of life. If this is the emphasis, then the church would not adopt the mores of the world. If those in leadership (and those sitting in the seats) adhered to the admonitions of the Psalmist when it comes to listening to the world or to the Word, these issues plaguing the church would fade into irrelevance. "May your unfailing love come to me, Lord, your salvation, according to your promise; then I can answer anyone who taunts me, for I trust in your word. Never take your word of truth from my mouth, for I have put my hope in your laws. I will always obey your law, for ever and ever. I will walk about in freedom, for I have sought out your precepts. I will speak of your statutes before kings and will not be put to shame, for I delight in your commands because I love them. I reach out for your commands, which I love, that I may meditate on your decrees.” (Psalm 119:41-48) This is the antidote to the issues Metaxas raises. A church focused on Christ will not adopt nor acquiesce to the values or demands of the culture. A church focused on Christ will not align with the state. A church focused on Christ will make disciples that are focused on Christ, and those disciples will transform the world around them, one person at a time, when they are obediently loving God and loving their neighbor as themselves. Additionally, Metaxas’ call for the church to “return to Christ” seems to be a means to an end. Granted, it is for the eminently noble end of staving off WWII type material atrocities in our time, but this should be considered a result of the church’s adherence to the gospel, not the purpose of the church’s adherence to the gospel, which is to be focused on addressing the underlying cause of the world’s suffering—it’s spiritual suffering. We have to remember that we don’t fight as the world fights, and therefore, the church’s response to the world must be distinctly Christian in nature, otherwise, the church only becomes another political party fighting for dominance in the public arena of ideas.13 The “American Church” Metaxas does not define who and what constitutes the “American Church”. It is a sweeping indictment that is leveled without specificity. If Metaxas’ concern is about the churches that have abandoned the gospel, which is clearly the case for some denominations, he should call out those denominations and enumerate the charges against them. The churches that are leaving those denominations, in some cases after hundreds of years, are suffering the consequences that come from their decision to divide. This distress consists of the internal anguish within their congregations caused by the separation and the knowledge that the onlooking world will use this very public disunity to further damage the cause of Christ. On the other hand, taking a principled stand on these issues—to the point of painful and public separation—is speaking truth to the world by demonstrating that these issues are so important, they are worth the cost of disunity. These churches are exhibiting exactly the kind of gospel-centered fearlessness that Metaxas is accusing them of not possessing and would very likely take exception with Metaxas’ criticism. Conclusion This book was challenging to review. It is a case where the individual criticisms pointed at the Church have some validity and caused this reviewer to frequently say “Amen”, but when considered as a cohesive argument, they don’t lead to the prescribed remedies, which unfortunately lean toward being reactionary, not well substantiated, and emotional. While granting that Metaxas’ book is intended to be a polemic against the current state of the Church, the lack of specifics on how the Church is to execute his instructions is also detrimental to his charge, and if he is incorrect in his prescriptions, could lead the Church away from God’s intended purposes. The Church should be more courageous, it should focus on Christ, it should not become complacent, it should not adopt the world’s values, and yes, it should be an institution that provides relief to the world’s suffering. But how this is accomplished is just as important as what it is trying to accomplish. And this is what will be discussed in more depth in the next series of articles.Download this articleGo to part 2 Footnotes [1] Bork, Robert. Slouching Towards Gomorrah. (Harper-Collins. 2010). [2] Eric Metaxas. (2024, April 11). Home - Eric Metaxas. Eric Metaxas -. https://ericmetaxas.com/ [3] Metaxas, E. (2010). Bonhoeffer: Pastor, Martyr, Prophet, Spy: a Righteous Gentile vs. the Third Reich. (Thomas Nelson. 2011). [4] Eschatological – the theological doctrine of last things [5] 1 Corinthians 6:20; 7:23 [6] Matthew 7:1-5 [7] Metaxas, Eric. “Introduction.” Letter to the American Church, Kindle Edition, Salem Books, 2022, p. 8. [8] Ibid, p. 10. [9] Ascribing this primary purpose to the church is an anemic ecclesiology (the doctrine of the nature and structure of the church). To be fair, this book is not a treatise on the church, but Metaxas does not include or acknowledge any other purposes for the church. Additionally, the charge that those who disagree with his stated purpose for the church are agreeing with an evil ideology, shuts down conflicting opinions and discussion. [10] Schreiner, P. (2023, April 26). The good, the bad, and the ugly of Christian nationalism. The Gospel Coalition. https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/good-bad-ugly-christian-nationalism/ [11] A biblically rooted understanding of the role and purpose of the church will be covered in subsequent articles. [12] However, this doesn’t mean that there are no valid reasons or methods for the church to engage the culture. A positive case for the role and manner in which the church engages culture will be addressed in subsequent articles. [13] 1 Corinthians 1:20-31; 2 Corinthians 10:1-6; Perhaps Colossians 2 (the context is not political, but the principle is the same – don’t submit to the rules of the world).

