Insofar as Christian nationalism requires the state to use its power to privilege Christian faith and practice over other religions, it is technically illegal under current American law. Insofar as traditional Presbyterian/Westminsterian political theology requires the magistrate to use his power to promote Christian faith/piety and suppress false worship, it is technically contrary to current American jurisprudence. Anything a magistrate who is a traditional Presbyterian tried to do to act on the teaching WCF 23, including the duty of the magistrate to “maintain piety” and execute his office so that “the truth of God be kept pure and entire; that all blasphemies and heresies be suppressed…” would immediately be struck down by the courts as a violation of the contemporary understanding of the first and fourteenth amendments.

From one perspective, Christian nationalists want to restore America to her original factory settings, a time when Christian faith held a position of privilege, protection, and influence. But modern America has, for all practical purposes, declared classic America illegal. That’s our dilemma. Christian nationalists in America want to rebuild a version of America that is impossible under the current constitutional structure because, as Christopher Caldwell has argued, our constitution’s meaning and use have been radically overhauled over the last 250 years.

Older America had no problem saying “no” to Muslim mosques and Hindu temples. Immigration law selected for those coming from nations had been part of Christendom. Modern America says the state must be religiously neutral and treat all religions exactly the same at every level of government. If church bells are allowed to be rung, the Muslim adhan must be allowed as well. If Christians can build sanctuaries, Hindus can build temples and statues. Never-mind the fact that Christian faith built this country and has been woven into our national DNA from the start; Islam, Hinduism, and other religions, no matter how incompatible they may be with historic Western civilization or how contrary to the America’s historic culture and constitutional system, must be given equal footing in the public square. America must be religiously agnostic. Public and political life must be secular. Of course the problem with this is that secular humanism is actually every bit as religious as Christian faith. It is actually not neutral at all, and it is (ironically) actually more hostile to Christian faith than other religions.

Older America held to largely (albeit not perfectly) biblical and Christian views of what a man is, what a woman is, what a family is, what a marriage is, what a baby in the womb is, etc. Modern America, in the name of neutrality, takes no religious position on these things, but then defaults to a kind of progressivism disguised as neutrality. Older America had laws restricting blasphemy against Jesus and the Triune God, Sabbath laws protecting Christian worship, and anti-sodomy laws. Modern America has new blasphemy laws that protect criticizing sexual perverts in the name of “hate speech,” and has rejected other forms of legislation based on Christian premises. Older America had a carefully constructed immigration policy, designed to protect America’s heritage, culture and economy. Modern America is globalist and multiculturalist; it thinks any expectation of immigrants to assimilate is racist, borders are racist, stopping welfare fraud to illegal immigrants is racist, and criticisms of third world peoples and ideologies are racist.

Classic America would not recognize modern America. America is trapped in a web of its own making. There is no way to fix what ails America without violating the new norms and standards. There is no way to save what’s left of classic America without breaking modern America. The sooner we recognize this, the better. Look at it this way: The modern American view of religious liberty would make it illegal for Boniface to cut down Thor’s sacred oak.

Modern American law has essentially outlawed public expressions of Christian faith. It has outlawed Christendom for all practical purposes. Sure, a privatized form of Christian faith can still get along; you can whatever ideas you want in your head and you are entitled to believe in your heart whatever you want. But all religions are totalizing in one way or another. They make claims on public life, not just private belief. Most religions have a vision for the wider community. But the kind of Christian faith that impacts and shapes the public square, the kind of Christian faith that would be informally or softly established, as we had in early American history, is now outlawed.

We desperately need Christian magistrates at the municipal, county, and state levels who will openly privilege Christian faith and suppress false religions, whether Islamic, Hindu, secular, or whatever. Such magistrates will have a hard time getting elected. They might have to fight all kinds of challenges to stay out of court and in office. But there really isn’t any other way forward in the political sphere. Christendom was not built by the sword, but neither can it be established or maintained without the sword. The sword of political power must be discipled just like the rest the culture. God ordained the sword of the magistrate to protect the righteous and terrorize the wicked; it must be wielded accordingly. Various levels of government should simply say “no” to Muslim immigration, “no” to sharia within their borders, “no” to the building of mosques and other places of demon worship, and so on. Further, we must rise up and say “no” to murdering babies in the womb, “no” to sodomy, “no” to drag queen story hour, “no” to no-fault divorce. We must dismantle godless, secular educational systems that use tax dollars to subvert Christian faith. We must destroy welfare systems that waste billions, subsidize immorality and laziness, and draw in third-world scammers who have no interest in fitting into the historic American way of life.

The public schools are a good test case in how America has changed. It is well known that in the early days of American history, the schools were deeply Protestant in character. They were “our” schools, reflective of the faith and morality of the people. Beginning in the 1830s and accelerating in the 1870s, the American common schools became government schools. Dabney and the Hodges famously warned what would happen: prayer, Bibles, and catechisms would be driven from the schools; he who believes the most (Christians) would have to give way to he who believes the least (atheists) in order to keep the schools neutral; the secularized schools would become the greatest engines of atheism and nihilism the world have ever seen. All those predictions eventually came true. It took a while. For example, in the 1950s, Dallas city schools were still offering high school classes for credit in the Old Testament and New Testament that taught orthodox Christian faith. Students would memorize verses on the deity of Christ. Today, those same schools have students draw pictures of genitalia and are taught gender ideology — but in the name of neutrality, of course.

Is there any way to re-Christianize the content of government education in America today? No, not easily. Not without breaking the system as it currently exists. This is why Christians are turning to Christian schools and homeschooling, even though they are time and money intensive, on top of property taxes paid for an educational system they do not use because it is totally contrary to their own worldview. But while we still have educational options available to us (and far more Christians should take them), we do not have the option to do that with our government. We can have many types of schools (at least for now); we cannot have many different types of government. We all live under the same government. And as of now, that government is deeply secular and idolatrous. To reverse secularization and re-Christianize our public square is no easy task, and most Christians simply aren’t up to the task, even if they would like to see it happen. Christians are a conquered people in their own land; a nation built by Christians has now driven Christian faith out of the public square for the most part.

Zoning laws are another example of this kind of problem. Where I live in Hoover, AL, a Muslim school/study center was kept out of the town, but the arguments used against were indirect, e.g., traffic impact. According to current Alabama religious freedom law (ARFA), a church or Christian school would have to be shown the exact same treatment in the same circumstances. Despite the unique role the Christian church played in the rise and formation of America, Christians cannot be shown any unique treatment. All religions — even in Alabama! even in the Bible Belt! — must be treated exactly the same. As far as the state is concerned, it’s not just that Baptists cannot be favored over Presbyterians or vice versa; it’s that Christians cannot be favored over Muslims or Hindus. The “no favored religion” principle makes the state officially atheistic or agnostic; it participates in the lie that all religions really worship the same God and Jesus is no different from Allah. But if the state is atheistic or agnostic, how can the state have any kind of moral basis for its laws? In a world with no God, there can be no right or wrong. In a world where God is unknowable, right and wrong are unknowable. American government now lives in this world of atheism/agnosticism. It is schizophrenic for a state to want the fruits of Christian civilization without acknowledging the kind of tree that produces those fruits. Do we think that Islamic and Christian civilization are equal? That Sharia is just as good as the Western, Christianized common law tradition that gave us due process, innocent until proven guilty, and trial by jury? If we do not think Sharia is equal to the law codes of the Christian West, we have to say so openly and legislate accordingly. We cannot treat churches and mosques as interchangeable religious entities and then wonder why our civilization is looking more and more like the third world. The West needs its defenders; Christendom needs its knights; classic, Christian America needs its godly and courageous patriots. Western civilization was not built on a doctrine of religious pluralism; it was built explicitly on the Christian faith. And Western civilization will collapse under the weight of religious pluralism; we need champions of public Christianity to step forward and speak up. If this brings us into conflict with current American religious liberty jurisprudence, so be it. We cannot run and hide from this battle forever. It’s coming for us; it would be better for us to ride out and meet it.

The culture war in the West is really a religious war. Abraham fought a battle against four armies to rescue Lot. “The Hobbit” ends with a battle of five armies. Christians in the West must fight on multiple fronts at once, against progressivism/LGBTQism, Islam, Hinduism, and other idolatrous faiths. If we are not willing to fight, we have implicitly engaged in a slow motion surrender. But at some point that slow motion surrender will accelerate into full scale defeat and we will realize we waited too long to do what needs to be done. We will have completely lost our country.

I’d encourage Christians in the public square to make explicitly Christian arguments that privilege uniquely Christian policy positions. Christ is King. The church is his body and bride, not just another nameless religion community. We should obey the Bible, Christ’s law book, in all of life. We should seek to reform or, better, dismantle secularized government schools. We should argue for zoning laws that do not treat mosques and churches as if they were the same thing. We should call abortion murder and sodomy an abomination because this is what the Bible says they are. We should insist on the magistrate’s role, under God, to seek the good of his own people, because preserving their way of life, insofar as it is compatible with Christian living, is worthy of preservation. We should seek punishments for crimes much more closely aligned with the penal code of Torah and the historic West. Many forms of sexual perversion should be criminalized because they are an assault on God’s sacred design for marriage. Divorce laws and family court need to be reformed to more closely match God’s standards and to recognize the sexual architecture God has built into the family. We need to ramp up the war on psychedelic drugs because they are a form of witchcraft/sorcery. And so on. We have to stop hiding behind a doctrine of religious liberty as currently framed; we have to reject and attack the notion of religious pluralism; we have to have to aim at recovering the Christian norms that normed American life, with varying degrees of consistency, for much of our history. Only this can save America; only this can make America great once again.

In line with the historic Christian faith, I am totally in favor of persuasion and opposed to coercion in matters of religious belief. The church should be evangelizing the lost (including the demon-worshipping idolaters who have been flocking to America in recent times) and Christian citizens should seek to persuade voters of principled Christian policy positions (where we have had some success in recent history). But political power always serves some religious end. There is always a G/god of the state and political power is always bent to serve the will of that deity. Unlike, say, a market economy in which there can be multiple winners and the pie of economic prosperity can grow, political power is a zero sum game. There will be winners and losers. Some will wield power while others live under that power. Christians should be a people who want their religion to win. And the only way to rescue America from becoming an Islamic/progressive hell-hole is for Christians to win. The point is not just to fight the political war or the culture war; the point is to win. Jesus is Lord; Christians should act like it, even in the public square. Jesus is Lord; Christians in political office should act like it in the way they wield power. The old constitutional system is largely dead; but Jesus lives and reigns.

The issue here is not the use of state force to compel belief. The Westminsterian tradition does not give the Christian magistrate the right or power to force or coerce belief. On that point the Westminsterian system and the American system are in alignment. But the American system, at least as it functions today, seeks to keep all religions siloed in a private box. The public square is to be kept free of religion, and intrusions of religion into public life (especially the Christian religion) cause immediate scandal in many parts of the country. “That violates the separation of church and state!” No, that’s true. We are saying the state should evangelize and we are not saying the church should wield the sword. Church and state are distinct institution, each with their own officers, functions, etc. Christian nationalists have no problem keeping church and state separated, with each institution in its own lane. The problem is not the separation of church and state; the problem is the separation of Christ and state, of God and state, of the Bible and state. The church should not rule the state — but Christ does rule the state. His Word is over the state. He is King of kings, Ruler of rulers, Judge of judges. Does the state as the state have any duty to acknowledge Christ as king? Historic Presbyterianism says yes, modern American jurisprudence says no. That’s the dilemma. Samuel Adams made it clear that when the colonists threw off the tyranny of King George, it was precisely so they could live freely under the gracious reign of King Jesus. That was the American project. But modern America has thrown off the reign of King Jesus the same way the colonists threw off the reign of King George. Classic America rebelled against tyranny in the name of Jesus; modern America rebels against Jesus and ends up in tyranny.

While the state cannot compel or coerce religious belief, the state certainly governs certain public actions. The laws and customs enforced and encouraged by the civil magistrate shape the people. Civil law has a pedagogical function in teaching people right from wrong. The civil magistrate’s words and example matter because they exert influence. The state ought to acknowledge Christ as king. The state should confess trust in God at an institutional level. The state should acknowledge the church as the body of Christ and the Bible as his Word. And so it is perfectly appropriate for the state to outlaw abortion and sodomy; to restrain blasphemy and obscenity; to conform marriage and divorce laws to biblical teaching; to implement biblical principles of justice (such as due process) and economics (such as private property). For Christian citizens to seek to influence the state to do these things, or for a Christian civil magistrate to seek to implement these things is not “setting up a theocracy.” The world is already a theocracy – or a Christocracy, to be more exact. It’s simply a matter of acknowledging that the gospel is public truth.

If Christians in America are to be faithful, they will have to challenge certain aspects of the contemporary American system. We have to be against America precisely because we are for America. We might be considered bad American citizens by some, but this is only because we want our citizenship in heaven to control the way we fulfill our obligations as citizens of America. We want to use civil power to encourage and privilege the true religion and the way of life that comes with it. How could we do otherwise? Isn’t this inherent in what it means to disciple a nation?

The notion of “exercising political power Christianly” might ruffle some feathers – including many American Christians who are, frankly, more American than Christian and have accommodated themselves to the dominance of secularism. But there is nothing godly about eschewing political power or influence. Throughout Scripture, we see godly people pursuing and exercising political power, using political means to accomplish godly ends. Christians in America today should continue that pattern.

It’s interesting that many who object to Christian political power do not object to Islamic political power. The same progressives who accuse Christians of seeking to set up a “theocracy” when Christians seek to outlaw and criminalize abortion or overturn Obergefell have no objection to and raise no alarms over what’s happening in Dearborn, Michigan. Everyone else is allowed to advocate for the worldview in the public square, but Christians are supposed to either check their religion at the door to the public square or just stay out of public life altogether.

Christians must reject and expose the myth of neutrality. Christians must seek a privileged place for Christian faith in America public life – as was the case for the first segment of our nation’s history. We must do this for the sake of the public good, not just for our own sake. The only way to preserve what has made America great – high social trust, the rule of law, freedom from state control, a virtuous and educated citizenry – is by promoting Christ as the King of America. These kinds of fruits only grow on one kind of tree – the Christian tree.

The classic American way of life has been almost entirely liquidated at this point. Christians have put up little resistance for much of the last 100+ years as our historic inheritance of Christendom has been systematically attacked, subverted, and destroyed. A perverted doctrine of religious liberty has been weaponized against the very religion that created the nation; an amendment (1A) designed to protect the exercise of Christian faith has been reworked in such a way that the proper exercise of Christian faith in public life is well-nigh impossible and illegal. We have betrayed our ancestors, and failed to preserve what they passed on to us. Like the prodigal son, we have wasted our inheritance. It’s time to return to our senses; it’s time to return to our Heavenly Father. We can only make America great again if we make America Christian again, and we can only make America Christian again if we make Christianity legal again.

Subscribe now

Share

On August 1, 2026, TPC hosted a mini-conference for men on work. All the talks and panel discussions were excellent. Here is the audio and a transcription of my talk below.

This has been a great conference. Thank you, Malcolm, for getting this together. It’s been really helpful. Thanks to our other speakers. The panels have been excellent. Thank you for hosting, Caleb.

I want to start with a question: Say you were given $750,000 — what would you do with it? (You would give it to the “Building on the Promises” campaign, right?!)

There is a man in the Bible who is condemned as a wicked and worthless man. He didn’t commit adultery or murder or idolatry. He was given $750,000 and he didn’t waste it on prostitutes or gambling or drugs. He wasn’t a prodigal son.

And yet he is called wicked by Jesus.

What did he do? Absolutely nothing. And that’s the problem.

I’m talking, of course, about one of the servants in the parable of the talents in Matthew 25:14-30. In this parable, the master gives each of his servants a sum of money before he goes away on a journey. He gave one servant five talents, one servant two talents, and another servant one talent.

What’s a talent? A talent in this context is a huge sum of money. It’s really a fortune—about twenty years’ worth of wages for a common laborer. So I have pegged it at $750,000 in today’s money.

What happens in the parable? The man who was given five talents goes out and makes five more. The man who was given two talents goes out and makes two more. These men took what they had been given and they multiplied it.

But the third servant took his talent and buried it in the ground.

When the master returns to settle accounts and evaluate the work of each of his servants, the first two servants hear those words that every man should want to hear at the end of his life: “Well done, good and faithful servant. Enter into the joy of your master.”

But with the last servant it’s different. The last servant says to the master, “Master, I knew you were a hard man; I was afraid, so I hid your talent in the ground. Here is what is yours.” And that’s when the master says, “You wicked and slothful servant, you ought to have at least invested my money with the bankers so that at my coming I would have received what is my own with interest.” Then he takes that third servant’s talent and gives it to the first servant, and that third servant is cast into outer darkness.

The first two servants were productive. They took what they were given and they multiplied it. They extended their dominion, and they were rewarded accordingly.

The third servant was sterile. He produced nothing, he multiplied nothing, he increased nothing. He committed the sin of playing it safe.

I think that third servant represents a lot of modern Christian men who have been emasculated—who are too timid, too risk-averse, too lacking in ambition, too slothful to do anything meaningful for God. He is condemned not for what he did, but for what he didn’t do. He was so afraid of failure that he failed to do anything. He was so afraid of failure that he failed to try, and therefore he was a failure. By fearing failure, he failed. By burying his talent, he really buried his life.

We all probably have a pretty good idea of what this parable is about. It’s pretty easy to understand how the analogy Jesus is using here works. So apply this to your own life.

God has entrusted each of us with varying degrees of talents. And of course this isn’t just money. The talent really stands for everything God has given to you—your time, your innate abilities, your mind and your body, your relationships, your network, your influence, even things like the family where you came from and the country where you live and the kind of economic system of which you are a part. Your talent includes all who have poured into to you to shape you in positive ways, under God’s providence.

God expects you to take what He has given you and use it for good—to do something useful, something that fulfills the creation mandate, and thus furthers God’s kingdom. In a word, the parable is about how we go about taking dominion. That’s what the parable of the talents is really about — it’s about dominion. And of course we’ve heard about dominion already today.

This concept of dominion traces back to Genesis 1, where God, in the beginning, commissions man to rule and subdue the earth and to have dominion over the creation. Dominion can be defined in a lot of different ways. I think if you are looking for the simplest definition, you could just say: Dominion is work. It’s the work that we do within and upon God’s creation. As we work on God’s creation, we take the raw materials he put within the creation and transform them into civilization. That’s a perfectly good definition.

Dominion can be understood as culture-making or culture-building or civilization-building. It’s bringing wise order to bear upon the creation. Men are especially given to this work of dominion, since we are the primary protectors and providers. Men are the innovators, the inventors, the explorers, the builders. Men are the infrastructure of civilization. Men build and maintain civilization. That’s our main role in the creation mandate.