Jim Densmore

Executive Pastor/Elder

May 14, 2024 • 7 Minute Read

To What End - Part 2

Our country is wound tight when it comes to politics. In recent years, the left and right poles of the spectrum have caused the polls to become trench warfare. Common ground in the middle has become no man’s land. One of the effects this has had is that political views are voiced more and more forcefully about everything imaginable, even gas stoves! Positions are trending toward an all or nothing attitude. Nuance and discourse do not seem to be welcome dinner guests. Those who do not share a certain political vision are labeled, canceled, or villainized by the other side. Facts seem less important than outrage. In fact, outrage is the new black. I have personally experienced this in our own community. I have discovered things about myself that I never knew! If you believe the scuttlebutt, then I am pro-abortion and pro-LGBTQ+ (obviously those promoting this never knew that I was featured on the front page of a UK newspaper as pro-heterosexual). I have heard that I am the “woke pastor” of Prescott! Of course, none of this is true, but let’s not trifle with facts. All of this merely illustrates that we need a healthy way of approaching political issues with a level of theo-political triage. I would like to present a helpful tool that Robert Benne develops in his book Good and Bad Ways to Think About Politics and Religion (Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2010). This was later discussed in Jonathan Leeman’s How the Nations Rage: Rethinking Faith and Politics in a Divided Age (Thomas Nelson, 2018). Benne and Leeman point out two kinds of issues: straight-line and jagged-line. We would be helped in learning how to approach our political vision in light of these tools. Straight-Line Issues Some issues are clear issues. These would be straight line issues. Abortion would be a straight line issue. The Bible says that people are the image of God at conception and that murder is wrong because it kills the image of God. A straight line issue is an issue where the Bible is clear about a certain issue. You can more or less draw a straight line from the text of Scripture to the issue in question. There are several issues that would fit this sort of straight line approach (e.g. human sexuality, marriage, sanctity of life issues, religious freedom, etc.). These types of issues, we can speak with unequivocal conviction. Every Christian ought to be in agreement with these issues because the Scriptures are clear concerning them. These are the kind of issues that are appropriate to take a stance on from a church pulpit. Why? Because the Bible is blatantly clear. But not every issue is so clear, which is why there is a jagged-line approach. Jagged-Line Issues A straight line from biblical text to an issue cannot always be drawn. These issues require wisdom and prudence in applying biblical texts that help clarify a view on the issue. A large majority of political issues will fall into this category. Some examples might be discussions regarding a minimum wage, healthcare, immigration, environment, education (although this may find its way to a straight-line issue when a policy would take education out of the hands of the parents and puts it into the hands of the state), etc. Just because an issue is a jagged-line issue, this does not mean that we should not come to a conviction on where we stand on a given issue. Rather it means that we hold that conviction generously. For example, we live in a border state and so immigration is an important topic. But what is the biblical approach to immigration? Two Christians may approach the issue in differing ways. Christian A: The Scriptures speak a lot about reaching the nations and so welcoming in the nations gives an opportunity to reach them. Israel welcomed the foreigners so that they could be a light to them. The Scripture calls us to care for those suffering and there are those coming into the country out of horrible living conditions or those looking for asylum from despotic regimes. Care for the world drives the desire for weaker borders. Christian B: Borders exist for a reason. We must take care of those we are in a social contract with, which is made up of citizens, and the influx of immigrants diminishes our ability to take care of those who would be a greater priority (family, then community, then nation, then world). Care for those of our own country drives the desire for stronger borders. The issue of immigration is much more complex than I have portrayed it above. But I want you to see that there is a process to coming to a conviction that should be built on biblical principles. Given that they are built on biblical principles, we should respect those who hold opposing views. I am not suggesting we should agree with those who hold opposing views. What I have seen too often is that the unity of the church is threatened by the way we hold our oppositions. What can happen is because we do not agree with a certain jagged-line stance, we begin to question the legitimacy of someone’s faith. When this happens, we determine whether or not someone is truly a Christian based on a political position or party affiliation. Straight-Line Issues and Policies We should all agree on the straight-line issues, but that doesn’t mean that we all share the same policies. Consider the straight-line issue on the sanctity of the unborn. What is the best policy to bring this about? There are some approaches that would be morally wrong. Should we blow up a Planned Parenthood clinic? No. That would go against other straight-line issues. Should we push for total abortion bans or seek a progressive approach to limit abortions to those below twelve weeks in the short run? Should we stand outside abortion clinics with graphic images of aborted children? Should we participate in a walk for life march? Should we write our representatives? Different people will end up in different places when it comes to approaches and policies to different issues. I would like to close with a short story of how politics almost split the church I planted in London. In 2016, the UK was preparing for a major vote called Brexit (whether Britain should exit the EU). This was a significant piece of legislation. The concern was that Britain had given up its autonomy to the European Union and withdrawal from the EU was put on the ballot. Over 50% of our church were internationals, many of whom were from the EU. Many Brits started showing up to church wearing “Leave” buttons on their coats. The message this gave to our internationals was “We don’t want you in our country anymore.” Of course, this was not the intention of those with the “Leave” buttons on their coats. They loved their international brothers and sisters-in-Christ. But if Brexit passed, many in our church would have to leave the country. Politics nearly destroyed our church. But I taught our church about straight-line and jagged-line issues. Brexit was an important issue, but it was a jagged-line issue. By God’s grace, love for the brethren prevailed. Although many in the church had radically divergent views on a significant jagged-line political issue, the unity of the Spirit was maintained to the glory of God. After all, we were all citizens of heaven. So my brothers and sisters, I pray this tool is helpful to you as you process your politics especially in this election year. If you’d like to read more on this topic, The Gospel Coalition website has a good summary article.Download this articleGo to part 3

Matt Kottman

Lead Pastor/Elder

June 9, 2024 • 16 Minute Read

To What End - Part 3

Introduction In my previous article, I reviewed and critiqued Eric Metaxas’s book, Letter to the American Church, because it called on the “American” Church to engage with the world, but it did so without providing a foundation for the nature, mission, and work of the Church, nor for the nature, mission, and work of government.[14] This article will endeavor to provide those biblical foundations. Properly so, there are many hundreds of books on this vast and complex subject. This article reflects what I have found to be a solid, biblically based approach, but it is by no means the only approach, and space limitations will restrict this article to being a high-level overview of this topic, but hopefully with enough detail to still be helpful for our church family. Why This Matters Knowing God’s intended purposes for the Church and the government, and how they are intended to interact with each other, is crucial. If we don’t have this foundation, then our efforts at best will be misguided and wasteful, and at worst, damaging to the cause of Christ. But if we have our foundation correct, then we can know we are living according to God’s revealed intentions, and we will be effective ambassadors for Christ. An additional benefit is that we will be equipped with a biblical framework from which we can evaluate political candidates and issues. We can ask and answer questions such as: Which candidate or ballot measure will most effectively ensure that the government is passing laws and exercising its powers and authority —“the sword”—according to God’s design? Which candidate or ballot measure will most effectively guard the “straight-line” issues of biblical morality?[15] Which candidate or ballot measure will ensure that God’s intended purposes for the Church are being protected? We will now examine the institution of the Church and the government from a biblical perspective. The Nature, Mission, and Work of the Church The Nature of the Church This is a concise but comprehensive description of the nature of the Church. The church has its roots in the promises made to God’s people in the Old Testament, particularly that God would bless the world through Abraham’s offspring. While there is continuity between the Old Testament people of God and the church, the church is the community of Jesus, new at Pentecost. As such, the church is the fulfillment of God’s promise to the prophets that he would make a new and better covenant with his people and write his law on their hearts.[16] When Jesus preaches the Sermon on the Mount to his disciples and the crowds, he is explaining what life is to look like in this new community that he’s come to create. It is distinctly different from the Jewish culture of the time, and definitely different from the world. These are some (but not all) of the new ethics that are to distinguish the lives of the members of this new community. The poor, those who mourn, who are humble, who hunger and thirst for justice, who are merciful, whose hearts are pure, who work for peace and who are persecuted for doing right are blessed and the Kingdom of Heaven is theirs. (Matt. 5:3-10) Reconciliation and mercy over justice (Matt. 5:21-26, 38-42) Sexual purity over lust, and marriage fidelity over convenience (Matt. 5:27-32) Love of enemies over hate (Matt. 5:43-48,7:12) Spiritual authenticity over hypocrisy (Matt. 6:1-18, 7:1-6) Trust in God over your own capabilities (Matt. 6:19-34)[17] When this community assembles locally it is called the church and it is where divine spiritual activities will occur, because Jesus is present. This is unique to the church. Exercising the keys of the kingdom (Matt. 16:18–19) Conducting discipline according to the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 18:15–17) Preaching the gospel (2 Tim. 4:1–5) Baptizing and making disciples of Christ (Matt. 28:19–20) Worshiping corporately in song (Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16) Celebrating the Lord’s Supper (1 Cor. 11:17–34) Ordaining ministers (1 Tim. 4:14; Titus 1:5–9)[18] Notice the special nature of the ethics and the activities of this community, and how contrary they are to those in the world at large, or even the Jewish culture of Jesus’s time. The Mission of the Church To understand the mission for the Church we have to first understand the mission of Jesus, the Church’s Head.[19] For the Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost. (Luke 19:10)[20] The true light, which gives light to everyone, was coming into the world. He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world did not know him. He came to his own, and his own people did not receive him. But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God. (John 1:9-13)[21] Jesus was sent by his Father to save the world, by making his Father known to the world, through trusting in the person and work of Jesus. To be sure, there are significant additional facets to Jesus’ mission, but at the risk of minimizing this point, his work to save a lost and rebellious people and bring them into an eternal relationship with the Triune God is predominant. The mission of the church is to continue Jesus’s mission.[22] Now the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain to which Jesus had directed them. And when they saw him they worshiped him, but some doubted. 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.’ (Matt. 28:16-20) God, in his unfathomable providence, has commanded, entrusted, and equipped his followers with the marvelous privilege of being instrumental in the work of growing God’s family, by going into all of the nations and making disciples. God sent Jesus and now Jesus sends us. And this is further revealed and confirmed as the mission of the church throughout the book of Acts, as the disciples obeyed Jesus’s Great Commission and made disciples of the world.[23] The Church’s mission is to be evangelists and to make disciples. The Work of the Church The works of the Church are numerous, and as we have learned through Pastor’s Matt’s excellent teachings on the book of Ephesians, chapter 4:11-16 arguably provides the most best description of the work that the local church is called to do for its members, in the service of Christ.[24] And he (Jesus) gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ, so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes. Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ, from whom the whole body, joined and held together by every joint with which it is equipped, when each part is working properly, makes the body grow so that it builds itself up in love. (Eph. 4:11-16) Jesus has gifted the church with the ministers necessary to disciple and build the people of God’s family into Christlikeness and into a body unified by love. This is the primary work of the local church. And the New Testament Epistles written to the churches are principally about encouraging, correcting, teaching, instructing and training the members of churches to this end, for the glory of Christ. In summary, the church is God’s ongoing fulfillment of his promise to create a people for himself, where the gospel is proclaimed and experienced through divine spiritual happenings, and where God’s gifted leaders equip and grow his church into a spiritually mature community that is being discipled and is making disciples, while loving one another. The Nature, “Mission”, and Work of Government[25] The Nature of Government As American Citizens, we are very familiar (hopefully!) with these revolutionary words: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. —That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,[26] As Americans, our founding Fathers and founding documents declare that the unalienable rights men have come from our Creator, and to ensure that these rights are protected, a government has been created by men which derives its powers from the mutual consensus of those people who are forming the government. In other words, the people create a government, and they willingly agree to transfer power to this government, and to then obey this government’s appropriate exercise of that delegated power over their lives. But the Scriptures teach that government is an institution created by God not by men, and the power that it has comes from God. This appointment can be seen in Genesis 9, after Noah and his family emerged from the ark after the destruction of the flood. And for your lifeblood I will require a reckoning: from every beast I will require it and from man. From his fellow man I will require a reckoning for the life of man. ‘Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image.’ And you, be fruitful and multiply, increase greatly on the earth and multiply in it.[27] Note that God uses the phrase “I will require” three times. God is the authority behind the delegated authority he gives to worldly government and to whom governments ultimately answer. But it will be the government that will be the one exercising this reckoning, on God’s behalf. This is God’s decree for the creation of government and for government to have the right to use force against its citizens, but only in a proportional manner.[28] The Mission of Government From Genesis 9, we can then deduce three God ordained primary purposes for government—its mission. First, to render judgment for the sake of justice. Justice executed is to be proportional to the crime. “A life for a life.” This authorizes tremendous power to government—the ability to take a life—but it also limits government so that it doesn’t overstep its authority. Implicit in this command is that governments should protect the lives of its citizens. The life of a citizen is so valuable that if someone takes a life, their life is forfeited. Therefore, those lives must also be protected from harm, whether from other citizens or invaders. Second, to build platforms of peace, order, and flourishing. The provisions for the government to provide justice and safety in vv. 5-6 are the necessary prerequisites for being able to fulfill the command to (re)populate the earth in v. 7. “By justice a king builds up the land.” (Pro. 29:4; also, 16:12, 15). In other words, governments exist to build a platform on which human beings can pursue God’s dominion mandate.29 And we see this same principle taught by Paul to Timothy: First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people, for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way. (1 Tim. 2:1-2) Third, to set the stage for redemption. Paul first says we are to pray for our leaders so that we may lead a peaceful and quiet and godly life. Here is the rest of Paul’s teaching: This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. (1 Tim. 2:3-4) When we follow vv. 1-2, vv. 3-4 we then enable “people to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth”, and this happens primarily through the exemplary lives of Christians, who are free to live and worship as Christians and evangelize their neighbors, who are also free to then live out their Christian lives.[30] People must learn to read before they can read the Bible. People must eat healthy food and breathe nontoxic air so that they can live, “that they may know God, and worship him. Children benefit by having loving parents so that they can better apprehend the love of God the Father. Do you see? God means for the stuff of ordinary, everyday life to serve the purposes of salvation and eternity.[31] So, the mission for the government, ultimately, is to support the mission of the church. The Work of the Government One of the primary ways in which government fulfills its mission, as described above, is to “wield the sword.” We first saw this in Genesis 9, where God requires a reckoning. And then Paul teaches the same principle. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval 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. (Rom. 13:3-4) Having the authority to punish and hold people accountable to the law is the instrumentation that the government brandishes “to protect life, enable the cultural mandate, and provide a platform for the work of the church.”[32] And Peter then teaches that we are to submit to this action. Be subject for the Lord's sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good. For this is the will of God, that by doing good you should put to silence the ignorance of foolish people. (1 Pet. 2:13-15) Conclusion God has established both institutions—the Church and the government—and granted them authority in two different realms. The church has been given the “keys to the kingdom” and the government has been given the power of “the sword”. Each institution is designed to exercise its authority in its own realm and to not exercise authority in the other. For example, it is not within the purview of the church to punish people outside the church for breaking the law or for theological heresy. And it is not within the purview of the government to establish how people are to worship God or to hold people accountable for their theology. Ultimately, both governments and churches serve God’s purpose of calling all people to worship him, the former indirectly, the latter directly. The government’s work is a prerequisite to the mission of the church and salvation, just as learning to read is a prerequisite to reading the Bible.[33] However, this does not mean that these two institutions are to never associate, in fact, it is inevitable that they will. And now that we have established a biblical basis for the nature, mission, and works of these two complementary organizations (see Fig. 1 following for a helpful chart), in our next series of articles, we will address how they are intended to interact, and how we as Christians, are intended to act in relation to both. Fig. 1. A Comparison of Functions Between the Church and the State from: Button, Stephen.Download this articleGo to part 4 Footnotes [14] Strictly speaking, Metaxas’s book was addressing Christian engagement with the broader subject of “the world”, not only the government. But this article will broach the larger topic of Christian engagement with the world by beginning with the government, which was an emphasis by Metaxas. Additional aspects of “the world” will be covered in subsequent articles. [15] Kottman, Matt. “Politics and the Unity of the Church.” Solid Rock Christian Fellowship: Keeping in Touch Newsletter, June 2024. Contact the church office if you’d like a copy. [16] Morgan, C. (2021, February 10). The origin and nature of the church. The Gospel Coalition. https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/essay/origin-nature-church/. The author is summarizing numerous Scriptures, but particularly Jer. 31; Rom. 11:27; Heb. 8:8-12, 10:16-17; by allusion Matt. 26:28; Mark 14:24; John 6:45 [17] David VanDrunnen, Living in God’s Two Kingdoms: A Biblical Vision for Christianity and Culture (Illinois: Crossway Books, 2010), chap. 6, Kindle. [18] VanDrunnen. Ibid. [19] Eph. 5:23; Col. 1:18 [20] All Scripture quoted is ESV. [21] See also John 3:16-17, 17:1-3 [22] DeYoung, K. (2024, March 27). The mission of the church. The Gospel Coalition. https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/essay/the-mission-of-the-church/ [23] Ibid. [24] Pastor Matt Kottman. “Church Unity and Maturity.” November 19, 2023. https://vimeo.com/886634696 [25] Jonathan Leeman, How the Nations Rage: Rethinking Faith and Politics in a Divided Age (Tennessee: Nelson Books, 2018), chap. 5, Kindle. I am indebted to Mr. Leeman for providing much of the content for this section. I have relied on it heavily because it is the best treatment on this subject that I have found. [26] Declaration of Independence: a transcription. (2023, October 11). National Archives. https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/declaration-transcript [27] Gen. 9:5-7 [28] See also Rom. 13:1-7; Titus 3:1-2 [29] Leeman. Ibid. [30] Of course, God works through cultures where this isn’t the case, but that is necessitated due to the government’s disobedience to God’s decrees. God’s Providence works in spite of and through the world’s disobedience (and ours). [31] Leeman. Ibid. [32] Ibid.