But here’s another way to think about dominion—this may be a little bit outside of the box, and maybe you haven’t thought about it this way before. Dominion means making the world a better place. Dominion means that you take that corner of the world that God has given you, and over the course of your life, you make that corner of the world better than it was when you were given it. That part of God’s creation that He has entrusted to you is better when you leave this world than when you came into it. That’s what it means to take dominion.

The difference your life has made for good on the day you die, compared to how it was on the day you were born, is the measure of your dominion. In other words, dominion is really a lifetime project for the Christian man.

Dominion is your life-assignment and life-goal. It is a form of stewardship, directed to the growth of God’s kingdom in the most comprehensive sense. Dominion is as broad as creation itself. Dominion is the mark you make on the world.

Think about it this way: If you started a business and you built that business up and you provided goods and services to your customers and you created jobs for other people, that’s a form of dominion. It’s making the world a better place. If you started a ministry that blessed people and helped them in various ways, we would say that’s a form of dominion, and it certainly makes the world a better place. If you take something ugly like an old building and you fix it up so that now it’s beautiful, that’s a form of dominion. It’s a form of dominion because beauty makes the world a better place. So by taking what was ugly and making it beautiful, you have improved the culture, and improved the creation—you have exercised dominion.

Caleb is exercising dominion over this property. It’s going to be more ordered, more beautiful, more productive when he has done developing it.

The creation was made to be stewarded by man. The radical environmentalists will tell you that man interferes with and corrupts nature. That can happen. But when man exercises dominion faithfully and wisely, he makes creation better. Creation was designed for human stewardship and dominion. When God finished creating the world on day 6 of the creation week, the creation was flawless but unfinished. Man’s calling is to finish it, to take creation from degree of glory to another.

You can even apply this to relationships. I don’t think it works in quite the same way, because other people aren’t under our dominion in the same way that the lower creation is, but the same principle applies. Ask yourself this: Is my wife a better woman today than she was the day I met her? What kind of difference have I made in her life? Are your friends better for having known you? As you interact with your friends, and as you get to know them and they get to know you, and you have influence on one another, are you making them better? Are you making the world a better place through your friendships?

You can think of dominion as the measure of all the ways you transform the creation and the culture. The problem we have—the challenge before us—is taking the talents God has given us and multiplying them. And of course that’s what the third servant failed to do. He failed to carry out his assigned task in life. He lived a dominion-less life. He made no mark, he built nothing, he left no legacy.

What’s going on with the third servant? My guess is that he disguised his sloth as virtue. Thus, a lack of ambition gets redescribed as humility. Risk-aversion gets baptized as discernment or wisdom. Cowardice gets renamed contentment. Timidity is recast as being reasonable or responsible. I think that’s what the third servant in the parable did, because I think that’s what a lot of men do today, inside the church and outside the church. But it’s acceptable. Jesus calls this wickedness.

The master in the parable says that this third servant is slothful. Sloth is the sin of the sluggard in the book of Proverbs. The sluggard is lazy—and he’s not just physically lazy; that’s certainly part of it, but he is morally and spiritually lazy as well. His whole life is characterized by sloth.

This third servant in the parable makes excuses. He understood neither the master nor the mission. And those two things go together. How you understand the master will determine how you understand the mission. He misunderstands the master; therefore he misunderstands the mission.

To this servant the master is a hard man, and that’s part of his excuse-making. He says to the master, “You are a hard man — that’s why I buried my talent.” The master is not viewed as good, gracious, or glorious; he is viewed as hard, tyrannical, and difficult. One thing you have to understand is that the way you view the Master—let’s just say the way you view God/Jesus because that’s who the master represents in the parable—is going to determine how you understand your mission in life and how you go about fulfilling that mission in life.

To put it another way, the gospel has to shape how we pursue employing our talents. The foundation of your work is the work Jesus has done for you. The foundation of your work for God is God’s work for you. What Jesus has done for you—His work on your behalf—forms the basis on which you do work for Him. That’s how we should understand this. We don’t work for acceptance with God; we work from acceptance with God. Everything is grace. We are surrounded and enveloped by grace.

Think about this in terms of the sixteenth-century Reformation with Martin Luther and the other great Reformers. What happened after Martin Luther and the other Reformers rediscovered the doctrine of justification by faith alone through grace alone in Christ alone? What did that lead to? What did that produce?

The medieval Roman Catholics who opposed Luther and the Reformation thought that this doctrine—telling men they don’t have to earn their salvation by doing good works—would make men lazy. Tell people they don’t have to earn their salvation by doing good works and they won’t do good works at all. Tell them they’re saved entirely by God’s grace and they’re going to become listless. That was the claim, the accusation.

But what actually happened when this doctrine of grace was rediscovered? It unleashed the greatest civilization-building force in world history. That’s really what the Reformation was—a world-changing, culture-transforming force. Here’s a simple way to think about it: first-world nations are mostly nations shaped by the Reformation. The most prosperous nations in the world are the nations most influenced and most shaped by the Protestant Reformation. The nations that have been the hardest working and the most innovative are nations that deeply rooted in the Protestant Reformation. Those are the first-world nations.

By contrast, pagan nations are third-world nations. And why are they third-world nations? Why do pagan nations bury their talents? It’s not that they don’t have resources; it’s that they don’t use those resources. They bury their talents. Why? Because pagan masters, pagan idols, really are hard masters. Pagans serve tyrannical gods. They misunderstand the master, so they misunderstand the mission, and nothing really happens. They bury their talents.

With the Reformation, it’s entirely different. The master is seen as good and gracious and glorious. He freely gives us talents. And so what do we do with them? Knowing we have this gracious master fills our sails with wind. And so Protestants went out and created the greatest civilization the world has ever known. The scientific revolution, the industrial revolution, the birth of America, the explosion in education and literacy and prosperity—all of these trace back to the Protestant Reformation and the Protestant work ethic, a work ethic grounded in justification by the work of Christ. That’s where that work ethic comes from. When you know your master is gracious, you work differently and you work with joy.

I love the way the book of Ecclesiastes describes this in Ecclesiastes 9:7: “Go, eat your bread with joy, and drink your wine with a merry heart, for God has already approved of your works.” Go do these things because God has already accepted you and has already accepted your works. God approves of your works in Christ because of Christ’s work for you. That’s really what’s bound up in that passage.

Because the third servant misunderstood the master, he misunderstood the mission. And this really brings me to the most important thing that I will say in this talk this morning: The mission is not “Do not fail.” You won’t find a single command in the Bible to not fail. You’ll find commands to not fear, but you won’t find a command to not fail. And this is because the reality is that learning anything and doing anything is going to involve failure. And fear of failure, perhaps more than any other fear, holds men back—because when you fear failure, you won’t even try.

Has anyone ever learned how to ride a bike without failure, without falling? I doubt it. Has anyone learned how to hit a baseball without failure, without a lot of swings and misses? The reality in baseball is that even after you learn how to hit a baseball, and even if you do it really well, you’re still going to have a lot of swings and misses. That’s just how it is. Failure is built into the game. Everyone knows the story of Thomas Edison—he failed countless times before finally inventing the light bulb. He figured out what would work by trial and error.

Failure can be forgiven. Failing to try will not be. And that’s really the sin of the third servant in the parable. I would put it this way: you are free to try things and fail because you are free from condemnation in Christ Jesus. Because you have been set free from condemnation, you are free to fail.

Now, don’t take me the wrong way. I don’t mean for anyone to go out and be reckless. Not all risks are worth taking. What I mean is this: Even in the face of an uncertain (short-term) future, even in the face of the possibility of failure, we should be confident, we should be courageous, we should be ambitious. We should certainly not be too risk-averse, as so many men are today.

Or to put it another way: Don’t cling to safety; cling to Christ. Safety isn’t your hope; Christ is your hope. You don’t have to play it safe all the time. The old saying is true: Boats are safest in the harbor, but they weren’t made for the harbor. They were made for the open sea.

You have been entrusted with talents. Jesus expects you to take your talents and do something with them—something useful, something fruitful, something wise, something that makes the creation and the culture better. Leave the world better than it was when you entered it. Make your mark on the creation.

You have agency. Right now there is a propaganda war being waged on agency — there are powerful people who want you to think of yourself as powerless. But this simply isn’t true. As a Christian man, you have to understand that life doesn’t just happen to you. You are called to make things happen in your life. Life doesn’t just happen to you. You’re not just along for the ride, just being carried along by the current, drifting, going with the flow wherever it takes you. No, you have agency over your life. What you do really does matter.

We often talk about how God’s in control and we’re not—that’s absolutely true—but it’s also true that God has entrusted us with a certain degree of agency. There are certain things in your life that, under God, are under your control, that you can actually do something about. Not everything in life is a “controllable” but many things are. Control the controllables and leave the rest to God. Do what God has given you to do and let God decide where the chips will fall. But never approach life passively. You really do have agency. You are called to make things happen in your life. Your life is the product of your choices, and you are responsible for those choices.

You really aren’t a man until you get to that point in life where you can take full responsibility for yourself and say, “This is my life. It’s the product of my choices, and I own it.” That’s the mark of manhood. You are living the life you chose. Think about that. You are living the life you chose. Even if there are a lot of things about your life that you don’t like, you’re still living the life you chose. You might say, “Well, what about my circumstances? I didn’t choose those circumstances.” Well, it’s true—you didn’t get to choose all your circumstances. But you did choose how to respond to those circumstances. And your choices in response to those circumstances have produced this outcome — the life you are living right now. If you don’t like it, that’s on you to do something about it.

We probably all know Teddy Roosevelt’s famous “Man in the Arena” speech. It’s one of my favorites. It’s so good. I’m not going to read it to you here, but I’ll give you the gist of it. You are to be the man in the arena—the man who has entered the fight, who has skin in the game. As Roosevelt describes it, the man in the arena stumbles; his face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; he strives valiantly; he errs; he comes up short again and again. If he falls, he falls while daring greatly. And so Roosevelt says, the man in the arena is not like those cold, timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat.

As always, Proverbs gives us wisdom about all of this. Proverbs 24:16 says, “The righteous man falls seven times and rises again, but the wicked stumble in times of calamity.” Suppose you say, “Okay, well, I tried something, and I failed. I tried to do something, and I got knocked down.” What would Proverbs say to you? What does the righteous man do when he gets knocked down? You get back up. You fall off your horse, you get back on it. You do it seven times if you have to. Failure is neither final nor fatal for the Christian. You are free to attempt great things for God because you serve a gracious master. And that’s your hope. You’re not putting your hope in your own work, but in Jesus’ work on your behalf. That’s the foundation of everything. And building on that foundation, you’re free to fail.

I grew up in Chicago during the Michael Jordan era. Jordan is remembered for making a lot of clutch game-winning shots, and no doubt he did. But the reality is he missed more of those potential game-winning shots than he made. People forget that part of it — how many times Jordan failed. Of course, the great shooters forget about their misses too. They want the ball in crunch time. They are confident they will make the next shot even if they missed the last one — or the last seven. They get knocked down; they get back up. That resilient mentality is what we need.

And by the way, what I’m saying here isn’t just true for you as an individual. This is also true for institutions and even for nations. They have to take this same kind of posture. Institutions have been entrusted with talents—what do they do with them? Nations have been entrusted with talents. What are they doing corporately, collectively with those talents?

A local church has to steward the talents, such as financial resources and Spiritual gifts, found in the congregation. Pastors and elders should seek to cultivate and multiply those gifts. A lot of talents in the church can be wasted by leadership that fails to recognize them or encourage their use.

The most successful businesses find talented people and then find ways to maximize their growth and effectiveness. A good manager gets the most out of the talents by those under his oversight.

Think about this in terms of our own nation. We just celebrated America’s two-hundred-and-fiftieth anniversary. It’s easy to look back at the American Revolution and think, “Yeah, we fought the British and we won. We’re America, so of course we were going to win, right?” Well, the reality is that it just wasn’t that way at the time. America was a tiny, fragile band of colonies taking on the world’s greatest superpower. American farmers were going against professional soldiers and trained mercenaries. America was a huge underdog. To think American victory in the War for Independence was a lock overlooks what our founding fathers actually did when they pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor to this cause of independence and of forming a new nation under God. It overlooks how daring, how bold, how ambitious the whole thing was. It overlooks the incredibly long odds, the very real risk of failure (which for them would have meant death). It overlooks the number of times the cause of independence was hanging by a thread—and there were many times when it really did hang by a thread. It overlooks the fact that George Washington lost more battles than he won.

Washington is a great case study in this kind of mentality. We hail George Washington as the hero of our nation, the founder and father of America. But George Washington lost more battles than he won. There were several times when many wanted to replace him as commander-in-chief. He was doubted, he was challenged, he was criticized. His best quality as a general was knowing how to retreat—because he often had to retreat to keep his ragtag army intact so he could live to fight another day. You might say that Washington won the war mainly by not losing it. And that’s really how it played out. He lost most of his battles, but he still won the war. And there’s a lesson in that: you don’t have to win most of the battles you face in order to win the war. Washington won because he didn’t give up. He took a handful of calculated risks that surprised his opponent because the risks were so crazy that no general in his right mind would have tried them. But Washington did, and he got just enough of them to work out to win the war. It’s an amazing thing when you really look at the history.

Or think about this from our own perspective at TPC. Why would a relatively small church with relatively limited resources start a school and build a sanctuary, and do both those things at the same time? That sounds kind of crazy, doesn’t it? Some might say we’ve bitten off more than we can handle. We’ve taken a big risk. But ask this question: Why are we doing this? It’s because we want to multiply our talents. Is this project—this “Building on the Promises” campaign—a lot of work? Yes. Does it please the master? Yes. Will it extend our dominion? Yes. Yes to all of those things.

Consider where God has you in life—the opportunities God has set before you. Your talents really include those providential opportunities that God puts in your path. The problem with opportunities is that they show up disguised as work. Every opportunity to do something is going to require more work. You get into grad school–that’s more work. You grow your business—that’s more work. You get a promotion–that’s more work. You grow your church—that’s more work. You grow your family—that’s more work. But that work is good. We have to wisely seize the opportunities God places before us. But remember that opportunity always shows up disguised as work.

People used to know this. When they called America “the land of opportunity,” they didn’t mean we were the land of welfare and free stuff for anybody that can get across the border. No. What they meant when they called America “the land of opportunity” is that America is the land of work. This is a place where you could come and you could work hard and you could build something and then have something to show for your life when it comes to an end. America as the land of opportunity meant America was the kind of place where hard work could pay off. We need to keep it that way. But, of course, keeping it that way requires — you guessed it! — more work.

Doug Wilson has said “The reward for a job well done is usually more work.” So that being the case, don’t pray for a lighter load; pray for a stronger back. Wilson says, “Baskets of fruit are heavy.” That’s true. The fruit is good—that’s what you want—but baskets of fruit are heavy. Nothing is doing is easy. Nothing worth doing happens without risk and ambition. But remember that providence favors the bold.

One last thought here as I wrap this up. I’m sure you all know the story from Matthew 14 about Peter—the famous story where Peter walks on water. Usually when you hear this story talked about, what people will focus on, what pastors like myself will tend to focus on, is Peter’s failure. “Oh, see, Peter took his eyes off Jesus and started to sink. Peter failed, so don’t do that.” That’s usually how we look at this story — the point of the story is “Don’t be like Peter.” But I want to give you a different focus here; I’m going to turn that around. I want to show you why you should be exactly like Peter.

What happens in the story of Matthew 14? The disciples are in a boat. Jesus sends them off in a boat to cross the sea while He goes off to pray. During the night, as they are crossing the sea, a storm arises. But in the midst of the storm and darkness, Jesus comes to them walking on water. At first they think this might be a ghost; they’re terrified. But Jesus speaks to them and says, “Take heart; it is I. Do not be afraid.” Peter says, “Lord, if it is you, command me to come to you on the water.” And next thing you know, Peter is walking on water toward Jesus. How amazing is that? Peter is walking on the waves toward Jesus.

But then what happened? Peter saw the wind, he saw the storm, and he was afraid. He began to sink. And so he cries out, “Lord, save me!” And then Jesus came and took hold of him and rescued him. If we just say, “Well, Peter should have kept his eyes on Jesus despite the storm,” that’s true enough, but it misses the larger point.

Consider this: who failed that night? Who was the failure? It’s Peter, right? He’s the only one who failed. The other eleven disciples didn’t fail. Not a single one of the other eleven disciples ever started to sink. But why didn’t they fail? They didn’t fail because they didn’t even try. They were too afraid to even get out of the boat. Sure, they didn’t sink — but that’s only because they never left the boat. We should be a lot harder on the 11 disciples who didn’t sink than the one who did.

Peter is like the man in “Man in the Arena” speech—the man who fails, who falls, but he falls while daring greatly, while seeking to achieve something great. Peter failed that night for sure. But Peter is also the only human besides Jesus to ever walk on water. Think about that.

You can stay in the boat if you want, like the eleven disciples. It’s certainly safer there. You can make excuses and you can say you’re just exercising discernment or just being reasonable. You can play it safe. You can live a safe life, free of risk, free of failure. But if you do, you will have buried your talents, and you will certainly never walk on water.

So here’s my final charge to you: Put your hand to the plow. Get to work. And do something with what God has given you.

Amen.

Subscribe now

Share

Where do we go from here?

Depending on one’s perspective, the American story can plausibly be interpreted in different ways. Looked at from past to present, we can see a great deal of continuity from medieval Christendom and the Reformation to America’s founding. The War for Independence, after all, was largely led by the “black robed regiment” of the colonial clergy. Arguments for secession from the British Empire were drawn from Calvin and other Reformational thinkers. The Constitution lacks explicit reference to Christ’s lordship, but is nonetheless founded upon biblical presuppositions and infused with biblical principles. The church had a strong presence in American culture at times, even if the founders chose to reject the establishment of a national church. In earlier days, foreign visitors always commented on the religiosity and piety of Americans. The biblical worldview and work ethic have undoubtedly played an unparalleled role in America’s rise to the top of world prosperity and productivity.

But looked at from the perspective of present to past, a different view emerges. After all, how did we end up as one of the most corrupt, materialistic, and secular nations in history? How did we become a nation which defends the right to murder pre-born children at the rate of one million babies per year? Why do we find our politicians – even ostensibly conservative and Christian politicians – bending over backwards to please homosexuals and others who practice dehumanizing lifestyles? Why does every other American marriage crash upon the rocks of divorce? Why does our culture produce pop trash rather than works that exude truth, beauty, and goodness? Clearly, there was a fly in the ointment from the beginning. We have traced out the problems inherent in the American experiment in some fashion already. The revivals distorted Christianity in this nation almost from the beginning. The Enlightenment injected rationalism and individualism into our national bloodstream as well. Overall, the loss of the presence of a faithful ekklesia is really the core of America’s problems.

Of course, if the loss of a faithful institutional church has been the problem in America, then we should be able to find our way back. Whether or not American Christians can pull it off remains to be seen – there are a few signs of hope, but for the most part we seem to continue to stumble along in the darkness – but the road we need to take is quite clearly marked out.

Reformation Begins With the Household of God

All of this should make clear that no political solution to our problem is possible. Of course, our nation must be discipled, and this includes politics. The lordship of Christ is comprehensive and the gospel is a thoroughly christocratic message. So focusing on the church does not mean retreating into some kind of “evangelical ghetto.” We are not abandon politics, but we do need to put politics in a proper, biblical perspective. Doug Wilson and David Chilton have the right perspective on our present situation:

This is where true reform begins: in the household of God, especially in her worshipping assemblies. The local church, even with all her problems, is the centerpiece of the kingdom of God. She is the nursery of Christian civilization. If American culture is going to be re-Christianized, we must begin there. Ecclesiastical reformation is the key to cultural transformation. Without the presence of a strong institutional church, all the political reform in the world will accomplish next to nothing.

The Counter-Cultural Church

This also means we have to rethink our strategy in another respect. With the rise of the so-called “culture wars,” American evangelicals have tended to take an “us-versus-them” approach to culture. We think of the liberals as enemies, and treat them accordingly. They stole America from us and we want to steal her back.

It’s disappointing that as Christians have found themselves increasingly marginalized that their response has not been along the lines of the pre-Constantinian church, which also faced marginalization. Our ignorance of history cripples us. We have not postured ourselves as a counter-culture, an alternative nation within America, with our own story, rites, symbols, holidays, and form of life. Instead, we have tried to play the game of power politics. We have tried to regain influence in a worldly way. Instead of suffering and serving our way to victory, as the early church did, we’ve tried to lobby and vote our way to victory.

A wonderful opportunity for ministry and evangelism is slipping though our fingers. We’ve been content to languish along with the rest of the culture. The American church is facing something of an identity crisis. While we know that individually Christians are called to engage the world, rather than retreat, we do not understand the social or cultural functions of the church as an institution. We simply drift wherever the prevailing winds (whether they be Democratic winds or Republican winds) take us. We’ve lost our sense of direction, and therefore our sense of mission.

Thus, the “culture wars” approach is no longer helpful, if it ever was. As Peter Leithart has suggested, we must learn to fight the battle behind the cultural battle. It is crucial that we recover the biblical doctrine and practice of holy war. New Covenant holy war uses the tactical weapons of preaching, sacramental worship, prayer, service, and church discipline to reshape society. These are more powerful tools than anything in the arsenal of American politics. Voting, lobbying, and boycotting are impotent in comparison to the power Jesus Christ shares with his church.

But more to the point, we must learn to see America not as a battle field, but as a mission field. We must learn to die for the life of the world. We must learn to practice what has been called cruciformity – that is, Christ-shaped, sacrificial living. Such a pattern of life does not lend itself to competing in the games politicians play.

Instead of focusing on political reform, we must concentrate our energies on rehabilitating the wounded and weakened body of Christ. The need of the hour is for the church to be the church! In other words, the first item on the church’s agenda must be the church. This is not because church and state are “separate,” though in an institutional sense, that is true. Nor is it simply because theological/ecclesial questions are more important than political questions. Rather, we must understand, as Leithart has pointed out, theological/ecclesial questions are more important to politics than political questions. As Richard John Neuhaus is fond of saying, the most important political task of the church is to be the church.

America is a threat, not so much because she is under the rule of secular humanists, but because she is a distraction from the real task at hand, from what should be our chief concern, namely, reforming the institutional ekklesia. The rehabilitating of local parish life is our most critical need. To survive the new dark ages that have fallen upon the West, the light of the world, the church (cf. Mt. 5:14), must learn to shine again. This will only happen through the formation of worshipful, virtuous, disciplined, and tightly knit communities of love, joy, and service. It will only happen as Christians stop huddling together with their backs to the world and learn to minister to our culture in Christ’s name. It will only happen as we learn to proclaim in a public way that Jesus Christ is not only Lord of lords and King of kings, but also President of presidents.

Singing Zion’s Songs in a Foreign Land

The American church has come to be viewed largely as a voluntary organization, a kind of religious club. Individuals are free to come and go as they please. No real commitment is expected and no real commitment is made. To speak of the church as a covenant community under the governance and oversight of elders who admit and expel people from the body; as a new nation knit together by common rites, stories, songs, and symbols; as a new family bound together by sacred ties of loyalty and love to King Jesus and to one another – all this is simply foreign to us. American Christians have proved to be far more American than Christian.

The church must recover a proper, biblical self-understanding. She must understand what happens – and what is supposed to happen – in a Lord’s Day covenant renewal gathering. She must learn what it means to practice vibrant, transforming discipleship, applying the Word of God to every facet of life and culture. She must learn what it means to exist as the “communion of the saints” – a community of kindness, forgiveness, prayerfulness, service, generosity, and love. She must learn what it means to do holistic evangelism involving both word and deed, and to join with her Savior in laying down her life for the sake of the world.

At the same time, we must recover a proper understanding of what it means to live in a Christian society. A Christian culture is one in which the three basic spheres of family, state, and church all work together on the common project of cultivating the kingdom of God on earth. And yet, it is also a society in which the family and state recognize the primacy of the church. The church, rather than the family or state, is understood to be God’s central agent in history. As Martin Luther said, if you want to know what God is up to in the world, just look at the church. Here, we might say, is the center of the action.

None of this is demeaning to family or state as God-given, God-ordained, God-blessed, and God-honoring institutions. Obviously, God uses the family for good. As the parents bring seek to nurture their children though teaching, discipline, and prayer, the world becomes a better place. The state too has been a force for good. Sometime rulers have led the way in pointing people to the true God (see, e.g., Jonah 3; Daniel 6; Constantine). Godly magistrates have played a vital role in shaping character, suppressing open wickedness, and maintaining peace and justice. But neither family nor state is self-sufficient. Both institutions feed off the means of grace that God has placed into the hands of the church. Thus the fidelity of the church is the key to a virtuous, just society. Societies are blessed and cursed primarily through the agency of the church.

Getting Our Story Straight

In a Christian civilization – a Christendom situation – the church is central because her story, rites, practices, and symbols shape the rest of society. Take the church’s story, as one example. “Story” has become a very important category in hermeneutics, philosophy, ethics, sociology, anthropology, and so forth. We naturally give our personal identities narrative shape. If someone asks, “Who are you?” we generally tell them our personal narrative, where we came from and where we’re going. The “Who are you question?” is really a way of asking, “What’s your story?” But what is true of personal identities is also true of corporate identities. A shared narrative – sometimes called a metanarrative – gives cohesion and stability to a group. The church is defined as the people who share in the story of Jesus, and in turn, the story of Israel. Paul in 1 Cor. 10 can tell a predominately Gentile church that the exodus narrative belongs to them. They’ve been grafted into the unfolding drama of Israel. Israel’s story is now their story.

But narratives do more than give identity. They also give rise to an ethic, a particular way of being in the world. So, in Romans 6 Paul tells the Roman Christians that in their baptism they were united to Christ. His story of death to sin and resurrection into new life is now their story as well and so they are to live accordingly. If they live in rebellion to God, they are being inconsistent with their deepest identity. The story made theirs in baptism requires that they live a certain way. And so in Romans 6, Paul has said, in essence, “Be who you are! Be true to your story! Follow the script!” If they don’t play the role assigned to them in baptism, their story will have a not so happy ending.

America once took her corporate story from the church. The Puritan settlers, as already mentioned, saw themselves as inheritors of the basic narrative of Christendom. Within medieval Christendom, that glorious ecclesiocentric era of the so-called “Middle Ages” and early Reformational period, the church’s story was the culture’s story. Western civilization as a whole took her cues, however imperfectly, from the biblical narrative. The story of Scripture, of redemptive history, of the kingdom of God, was fundamental. The first colonists came not simply to escape religious persecution or discover great wealth; they came to write the next chapter in the unfolding story of the kingdom of God on earth. They interpreted their mission in terms of the outworking of the gospel story. Their sense of identity and their way of life arose from this basic narrative. Their desire to build a godly social order founded on biblical principles, to evangelize the natives, and so forth, all only make sense in this light.

We’ve already traced out how the Christian story was exchanged for another the story – the story of the modern nation-state, the story of liberal democracy, the story of autonomous individualism – over the last few centuries. While the American drama has taken a turn for the worse, this is not necessarily a problem; Scripture, I think, leads us to expect the kingdom will ebb and flow in history. There are seasons of growth and fruitfulness, just as there are winters of barrenness and stagnation. The mustard seed grows into the greatest of all trees slowly, not in a single season. And even if America is apostate, along with the rest of the West, she can still be brought back to repentance in due time. America may have been lost, for the most part, but she can be regained once again someday. Christians need not panic as though the kingdom failed when America went secular.

What is problematic is that American Christians can’t seem to get their own story straight. They can’t seem to disentangle the America-as-modern-nation-state story from the church’s biblically formed story. This is why we have so much worldliness – or really, Americanness – in our churches. We take our cue from the surrounding culture rather than Scripture. Thus, from one angle, our most pressing need is to recover the centrality of the gospel itself – particularly as it is preached from pulpits, rehearsed in the liturgy, enacted in the sacraments, and embodied in various forms of ministry and service. In other words, the church, as a gospel formed community, must learn once again to be the body of Christ in and for the world.

Such an undertaking is our only hope of restoring and recreating Christendom, a culture in which church, state, and family all prosper in their respective places.

Subscribe now

Share

Civic Religion: American or Christian?

We have already traced out the basic contours of the shift in America from an ecclesiocentric, theocratic social order to a secular one. Building on Locke and Hobbes, the Enlightenment accomplished an astonishing coup of Christendom. That victory for the secularists was only possible because Christians were too busy fighting with each other to guard against the real enemies. But once the flag of secularism (you know, the one with stars and stripes!) was planted in the public square, it wasn’t going to be removed easily.

At this point, before moving on, we need to examine more closely ways in which the original vision of the colonists was already becoming undone when America won her independence from Britain. While most of our so-called founding fathers were good and godly men, several were at best semi-Christians, or Deists, and many of them were openly hostile to the church. An anti-ecclesiastical spirit was definitely in the air. If I may exaggerate for the sake of effect: they loved Christianity, but hated the church.

As already suggested, a great deal of this can be traced back to the British empiricist and political philosopher Locke. Locke’s philosophy was highly influential on several of our founding fathers and virtually required the privatization of religion. The new secular politics required a new, downgraded ecclesiology. His revamped view of the church was tailor made for liberal, individualistic democracies. Just as Hobbes political treatise included a hermeneutics, arguing the mantle of Israel was passed to the sovereign state rather than to the church, so Locke’s political philosophy ensured religion would be subordinated to politics. Rodney Clapp, building on Kenneth Craycraft’s analysis, explains:

But note well, Locke’s version of religious freedom does not allow bringing religious convictions into the public square since that would mean “imposing” them on society as a whole as though they had absolute authority.

Locke’s individualism should also be noted. Again, he said, “The Care . . . of each man’s Soul belongs unto himself, and is to be left unto himself.” Compare this with the wise words of Calvin: “[I]t certainly is the duty of a Christian man to ascend higher than merely to seek and secure the salvation of his own soul.” Calvin argued each man also has a stake in his neighbor’s salvation and well-being. Calvin believed we should always seek the common good, not just personal benefit. Locke, unfortunately, agreed with Cain, the first individualist, that only “Looking out for #1” really mattered. The rotten fruit of this mentality is littered all over the current American landscape.

Locke-d Out

Locke was the architect of the British Toleration Acts of 1689, which essentially did for Britain what the Treaty of Westphalia had done for the continent, namely, put religion in the sphere of private opinion. While Locke created social space for various Protestant bodies, since all could be expected to play by the rules of the liberal game, Roman Catholics were excluded. The fact that Romanists had a trans-national loyalty to their church (centered in the Pope) and therefore refused to totally interiorize their religion meant that they may not be very good citizens in the newly created secular political order. Because their church necessarily took up public space, they were considered a subversive presence in the secular state. Locke, and Jefferson following him, flatly denied the social or communal nature of Christianity. Rather, the church came to be understood as a semi-private theology club, a free association of like-minded individuals, who could come and go as they pleased. Of course, in such a context, the biblical images of church as kingdom, city, body, or nation, made no sense. Calvin’s ecclesial understanding of salvation had to be discarded.

This trend to privatization played itself out in the nascent nation of America. The founding fathers not only displaced the church with the newly formed nation, they put the founding documents in the place of Scripture. The privatization of the church meant the privatization of the Bible. A new hermeneutics was introduced to curtail public, social, and political application of Scripture. No longer would Scripture be the public voice of God to the nation. Secularization had to be complete. The god of American civil religion would certainly not be the God of Scripture; but like the God of Scripture, he would be a very jealous god. Sebastian Mallaby explains:

The Constitution, of course, is a fine document in many ways and embodies many principles of Christian political thought, developed over centuries of practice and reflection. But clearly this is a case of Americanism run amok. In the minds of some of our founding fathers, the American nation was turned into a replacement for the kingdom of God. But the American nation is at best a cheap parody of Christ’s true “Redeemer Nation,” the New and True Israel, the church of God.

The American Tug-of-War

Throughout the early days of America’s existence, we see a continual tug of war between the forces of historic Christendom and the emerging rationalism and individualism of the Enlightenment. Historians debate the issues: Was America founded as a Christian nation, in continuity with the Christian nations of Europe? Or is America the nation the Enlightenment created, the first secular body politic in history? The founding fathers were generally men of faith, but they drank deeply from the poisoned well of “free church” ecclesiology. The break with Britain in many ways meant a much larger break with the high church tradition of Christendom. In retrospect, given the current dominance of secularism, we can see things they could not have even imagined. We can see weaknesses they were not aware of. The real tragedy of America is found precisely here: Men of faith unwittingly gave the game away. They were swept up by larger forces they did not fully understand and could not control. In their desire to exorcise the demons of medievalism, they opened the door to secular demons seven times worse.

Again, Clapp, following Craycraft, helps us understand how Lockean liberalism worked itself out in America to a very secular conclusion. Locke placed the locus of religious liberty not in the covenanted community of the institutional church, as Christendom had, but in the conscience of the private individual. Thus, the church was no longer free to exercise any public authority over its members. A few examples will illustrate.

Roman Catholic John Cardinal O’Connor’s actions in the early 1990s make evident this shift to privatization. O’Connor, a faithful papist, stated forthrightly his church’s policy that,

Expectedly, O’Connor’s comments, temperate as they were, got hit by a barrage of criticism. O’Connor didn’t even excommunicate anyone for their political actions – he only talked about doing so – and yet he was instantly subjected to fierce attacks from the media. O’Connor refused to play along with democratic liberalism’s forced privatization of religion and paid the price.

This is not to say Roman Catholics have been immune to the plague of Americanism. Backtrack thirty years from O’Connor to John Fitzgerald Kennedy’s presidential campaign in 1960. Protestants, especially evangelical Protestants, expressed grave concern over the prospect of a Roman Catholic in the nation’s highest office. But they were greatly relieved when Kennedy insisted his religious convictions would be kept private and would have no bearing on how he acted politically. Kennedy claimed the separation of church and state was “absolute” and that his vision of America was of a place “where no Catholic prelate would tell the President (should he be a Catholic) how to act and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners whom to vote for.” The church, after all, was not viewed as politically relevant. He said, “I believe in a President whose views on religion are his own private affairs.” In fact, for Kennedy being a good American was far more important than being a good Christian or Romanist: “I am not the Catholic candidate for President. I am the Democratic party’s candidate for President who happens to be Catholic.” JFK’s deepest convictions were not shaped by God, Scripture, or his church, but by his commitment to Americanism. He was determined to be an autonomous individual, unfettered by the bonds of an ecclesial community.

The secularization of American public life does not mean all references to religion have been expunged from the political scene. Rather, democratic liberalism has resulted in something much more sinister. We still hear a good deal of talk about faith, God, prayer, and so forth. But all these notions must be left vague, undefined, and therefore from a Christian perspective, seductively idolatrous. They are treated as the common possession of all American citizens. Even ostensibly evangelical Presidents have fallen into this trap, thinking that America is destined to play some unique God-given role in the drama of history.

For example, at the 1988 Republican National Convention, President Ronald Reagan proclaimed: “I believe that God out this land between the two great oceans to be found by the special people . . . from every corner of the world who had that extra love of freedom that prompted them to leave their home.” Reagan also applied ecclesiastical titles, such as “city on a hill” to the American nation, distorting the Puritan and biblical usages of the phrase. The idea, clearly, is that America is an elect people, chosen to bless the world in a special way. “In George Washington’s political seed all the families of the earth will be blessed” seems to be the prevalent idea.

Regan’s successor, George Bush, echoing Abraham Lincoln, called America, “the last, best hope of man on earth.” When Bush called for a national day of prayer before the Gulf War, he declared this: “I have proclaimed Sunday, February 3, National Day of Prayer. In this moment of crisis, may Americans of every creed turn to our greatest power and unite together in prayer.” Stanley Hauerwas comments: “Such a prayer sounds Christian. But it is idolatrous and pagan, the same sort of prayer Caesar always prays to Mars before battle.” Bush may have very well prayed to the Father of the Lord Jesus Christ in his private prayer closet, but publicly he could not do this. Rather, he told every person to pray to his or her own god. In this peculiarly American theology, we citizens of this special nation have the right to pray not because we’re in Christ, who gives us access to the Father, but because we’re good, decent Americans. Surely god (or the gods) will hear such a fine upstanding people!

Patriotism and Idolatry: The Fine Line

Perhaps I should add a caveat at this point. None of this is to say that love for country per se is wrong. Patriotism is a good quality. But our loyalty to Christ must always be greater than our allegiance to the body politic. Ideally, there will be no tension between these two loyalties. But when there is, it’s clear which takes precedence.

This runs counter to the modern ethos, which puts allegiance to one’s nation at the top of the heap. Institutions like church and family are viewed at best as “mediating organizations” which are secondary to the state in importance and power. Lesslie Newbigin explains the situation in colorful terms:

Of course, the modern nation is, at the same time, so depersonalized that, as Alasdair MacIntyre has said, dying for this state is “like being asked to die for the telephone company.”

Our True Homeland

Calvin was faced with just this sort of dilemma – a conflict of loyalties. He had to choose between church and nation. His beloved homeland of France remained firmly entrenched in Roman Catholicism. In fact, King Francis persecuted the Reformation movement with zeal. In the introductory preface of Calvin’s Institutes, addressed to the King, Calvin shows he embraced the cause of Christ above the cause of his nation:

Calvin knew he served a greater King than Francis – the Lord Jesus. He knew the church of Jesus Christ was his first citizenship, and this ecclesial allegiance was to be maintained, whatever earthly, temporal loyalties had to be sacrificed.