Jim Densmore

Executive Pastor/Elder

Currently Reading

July 14, 2024 • 20 Minute Read

To What End - Part 4

The Main Idea of this Article Based on the ways in which Jesus and Paul lived, and centered on what they taught, Christians are to engage with the people in the world through shared cultural touchpoints, while shunning the ways of the world. Introduction How should we as Christians participate, and to what degree, and in what manner, with the world and the culture around us? As I have explored this question, I have found an enormous variety of answers, but the two responses that appear most frequently can be summarized as follows: 1) We should separate from the world and limit our participation to just what is necessary to live in the world, and our engagement should be focused on evangelism. This is because we are pilgrims passing through a world that is passing away, and we are to avoid getting involved in earthly affairs.[34] 2) We should intentionally strive to change the world by being cultural warriors, and spearhead cultural and political movements, transforming the culture around us. The well-known quote from Kuyper is how this view is expressed by some: “There is not a square inch in the whole domain of our human existence over which Christ, who is sovereign over all, does not cry: ‘Mine!’”[35] Perhaps you identify with one of these responses more than the other, or perhaps your perspective is somewhere in-between. In this article, building on the biblical foundation laid in my previous article concerning the nature, mission and work of the Church and the government,[36] I will address the first response and argue that while Christians are not to live according to the world’s ethics, this does not mean that we are to withdraw from every aspect of the world. I will also contend that significant engagement with the world and the cultures we live within, is a necessary element of being a Christian, and is modeled and taught in the New Testament. I will address the second response in the next article. Definitions Before proceeding, it will be helpful to define “world” and “culture”. “World” - The Inhabitants of the Planet The true light, which gives light to everyone, was coming into the world. (John 1:10 ESV) For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. (John 3:16-17) The usage of “world” here speaks to the inhabitants—the people—who live on our planet. In this sense, we know we are to engage and participate and love the world because of the Incarnation—Jesus leaving heaven, coming to this world, being found in human form, and dying on a cross for the world.[37] “World” – Its Ways Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world—the desires of the flesh and the desires of the eyes and pride of life—is not from the Father but is from the world. And the world is passing away along with its desires, but whoever does the will of God abides forever. (1 John 2:15-17) I appeal to you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship. Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect. (Romans 12:1-2) This usage of “world’ is speaking to “the whole circle of earthly goods, endowments, riches, advantages, pleasures, etc. which, although hollow and frail and fleeting, stir desire, seduce from God and are obstacles to the cause of Christ.38 Or, as John himself defines it for us— “the desires of the flesh and the desires of the eyes and pride of life”. In this sense, we are clearly meant to “disengage” or “withdraw” from the ways of the world. Culture The New Testament does not have a word for culture, but the idea is found throughout the Gospels and the Epistles. I’m using it to mean the shared beliefs, behaviors, values, typical practices, and goals of a group of people.[39] When I speak of engagement with the world, I am referring to the people that God has put into our lives, and not the worldly ways of the society around us, which we are to avoid. And we are to do this through the shared values, typical practices and goals of the unique cultural setting within which God has placed us. Cultural Engagement as Modeled and Taught by Jesus and Paul Let’s survey relevant New Testament passages to see how Jesus and Paul lived with the world around them, along what they taught about cultural engagement. Jesus’ Way of Life Early in Jesus’ ministry, he is teaching in his hometown synagogue in Nazareth, and the people who heard him couldn’t believe someone like Jesus could be teaching such astonishing things, because he was just a common carpenter40 and came from a typical and unremarkable family.[41] By being seen as a “commoner”, it means that Jesus and his family were not living apart from their culture, but as full participants within their community. Their way of life was the same as that of their neighbors. This would also include living within the restrictions of the Roman Empire. By being a carpenter or artisan, Jesus would have had relationships with other craftsman, he would have been engaged in commerce, buying supplies and selling his creations, and getting paid for his work. He would have to be familiar with the styles of the day and what was popular with the people. Jesus would have also paid taxes (and he taught others to pay taxes).[42] There is an argument to make that Jesus also interacted with Romans in the building trade, given that the largest Roman city in Galilee (Sephoris) was an hour away from Nazareth.[43] We know he was fully versed in all the ways of his people because his teachings were steeped in cultural references – shepherding, vineyards, weddings, fishing, gardening. And his Parables were convicting and polarizing because he well knew the religious traditions and practices of his people, so he understood precisely where and how to indict the Jewish leaders for their hypocrisy and love of power. Jesus was continually accused of associating with unclean people, with whom he regularly shared meals.[44] He would have eaten the same food, drank the same drinks, and respected the same culinary customs of his people. As a guest at a wedding, when prompted by his mother, Jesus performs his first miracle and provides “the fine wine” so that the party could continue! This is not a man who has separated from his culture.[45] A Roman Centurion asked Jesus to heal his servant and insisted that Jesus doesn’t need to physically come to his home to do it, because he knew that Jesus had the authority and power to do it from where Jesus was standing.[46] If Jesus had only been focusing on his personal holiness and separating from the world and the unclean Gentiles, the Centurion wouldn’t have known who Jesus was.[47] Because Jesus was so much a part of his culture and because he was a “commoner” who lived, worked, and celebrated with his people, it gave him insight and credibility, and it equipped him to know how best to evangelize because of the numerous and common touch points he shared. If he lived separately from his people, or the larger world around him, he would not have been able to have the ministry that he did. Jesus’ Teachings - The Sermon on the Mount ‘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.’ (Matt. 5:13-16) This is a passage that is oft cited by those who believe Christians are mandated to transform culture. Their conclusion is that being “salt and light” means that Christians, as a priority of the Christian life, are to be working in their communities and the public arena, shaping and molding culture and laws and governments into Christ-honoring institutions. But notice that vv. 13-16 come after Jesus has first taught the Beatitudes in vv. 1-12. I believe that the Beatitudes are Jesus teaching a new ethic for people who will be citizens in a new kingdom that he has inaugurated at his First Coming and will be consummated at his Second Coming. This new kingdom’s ethic is based on being poor in spirit, mourning, meekness, hungering for righteousness, showing mercy, being pure of heart, peacemaking, and being persecuted for righteousness. This is in direct contrast and contradiction to the condition of much of Jewish culture, not to mention the cultural norms of the Roman Empire. Therefore, cultural engagement is assumed. Jesus is describing a new way of living that is to be done in such a way, that those living with and around these new citizens, will witness a way of life they haven’t seen before, and attribute it to God. If these new kingdom citizens pull away from and separate themselves from their cultures, their lamp of good works will be put under a basket, which is what Jesus has explicitly instructed them not to do. But the Beatitudes speak first and foremost to the heart condition of these new citizens. When they are living with these new kinds of hearts, they can fulfill the rest of the Sermon’s instructions, which speak to how they are to treat each other in personal relationships. Transformation of the heart, which then transforms personal relationships, is of first importance to Jesus. If Jesus’ followers live out these teachings, it will inevitably result in cultural transformation, but the impact on culture is from the ground up and not from the top down, nor is it the point of the Sermon.[48] Paul’s Way of Life Paul was a tentmaker.[49] Everything that was said about Jesus’ engagement with his culture because of his artisan’s profession can be said about Paul. In the same way in which Jesus evangelized within the backdrop of Jewish culture, Paul’s intimate knowledge of Jewish religious culture and the ways of the Jewish leadership equipped him to be a powerful evangelist, given that he had reached its religious pinnacles.[50] When Paul comes to Athens and sees that the city is full of idols his “spirit was provoked within him” and he arranges to teach the Epicurean and Stoic philosophers on the Areopagus about Jesus.[51] Paul is so familiar with their teachings that he quotes their philosophers back to them— “for ‘In him we live and move and have our being’; as even some of your own poets have said, ‘For we are indeed his offspring.’” (Acts 17:28) This would require Paul to have significant prior knowledge of the sophisticated philosophies and literature of the Greeks. He also knew Roman law.[52] He knew how to engage in public discourse—a large part of both the Jewish and Gentile cultures.[53] Paul used his freedom in Christ to effectively evangelize Jew and Gentile. For though I am free from all, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win more of them. (1 Cor. 9:19)54 We don’t know all the specifics of Paul’s evangelistic efforts, but clearly, he’s not separating and protecting himself from the cultures of the people he’s evangelizing—he’s intentionally entering and engaging with those cultures so that he can more effectively evangelize, even to the point of becoming like them. Paul’s Teachings Paul taught the Christians in the Gentile cities of Ephesus and Thessalonica to work with their own hands—which means engaging and participating with all the related people and areas of their cultures, as Jesus and Paul would have.