We must learn the fate of the church does not rest in the hands of the American nation. In fact, the reverse is the case. While, the American church has been deeply intertwined with the nation as such for most of our history, stretching back to colonial days, it is now clear we must go our separate ways, at least in several important respects. The church must not act as a sponsor or underwriter for American bipartisan politics, secular education, institutionalized greed, etc. We must refuse to play the game on secularized American terms. We must also realize the twin responses offered by the American church thus far – namely, the sectarian response of withdrawal, ceding over the public square to the secularists, and the civil religionist response, covering over secularism with a thin veneer of talk about god and faith – have been disastrous. The American church today must position herself as a catholic counter-culture – publicly present in the world, yet stunningly distinct from it.

Needed: An American Augustine

The early medieval church faced a similar situation to the church in America at the dawn of the twenty-first century. After the conversion of Constantine, it appeared the fate of the church was bound up with the Roman Empire. Hence, when it became evident Rome would fall, many Christians panicked. Augustine rose to the occasion, with his monumental work City of God. Rather than fear the fall of Rome, Augustine saw it as a prime opportunity for the church. The city of man may crumble, but the church, the city of God, will keep marching on.

Referring to those who saw themselves as the last remnant of a Church which was headed for inevitable decline, [Augustine] laughed, ‘The clouds roll with thunder, that the House of the Lord shall be built throughout the earth: and these frogs sit in their marsh and croak – We are the only Christians.’

William Carrol Bark explains the vital role Augustine played in disentangling the church from Rome:

Augustine broke the ties that bound the church with the Roman Empire just in time for the church to emerge from Rome’s rubble with renewed vigor and health. Indeed, this was one of the keys that opened the door to the world of Christendom. Augustine effectively destroyed the popular identification of the welfare of Christianity with the welfare of Rome. He cut the tie binding together the fates of the Christian religion with the Roman state. The American church needs a new Augustine who can accomplish the same project in our day. The preservation of America is simply not necessary to the success of the kingdom of God. With or without America, the kingdom of God will march on until the earth is as “full of the knowledge of the Lord as the waters cover the sea” (Isa. 11:9).

Peter Leithart explains what this means:

We should have a great appreciation for the role America has played in God’s providence. America has become gloriously prosperous and correspondingly generous. Her armies have toppled tyrants the world over. She has provided as great a degree of religious freedom as the world has ever known. But America is not and never can be a substitute for God’s own treasured nation, the church. Unfortunately, America’s greatness has made it all too tempting to view her, rather than Christ’s body, as the locus of God’s presence. While America and the church have no doubt benefited from one another, the mutual relationship, especially as understood by American evangelicals, is in desperate need of redefinition and reconfiguration.

Subscribe now

Share

[This series was written in the early 2000s when I was an assistant pastor at Auburn Avenue Presbyterian Church in Monroe, LA. I would say some things differently now, but the gist of these essays is as relevant today as when I wrote them over two decades ago. This is my attempt to show the downsides of the classical liberalism of the American founding. There is no doubt America was founded as a Christian nation – and yet the kind of Christian faith that shaped our nation’s people, institutions, and culture in its founding era was flawed in significant ways, and over time, those flaws were exploited, opening the door for national “mission drift.” The classical liberalism of the American founding had no way of defending itself against the revolutions that led to the modern liberalism (aka, secularism and individualistic autonomy) which now dominates. The language of “freedom” and “rights” and “equality” that has always dominated American political discourse has been highjacked; we still use the same terms but we stuff them with a completely different meaning. And recovering the older, more Christian meaning of these terms has proved to be no easy task. These terms have been weaponized against us and the liberal tradition does not provide sufficient ammunition to fight back.

In short, classical liberalism, though glorious in many ways, planted the seeds of its own demise and destruction. Classical liberalism was designed for a people that no longer exists; the classical liberal order only works with a virtuous, Christian population who take responsibility for themselves and grasp the meaning of ordered liberty. Classical liberalism did not provide sufficient firewalls against its own liquidation into what we see all around us today. The ordered liberty of classical liberalism has morphed into the disordered liberty and personal autonomy of modern liberalism. My “Compact Roadmap” is an attempt to show how this should surprise us; in fact, in some ways, it was inevitable. Classical liberalism is a victim of its own success.

Classical liberalism grew out of Christian soil but it presupposed a Christian people; ironically, it did not provide the tools needed for that Christian people to defend itself against attacks, especially from within. The classical liberalism of America’s founding affirmed Christian faith but it was a deracinated faith, a de-churched faith, a poorly defined faith, an easily privatized faith. It undermined the high ecclesiology of classic Calvinism, and the vacuum left by the marginalizing of the church has been filled in different ways at different times in our history, but all of it taken together has produced America as now see her – a nation of rampant immorality, disintegrating families, sexual confusion, addiction and “mental illness,” Christ-less conservatism battling it out with Christ-hating progressivism, a church that is impotent, a massive bureaucratic welfare state, collapsing social trust, a loss of common cultural and national identity, and so on.

Having displaced the church from her central position in American society, American identity has been up for grabs. It is all well and good to talk about how God has used America in beneficial ways (as many of our Presidents have done), but that kind of Christian civic religion is useless and will ring hollow unless Christ, the Bible, and the church are given their proper places in the social order. Especially since the Second Great Awakening, though in some ways even before that, Americans have subtly replaced the church with America, which is a by-product of a low ecclesiology and a privatized faith. There is no way to fix what ails us without recovering the public faith and public church of classic Reformational Protestantism. America’s current crisis is largely a crisis of ecclesiology; there is a kind of liberalism that amounts to a counterfeit ecclesiology, and puts the nation in place of the church, patriotism in place of creedalism, the national story in the place of the gospel story. The American Empire becomes a substitute for the Kingdom of Christ rather than a servant of the kingdom of Christ. Christian faith becomes a means to American ends, rather than using America as an instrument for kingdom ends.

Many aspects of America’s Christian civil religion seemed innocent enough at the time, e.g., appropriating exodus imagery for the nation, but in retrospect they are highly problematic because they squeezed out the role and standing of the church. This is why those who want to see America restored to her Christian roots cannot simply rewind the tape to 1776. We have to overhaul the American evangelical and Reformed understanding of what the church is. We cannot have the kind of “Christian America” we want without placing the church at the center of it. This does not mean we need some kind of hard establishment; that was tried in Europe and in some American states with less than satisfying results. But it does mean the church as the church has to be become a united, unified cultural force once again. Only a church that can speak with a strong, united, biblically-grounded voice can disciple a nation like America in today’s world. This is why controversies over liturgy, psalmody, sacraments, and preaching are not marginal debates; they are right at the heart of the culture war. For too long Americans have been fighting the culture war without really using the weapons God has given us. It is now commonplace to claim the culture war is just the incarnation of the spiritual war, but if we really believe that, why aren’t we using the spiritual weapons God gave us? Again, I’d say some things differently today, but I still think these essays have something to offer in our present situation.]

Author’s Introductory Note: Engaging in broad historical interpretation as I am about to do is always risky. Necessarily, one “stylizes” history by simplifying, over generalizing, and stereotyping. But the narrative qualities of history are not simply due to the imposition of human rationality upon brute facts; rather history is always already narratival because it unfolds according to the eternal counsel of the Divine Storyteller. The role of the human mind is to discern the trends and threads that give the plot line its overall shape. In doing so, of course, we necessarily leave a lot of facts on the cutting room floor. Only God has the full and perfect interpretation of history. It’s one to thing to say that history is really God’s story; it’s another thing altogether to claim to know how all the scenes in the drama fit together into a coherent, beautiful whole. Painting with such a broad brush, as we will be doing, can be dangerous, but becomes acceptable if the author and readers understand the limitations. We’re only trying to give the big picture.

The Nation with Soul?

It’s been said that America is the nation with the soul of a church. More truthfully, we might say America is the nation with the complex of a Messiah. And while this messianic complex has been greatly secularized, it still persists in various forms and manifestations. How we got to where we are today from our starting point as a nation is a long and twisted tale. We cannot tell that whole story here, but looking at some aspects of the plot line should be helpful. Getting a handle on the shape and flow of American history is critical in understanding what moves the church needs to make at the present time in order to stay in the game.

The Puritan settlers who first ventured to America’s shores were thoroughly ecclesiocentric and theocratic. They inherited this church-centered view of society under Christ’s lordship from Calvin, Bucer, Knox, and the other shining lights of the Reformation, who had in turn inherited it from the Constantinian/Augustinian order of Medieval Christendom. The Puritan settlers came not simply to escape religious persecution or to seek wealth, but to establish a “city on a hill,” a holy commonwealth that would serve as a model for other nations within Christendom to follow. In a sense, they came because they wanted to play their part in the unfolding drama of Christendom.

One rather prominent example must suffice. Cotton Mather, a great Puritan pastor in seventeenth century New England, is generally regarded as one of the most brilliant men to ever live on this continent. Because of his vast knowledge and wisdom, he was frequently consulted by political rulers and became quite a statesman. All the while, though, he never lost sight of the lordship of Christ over the state or the centrality of the church and her ordinances in a Christian culture. In the words of George Grant,

Once, when called to testify before the colony’s governor, he said,

Mather knew, as did most Puritans, that a strong institutional church was necessary to the maintenance of political liberty. As the church went, so the world would go – sooner or later.

The Loss of Ecclesiocentrism: Two Factors

Several forces eventually undermined this ecclesiocentric view. Over a several century period, Western civilization was reconfigured, removing the church from her role as the core institution in society. The cultural map was redrawn, such that the church went from being the capital city to “life in the backwoods.”

It is crucial we come to grips with the factors that produced this dramatic shift. In large measure, the rise of revivalism caused the church to crumble from within. Revivalism degraded the role of the clergy (largely through leaving them uneducated), de-emphasized sacramental worship (in favor of big tent “circus” style meetings), ignored the church’s theological heritage, particularly Calvinism (since tradition was regarded as crippling and confining to the “Spirit”), focused on experience rather than truth (often stirred up by means of emotionally manipulative sappy, sentimental hymns and choruses), and catered to the sovereign individual rather than building up the community (thus, playing right into the hands of the American frontier’s “self-made man” image). The church aided and abetted her own displacement from the center of cultural life to the periphery. This self-imposed marginalization has left the church with little or no social visibility or influence. Culturally, she is now largely irrelevant.

However, our focus in this series of essays will be on a second factor, namely, the emergence nationalism. The architects of the modern secular state, men such as Hobbes and Locke, forced the church into the mold of a “voluntary organization” and privatized religion into a personal (in the sense of non-communal, non-institutional) relationship. As the church moved to the fringe of society, the newly created secular state rushed in to fill the void.

In Europe, the so-called religious wars rocked society at its foundations. Religious dissent in the wake of the Reformation put a tremendous strain on culture throughout the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. The Treaty of Westphalia in 1648 supposedly brought the age of religious warfare to an end, but in the process also did something else significant: by removing religion from the sphere of public truth, the modern secular state was birthed. (One of the sad ironies in this whole shift, of course, is that the secular state has shed far more blood than the religious wars ever did.)

To greatly simplify, the logic ran something like this: somehow, peace between various warring religious factions in the post-Reformational situation had to be maintained. The newly formed secular state, theoretically religiously neutral and ecclesiastically uncommitted, would take over this role. This newly created state would in turn be governed by another Enlightenment creation, namely, universal reason.

Thus, in Europe, the modern state arose directly out of the disunity of the church. Once upon a time, the religious consensus of Christendom had provided the culture’s stability and cohesion. One faith, one Lord, one baptism had been the glue that held society together. Now that older consensus had evaporated. A weakened, fragmented church required a strong, centralized, secular state to maintain order and keep peace.

Obviously much more could be said about the situation in Europe. But we will focus our attention on the shift that took place in America. The European story sheds light on the American story, though on this continent, religious strife never escalated to quite the same level (though the conflict of 1861-1865 came close).

George Will says the founding fathers,

For Jefferson, religion is by nature disembodied and Gnostic, sectarian and individualistic. It is ‘mere belief,’ rather a way of life, incarnated in communal practices. Again, according to Will, this view,

The privatization of religion and the politicization of public life meant that the long standing practice of church establishment would be challenged and eventually overthrown in America. An established church meant that the state formally recognized, identified with, supported, and even sought counsel from a particular ecclesial body. The church had basically been established in the West, in one form or another, from the time of Constantine onwards. Thus, disestablishment was a radical step. Martin Marty has suggested this has been the most basic change in ecclesiological administration since Constantine!

By the early nineteenth century, the last of the state churches in the United States was being dismantled. While the establishment system had its problems – many of them rather severe – it at least guaranteed the church would be a cultural force. How the church used her cultural power, then, was simply a matter of faithfulness. But there was no question the church would be a major player in shaping the culture. She was inescapably public.

Disestablishment played a vital role in the de-centering of the church in American society and the secularization of public life. Ann Douglas says,

In other words, from that point on, the church would no longer set the agenda for the nation. Rather the nation would set the agenda and ask for the church’s rubber stamp. Whatever influence the church was able to maintain was kept at the price of compromise. The church would no longer exercise any genuine prophetic leadership role in cultural formation. From the early nineteenth century onwards, America would accomplish her goals without reference to the church, without the church playing any key part in the American drama. The church was demoted from playing the lead part to working on stage props behind the scenes.

Over time, in our collective consciousness, loyalty to the American nation came to replace loyalty to the church. There is nothing wrong with patriotism, of course, kept in its place. But the form of patriotism that arose in America has been quite problematic. “One nation, indivisible” replaced “one Lord, one faith, one baptism” as the chief point of integration for our diverse nation. In the minds of many, America became a sort of “Redeemer Nation” and, as Peter Leithart has said, “the primary instrument of God’s meaningful activity in the world.” The nation itself became the primary society in terms of which Americans found their individual and group identity.

It is not necessary or possible for us to investigate all the historical details of this shift. Instead, we will turn to Richard Bushman, who summarizes the turn of events quite nicely:

Bushman’s last sentence is the key to understanding the loss of ecclesiocentrism and the rise of statism in America: Patriotism helped heal ecclesiastical wounds. Those five words encapsulate all that really needs to be said about American history from 1750 to the present. Americans have progressively put the nation in the position once rightfully occupied by the church, a process that was greatly accelerated in the early nineteenth century after the process of disestablishment was complete. And, because we would not have mother church, we got the nanny state, with her false promise of cradle to grave security. Because the church was set aside as the primary institution in American social life, the nation became the substitute as God’s central agent in history. As several scholars have pointed out, the secularization of American public life was due directly to a failed ecclesiology. Again, patriotism effectively replaced loyalty to the church, with devastating consequences.

The change in American self-consciousness produced a corresponding change in our sense of national purpose and mission. No longer would America serve the higher calling of being a holy commonwealth, a church-shaped, church-driven society, as the Puritans had envisioned. No longer would our nation’s fundamental purpose be to serve as home base for the discipling of the nations. No longer would she see her own story as part of the larger narrative of the kingdom of God. Rather our mission would become (paraphrasing Woodrow Wilson) to make the world safe for our particular brand of liberal democracy. America would take on the role of world policeman, albeit a policeman with no explicitly Christian moral base any longer. She would play the game of empire.

At this point we need to be careful, because both the neo-cons and the isolationists of our day tend towards extremes. Empire building per se is not necessarily evil. In the Old Creation, God seems to approve of several world empires (e.g., Babylon, Persia, etc.) at least in a qualified way. A biblical philosophy of politics does not necessarily entail isolationism, though it does warn about the dangers of entangling alliances. Of course, there are certain problems that come with building an empire, even if it’s an unofficial one as in the case of America. Some of America’s actions as “empire” have been positive, some negative. To the extent that our nation is officially committed to a pluralistic non-Christian stance, one that does not acknowledge the kingship of Jesus, everything we do stands under judgment. It goes without saying that in the New Creation, the only ultimate and lasting international empire is Christ’s kingdom.

However we view the legitimacy of American foreign policy in the twentieth century, there is no question a fundamental shift in our corporate identity as a nation has taken place. Instead of having our trademark as the sending out of missionaries to make peace though the gospel, we would send out our armies to make peace with the sword. As Richard John Neuhaus has suggested, none of this denies that America has been a force for good in the world, even through her military operations at times. The point here is not to slam the American nation; there is much in our history to be thankful for and the residue of our Christian heritage has still not completely dried out. But it must be admitted on the whole that there has been a profound shift for the worse in America’s self-understanding, a shift away from a church-based society to a form of nationalism that borders on idolatry.

“Americanism,” then, has increasingly displaced ecclesial Christianity as the fundamental religious outlook in our culture. That is to say, Americans have more and more looked to the American nation as such rather than the church as the focus of God’s action in the world and as the agent of God’s redemption in history. Phillip Lee catalogs this trend in Against the Protestant Gnostics:

That a notable minister would so intertwine the gospel with Yankee nationalism is telling. The so-called Civil War meant, among other things, the triumph of revivalism over the public church and statism over decentralized politics.

From the mid-nineteenth century forwards, Americans would expect less and less from their churches and more and more from an ever increasing national government. In time, this political hubris over spilled its national banks into international politics. Again, Lee provides a handy summary:

This notion that the salvation of the world hinges on America has infected Christians across the liberal/conservative spectrum. While America has played, in the general providence of God, an important role on the world scene the last couple of centuries, we can hardly claim to be the world’s savior. While we may have kept communism in check, we have been guilty of grave moral sins ourselves. It is important that we refocus the biblical doctrines of election, world empire, and international peacemaker on the institutional church rather than the American nation. The church, not America, is God’s gift to planet earth.

Our national hubris is also clearly seen in the shape that American civil religion now takes. Of course, some kind of national faith, or civil religion, is inescapable. But today, the only kind of faith that can be publicly practiced in America is one that is secular and politically correct. There is tremendous pressure to privatize and individualize Christianity – but of course, once this is done, the robust faith described in the Scriptures has been mangled and distorted beyond recognition. Again, this privatizing squeeze is due in large measure to the collapse of a strong institutional church and the rise of our peculiar form of nationalism. As George Will has put it so succinctly, “religion [in America] is perfectly free as long as it is perfectly private – mere belief – but it must bend to the political will (law) as regards conduct.” In other words, the church dare not seek to present the gospel as public truth determinative for society as a whole. At this point, more needs to be said about the earlier historical currents that produced such a change.

Subscribe now

Share

Joseph was sold by his brothers to slave traders headed to Egypt, which means slavery has existed in Africa since at least Genesis 37:28. Of course, Abraham held slaves earlier than that, and slavery was widespread in the ancient world. Virtually no nation did without slavery of some sort in the millennia before Christ. Up to 30% of the Roman world was enslaved in the time of Jesus. Most who were enslaved were war captives, debtors, or born to an enslaved mother. Given how foundational slavery was to the Roman economy, it is not surprising the Apostle Paul regulated it rather than attempting to abolish it all at once. It’s been rightly said the gospel placed a ticking time bomb next to the institution – the leaven of the gospel would eventually eradicate it – but to do so all once at that time would have been economically disastrous for everyone.

One of the least interesting features of American history is the fact of slavery, precisely because slavery was a fact of life everywhere at the time. In 1750, slavery existed in Europe, Asia, Africa, the Americas, and the Middle East. In 1750, no major power (e.g., Britain, France, Spain, Portugal, Ottoman Empire, China, Russia, most African kingdoms, or American colonies) had abolished slavery as an institution.

Christianization gradually ended Roman slavery starting in the 5th century but it was gradually replaced by a system of feudalism/serfdom, not the kind of freedom that the modern West eventually established. Slavery was revived in the 16th century in the West when the Roman Catholic powers, the Portuguese and Spanish, began importing slaves from Africa to supply labor for their expanding empires. Of course, most of the Africans sold to Europeans were already enslaved on their native continent. And Islamic areas continued to have slaves; there was never really any kind of abolition movement is Islam, except in those cases when Western, Christian powers forced it to happen. Islam has had slavery for 1300 years, mostly sub-Saharan Africans and Central/Eastern Europeans.

It is often overlooked that America outlawed the slave trade in 1808, during Jefferson’s presidency. The law was passed in 1807, the same year as Britain. Men like Jefferson and owned slaves but favored some way of abolishing it. The Constitution gave Congress the power to end the slave trade in 1808, and it happened at that date.

“The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.”

Some smuggling of slaves continued, but the trade itself was illegal after 1808.

England completely ended slavery in its Empire by the 1830s. America ended it with the war that ended in 1865.

The Jamestown colony did not allow slavery initially. It did allow indentured service. The slaves brought there in 1619 were indentured slaves who eventually got their freedom. The first true slave owner in America was a black man – Anthony Johnson, who had been an indentured servant, became a landowning freeman, and purchased a black slave in 1654 in Virginia.

Columbus did not intend to enslave the natives he encountered. He did enslave those he conquered, but the only available alternative for the conquered would have been death.

To say America was “built” on slavery is simply a lie. That was certainly not the case in New England where slavery was minimal. The Southern economy did eventually come to rely on slavery to provide labor on cotton plantations. About 25% of Southern households owned slaves at the time of the War Between the States, but most had very few slaves. Less then 1% owned more than 50 slaves. The majority of Southerners did not own slaves. Slaves made up about 30% of the total Southern population.

It’s sad that many Americans know nothing about our history except that we used to have black slaves. They are ignorant of the fact that most other nations did too – so they think America is “uniquely evil” when really it was no different than other nations. This is like knowing nothing about King David except that he committed murder and adultery.

Many of America’s founding fathers did not own slaves. Many who did were very uneasy about the institution.

What did Thomas Jefferson mean by, “Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that his justice cannot sleep for ever”?

Thomas Jefferson wrote this in Notes on the State of Virginia (written 1781–1785, published 1785), specifically in Query XVIII, which discusses the “particular customs and manners” of Virginia.

Full Context:

Jefferson is reflecting on the corrupting effects of slavery on both enslavers and the enslaved, and on American society as a whole. He argues that the institution of slavery degrades the morals of the people, undermines industry, and threatens the nation’s liberties.

Key preceding passage (leading directly into the quote):

Then comes the famous line:

He continues:

Jefferson warns that divine justice will not tolerate the injustice of slavery indefinitely. He fears a potential violent reversal (“revolution of the wheel of fortune”) where the enslaved might rise up, possibly with God’s intervention, and the masters would have no divine favor on their side in such a conflict. He hopes instead for a peaceful, gradual emancipation with the consent of the masters.

What Jefferson Meant:

Moral and theological warning: Jefferson believed liberty is a gift from God, rooted in natural rights and divine order. Slavery violates this, corrupting the nation and inviting God’s judgment. His “trembling” expresses dread at the hypocrisy of a nation founded on liberty while practicing chattel slavery.

Fear of divine retribution: God’s justice is active and inevitable. Slavery is not just a political or economic evil but a profound moral one that could bring calamity on the country (he alludes to possible slave revolts or upheaval, referencing numbers and “nature” — i.e., the growing enslaved population).

This fits Jefferson’s broader Enlightenment-influenced views: he saw slavery as economically inefficient, morally destructive (teaching tyranny to children and despotism to masters), and contrary to the principles of the American Revolution. However, he was a slaveowner himself and held complex (and often racist) views on Black people and the practicalities of emancipation.

This passage is prominently inscribed on the northwest wall of the Jefferson Memorial in Washington, D.C., highlighting Jefferson’s internal conflict over slavery.

It remains a powerful quote on the tension between American ideals and its original sins, often invoked in discussions of providence, justice, and national accountability.

Subscribe now

Share

Classical liberalism, at least the America version of it, was very illiberal by the standards of modern liberalism.

If America was founded as a classically liberal nation, consider all the evidence of our Christian founding:

• The Mayflower Compact was explicitly Christian in character and content

• 75% of those who declared independence were of Puritan background/conviction, including several high ranking military officials in George Washington’s army

• Most states had Christian blasphemy laws for much of American history

• 9 of the 13 original states had established churches

• Sodomy was universally criminalized in US until well into the 20th century

• The only God that fits the description of “Nature’s God” in the Declaration of Independence – a God who created us with unalienable rights and who is the Supreme Judge of all – is the biblical God. This God is mentioned 4 times in the Declaration, and the Declaration ends with an appeal (really, a prayer) to this God

• Most states originally had religious test oaths for civil magistrates that required loyalty to some version of the Protestant faith

• Most of the founders were members of orthodox Christian churches and in their writings they quoted the Bible more than any other source; it’s clear their intent was to found a generically Protestant nation

• As late as 1892, the Holy Trinity Church vs. The United States SCOTUS ruling provided extensive evidence for America’s Christian founding and heritage

• The basic principles of the common law tradition, which America inherited from Britain (due process, judgement by a jury of peers, presumption of innocence, impartial justice) are all principles derived from biblical law and no other source

• John Adams said the Constitution was constructed for a Christian (“moral and religious”) people

• Most states required jurors to swear an oath “so help me God” as a prerequisite to serving and some states limited jury duty to Christians

• Early public schools were generically Protestant, controlled locally, and making use of the King James Bible and Protestant catechisms

• Early American history is shot through with Christian language and symbolism, eg, the motto “In God we trust” (adopted in the 1950s but used long before that); in the early days of our nation’s history, no one doubted which God was being invoked in our public documents and memorials

• American military cemeteries are usually crosses as far as the eye can see

And so on. If America was founded as a classically liberal nation, this American brand of classical liberalism was thoroughly and deeply Christian. At its founding, America’s Christian pluralism (the variety of Christian denominations present in the states) prevented the possibility of a federally established church, along the lines of Europe. But we certainly had an informal establishment. This is not to say America’s founding was without flaws. For example, many of the founders wanted to keep religion as such private. But it inevitably bled over to public life.

The collapse of classical liberalism, rooted in and shaped by and drawing support from Christian faith, into modern secular liberalism, is simply due to our nation’s gradual turning away from our founding heritage and the faith that built our nation. Christians who want to make America great again want to recover and renew this tradition. We want our heritage to be our destiny. Our hope is that Christian America 2.0 can build on the foundation and greatly improve Christian America 1.0.

Share

Subscribe now

In so many ways, the current discussions over Christian nationalism parallel discussions of Theonomy/Christian Reconstruction a generation ago. The Recons were also accused of fostering nominalism, seeking salvation in politics, etc. And they gave answers very similar to Joseph’s here (which I agree with). There is a massive blind spot in many expressions of Reformed and evangelical theology today. The pietistic mind cannot wrap itself around the reality that a Christian politics and Christian nations can indeed be (and have been) historical realities. The pietistic mind gets hung up on these sorts of objections because it is trapped in a pluralistic, politics-can-be-neutral way of thinking. Once you accept that there is no neutrality anywhere and Christ is Lord everywhere, everything else falls into place. But that requires refusing to live under the modern liberal gaze which far too few pastors can do.

The parallels will further repeat themselves with largely misguided, poorly informed denominational study reports.

I have said before that I am not (and really never was) a capital “T” theonomist. But I am very much in favor of using the Bible to shape politics and culture. I am committed to biblical law as our final ethical standard. I am in favor of Christian nations (= discipled nations). I am in favor of Christendom. I appreciate the glories of the medieval era and the civilizational impact of the Reformation in general and Calvinism in particular. I am generally ecclesiocentric (in ways I have described elsewhere) because the ministries of the church bring new life to the spiritually dead, and thus power cultural transformation. I believe both the original Westminster and its American revision teach what could be rightly called Christian nationalism. So why am I not a Theonomist? And what would I put in place of Theonomy?

I really like Jim Jordan’s “Theocratic Critique of Theonomy,” available here: https://wordmp3.com/product-group.aspx?id=322…

The same hermeneutical approach can be found in David Chilton’s Paradise Restored and especially Vern Poythress’ The Shadow of Christ on the Law of Moses. One of Jordan’s basic insights is that the Torah was obviously not designed to be a complete law code. In the nature of the case, it would need to be supplemented somehow.

A good illustration/test case for this is Solomon’s first crisis as king – he is confronted with two women squabbling over one baby. There is no law in Torah that addresses that situation. So what is Solomon to do? He exercises his God-given wisdom. That wisdom can be considered from various perspectives – from one angle, it is a kind of natural law (eg, he solved the issue by taking into account maternal *nature*). From another perspective, it was a kind of sanctified and royal prudence, of the sort that all great rulers must possess and exercise. From yet another perspective, it was a clever outworking and application of basic principles found in Scripture – since he obviously did not intend to actually kill the baby (a kind of “general equity” theonomy was in play).

I think the kind of appreciative critique and biblical hermeneutic that Jordan develops could actually serve as a springboard for bringing different Reformed political subcultures on the right together. He appreciates what Theonomy got right – especially its philosophical opposition to autonomy and neutrality. But he also makes room for the kind of wisdom that is obviously necessary to mature statecraft and civil governance. This is an approach to politics grounded in biblical authority but it combines both biblical and natural revelation, Torah and wisdom.

To give one illustration of how this might work: When it comes to immigration and assimilation, Jordan is not an ethonationalist (and rightly so in my opinion). But what ethnonationalists (in their least offensive form) want to do with the biological category of race, he does with the biblical categories of language and lip (= religious confession). (Jordan is right that the Bible focuses much more on language than race per se.) Jordan’s standards for assimilation (linguistic and religious) would protect the kind of coherent culture that men like Buchanan have insisted on, while still allowing nations to be appropriately and prudentially hospitable to immigrants and refugees who are willing and able to assimilate.

This post unpacks further aspects of what I sketch out here.

Rufo and MacIntyre are both correct – the left’s progressive coalition of feminists, Muslims, sexual perverts, socialists, and so on, is held together by envy and resentment, rooted in hatred for America and fatherhood. It succeeds precisely by appealing to those who want to make America and/or fathers the “bad guy” in the story (whether that story is considered at the personal or civilizational level). Of course, behind the hatred of America and patriarchs is a hatred for the Christian God. That’s the primal hatred, the source of all other hatreds.

Pretty good thoughts from Sheen on why liberalism is failing us at the present moment. It seems that the degree to which you think liberalism is no longer functional depends in large measure on how much capital from Christendom you think we have left in our account. But Sheen thought we had depleted our inheritance by 1948 when he wrote these words:

“In any case it is becoming increasingly clear that historical liberalism is like a sundial, which is unable to mark time in the dark. Liberalism can function only in a society whose basis is moral, where the flotsam and jetsam of Christianity are still drifting about the world. From another point of view, historical liberalism is a parasite on a Christian civilization, and once that body upon which it clings ceases to be the leaven of society, then historical liberalism itself must perish. The individual liberties which historical liberalism emphasizes are secure only when the community is religious and can give an ethical foundation to these liberties. It may very well be that historical liberalism is only a transitional era in history between a civilization which was Christian and one which will be definitely anti-Christian…”

Yes, it’s a great question. I do think there have been some Bible-only Theonomists like I describe (I certainly encountered quite a few back in day), but mainly at the level of followers in the movement, not leaders. Rushdoony probably came the closest to that position amongst the heavy-hitters — and I say that as someone who benefited tremendously from Rush’s writings on a wide variety of topics. Obviously, he had a doctrine of general revelation, but he called natural law (without any distinctions as far as I could tell) “heresy” and seemed to not have much *positive* use for natural revelation (e.g., natural revelation condemns man for his sins since he is always sinning against the light, but there is no need to make appeals to nature as a law in our politics because we have the Bible). I agree with you about Bahnsen, though certainly some of his followers (and critics) took him as a Bible-only kind of Theonomist. Where Bahnsen and Jordan differed, of course, was on the hermeneutics of biblical law. Even there, I wonder how far apart they really were. My sense of things is that most of the main proponents of some version of T/theonomy could be properly called “general equity theonomists.” I like to use that label for my own position because it invokes confessional language and relies on principles, case law, judicial wisdom, etc. Does that help?

I responded:

Good points, Toby.

I certainly agree with your last sentence: “Theonomy means the whole Bible applied to all of life, and that same Bible requires the use of biblically trained reason, prudence, natural revelation, etc.”

Rush had in view the kind of (semi-)Thomistic (autonomous) natural law that was common at the time, but he also catches up Calvin’s “common laws of the nations” in his net. See page 9f of IBL Vol. 1.

I always found that section a bit confusing because, on the one hand, he calls Calvin’s version of the “common law of the nations” a form of biblical law, albeit diluted by pagan/Roman and humanistic influences. But then he also dismisses the common law as “heretical nonsense.”

When he discusses Rome’s version of natural law on the next page, he says “For the Bible, there is no law in nature, because nature is fallen and cannot be normative.” I think his failure to consider other versions of natural law was a shortcoming.

He says, “Neither positive law nor natural law can reflect more than the sin and apostasy of man: revealed law is the need and privilege of Christian society.” It’s hard to find a place in there for positive uses of extra-biblical revelation. At the least, some early versions of Theonomy were very underdeveloped in how to actually use biblically trained reason, prudence, natural revelation, etc.

An alternative name for general equity theonomy: New covenant theonomy. I like that because it captures how the law has undergone transformation in the death and resurrection of Christ.

I am a biblicist but not a narrow biblicist since I believe Scripture itself teaches that we must learn from God’s created order. Of course, Scripture guides our interpretation of nature (see John Frame on this). But nature is necessary. Scripture and nature form a single system of revelation, intended by God to function together.

Here’s a rather wild example to challenge narrow biblicism: What about the Mazzaroth, the constellations (or zodiac), mentioned in Job 38 and 2 Kings 22? Here’s a case where the Bible itself points us to nature as a source of information and wisdom about the world.

Strict biblicists might treat this as an exception — kind of like hermeneutical minimalists will say the only types in the OT are those explicitly identified in the NT. But that isn’t coherent. When the apostles do typology, they are not giving us one-off cases; they are showing us how to read the OT as a whole.

Likewise, when Scripture “reads” nature for us (1 Cor. 11 and Rom. 1 provide examples), it is teaching us how to interpret the created order. We have to learn what nature teaches. We have to learn how to make arguments from nature.

Thankfully, I think that kind of narrow biblicism is dying. I think Van Til has been misunderstood by many of his followers, but that seems to be getting sorted out. For Van Til, all of nature is revelatory, and it reveals the truth and wisdom of the living God. A proper biblicism, a wide biblicism, ultimately embraces every fact in the universe since Scripture itself tells us that everything God made bears witness to him — and the purpose of that witness is not merely to leave sinners without excuse for their sin, but to also give us a source of wisdom, filtered and sifted through special revelation. For Van Til, not only is there evidence of the Christian God — there nothing but evidence for the Christian God in the whole of the cosmos. If we don’t learn from nature as God intended, we are fools.

In the Bible, “nature” just means the design God has built into the creation. Natural law, rightly understood, is wisdom drawn from that design. We can’t live without it.

Subscribe now

Share

The term “patriarchy” is controversial.

I used to be opposed to the term “patriarchy” and was settled on the term “complementarianism” to describe the relationship of the sexes. I was especially frustrated that many who called themselves “patriarchal” seemed to have weird “hyper-patriarchal” views. Perhaps that is still the case in some quarters. But a couple things have happened over the last several years that led me to reconsider the use of the term “patriarchy” and to embrace it.

First, the term “complementarian” has been greatly diluted. Many things that pass for “complementarian” are practically egalitarian (with perhaps a carve out for a male-only pastorate). This is certainly the view of, say, Tim Keller or Aimee Byrd. Complementarianism was a movement, in reaction to the rising feminism of a generation ago, but it is proving to be an inadequate one. Complementairanism has proved to be the “squishy” middle that is getting sorted out; more and more, Christians are moving towards either full blown egalitarianism (denying any significant differences between the sexes) and traditional patriarchy (in which the differences in the respective natures of men and women serve as the ground and basis for their differing roles in church, home, and society).

Second, during the “federal vision” controversy there was a great deal of emphasis put on recovering the language of the Bible itself. I came to realize that “patriarch” is biblical language (at least in most good English translations, and even if obscured in English, it is still there in the underlying Greek of the NT in numerous places). If the “federal vision” insisted on recovering the language of “baptismal regeneration” based on Titus 3:5 (“the washing of regeneration”), how much more should we be eager to recover the biblical language of “patriarch,” given that it occurs much more frequently in Scripture? The term “patriarch” occurs in the ESV translation of the NT six times; related Greek terms occur many more times, though the translation may hide that reality from English readers.

But we still have a key question answer: What does patriarchy mean? To give a more specific example, what does Peter mean in Acts 2:29 when he speaks about “the patriarch David”? The “arche” part of the word clearly means “rule,” not “source” (as some have suggested) in this context. The point is that David ruled Israel, and as a king he was a type and shadow of the Messiah. (In that section of Peter’s sermon, the rule of Jesus is clearly the main theme.) Men are patriarchs in their households because they are the highest human authority in the home; each man is a David in his own household. This not to say that no one else has authority; there is a matriarchy corresponding to the patriarchy, but the authority of the wife/mother is not identical to that of her husband. Rather, just as the church (the bride of Christ) has real authority, but remains in subjection to Christ, so it is with the wife/mother in relation to the husband/father.