[55] In Colossians 4:5, Paul instructs the believers to “Walk in wisdom toward outsiders, making the best use of the time.” In 1 Thessalonians 4:10b-12, Paul urges his brothers to “…excel more and more and to aspire to live quietly, to attend to your own matters, and to work with your own hands, as we instructed you. Then you will behave properly toward outsiders, without being dependent on anyone.” And then in 1 Timothy 3:7, when giving qualifications for elders (overseers), he says, “Moreover, he must be well thought of by outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace, into a snare of the devil.” Each of these instructions assume cultural engagement and provide clear guidelines for how Christians are to live within cultures that are not Christian—wisely, quietly, and being well thought of. By living this way, the Christians were demonstrating that they did not consider themselves better than those around them, because they lived within the norms of their neighbors and the cultures of their times. This is a reminder to them that they are minority groups that need to be conscious of their reputations. Because God “wants all people to be saved” (1 Tim 2:4), the church does not retreat from the world but declares the Christian message— “the mystery of godliness” (3:16)—and lives in a way that is appropriate to it (cf. Titus 2:1). Good behavior will thus make the faith attractive to outsiders (Titus 2:10) and ensure that others do not slander believers (cf. 1 Tim 5:14; 6:1; Titus 2:5, 8).[56] We can therefore conclude that Jesus and Paul modeled and taught that Christians are to engage with the people of the world, and to do it through the cultural norms of that society, with the exception being when those ways are in contradiction to the ways of God.[57] And the primary reason for this is because it is the best method for effectively fulfilling the Great Commission. Christians Are To Engage with the World Through Culture All Christians are Cross Cultural Missionaries As a church we support many missionaries domestically and abroad. Many of them are cross-cultural missionaries. And decades of missionary work have shown that the most effective manner of evangelism is for the missionaries to insert themselves into the local culture so that they can learn how to share the gospel in the manner that will have the most resonance to that specific people.[58] They learn the language, they learn the customs, they learn their songs, their food, their stories, their myths, and they internalize this cultural knowledge to show that they care about the people they are engaging with, and then they introduce the gospel. It’s the longstanding evangelist’s adage: “People don’t care what you know, until they know that you care.” Even if one takes the view that cultural participation should be minimal and only focused on evangelism, this is self-defeating because the evangelist is still dependent on living in and engaging with culture because that is where the people are. Just as with Jesus and Paul, our common touchpoints in culture are what give us an audience with non-believers. We can’t live away from culture on a mountain-top where we focus on our personal holiness, and then come down and expect to have a hearing from people that we have nothing in common with. I submit that the Sermon on the Mount calls us all to be cross-cultural missionaries, in our neighborhoods and with the people living in the houses right next door to us. We are to understand our neighbors, and then engage with them according to the new kingdom ethics of the Sermon, which are by their nature counter-cultural, so that our neighbors will see our good works, which will reveal the Father to them. Relational Evangelism It’s necessary for us to know what is happening politically, with entertainment, with sports teams, with the arts. It enables us to connect with those we are trying to reach with the gospel.[59] Common cultural activities—hunting, arts and crafts, the latest ideas on how to raise children, going to museums, mountain biking, TV shows— are the best way to establish meaningful relationships with non-believers, and relational evangelism is the primary and best way in which evangelism takes place. For example, even as we (perhaps) agree with a neighbor about the evils of allowing minors to undergo transgender surgeries without parental knowledge, and we rail against those who enable this, we can also include that we are praying for these children and their parents and are supporting organizations that are reaching out to the children to get them the kind of help they may need. Yes, we can be working politically, but by remembering that at their root these are spiritual battles and not just political battles, we are showing our neighbor that we care about the people and not just the issue. We don’t want to win an argument; we want people to be set free and to know Jesus. This will distinguish Christians from other political groups, and this too will get the attention of our neighbor when they hear us being opposed to evil, but also caring for the individual that is being destroyed by the evil and the lies. This is a message they will not always hear from the world. This is being salt and light. If we engage in all of our cultural activities in a uniquely Christian manner, i.e., by adhering to the Sermon on the Mount, we are demonstrating that the gospel isn’t something that is just taught in children’s Sunday School. The way in which we engage in these shared activities demonstrate that the gospel applies to all areas of life, perhaps in ways that a non-believer would never have considered. Full Cultural Disengagement Isn’t Possible Additionally, it is not feasible to entirely disengage from the culture or the world. This is because Christians are dependent on culture, and because we are a part of any culture we reside within. The Christians that lived within the Roman Empire during the first three centuries of the Church’s existence, lived and fashioned a form of Christianity that was bound by the culture within which they lived. But they also influenced it because by the time of Constantine, even though they had no standing in that culture and no ability to change the laws or the cultural practices, by living out their faith according to the Sermon on the Mount, they completely changed the Roman Empire.[60] The nineteenth century author Leo Tolstoy attempted to completely withdraw from the world, and even came to have this worldview named after him—The Tolstoyan Movement. But even he couldn’t live up to his noble but ultimately unobtainable ideals, because we are all dependent and interwoven with the culture around us. He withdrew to such a point that he no longer provided for his wife and family, and he died a broken man, with a family that hated him.[61] How we conduct ourselves at work, or if we start a new business, if we vote, if we hold fund raisers, or work at a community pregnancy center, if we volunteer at Sharlot Hall or the Grand Canyon, if we write a community newsletter, if we coach a little-league team or we create art, or write books—not to mention everything we do at church—we are engaging with the world and the culture around us, and we are shaping it and being shaped by it.[62] Conclusion Following the model and teachings of Jesus and Paul, we are called to cross-culturally engage with the people in the world, while shunning the ways of the world, by following the ethics of the Sermon on the Mount, and by connecting with our neighbors through all available common cultural touchpoints. This will make us effective ambassadors for Christ and continue his mission to save the world.Download this articleGo to part 5 Footnotes 34 Matt. 24:35; 1 Cor. 7:31; 2 Tim. 2:4; 1 Peter 1:2; 2 Peter 3:10; Rev. 21:1-4. 35 Dutch theologian and statesman Abraham Kuyper, who devoted his life to societal and cultural reforms in the Netherlands, and particularly during his time as Prime Minister from 1901 – 1905. 36 Densmore, James. “Biblical Foundations - The Church and the Government.” Keeping in Touch, 1 July 2024. Please contact the church office for a copy. 37 Phil. 2:1-10 38 Strong’s Greek: 2889. κόσμος (kosmos) -- order, the world. (n.d.). https://biblehub.com/greek/2889.htm 39 Dictionary.com | Meanings & Definitions of English Words. (2020a). In Dictionary.com. https://www.dictionary.com/browse/culture 40 The Greek word translated “carpenter” can also apply to a mason, smith or an artisan in general. Strong’s Greek: 5045. τέκτων (tektón) -- a craftsman, spec. a carpenter. (n.d.). https://biblehub.com/greek/5045.htm 41 Mark 6:1-6 42 Matt. 17:24-27; Luke 19:20-26 43 Staff, B. a. S. (2019b, April 22). Sepphoris Inscriptions Reference Rabbis - Biblical Archaeology Society. Biblical Archaeology Society. https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/news/sepphoris-inscriptions-reference-rabbis/ 44 Mark 2:15; Matt. 9:10; Matt. 11:18-19; Luke 7:36-50, 15:1-2 45 John 2:1-11 46 Matt. 8:5-13 47 See also Acts 10 where God commanded and then persuaded Peter to not separate himself from “the world”, i.e., the unclean Gentiles. 48 At that time, neither Jews nor Christians would have had any say in the form of government or the content of laws or any significant portions of Jewish or Roman culture. So, this would not have been in the thinking of Jesus or his hearers. 49 Acts 18:1-3 50 Phil. 3:1-14 51 Acts 17:16-34 52 Acts 22:22-29, 25:1-12 53 Acts 14:1, 17:1-2, 19:8, 22:1 54 See 1 Cor. 9:19-23 for the full context 55 Eph. 4:18; 1 Thess. 4:11-12, respectively. 56 Christ and Culture in the NT – Ch. 9 57 Even those differences can be powerful avenues for evangelism, when done without judging our neighbor. You can explain why you won’t see a particular movie or Netflix show, or why you avoid social drinking, etc. 58 Whiteman, D. L. (2024). Crossing Cultures with the Gospel: Anthropological Wisdom for Effective Christian Witness. Baker Books. 59 Of course, as stated at the beginning of this article, this doesn’t mean that we engage in practices that are contrary to God’s commands. 60 Schnelle, U. (2020). The First One Hundred Years of Christianity: An Introduction to Its History, Literature, and Development. Baker Academic. 61 Wikipedia contributors. (2024, March 21). Tolstoyan movement. Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tolstoyan_movement 62 Of course, the influences Christians have on their surrounding culture and vice-versa can result in both good and bad results.