The term “patriarchy” can also be used to describe the bias towards male rule we find in Scripture and across cultures throughout history. It seems rather obvious that male rule is simply built into the structure of the world. This is not say there are not exceptions (e.g., Lydia, presumably a widow, was head of her household and there have been queens or female prime ministers who ruled their nations). But in general, male rule is an established and inevitable fact of life. Scripture underscores this in all kinds of ways (e.g., Isaiah 3:12). But while patriarchy is inevitable, it should be noted that this does not make patriarchy an unqualified good in a fallen world. There are good and evil patriarchs, good and evil patriarchies. The Christian faith represents one kind of patriarchal system, Islam another. Our Patriarch in Heaven is the ultimate model of a good patriarch, but Satan is a patriarch too (e.g., he is the father of the lying and murderous Pharisees in John 8). The patriarchy predates the fall; the fall did not destroy it, but it did distort it so that only by redeeming grace can the patriarchy function as God intended. The only patriarchy worth having and worth defending today is patriarchy in Christ. Christopher Dawson has done an excellent job showing hoe the gospel transformed patriarchy in the ancient world; a helpful summary can be found here.

Finally, some have wondered if the language of “patriarchy” somehow privileges the person of God the Father, and thus results in Trinitarian error. There certainly is a special connection between the divine Father and human fatherhood (Eph. 3:14-15). But in relation to creation, the entire Godhead, Father, and Son, and Spirit, is the Patriarchy, over and above the feminine creation. Father, Son, and Spirit are each masculine in Scripture. Each is given exclusively masculine pronouns. When the entire Trinity is spoken of, a masculine pronoun is used. While God can also act in feminine ways, this does not negate the fundamental reality: the Trinity is the ultimate and original Patriarchy; the Father is Lord of creation, the Son is Lord of creation, and the Holy Spirit is Lord of creation – and yet there are not three Lords, but one Lord.

Subscribe now

Share

Satan is a deceiver and a counterfeiter. He cannot create anything of his own, but he can twist things God made to evil and perverse purposes.

This means Satan has his own sacraments. In 1 Corinthians 10:21 Paul speaks of partaking of the table and cup of demons; this provokes the Lord to jealousy (10:22) because those who engage in demonic liturgies really do have communion with demons in some sense (10:20). While the analogy between demonic rites and the Lord’s Supper in 1 Corinthians 10 is not complete, Paul does indicate that there is a “real presence” of demons in some way in these idolatrous sacrifices.

In 2 Corinthians 11:1-3, Paul implies that when Eve was deceived/seduced by the serpent and ate the forbidden fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge and Good and Evil, she committed adultery with the serpent, provoking the Lord’s jealousy. Elsewhere Scripture suggests that if Adam and Eve had waited patiently, God would have eventually given them access to the forbidden tree and promoted them to a higher level of kingly glory. There was an eschatology built into the world and humanity from the beginning. But because they did not wait, the very tree that could have been a means of greater communion with God became a means of communion with Satan. Satan perverted the good tree into a demonic sacrament.

Another case in point is drugs, at least certain forms of drugs. Everything God made is good – but Satan can pervert God’s good creation and use it for evil purposes. In Lewis Ungit’s book Return of the Dragon, he provides compelling evidence that Satan is able to use some drugs as demonic sacraments, as a gateway to participation in a demonic realm. People across time and space who use certain drugs (eg, ayahuasca) report eerily similar experiences and visions, which suggests something objective rather than merely subjective is going on. The use of the word “pharmakeia” in the LXX OT and the NT for “witchcraft” or “sorcery” suggests the use of certain substances to tap into the demonic is commonplace among pagans. The fact that pharamakeia was a capital crime under Torah suggests it is not merely a matter of fakery or deception (telling lies except in a court of law is not normally a capital crime), but is actually demonic. It is a species of idolatry.

Satan has also been able to counterfeit miracles. Think of Pharaoh’s magicians who could perform some of the same miracles as Aaron and Moses. Witchdoctors have been able to perform healings, according to credible accounts. Some people who engage in the use of psychedelic drugs gain real insight.

Satan can also counterfeit piety. In 1 Timothy 4, Paul says man-made rules restricting marriage and diet are actually demonic teachings. They stand in the way of the fulfillment of the creation mandate, forbidding men to marry and multiply, and cutting him off from the proper use of God’s good gifts. These rules may have appearance of godliness but they are actually anti-God and anti-human. To abide by these rules is to submit to demonic influence. Satan counterfeits God’s law with his own law. Satanonomy replaces theonomy.

Satan can counterfeit prophecy. In Acts 16, Paul meets a woman possessed with a “spirit of divination,” literally a “spirit of Python.” We do not know if she was an accurate fortune-teller but the fact that she made her masters a great profit suggests it is at least possible. She was most certainly possessed by a demon — a demon Luke can name. The priestess at the Oracle of Delphi was known as the Pythia.

Demonic spirits can even counterfeit the Holy Spirit. Christians are to be filled with the Holy Spirit. But sometimes people are filled with, or possessed by, demonic spirits. Just as being filled with the Holy Spirit means yielding his guidance and influence, so being possessed with demonic spirits means yielding to their guidance and influence. I do not doubt Mohammad and Joseph Smith really saw something in their visions – but they were demonic, and they founded idolatrous religions as a result. We have plenty of examples of demon possession in the Bible to give us a glimpse of what it’s like. It often includes self-harm, fornication, drunkenness, and other sins. Certainly there are degrees of demonic possession, just as there are degrees of sanctification. I do not doubt that in many cases of addiction (to drugs, porn, etc.), some level of demonic activity and influence is present. Same with sodomy and transgenderism.

In sum: Demons are real and they do act within the creation in various ways. Demons can interact with the human mind to tempt us and demons can use created things in perverse ways. Christians should flee idolatry – especially pagan rites and rituals, including certain substances known to be deeply associated with pagan practices – because they are spiritually dangerous.

Subscribe now

Share

Originally published in April, 2022:

This is a follow up to my sermon from last Sunday.

Christians are not Gnostics. Some Christians have had gnostic tendencies over the course of church history, but Gnosticism is an enemy of the faith. Gnostics tend to confuse the physical and the ethical, and thus they find the source of sin in the creation itself. Physical things are tainted, so the goal is to escape or transcend the physical and become completely “spiritual.”

The problem with this view is found in the opening pages of the Bible (actually, the problem is identified on every page of the Bible, but it’s best to start at the beginning). God made the world good; indeed, after making man, male and female, as embodied creatures bearing his image, he declares creation “very good.” Physicality and embodiment are not the problem. Before the fall into sin, Adam and the woman would have communed with God through the very physical Tree of Life. That was their sacramental meal. God would meet with them in a physical garden. They were expected to have be fruitful and multiply, which means physical relations between them. They were naked, but there was no shame involved. They we’re commissioned to have dominion over the earth, which would have meant physical labor and the physical transformation of the creation God made; the raw materials God embedded into the world were to be used in making a God-glorifying civilization. All of this had God’s blessing. That’s the situation in the pristine world of Genesis 1-2.

The fall into sin in Genesis changes things. Adam and Eve lose their communion meal with God at the Tree of Life. The fall means their relationship with God will be “spiritualized,” which must be inferior to the physical, tangible means of communing with God available to them before they were expelled out of the garden. Of course, over time, God restores physical means of communion with himself, first in Israel’s sacrificial system, and then in the sacraments of baptism and the Lord’s Supper Jesus gives to his church. Sex and work, multiplication and dominion, are still good in themselves in a fallen world, but now they can be used in evil ways. Instead of sex as loving fellowship between a husband and wife, to create new life, sex can be used in selfish and even violent ways to destroy human fellowship. Instead of working to turn the Garden of Eden into the New Jerusalem, now man can use his powerful labor in the world to build cruel and idolatrous anti-kingdoms, like Babel. Physicality can be used for evil ends in a fallen world.

But it is clear from the beginning that God intended for man to use his physicality in righteous ways and this is still God’s purpose. Serving God faithfully can never be a matter of merely having the right thoughts or holding to the right ideas about God. From the beginning, man is called upon to serve God in the creation, in physical ways. Worship in the Bible is never merely cerebral; it always involves bodily acts and physical instruments (today that includes the paper and ink of the Bible, water for baptism, bread and wine for the Lord’s Supper). In a fallen world, our bodies can be used in evil ways, but this is contrary to God’s original design. The whole point of God’s redemptive work is to restore creation to its original design, including the body. Some think that because so much of physical life reveals man’s fleetness that physicality must be the problem. But it is not. The Gnostic tendency is to turn the Christian faith, which is always embodied in various ways in Scripture, into mere ideology, a disembodied thing. Again, this is a mistake of monstrous proportions.

C. S. Lewis pointed out the raw physicality of the Christian faith by saying, “Of course God likes matter; he invented it.” Not only that but the eternal Son himself took a body in the incarnation, and entered into a glorified body forever in the resurrection. There is no way to tell the gospel story without getting enmeshed in the physical world.

All this to say: In Mark 9:43ff, when Jesus talked about cutting off body parts if they cause us to sin, we need to set that within the context of the whole biblical narrative. The body as such is never blamed for sin in Scripture. The body can be an instrument of sin — but it can also be an instrument of righteousness. And that’s the whole point of the passage. The body is a battlefield, but who wins and loses on the battlefield of the body is not determined by the body itself but by the heart that directs the body.

Scripture views man as an integrated whole with a physical and non-physical/psychical aspect. Man is both body and soul. Body and soul together comprise the image of God in man. The eternal Son took to himself a human nature, meaning both body and soul, in the incarnation. Our redemption involves both body and soul. It is not enough to have a new heart or a new body; we need both to be fully saved.

As I said in the sermon, there is something cryptic about Jesus’ words.’ If your body causes you to sin — but that’s a big “if.” Your body, or the various members of your body, are clearly not the actual source of your sin. Sin must be traced back to its heart, which is the human heart, from which evil desires spring forth, which them come to fruition in and through the body. Man is completely integrated; it really makes no sense to try to distinguish bodily sins from soul sins. But sin cannot be eradicated by lopping off offending body parts that get implicated in sinful actions. To get at the heart of human sin, we have to deal with the human heart.

We tend to think the body defiles the soul, but if anything it is the other way around. The heart uses the body in sinful ways. Of course, the body is all too willing to partner with the heart in rebelling against God’s order and design. Sin feels good. Sin appeals to the body’s senses, it is sensual, it is pleasurable. Many temptations come to us in bodily ways.

Redemption redirects how we use our bodies because when God redeems us he reorients the desires of our hearts. We begin to offer our bodies, and the members of our bodies, to righteousness. We begin to use our bodies as they were designed to be used. This is difficult precisely because the residue of the fall — not coincidentally called the “flesh” in the Scriptures — still clings to us.

All of this means exactly what I indicated in the sermon: The Christian life is a war. It is a fight to the death. Sin must be killed or sin will kill us. By the power of God’s Spirit, our hearts and bodies can be directed towards righteousness, but it does not come naturally or easily even after we have been living the Christian faith or a long time. There is a cost. The battle will often leave us battered, bruised, and scarred, metaphorically at least as we engage in this agonizing contest with sin. It takes persistence, discipline, and love to win the war with sin. The Christian life is cruciform — it is cross-shaped. And if the Christian life is the life of the cross — the life of becoming a living sacrifice — it will surely be hard and painful because death always hurts. But the good news is that all who are willing to fight sin in the name of Jesus and the power of the Holy Spirit are assured glory and victory. Indeed, the victory is the glory in this case. The reward for fighting sin in the body is a new body, a resurrection body, at the last day. And that resurrection body means glory, inside and out. At the last day, we will see death completely vanquished as we enter into eternal life.

Too many professing Christians today are spiritual pacifists. They have not taken up the weapons God has given us to fight against their own sin. They are embarrassed to think of the Christian life as a battleground, or their bodies as a battlefield. Several denominations, such as liberal Presbyterians and Methodists have dropped hymns like “Onward Christian Soldiers” because they want a pacifist, peaceful Christian life. But so long as we still sin, there can be no peace. The war rages on — and if we are not willing to fight it, we will lose it, and if we lose it, we lose our souls forever.

Winning the war on sin does not mean you have make a certain degree of progress on the battlefield in order to be saved. The key is not the perfection of your life, but the direction of your life. If you are fighting sin at all — really fighting sin (and not merely sin’s consequences/punishments) — then you are a true Christian, assured of ultimate and final victory. But many who claim Christ do not take up their cross, do not fight against sin, and are dangerously deceived. Do not let that be you. Fight the good fight.

Recommended reading: Holiness by J. C. Ryle (especially chapter 4)

Subscribe now

Share

This essay was originally published in 2018. It was republished on the TPC Pastor’s Page Blog in 2021, slightly edited. That version is republished again here:

Re-Thinking “Revoice”:
A Biblical Analysis of Same-Sex Attraction

Scripture is clear that engaging in homosexual activity is contrary to God’s created design and God’s will for humanity. But what about same-sex attraction? Is sexual desire for someone of the same sex sinful, even if it is not acted upon? What if these desires seem to come without a person consciously choosing for them to be there? And if these desires persist over a long period of time, should a professing Christian label himself as a “gay Christian”?

There are influences within the Church, particularly those affiliated with the Revoice conference[i], that put forth the following lines of argument:[ii] First, same-sex desire is in and of itself morally neutral, if not acted upon. Second, believers can find a legitimate identity in a homosexual orientation; thus, a person can be both gay and Christian. Third, believers with a homosexual orientation want to be connected with similar persons in the gay community, even while pledging to abstain from sexual relations. Fourth, because the same-sex desire is morally neutral, there is no need to mortify the sin; indeed everything about being gay, minus the sex, can be embraced by the believer. Believers can embrace gay culture and sensibilities. Under this line of reasoning, mortifying the homosexual desires and separating from gay culture would be a form of suicide because the orientation is wrapped up in one’s identity. This would also be a way of cutting oneself off from the community that matters most, the gay community. There is no need to seek to change same-sex desires or seek sexual reorientation, as the status quo is morally acceptable.

We will evaluate these lines of argument in turn.

Same-Sex Sexual Desires

The first point highlighted from Revoice proponents is the claim that same-sex desire is morally neutral. Ron Belgau says, “The desire to have sex with others of our own sex is a temptation to sin which is a result of the fall, but it is not, in itself, sinful. I believe that gay sex is sinful, and that the desire for gay sex, though not itself sinful, is a temptation.”[iii]

But is same-sex attraction morally neutral? In the Scriptures, Paul calls same-sex sexual attraction a “vile passion” (Romans 1:26). Same-sex sexual activity is unnatural and unlawful. But Scripture is not just concerned with our actions; it also speaks to the drives, longings, and motivations of our hearts. Whether same-sex sexual desire is chosen or unchosen, it is condemned as shameful. When a man experiences same-sex attraction, he is not just noticing that someone of his sex is attractive. In itself, that is no problem. Some people, after all, are attractive and there is nothing wrong with taking note of that fact. A man can notice that Tom Brady is attractive and his wife can notice that Tom’s wife is beautiful without either of them having same-sex attraction. But same-sex attraction is much more than appreciating the beauty of a person of the same-sex. Persons with same-sex attraction desire sexual intimacy and activity with same-sex partners.

Theologian John Frame somewhere defines “lust” as any “desire to engage in acts that are contrary to God’s law.” To fantasize about the sexual attractiveness of someone (man or woman) who is forbidden to you is to cross the line Jesus draws when he warns against committing adultery in one’s heart (Matthew 5:28). This is true even if one never actually decides to commit physical sexual sin. The desire itself is wrong and sinful. Same-sex attraction is sin, because it is a desire for something God forbids. It is sodomy of the heart (analogous to adultery of the heart). It is always already lust—that is what it means to have same-sex attraction. The desire for something sinful is itself sinful. If Jesus condemned a married man sexually desiring a women who is not his wife, how much more would he condemn sexual desire for someone of the same sex?

This is true even if the desire is unwanted and seemingly unchosen. Indeed, this is one of the central points of theological confusion found in the Revoice movement. As Rosaria Butterfield has pointed out, Revoice seems to be operating with a Roman Catholic understanding of concupiscence rather than a Reformed doctrine of total depravity. Reformed theologians, going all the way back to Calvin, have confessed that sinful thoughts and desires can arise within us, even apart from a conscious act of our will. This means the practice of mortifying unlawful sexual desires has to go a lot further and deeper than the Revoice teachers will admit.

Does this mean the mere temptation to engage in homosexual sex is sinful? No, no one has said temptation itself is sin, assuming the temptation comes from outside. Sin and temptation are distinct categories. As we know from Scripture, Jesus Himself was tempted by Satan (Matthew 4:1-11; Hebrews 4:15). But it should be noted that temptation can also come from within, from our own sinful desires. In this case, the temptation is actually to go further into the sin one has already entered. James 1:13-15 says:

Same-sex attraction is not just a temptation, it is a condition of the person’s heart. That condition makes such persons vulnerable to certain same-sex temptations. From my conversations with people who experience same-sex attraction as a condition (Christian and non-Christian), it is a form of desire that arises from within, first and foremost. Yes, there can be external stimuli that enflame it, but the desires are already operating within the person. The temptation does not create the desire, it appeals to the desire. The desire must be mortified if this sin is to be uprooted and the believer is to be fortified against temptation.

To be sure, all Christians struggle with sinful desires, and struggles with particular sins may last our whole lives. There is no easy pathway to victory, even though we have the power of the Holy Spirit at work within us. But Revoice is giving deadly counsel. It tells Christians struggling with same-sex sexual desires that those desires do not need to be eradicated. It tells Christians who are sexually oriented to desire the same sex that they do not need to work to change their orientation. These lies are pastoral disasters waiting to happen. The words of John Owen are still true: “Be killing sin, or it will kill you.” Our message those experiencing same-sex attraction is straight forward: Kill the vile passions before they kill you.

Robert Gagnon has pointed out that Revoice fails to engage the deep questions that would allow its supporters to see the depth of the sin involved in their sexual desires:

In other words, refraining from gay sex is not enough. God calls us to more. Unfortunately Revoice comes up short in its understanding of chastity and its call to repentance.

If God is going to give the “gay Christian” a new orientation and new desires in the resurrection, there is no reason why he cannot do so in the present time, since the power of Christian’s resurrection is already at work in us. Revoice minimizes the gravity of sexual sin involved in same-sex desires, but in doing so also minimizes the grace of God offered in the gospel. Instead of “revoicing” their sexual desires, “gay Christians” should repent of their illicit sexual desires. Revoice advocates are boasting in what is shameful. They are defending desires that should be destroyed, they are proud over things that ought to cause them to mourn (cf. 1 Cor. 5:2). They are helping to destigmatize what ought to revolting to us.

Orientation and Identity

The second major point Revoice proponents make is that a person’s identity is rooted in their sexual orientation. Thus, a person can be both gay and Christian. This assumes an essentialist understanding of human sexuality, which treats homosexuality as an incorrigible, immutable condition. Notice how Wesley Hill roots his identity, and thus his very being, in his erotic orientation:

Note that we do not do this with any other sin – elevating it into a “orientation” in which the desires that would drive a sinful course of action are protected from the need of mortification. This is certainly not the way the historic church has dealt with proclivities towards same-sex sexual activity. This means the claims of Revoice to “uphold the traditional Christian sex ethic” are way overblown. They are actually departing from the historic Christian faith at key points.

In fact, the notion of sexual orientation is a rather new invention, coming in the 1860s. Historically, “homosexuality” described a kind of behavior. Today it describes a kind of person. This shift from act to orientation, from behavior to personhood, has massive consequences. This is not to say that actions have ever been separable from identities, but this still represents a profound change in how our culture understands what it means to be human. We are now defined by desires within rather than our Creator without. We construct our own identity out of our wants and likes, rather than receiving our identity as a gift from God. This is why “sexual orientation” as a way of self-definition is a truly new thing. It allows the psychological to triumph over the physical, for wants to overrule biology, for desire to trump design. Michael W. Hannon traces the historical rise of the notion of orientation:

The way it is generally used, the terminology of “sexual orientation” is an unhelpful (and unnatural) social construct. This very way of looking at what it means to be human allows our desires to nullify our design. “If I want it, if I desire it, how can it be wrong? To deny my desire is to deny who I am!” Thus, conceiving of sexuality in terms of orientation rather than action allows us to replace God’s law with our own desires.

“Orientation” becomes all the more problematic when brought into the church. The Scriptures know of no such thing; for a Christian to describe his settled identity (or orientation) in a way that includes disordered desires that run so deep as to be unchangeable is a denial of the power of God’s transforming grace. The language of “sexual orientation” is especially problematic when joined with a kind of essentialism, in which one’s orientation becomes a fixed part of one’s identity, impenetrable even by the grace of the gospel. The modern homosexual, unlike the ancient sodomite, becomes a new species, as Foucault pointed out.

But, while the category and language are novelties, treating “sexual orientation” as a fixed reality is remarkably common today in the wider culture and now unfortunately is being advocated in the church by the Revoice proponents. But if this is the case, what of Paul’s glorious phrase in 1 Corinthians 6, “such were some of you”? Paul says “such were some of you” to men who had practiced sodomy. He sees their conversion as a break with the old desires/practices and whatever kind of identity flowed out of them.

Wesley Hill and Greg Johnson say “I am a gay Christian.” Paul says to gays who have repented and trusted Christ, “such were some of you.” In other words, Paul says, “You were once gay, engaged in homosexual activity. But not anymore. You have been washed, justified, and sanctified in Christ Jesus.” Where Paul sees a definite break between a past, pre-Christian gay identity and the Christian’s present identity in Christ, Hill and Johnson want to see continuity (they are just as gay after conversion as they were before). In this case, we must side with the apostle Paul over the apostles of Revoice.[vii]

The problems with identifying as a ”gay Christian” can be seen if we plug in other sins. Are we fine with folks who identify as “racist Christians”? What if they say their racism was not a chosen behavior? They do not act on it, but do not mortify the racist orientation. What then? Obviously we would not accept this. Likewise, what if someone identified as a “pedophile Christian”? Oh sure, he doesn’t act on his attraction to children. But he says his attraction to children was never a conscious choice so the orientation towards children cannot be sinful in itself. In fact, analogous to Revoice, he finds many things in pedophile culture to celebrate and believes they will be carried into the New Jerusalem. Again, this is obviously non-sense. The only reason something like Revoice can exist is because our sexually revolutionized culture has been desensitizing us to the filth of the sodomite lifestyle for decades and the process if largely complete, even in some quarters of the church. This is why “gay Christian” sounds acceptable to many but “racist Christian” and “pedophile Christian” do not (at least not yet).

As we have seen “sexual orientation” is a rather recent invention. But it pervasive and it has radically transformed how we speak and think of sexuality. Today, people tend to identify as heterosexual or homosexual. This is our sexual binary. In other words, we define ourselves according to our desires. But the biblical sexual binary is not between straight and gay; it is between male and female. This goes all the way back to Genesis 1 – God did not make straights and gays, he made men and women. We are not defined by our internal desires (which are often fluid, leading to an unstable identity); we are defined by God’s act of creation (which gives us a fixed sexual identity as a man or woman, with obligations flowing from that created identity).[viii] Biblically, a man is to obey his nature ordinarily by pursuing a woman, marrying her, and consummating his relationship with her sexually (normally resulting in children). Likewise, a woman lives out her God-given womanhood by receiving a man’s pursuit, uniting with him in a covenant, and becoming one with him in the marriage bed.[ix] True, some men deny their maleness by seeking out other men as sexual partners. And women can do the same with other women. But these are violations of our created natures. A man who has sex with other men is violating the essence of his manhood. He is not expressing an “orientation” – he is rebelling against what God made him to be! This is why Romans 1 describes homosexual practice as unnatural.

A man who has sex with other men is not a different kind of man from the man who marries a woman. He does not have a different orientation. He is simply a bad man – or a man who is bad at being a man. He is denying his fundamental God-given masculinity. He is exchanging the right use of the body for a dishonorable use of the body.[x]

Rather than using the language of “sexual orientation,” a more helpful, pastoral, and Scriptural approach is to talk about patterns of temptation and personal vulnerabilities. What is the advantage of creating categories of people and identities for people based solely on their temptations? Or their disordered desires? We don’t do that with any other sin, so why do it with sexual sin? If I am tempted regularly to overindulge in alcohol, but consistently resist, I do not say I have a “drunkenness orientation,” and I certainly do not identify as a “drunkard Christian.” I may have a particular weakness that leaves me susceptible to temptation in that area, but I do not create an identity or orientation out of that weakness. If anything, I seek to rise above it, to become the kind of person who is not so weak or easily tempted in the presence of alcohol. I try to eradicate my attraction to alcohol abuse; I seek to mortify my desire to get drunk.

It is true that Christians can struggle with same-sex attraction even as they struggle with a multitude of other sins. But this struggle is not so much a part of the Christian’s identity as it the contradiction of his true identity. Fundamentally, the Christian is a new creation in Christ Jesus. Yes, he still struggles with indwelling sin, but sin no longer reigns over him and therefore no longer has power to define him. For a believer to identity as a “gay Christian” is an act of unbelief; it is to name oneself in a way contrary to the new name God has bestowed upon him. For a believer to identify as a “gay Christian” is an act of autonomy, an attempt to define oneself rather than submit to God’s assigned definition. This act of self-naming, self-defining, or even self-creating, is nothing less than idolatry. We must believe what God says about us in the gospel. We must submit to the way God describes his people in his Word. We must define ourselves the way God defines us.

Christians are rarely, if ever, identified as sinners in the New Testament, which suggests sin is not part of our redeemed identity. Fundamentally, Christians are saints, not sinners. We find our identity as saints in union with Christ. However, because God’s redemptive work is not yet finished, we have things in our lives that contradict our deepest identity, what theologians have usually called indwelling sin, or the flesh. So do I sin? Yes. To say otherwise would make me a liar (1 John 1:5-10). I am not yet perfect. I am not yet what I shall be. But my indwelling sin does not identify me, it is the contradiction of my true identity. This is why Paul’s ethic can be boiled down to “Be who you are!” in Romans 6. We are to live out our union with Christ, and in Christ we are dead to sin and alive to righteousness. If my sin is still allowed to define me just as deeply as my union with Christ, then “Be who you are” is an exhortation to live in sin as much as it is the opposite. To the gay Christian, we should say, “You are dead to your gayness! You are dead to your same-sex desires! You are a new creation in Christ! Sin is no longer your master, for the old you has died and you have been raised up a new man, alive to righteousness!” Revoice garbles these gospel truths, if not completely denying them. In this respect, the rhetoric of Revoice is very similar to what we have found in other antinomian teachers in the Reformed camp who have become all too popular in recent years, sometimes with disastrous results (e.g., Tullian Tchividjian).[xi] God not only requires our transformation, he supplies the power for us to live transformed lives. We are not in bondage to sinful desires any longer. In the power of the Spirit, we can fight against the flesh and overcome. The gospel means no Christian is ever totally stuck in his sin. There is always reason to hope for and expect change. We are more than conquerors in Christ Jesus.

Michael Bird has said that Paul’s anthropological pessimism is matched and overcome by his pneumatological optimism. This is exactly right. While Christians can and do still fall into sin – sometimes grievously – we also have the freedom and power to obey. We are new creatures, given new a new identity and new powers. We are in Christ and he is in us. We have the Holy Spirit, the same Spirit who raised Jesus from the dead, at work in us. We are dead to sin — including sinful identities — and alive to righteousness.

This is why it is so problematic to identify as a “gay Christian.” It is resigning oneself to defeat in the war against the flesh. It is a way of giving up on the power of the gospel to bring real and lasting change. Revoice proponents see it as an act of humility – a way of confessing their own brokenness. In reality, it is waving the white flag of surrender instead of fighting manfully under the banner of the cross against the world, the flesh, and the devil. It’s not that real Christians cannot struggle with same same-sex attraction. Christians struggle with all kinds of sins. But those sins do not define the real me, they contradict the real me. Calling oneself a “gay Christian” is like saying there is such a thing as “dark lightness” or “square circleness.” It’s an absurdity and a contradiction. Michael Hannon summarizes these thoughts: “I am not my sin. I am not my temptation to sin. By the blood of Jesus Christ, I have been liberated from this bondage. I will have all sorts of identities, to be sure, especially in our crazily over-psychoanalytic age. But at the very least, none of these identities should be essentially defined by my attraction to that which separates me from God.” [xii]

Along with these confusions, Revoice bungles another area of biblical sexuality. The kind of teaching, lifestyle, and culture promoted by Revoice could never foster true manhood or womanhood. Many critics of Revoice have missed this point, but it is vital. Because Revoice treats orientation as a deep feature of a person, linking them to a whole culture where disordered sexual desires are given free reign, Revoice can never actually teach men how to live out their God-given masculinity, or teach women how to live out their God-given femininity. Revoice actually encourages Christians to get sucked into the sexual chaos of our age, in which the God-ordained lines between men and women get blurred and smudged. Revoice simply cannot make sense of the kind of definition of manhood assumed by a text like 1 Corinthians 16:13 (echoing David’s parting words to Solomon in 1 Kings 2:2), where Paul tells the brethren to “be strong” and “act like men.” Revoice actually ends up promoting the antithesis of biblical manhood by embracing effeminacy as a valid option. But in 1 Corinthians 6, Paul includes the effeminate among those who will not inherit the kingdom of God. Not all forms of effeminacy are damning in the way that homosexual practice is, but effeminacy and sodomy exist on the same continuum of sexual rebellion. Homosexuality is just the effeminacy coming to consistency. Again, Revoice is poison instead of medicine. Just when we need to recover a biblical and creational understanding of what makes men men and what makes women women, Revoice essentially denies there is any such thing as true masculinity and true femininity. How does Revoice help men become better men? Or more to the point, how does Revoice help men become better at being men? (The same questions could be asked for women.) It does not. Instead it further dilutes masculinity in a culture that is already highly effeminate. But toxic effeminacy is the bane of our age. The message to same-sex attracted men needs to be clear: Be killing effeminacy or effeminacy will kill you.[xiii]

LGBTQ Tribe vs. Gospel Community

The third observation from the Revoice proponents’ writings is their desire to be part of the LGBTQ tribe. They very much consider themselves as “insiders” to the LGBTQ community. They emphasize the need for “gay Christians” to have strong relational networks. The desire for relational connection, of course, is fully understandable. Being created in the image of the triune God, we all have longings for community. For two millennia, orthodox Christian churches have rejected homosexuality as sinful and outside the lines of acceptable living. Revoice proponents do not challenge that ethic, but want to carve out space for gay culture and queer culture in the church. If queer culture can be brought into the New Jerusalem at the last day (as they argue), surely it can be brought into the church now as well. Revoice advocates want to live in the gay world and in the ecclesial world at the same time, even bridging these communities.

Revoice participants say that those who struggle with same-sex sexual desires have been unfairly marginalized in faithful ecclesiastical communities. They are thus trying to “revoice” the arguments against full acceptance and participation of “gay Christians” in the church. They believe their particular “disabilities” can actually be used to enrich and diversify the church in healthy ways. They want the church to repent of the way she has treated gays and other with abnormal sexualities. They want the church to embrace them (same-sex attraction included) and the gay culture of which they are a part.[xiv]

Revoice advocates claim there is much more to being gay than the sex – gays are not just “sex machines.” There is more to be gay than the sex; in fact, one can be gay without the sex. Gayness is a way of seeing, a way of relating, a way of being. Gayness is a style and an aesthetic. And gays, like other groups, have their own distinctive culture which, according to Revoice, should be appreciated by Christians. A lot Revoice speakers point out that even if someone is gay they can still produce cultural beauty (“treasures”) that will be brought into the final kingdom of God. Of course, that claim is not totally false; we would say the same of all unbelievers, thanks to common grace. But the way Revoice frames these cultural contributions is troubling. They are trying to celebrate certain things that really belong underground. They are celebrating what should be suppressed. They are rejoicing in what should be seen as shameful. They want to separate out same-sex sexual activity from the culture that virtually always goes with that activity, and it really can’t be done. There are a lot of things about gay culture that are more problematic and dangerous than Revoice teachers are willing to admit. Ex-gays like Robert Oscar Lopez are helpful in pointing just how full of shame and degradation gay culture really is.

Reflecting on Grant Hartley’s “Queer Treasure” workshop at the 2018 Revoice Conference, Wesley Hill said, “Kicked out of homes and churches, gay people created alternative communities and took care of one another, he said, describing institutions like the Oscar Wilde Memorial Bookshop in New York and The Body Politic, an alternative newspaper.” Hill went on to say, “Revoice attendees like Grant have come to love queer culture and communities. LGBTQ people are ‘our people,’ we feel.”[xv]

But this way of framing the matter is hugely problematic. If Hartley’s and Hill’s people are found in the LGBTQ community, how can they be faithful Christians? How can membership in those communities be harmonized? Does Hill’s gay identity mean more to him that his ecclesial identity? Is his Christian faith tacked on to his gay identity? Is his Church membership less determinative of who he is than his membership in gay community? Is Hill suggesting that becoming a Christian merely adds another feature to one’s personal identity, but does not fundamentally remake and recreate that identity? How can one be a new creature in Christ, a citizen of the kingdom of God, a member of the New Jerusalem that is the Church, the body and bride of Christ, and yet still say that the LGBTQ group is “my people”? Hill and Hartley are, at best, terribly confused about what it means to be a Christian and a member of the church.

Christians are obviously members of various groups – a biological family, a nation, an ethnic group, and so forth. But our deepest and most formative community – “my people” – must always be the church. If any other group challenges my loyalty to the same degree, it has become a rival to Christ. This is all the more true if the competing group is defined by perversions God continually calls us away from in his Word. If a Christian was also a member of gang that existed solely for the purpose of raping and stealing, and said of the gang, “Those are my people,” we’d all see the problem. But that’s what Hill, following Hartley, has done.

I am not actually saying Hill and Hartley are apostates. What I am saying is their way of embracing and relating to the LGBTQ community is misguided and highly dangerous. It reeks of confusion at a deep level and is sure to mislead others. They are trying to synthesize a personal identity out of disparate communities that are simply not compatible. I cannot be a member of mosque and a church at the same time. I cannot call Muslims “my people’ while remaining a fully faithful Christian. But this is the kind of thing Hill and Hartley are doing.

The reality is that the Church should accept anyone who repents of his sins and trusts in Jesus Christ, including those who struggle with same-sex attraction. We should be kind and gracious to brothers and sisters in the Lord who struggle with these sexual sins. There is certainly room for them in the church, just as there is room for any kind of sinner. But to enter the church, sinners must repent of their sin. But repentance is not part of the package for Revoice (apart from calling Biblically faithful orthodox churches to “repent” of following the Scriptures). Revoice leaders appear to want to be members of the Church while also maintaining their place in the homosexual community—”LGBTQ people are ‘our people.’”

Hill elaborates on the “Queer Treasure” workshop:

In other words, Hill sees the LGBTQ family as existing parallel to the community of Jesus. But a community formed around sin, temptation, and sinful desires is never really a model. Instead, the LGBTQ family is a rival and counterfeit to the true and faithful community of Jesus—the Church. I would urge all those who have joined the Revoice bandwagon: Choose this day whom you will serve. Choose which will be your true community – the church or the LGBT movement. Choose which culture you will embrace, the culture of the kingdom of God or queer culture. But do not think you can bring these things together and find peace. You will not. It is not possible to dwell in the New Jerusalem and in Sodom at the same time.

To repeat myself: Christians cannot have one foot in the LGBTQ community and one foot in the Church community any more than they could have one foot in the Islamic community and the other in the Church, or one foot in Mormonism and the other in the Church. If same-sex desires present a temptation to act on those desires – as Revoice proponents admit – then why embrace the community that is built around acting on those temptations? Doesn’t Scripture command us to flee tempting situations? How is Revoice fleeing temptation if its proponents are embracing the very community where those temptations would be most acute?

What has the New Jerusalem to do with Sodom? Those involved in Revoice want to live in both cities, but they cannot. One is destined for eternal glory, the other for eternal destruction. One represents a culture of life, the other a culture of death. There is no way to mix these together, as Revoice wants to do. Citizens of Jerusalem cannot look longingly at Sodom and say, “Those are my people.” We can have compassion on the residents of Sodom, and call them out of their perversity. But we dare not join them.

If the LGBTQ family is better at hospitality (as some have claimed) than many Christian churches, this exposes a need for the Church to reform and repent. The Church should see this as a challenge, and should seek to outdo any and all rivals in love and fellowship. However, the faithful Church will never be centered around a sinful identity, but around the redeeming and transforming grace and mercy of Christ.

Revoice is also associated with what has been called “spiritual friendship” as a way of creating community that individuals who are same-sex attracted would otherwise miss. “Spiritual friendship” is supposed to allow same-sex attracted individuals find connection with other people while managing their sexual desires so they remain chaste. But the model of friendship being proposed, while not always clear or consistent, raises a number of issues, and again, some of them are serious.

Friendships must be distinguished from other relationships which also include an element of sexual attraction. While sexual relationships can include friendship (e.g., a husband and wife are going to be friends with one another, as well as lovers), friendships as such do not include a sexual component. Friends do not share erotic love. A friendship that includes any kind of romantic tension is not merely a friendship any more (this is why is can be so difficult for men and women to be “just friends” – the sexual tension keeps getting in the way of the friendship).

Obviously, those who experience same-sex attraction are going to need to be careful about the kids of same-sex friendships they pursue, just as a married man needs to be careful about the kinds of friendships he has with women who are not his wife. Romantic feelings should never be allowed to tinge such friendships. But when Revoice supporters describe their own experience, this is exactly what we find happening. Several Revoice teachers want to create a category of homosexual friendship that includes romance of some sort but not sexual consummation. To put it mildly, this is playing with fire and many who follow the counsel of Revoice will get burned. For example, Hill admits that in many of his same-sex friendships, he found himself romantically and sexually attracted to the other man, even “falling in love” with him and then undergoing something akin to a devastating “break up” when the friendship ended. This is a deranged and inappropriate version of friendship, and to encourage it in any way is deeply unhealthy. While those who are struggling with same-sex attraction certainly need community, they must also learn to de-sexualize same-sex friendships, doing whatever it takes to avoid kindling their unnatural lusts.