Jim Densmore

Executive Pastor/Elder

July 21, 2024 • 6 Minute Read

To What End - Part 5

Do you ever feel like the way that we approach politics is two-sided? Do you feel like you are given two choices but there is no third option? By two choices, I do not just mean red or blue, conservative or liberal, Republican or Democrat. The two choices that I wrestle with are a matter of investment: do I go all in on political idolatry, or do I settle for civic apathy? Our hearts demand a king (1 Sam. 8:6) who will bring justice and defend us from our enemies. We know intrinsically that good government brings peace and prosperity. But we have also known the disillusionment of political leaders which does not fulfill our desires. The temptation to give up and watch sports is tangible. We can find our hearts tossed to and fro in the seasonal storms of presidential elections. All relationships are seasonal, and our relationship to politics is no different. The seasons are hope, disillusionment, apathy, and choice. Our choice is engaging or disengaging. The election year brings hope for change, then comes disappointment rushing in, just in time for Christmas (disillusionment), then the apathy to guard our hearts for four more years. Do you want a third option? Do you want to be let out of the emotional roller coaster? I was convicted as I prepared for this article because I realized that to protect my heart, I chose to disengage from the political process for the last four years. I didn't want my heart to be in the control of American political leaders. Why do we find ourselves being flung from one emotional extreme to another? We have put our hope in the wrong King. We have expected from political leaders what only King Jesus can provide. I believe that political idolatry is a major contributor to political disillusionment. How can we protect ourselves from political idolatry and civic apathy? The answer is political stewardship. We are citizens of a heavenly country, and we serve as ambassadors for an Eternal King, Jesus Christ. Our king has put into our hand responsibilities while we live our life. We will be accountable for those responsibilities when he returns or calls us home. The Bible calls this principle stewardship. Stewards are responsible for the finances or authority of their master while he is away. We are responsible for the gifts, talents, money, relationships, bodies and citizenship that God has placed into our hand. I believe the way that we protect our hearts from political apathy or idolatry is the principle of stewardship. We need to focus on our political responsibility not our political desires. We should view our American citizenship under the umbrella of being Christ’s stewards. When we think of the principles of stewardship, our minds are first drawn to financial responsibility. God has placed financial assets into your hand to steward. He has given us explicit guidelines to steward the finances he has placed into our hands. I would like to draw a few parallels between financial stewardship and civic stewardship. You Cannot Serve Two Masters Matthew 6:24 (NKJV) says, “No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will be loyal to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon." We cannot allow money to rule our hearts. We cannot allow the gifts of God to become our gods. There are numerous ways I have seen my friends and myself serve money. Our emotions are controlled by how much money we have or don’t have. We overextend our lives just to "get ahead” financially. Our emotional health should not be tied to our bank account balances. Politically, we can allow the citizenship that God has placed into our hands to control our hearts. We let it become our master and expect a politician to save us. Instead of letting our civic duty rule over our hearts, we need to wholeheartedly serve our civic responsibility. The gifts that God has placed in our hands were never intended to rule our hearts. You Have To Work 2 Thessalonians 3:10 says, "For even when we were with you, we commanded you this: If anyone will not work, neither shall he eat." Some people will go to the extreme to protect themselves from the idolatry of money by being frivolous and/or lazy. They think the antidote to caring too much is to not care at all. We are called to work hard and care for the finances we possess. A wise man will care for the finances that God has put into his hand. Laziness and shirking the responsibility of caring for your family is ungodly and wicked. God has put an incredible gift into our hands as American citizens. To not work hard and steward our citizenship is ungodly. We are going to be accountable as stewards for how we invest the gift of our American citizenship. Just as the man who does not work will not eat, the man who does not engage in the political process will have to face the consequences of his apathy and idleness. We Are Responsible For What We Are Given Luke 12:48 tells us, “Everyone to whom much was given, of him much will be required, and from him to whom they entrusted much, they will demand the more.” Those who are wealthy have a greater responsibility to steward what is in their hand. This doesn’t negate the responsibility of those who have less finances to steward. We all have a responsibility, but the degree of that responsibility varies from person to person. As Americans, we have been blessed with the opportunity to engage in the political and judicial processes. We all have been invited into the political process. I believe that we have been given much and much is required of us as Americans. Let us be Christians who take seriously the great gift God has given us to steward. Be good stewards over the citizenship that He has placed into your hand, represent King Jesus, and keep your eyes heavenward!Download this articleGo to part 6

Ryan Lynn

Associate Pastor/Elder

August 2, 2024 • 21 Minute Read

To What End - Part 6

The Main Idea of this Article Jesus’ ongoing mission is to save the world, and it is our primary calling as his disciples to continue that mission. We then live out this mission by being a good citizen in God’s Kingdom and by being a good citizen in the cultures within which God has placed us. Introduction In 2008, I was living in California and Proposition 8 was passed. This added an amendment to the state Constitution which provided that "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."[63] The day after the election, three lawsuits challenging the proposition were filed with the California Supreme Court. They were ultimately successful in defeating the implementation of the amendment. This meant there were now no limits on what marriage could be or who could get married, opening the door to same sex marriage.[64] I was outraged. Could I as a Christian let something as morally necessary and biblically based as marriage be redefined in a way that is clearly contrary to God’s design? I can vote of course, but is that enough? But what could I actually do? I was one man with no political connections, background or experience – or money! But won’t society continue to slide into further immorality if Christians don’t take a stand? And if Christians don’t take a stand for something as sacred and God-ordained as the institution of marriage, who will? However, given the transitory nature of political victories – win today only to see the legislation repealed tomorrow – wouldn’t spending more time on this be a fool’s errand? Besides, the world is passing away, isn’t it? And wouldn’t taking on a political issue of this size impede my ability to follow all of Christ commands? Like love my neighbor, to be fully engaged at church, to spread the gospel, to take care of the widows and the poor? There simply isn’t enough time in a day to do all of this. Do you struggle with frustration and outrage with what is happening in the world and finding the balance between being a good Christian and being a good citizen? Perhaps you’ve decided to fully engage and be a political and cultural warrior because this is what it means to live out the life of faith that Christ calls us to. Or perhaps you’ve gotten to the place where you no longer concern yourself with the matters of the world, for all the reasons I listed above, and have disengaged from all societal or political activities. Or maybe you’re somewhere in the middle but confused about the best way forward. In this article, I will provide biblically based answers to these questions that have been with God’s people from the beginning. I will also show how Jesus and the Apostles provide the goal for why we interact with the world, as well as the means for how we interact with the world. I will also show that the Scriptures give us needed guardrails so that we don’t wander from our missional focus.[65] We’re On A Mission from God Jesus’ Inauguration of the Mission Let’s begin by looking at the mission of Jesus, the head of the Church, to understand why we are to interact, engage and be involved with the people of the world. "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.” (John 3:16-17)[66] The Father gave the Son a mission - to save the world. Jesus, out of his love for his Father and for the world, inaugurated this mission by taking on the nature of a man and living a sinless life. He then suffered the punishment of the Father for our sins and our behalf by being crucified. He then dies, is buried in a tomb, and raises from the dead three days later. This mission could only be accomplished by Jesus who was fully God and fully man. This shows us how monumental and eternal this mission is. The Father sacrificed his only begotten Son for this mission. Jesus gave up his heavenly rights (for a time) and laid down and took up his life for this mission. Those who are the beneficiaries of this mission are said to be “bought with the blood of Jesus”.[67] Given who the actors are and what’s at stake – saving the world – there is no greater mission. The Disciples Role in the Continuation of the Mission And this same mission is what Jesus’ followers are to be about. When Jesus was preparing his disciples for his crucifixion and ascension, he prays to the Father for them and gives them the charge to continue the mission that he began. “They are not of the world, just as I am not of the world. Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth. As you sent me into the world, so I have sent them into the world.” (John 17:16-18 Emphasis added) In the same way that the Father has sent Jesus into the world, Jesus is going to send his disciples into the world. Then, Jesus prays for the next generation of his disciples. "I do not ask for these only, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me.” (John 17:20-21) Then, after Jesus’ resurrection, he gives his followers his Great Commission. Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.” (Matt. 28:18-20) Jesus’ intent is that his mission will continue, first through his contemporary disciples, and then through each successive generation of disciples. If you’re a believer today, it’s because the original disciples obeyed Jesus’ instructions, and the believers after them, and then the ones after them, and then on through the countless generations of believers who have faithfully and obediently continued Jesus’ mission, all the way up to the person who told you about Jesus. The Church’s Role in the Continuing Mission It’s the role of the church to enable this mission. For us to make disciples, we have to be equipped as disciples. If we’re not growing as disciples, then how can we obey Christ’s commands to teach others to be disciples? And he (Jesus) gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ, so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes. (Eph. 4:11-14) This is why we are to be engaging with the people of the world. We are commanded to tell people about Jesus and make more followers of Jesus. A good friend of mine says that “We don’t only have to be evangelists, we get to be evangelists”. In other words, it’s a duty but it’s also a privilege that God entrusts us with – to be the ones whose feet bring the Good News![68] And to continue the most important and eternal mission of God the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. This is the guiding star of our engagement with the world. Our interactions with the world must always be in service to the spreading of the gospel, which is the primary mission of individual Christians and of the Church as an organization. This foundational principle of why we engage with the world then informs how we engage with the world, which I will address next. Being Good Missionaries and Being Good Citizens Kingdom Citizenship As I discussed in my previous article, Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount is the touchstone for how to live as a Christian and impact the world around us for the cause of Christ.[69] When Christians live according to the ethics that he taught in this sermon, which were diametrically opposed to the values of the cultural Jew and the Gentiles of his time (and to our culture today), this is how Christians will then “…let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven.” (Matt. 5:16). This is what it means to be “salt and light” – to live by the values of the Kingdom of Heaven which will then reveal the glory of God to the world, and that will have an impact on the world. This is our primary and eternal citizenship - being in the Kingdom of God. The ethics of this kingdom determine and shape how we behave in the cultures that we live in, which is where our secondary and temporary citizenship lays. Cultural Citizenship While Jesus’ very existence and the way in which he lived, taught and conducted his ministry were a threat to both the corrupt Jewish leadership of the time and the Roman empire, Jesus only once spoke explicitly about how to live under Roman law. It was when the Pharisees tried to trap him by asking him if it was lawful for the Jews to pay taxes to Caesar or not.[70] If he affirmed either the Jewish or the Gentiles perspective, he was putting his life in danger from either the Roman authorities or the Jewish crowds and Zealots.[71] But to the amazement of his hostile questioners, Jesus’ response was “Caesar gave you the money you have, so when you’re paying taxes, you’re just giving back to him what he’s already given you. So do that. And then do the same with God – give back to him what he’s already given you.” Without considering all the nuances of this interaction, the takeaway for us is that if Jesus wanted to disengage from the society in which they lived, or to fight or resist Roman rule, this would have been the opportunity for him to do so. But Jesus is staying on mission. Creating a societal revolt through political revolution would be working contrary to the very mission the Father gave Jesus. Instead, he’s telling the Jews to obey the Roman laws, i.e., be a good citizen.[72] This theme of being a good citizen as part of the life of a Christian is a theme that we see repeatedly in the Epistles. And it’s what enables Jesus’ mission to continue, regardless of what culture or society someone lives in. Paul on Being a Good Citizen In the Apostle’s letters to the newly converted Jewish and Gentile believers, we repeatedly see the writers encouraging and instructing the recipients on how to live within cultures that were hostile to this new religion of “Christianity”. They needed to learn to let go of the cultural baggage they brought with them, and they also had to resist their culture’s enticement to go back to their old ways of life. As Paul comes to the application portion of the letter he wrote to the Jewish and Gentile believers in Rome, he concludes the first eleven chapters with this well-known instruction – “Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect.” (Rom. 12:2). This is a reminder and an admonition to not live like the world does, but to reframe all of our thinking by what it means to live in the Kingdom of God. Continuing, he explains to them what this looks like, and instructs them to “repay no one evil for evil” (12:17a), “do what is honorable in the sight of all” (12:17b), “live peaceably with all” (12:18), “never avenge yourselves” (12:19), “overcome evil with good” (12:21). And then in Chapter 13, where Paul directly addresses the nature of the relationship between the believers and the Roman state, we see Paul teach “let every person by subject to the governing authorities” (13:1), “do what is good” (13:3b), “be in subjection” (13:5), and “pay to all what is owed to them” (13:7a), which includes taxes, revenue, respect and honor. (13:7b) These verses describe how they are to exist as dual citizens – Chapter 12 is how they are to treat people according to their primary citizenship, and the verses in Chapter 13 describe how they are to relate to the governing authorities, which is their secondary citizenship, but this is still governed by their primary citizenship. Peter on Being a Good Citizen In Peter’s first letter to the churches in Asia Minor, he is encouraging them to remain faithful and endure the persecution they are and will be suffering for being Christ followers, by living exemplary lives. Live such good lives among the pagans that, though they accuse you of doing wrong, they may see your good deeds and glorify God on the day he visits us. Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every human authority: whether to the emperor, as the supreme authority, or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right. For it is God's will that by doing good you should silence the ignorant talk of foolish people. Live as free people, but do not use your freedom as a cover-up for evil; live as God's slaves. Show proper respect to everyone, love the family of believers, fear God, honor the emperor. (1 Peter 2:12-17) Why would these believers be accused of doing wrong by their fellow citizens? Because by not living according to the religious norms of their day, which would have been polytheistic and based on idol worship, these “one-God” Christians would be seen as atheists, disrupters and usurpers. We see this throughout the book of Acts, when Paul and his cohorts come preaching the gospel and it creates enormous cultural, political, religious and economic turmoil, even though Paul never advocates for any of these things to happen. Peter’s instruction to these believers is not to live like the Gentiles do, but to live lives of the kingdom ethic and to be good citizens. This will demonstrate that they are in fact, not a threat in the way their fellow citizens perceive, but will show them to be kind, loving, fellow citizens who want to contribute to the common good of their neighbors. By doing this, they will be “salt and light” and will attract people to their Savior. This is how we engage with the world in the name of Christ – by loving God (our primary citizenship and where we derive our Kingdom values), and then by loving our neighbor (which is our secondary citizenship and where we live out our Kingdom values). The same friend I quoted previously also provides this helpful counsel: “Be the kind of neighbor that if you were to leave your neighborhood, you’d be missed.” How to Stay on Mission Mission Guardrails In 1 Corinthians 7, we see Paul continually instruct these church members about how to live as Christians in a culture that is hostile to them, and that is continually working to draw them back into its ways. But Paul’s instructions about marriage, life situations, circumcision, indentured servitude, and business dealings follow an approach of “Yes, care about these things, but not too much.” This is because “…the time is short.” (1 Cor. 7: 29b) and “For this world in its present form is passing away.” (1 Cor. 7:31b) When we are tempted by the ongoing and never-ending turmoil in the world and culture that surrounds us, to make cultural or political or societal transformation our primary mission, we need to remember and submit to the Leader of our true mission, and to his instructions and commands as to why and how we are to continue his eternal mission, and that we are to care about the things of the world, but not too much. These are the guardrails the Scriptures provide us to prevent us from careening off the road of our true mission. Avenues of Engagement The answer to the questions about if we are to be politically active or to not be politically active, is that we are called to be good Christians and to be good citizens, in keeping with the dual nature of our citizenship. The former informs the latter. So, considering this, how could I have responded to the Proposition 8 situation? For me to have taken on Proposition 8 at the level I was thinking (which was not rational, it was an emotional reaction), was not realistic, as I didn’t have any of the necessary giftings or skill sets. But I could have supported those who were fighting it with signatures, or finances, or raising awareness about it, or writing articles about it for our church. There are many avenues available because as “Western” Christians we enjoy privileges that most of God’s people have never had, which includes having the right to participate in and influence our government and our laws. We should avail ourselves of every opportunity to do good, which includes political engagement, at whatever level we can be effective. For some, it will be voting. For others, it will be to actively campaign for a politician or an issue. And for some, it may mean being a politician. Whichever avenue one takes to engage is part of being a good dual citizen and is completely in alignment with God’s call on his people. The choice to be a cultural warrior and to fight against societal evils to such an extent that there is no room for the gospel is to stray from the goal of God’s mission. The question we must ask is how much time are we spending on societal transformation (which is temporary and passing away) and how much time are we spending on making disciples (which is of eternal value)? The choice to completely disengage from the culture around us and not participate in creating a good society with our fellow citizens is to stray from the how of God’s mission. When we were saved, God could have taken us to heaven immediately. But he leaves us all here so that we can be confirmed into the image of God anew, but also so that we can tell other people about his Son - which also helps us become like his Son. By being a good citizen, in whatever form this takes, we are using the common cultural touchstones we have with our neighbors to engage with them. And living our kingdom values demonstrates God’s glory to them and invites them to become citizens in a new and better and ever-lasting Kingdom. It’s About People Not Issues The overturning of “Roe v. Wade” is emphatically a win for righteousness and for fighting evil. Since this is now being taken up by the states for their determination of what the laws should be around abortion, and since some states will be restrictive, the result will be less abortions. This is a net good. However, in the same way that pro-choice advocates saw their legislative win that lasted fifty years disappear overnight, pro-life advocates may experience the same thing, if a national law is eventually codified permitting abortions. Political victories are fleeting. If our only goal as Christians is the ending of abortion, we will probably never achieve total victory, and the victories we do achieve will almost certainly be temporary. But if our goal in fighting abortion is about people and not just the issue itself, then we can see eternal victories. We must remember that the young women and ladies that are considering this option need the truth of Christ that teaches about the eternal value of all human life, and that each person carries with them the imago Dei – the image of God. For those that have had abortions, they need the forgiveness of Jesus. For those that are teaching and advocating and putting abortion into law (and even celebrating it!), they need to know about the righteousness of God and that they will be held accountable for these actions. And they need to know about how these sins can be forgiven through the blood of Christ. And we can also help through volunteering or financially supporting Community Pregnancy Centers. They help to prevent women from having an abortion, as well as providing care for those who have their baby. They also provide post-abortive care. When speaking at a Board of Supervisor meetings, or at the School board, we need to ensure that Christ and the gospel are proclaimed as the basis for our objections (or affirmations) of an issue. We must make our political activities uniquely Christian and in service to the gospel. This is how we avoid becoming just another special interest group clamoring for a win in the colosseums of political battles. We don’t want the issue to become “the thing” instead of Christ saving people. Rosaria Butterfield, who was a militant, Lesbian, feminist professor, who became a Christian, teaches that she didn’t need laws against homosexuality, or to become a heterosexual, she needed Christ.[73] Societal Transformation – A Result not a Goal John 3:16 doesn’t say that Jesus came “to transform the world”, it says he came “to save the world.” When we stay on the mission that we’ve been entrusted with, we will see eternal results through the people God saves through our participation, and as we live out our salvation, we will hopefully see the people around us transformed, as they become fully devoted followers of Christ, which will translate into culture and societal transformation.[74] The most powerful “political” activity we can engage in for the good of our families, our workplace, our schools, our neighborhoods, our towns, our cities, our counties, our states, our nation and the world, is to love God with all our heart, soul, mind and strength, and to love our neighbor as ourselves. (Matt. 22:34-40)Download this articleDownload the 6 article series Footnotes [63] Proposition 8. (n.d.). California Courts. https://www.courts.ca.gov/6465.htm [64] https://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/NR29-09.PDF. Ironically, the amendment is still in the California Constitution, it’s just not enforced. [65] I am indebted to several authors and resources for this article. The main source is Thompson, J. W. (2023). Christ and Culture in the New Testament. Wipf and Stock Publishers. This material provides a detailed exploration of the themes of citizenship throughout the New Testament. [66] All Scripture references are English Standard Version – ESV – unless otherwise noted. [67] Acts 20:28 [68] Isaiah 52:7; Nahum 1:15; Romans 10:15; Ephesians 6:15 [69] Densmore, James. “Christian Engagement with the World.” Keeping in Touch, 1 August 2024. Please contact the church office for a copy. [70] Matt. 22:15-22; Mark 12:13-17; Luke 20:19-26 [71] If he answered that it was lawful, then he would be demonstrating loyalty to the Romans, which would have put his life in danger from the crowds and Zealots. If he said that it is not lawful, then because of previous events related to the Roman imposition of taxes, it could have started a rebellion from the Jews against the Romans, for which the Romans would punish Jesus for inciting. Jesus’ answer amazes them, and they don’t bring this up again! [72] Even though Jesus was not talking to his disciples, this event does demonstrate Jesus’ thoughts on living within a hostile culture. [73] Butterfield, R. C. (2014). The Secret Thoughts of an Unlikely Convert: An English Professor’s Journey into Christian Faith. [74] The first two to three hundred years of Christianity saw the Roman empire transformed by Christians, who had no say in their culture or their laws or their government, but who only lived out their faith.

Jim Densmore

Executive Pastor/Elder