Related to this is the language of “sexual minorities,” which Revoice promotional literature used to describe the conference. “Minority” language is very problematic in this context, and not just because it tends to be self-affirming when a call to be self-denying would be more appropriate. What does it mean to identify as a “sexual minority”? “Minority” language comes out of the identity politics movement, which is cancerous to our culture and to the Church in itself. In our current political landscape, identifiable minority groups are awarded special status. To be a part of a minority means you are a victim, a member of an oppressed group. “Sexual minority” language is especially perilous politically since adding LGBTQ people to the federally protected classes of persons in our legal code could make orthodox Christian faith all but illegal in our nation. Is Revoice encouraging this kind of political action, even implicitly? Is it aiding and abetting the LGBT political agenda (which so often has conservative Christians as its target)?

Of course, “sexual minority” language also invites comparison with racial minorities and suggests that those who object to these sexual minorities on moral grounds are actually the equivalent of racists (hence the frequent charge of homophobia against those who say homosexuality is wrong). But of course, sexual orientations and race are not actually parallel, as the former is a form of sexual deviance (a moral issue) and the latter is a feature of God’s creation (not a moral issue). Gay is not, and never can be, the “new black.”

Because Revoice supporters so closely align themselves with the LGBTQ movement, we are justified in wondering where they will come down on the politics of the LGBTQ rights movement. Where does Revoice stand on the Obergefell ruling? Will they consistently join us in opposing gay marriage? Will they work with us to see Obergefell overturned? Will they seek to protect Christians in civil government, in the wedding industry, and so forth, from persecution when they do want to participate in gay weddings in any way? Where do their loyalties fall? When Christians increasingly face persecution for not going along with the gay rights agenda, will Revoice supporters stand up for us as their brothers and sisters in Christ? Or will they side with politically active gays against orthodox Christians? Will they defend the right of Christian pastors and counseling ministries to seek to redirect the same-sex desires of those who want help? Or will they join the rising tide to outlaw reparative and conversion therapies, as well as other forms of counseling – especially since at least some Revoice teachers see homosexuality an unchangeable orientation? Are Revoice leaders really with orthodox Christians in these cultural and political battles, or are they against us?

That last question is crucial because the LBGTQ+ movement is intent on destroying the orthodox Christian faith. LGBTQ+ has become the new cultural orthodoxy; dissenting from it increasingly means one will pay a price, including the accusation of “bigotry,” but often in other ways as well. We should not be naïve about this reality. To see who controls any culture, all you have to do is see who you are not allowed to criticize in public. We have blasphemy laws as much as any theocracy – just criticize the sexual revolution, especially sodomy, and see what happens. You will quickly find out who the god of our culture really is.

Revoice garners supporters in the church today largely because empathy has become the glittering vice of our age. Empathy feels so good, so virtuous – and in some contexts it is virtuous — but if we empathize with the wrong things or the wrong people, it becomes wicked. Nothing is more dangerous than the tendency to empathize with those who seem to be victims, but who use victimhood to cloak an agenda. No one wants to be thought as mean-spirited or bigoted or even homophobic. But we do not do any favors to those struggling with same-sex attraction if we affirm them in their desires and orientation. We need to challenge their paradigm and self-understanding, as we call them to repentance. We need to show them that the church can be their home, their community, their family – but to enjoy all the communion of the saints has to offer, they will have to reject their membership in rivalrous communities.

Sublimation vs. Repentance and Mortification

The fourth point from the Revoice proponents that must be highlighted is their refusal to call for the mortification of same-sex desires. While this is related to our first point, we want to draw together several strands here to show why the whole Revoice project is opposed to God’s creational design and to the gospel, and therefore is destined to fail.

Within the logic of Revoice, same-sex sexual desires themselves are not sinful, and so an identity can be legitimately formed around a person’s homosexual orientation, and true community can be found within the LGBTQ+ movement. Within this line of reasoning, mortification doesn’t make sense on several fronts. There is no designation of sin, no distinction between the person and the desires, and a core community is found outside the church. From their perspective, mortification sounds like death to the person, rather than death to the sin.

It is quite possible that many Christians who have ended up in this system of thought have done so after years of trying to change, with no ultimate success. Perhaps these persons are tired of battling and struggling, and just want some sense of peace in their lives. Then along comes the Revoice advocates, who say that you don’t have to battle it out, that there is nothing to repent of. Rather, you should just see yourself as being put under a vocation of suffering and use this to form friendships with others who have similar experiences. [xvii] Denny Burk and Rosaria Butterfield see this as an insertion of the Freudian notion of sublimation into the conversation:

But as we have seen, the whole line of reasoning is counter to the Scriptures. Same-sex desires are called “vile passions” in Romans 1. The notion of an immutable orientation is really a social construct, created in the 1860s, and not a timeless descriptor of humanity, much less a Biblical category. A Christian’s identity is not shaped by sin, temptation, or illicit desires, but by the believer’s union with Christ. Furthermore, believers find their true community in the Church, the community of grace and forgiveness. We don’t look to the world or its systems to find relationships of ultimate meaning.

Rather than sublimation, repentance of sin and mortification of sin is the Scriptural path for those who struggle with same-sex attraction. Repentance cannot be brought about if those who have same-sex sexual desires deny that they are sinful in the first place. Nor can repentance occur with those who identify themselves as “gay Christians,” for to them the “gayness” is part of their personhood rather than indwelling sin. But their confusions keep them from grasping the fullness of the gospel, which includes not only forgives but transformation. When we start to move in the direction of repentance and mortification, Scripture passages such as 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 make more sense:

According to the Scriptures, gospel transformation is possible. Paul said to the Corinthians who had committed a variety of sins, including homosexuality: “And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.” They were homosexuals, but because of the gospel that is in the past tense. It is no more. We know from 1 Corinthians 6 as well as countless personal testimonies that a “sexual orientation” is actually quite fluid and one’s sexual proclivities can change over time, by God’s grace. Once a homosexual does not mean always a homosexual. Rosaria Butterfield, who is living proof of this, sees the approach of the Revoice proponents as literally a dead end:

True life and true freedom are found in Christ and obeying His commands. True wisdom is found in living within God’s creational design.

The person with same-sex attraction has to go to war with his unnatural affections. In the beginning of this section, battle fatigue was mentioned as one of the attractions of the Revoice theology. Christians may have struggled for years without success, and just want some sense of peace in their lives. But the reality is that all who call upon the name of Christ will have to battle sin and temptation until we are called to glory. We may have different vulnerabilities and temptations, but none of us in the Church Militant are exempted from these battles. Ephesians 6:10 tells us to, “Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil.” In this arena of battle “against spiritual hosts of wickedness” we are told to:

Those who struggle with same-sex sexual attraction and want to live as faithful Christians have a tough path. Repentance is hard. Many may never completely shake free of illicit desires and patterns of temptation in this life. But those with same-sex attraction should be very vigilant to guard themselves against sexually desiring those of the same sex every time an occasion arises to do so. The goal should be to have sexual desires and practices aligned with God’s design for their bodies. With God all things are possible. Spiritual transformation even from long-held patterns of sin, temptation, and unlawful desires can and does happen in this lifetime.

Conclusion: A Voice of Confusion Rather than Clarity

No doubt, there are many things we can learn from the Revoice movement, particularly about how to minister more effectively to the LGBT community. But in the end, Revoice is not a movement we can in any way endorse. The voice of Revoice needs to be silenced. We should reject Revoice as a dangerous project that will mislead many. Revoice is not rooted in the grace of the gospel and does not do justice to God’s creational patterns. Revoice makes peace with many things all Christians should be fighting against. Revoice is teaching Christians who struggle with same-sex desires to revel in their broken sexuality rather than repent of it.

Revoice claims to uphold the traditional Christian and biblical sex ethic because it is committed to male/female marriage and requires those with same-sex desires to remain celibate. While these are commendable features, there is much more to as traditional biblical sex ethic than these commitments. A proper understanding of sex and sexuality is richer, deeper, broader. Traditionally, Christians who struggle with same-sex attraction have never identified as “gay” and have never viewed homosexuality as a fixed orientation. These are dangerous novelties, either introduced or underwritten by Revoice. Same-sex sexual desire has always been understood as sinful in itself. Same-sex attraction has been regarded as a vile passion that must be mortified, as with any other evil desire. Certainly the traditional and biblical sex ethic has not celebrated “queer culture” the way Revoice does; indeed traditional Christians would say whatever insights and contributions queers make, they do so in spite of their broken sexuality, not because of it. “Queer culture” is a result of the fall and can never be celebrated in itself, and certainly cannot be blended into the culture of the church without serious compromise. What Revoice proponents seem to regard as cultural treasures are at best fool’s gold, and more often dung. Traditionally and biblically, Christians have been committed to sex-specific roles that clearly distinguish masculinity and femininity; effeminate men and butch women have been viewed as violating creational norms and called to repent from such deviancies. But Revoice revels in confusion of sexual roles, and remains oblivious to the fact that effeminacy and androgyny are identified as sins before God in the Scriptures. Revoice uses the language of identity politics, referring to sexual perverts as “sexual minorities.” While it is true that sometimes Christians have been unkind to gays, and that must be addressed so the church is properly evangelistic, these missional failures do not mean that Christians dealing with same-sex attraction should be given a place of privilege or leadership in the church, unless they are seeking to mortify those desires and are clearly headed towards Christian maturity. Same-sex attraction cannot be used for kingdom purposes; it can only be killed by the power of the Holy Spirit. The fact that Revoice teachers want gay Christians to be included in leadership as gays, premised on the claim that their gayness will actually enrich the Church’s diversity, is hugely problematic.

By using the category of “orientation,” and thus defining and categorizing people according to their sexual desires, Revoice has adopted a worldly way of looking at humans and human sexuality. Revoice has followed the world in replacing God’s male/female binary with the heterosexual/homosexual binary. This creates numerous traps from which Revoice proponents cannot extricate themselves unless they leave the project behind altogether. It will not be surprising at all if, in the coming years, many who have advocated the Revoice project, end up leaving the Christian faith altogether. Revoice represents a volatile, unstable mix of biblical theology and worldly philosophy. It wants to bring Sodom into the New Jerusalem but they are simply not compatible.

In the end, Revoice has been weighed and found wanting. While Revoice promised a way forward for “gay Christians” who remain committed to the biblical definition of marriage and the biblical practice of chastity outside of marriage, it has far too many problems to commend it. Ultimately, Revoice is influenced more by the moral blindness and darkness of the sexual revolution than by the Word of God. My hope and prayer is those who are entangled in Revoice and who struggle with same-sex desires will be set free by the grace of God.

Addendum #1: Analyzing Key Passages from Wesley Hill

As a sort of post-script, I want to analyze a couple crucial sections from Wesley Hill that crystallize the way he sees gay identity, gay culture, and gay friendship intersecting with his Christian faith. This is taken from pages 78-81 of his book Spiritual Friendship and I have broken it up with my own commentary below.

This sounds to me like two men who experience same-sex attraction who are then going to try to figure out what to do with their romantic attraction once it manifests itself. But why even go there? This is already a problem. How is this consistent with the command to flee temptation? Hill does not come out and say the attraction is mutual, but it certainly could be. Whatever the case, romantic feelings towards another man are part of the friendship for Hill and rather than repenting of them, he wants to “negotiate” them. This is a bizarre and unhealthy and unconventional notion of friendship. It is mixing friendship love with erotic love, but in a context where erotic love should have no place at all. The fact that romantic attraction is entering into a same-sex friendship is highly problematic and calls for mortification of the desires that drive the romantic attachment. But mortifying those desires is the one thing Hill will not commit himself to doing. In fact, he suggests doing the opposite, seeing his same-sex desires as a gift and a calling, even though he must not act on them by having sex with another man. Hill says:

Hill’s same-sex attraction is inseparable from his same-sex friendships. I suppose even if the friend were a straight man, there would be limits to the kind of intimacy he should seek, since he seems to be admitting his same-sex attraction is inevitably intertwined with these friendships. Hill admits his sexual desire colors his friendships with men, giving those friendships an erotic dimension that should not be there (whether mutual or not). (Think of a pedophile who wants to remain celibate but also says he has a special calling to friendship with children.)

While acknowledging this kind of thing can be parsed and nuanced indefinitely, it must be said that to speak of “sanctifying” a homosexual orientation is just wrong. How can one make holy what is intrinsically unholy? He is seeking to sanctify a part of himself that should be rejected as unclean. His gayness is not to be “stewarded,” it is to be repented of.

Hill includes his same-sex desires as part of his calling to a special kind of friendship. But this is just the problem — same-sex sexual attraction is no more a “vocation” than drunkenness or coveting is a “vocation.” The program of Hill and Revoice ends up embracing an aspect of identity that should be fought against. Some Revoice speakers will say that same sex desire is not benign or innocent — but then they won’t say it should be repented of or mortified, and they will go on to celebrate it and affirm it in various ways. It’s a very confused and confusing project. Well intended perhaps, but very unwise. It is high on empathy, low on prudence.

Elsewhere Hill uses an analogy that same-sex desire to blindness. But unpacking this analogy can help us get at the problem. Blindness is a physical defect. But same-sex desire is a moral defect. They are not comparable in the way that most matters to this discussion. Physical blindness is not something anyone should ever be told to repent of because it isn’t that kind of thing. But having misdirected sexual desires is an issue of moral culpability, no matter how those desires got there and no matter how innate they might feel to the one who has them. Romans 1 addresses just this point. It’s simply a matter of exegesis.

Finally, Hill says he wants his homosexual orientation to be a doorway to blessing and grace. But what does it mean to knock on that door? Or to walk through that doorway? Why assume there is blessing on the other side? In reality, that door only leads to death. Same-sex attraction cannot, in the nature of the case, be a doorway to something good, any more than any other evil desire can be a doorway to a blessing. Where does Scripture tell us such desires can be a doorway to anything good? Again, this points to the radical confusion at the heart of the Revoice project. Hill should look for another door if he wants blessing and grace.

Again, Hill:

This statement seem to be very confused. I do not want to fight over words, but how and why does Hill say being gay shapes his whole identity if he is not acting out his gayness in a sexual way? It seems there is at least one thing about his life – what he does with his sex organ, to put it bluntly – that is not determined by his being gay. That’s a good thing of course – his commitment to celibacy is commendable. But why go to such lengths to embrace a gay identity, only to reject the thing that is most crucial to being gay in the common parlance – namely, sex with other men? If he not going to let his gayness determine what he does with his penis, why should it determine anything else about his life? Why give gayness such power and control over other features of one’s life? Doesn’t this lead to a kind of moral and cultural schizophrenia – his whole life and culture is gay, except for what he does with his genitalia, so how he claim to have wholeness and integrity? If he is not going to use his penis in a gay way, why not reject other features of being gay, e.g., effeminacy in all its manifestations.

Perhaps being gay is not as pervasive and central to Hill’s identity as he professes. Perhaps there is a better way for him to describe himself. Perhaps there is a better way for him to live. And if Hill were to let go of his insistence on being called a “gay Christian,” what else might change?

Again, Hill:

The way I read this, he pursues friendships specifically with men he has an erotic appreciation for, even if he does not intend to act on it. He is drawn to these men specifically because of his heightened sensitivity to same-sex beauty. He chooses them as friends for this reason. I cannot see that as anything other than foolish or dangerous. What does it mean for his passion “for same sex beauty” to determine the kinds of friendships he pursues, unless it means he is pursuing friendships with men he is actually attracted to? For him, eros is intertwined into his male friendships.

Hill says he has loved his male friends better because he is sexually drawn to them. If he were straight, he would not have loved them as well (but no doubt, he could have found a woman to love, and could have loved her far more fully than he can love his male friends!). I am not at all convinced Hill is a better friend to other males because of his sexual orientation. In fact, my guess is that a lot the investment he made in his male friends was actually very unhealthy for him, if not also for them. Who is to say the time, energy, and money poured into these male friendships, tinged with romance and eroticism, even if only in Hill’s mind and feelings, could have been spent much better elsewhere?

Hill says that for him being gay in a kind of sensibility. But why does he think this sensibility is healthy or righteous? How is it consistent with the kinds of things God calls men to be and to do? For example, where does Scripture call a man to have a “heightened sensitivity” to and “passion” for same-sex beauty? In reality, Scripture repeatedly calls on men to appreciate opposite sex beauty (e.g., Proverbs 5). Hill, and the entire Revoice project, takes vices and reframes them as virtues. But it simply doesn’t work. Revoice is unnatural and therefore ungodly. Revoicing needs to give way to repenting.

Addendum #2: A Post-Script to the 2019 PCA General Assembly

I want to add another section to this paper in light of the recent PCA General Assembly. I am not in the PCA any more but I continue to watch it with a vested interest, as it is bellwether for conservative, traditional Christian faith in America. My hope and prayer is that the PCA will stand firm on biblical orthodoxy, but there are reasons to be concerned for her future.

The PCA General Assembly did not resolve the Revoice controversy in the denomination’s midst, though I was thankful the General Assembly voted approvingly of the Nashville Statement, which, while certainly capable of being greatly improved upon, firmly rejects “gay Christian” identity.[xix] However, the most interesting moment in the assembly was the speech against the Nashville Statement made by “gay pastor” Greg Johnson:

Several features of this speech are odd. It completely overlooks the biblical text that most directly speaks to the issue of identity, namely, 1 Corinthians 6. Greg Johnson says “I am gay.” Paul says “such were some of you.” In 1 Corinthians 6, Paul says to ex-gay Christians, in effect, you are no longer to consider yourself a homosexual. In Johnson’s speech, he said he did not know of people who had their sexual desires changed – “I do not know of anyone who has had their same sex desires taken away.” This is a claim I find hard to believe given how many folks have come out of gay lifestyle; they are not hard to find. But it is certainly a false claim biblically, given 1 Corinthians 6.

The comparison of Christians with same-sex attraction to paraplegics is bizarre. There is simply no connection here, as one is a moral issue and the other a physical condition. No one says being a paraplegic is sinful. No one says paraplegia is an orientation.

Johnson says that the Nashville Statement singles out “gay Christians” because we do no treat any other group of sinners this way. Again, this is a claim that is astoundingly out of touch with reality. It is actually backwards. In truth, it is advocates of homosexual practice who have singled it out, even trying to make those who engage in sodomy a protected class with special rights. All Christians are doing is responding to these cultural and political developments.

Other classes of sins don’t get called out the way sodomy does because other classes of sins do not create subcultures in the same way. Christians who have struggled with drunkenness have not organized pride parades to celebrate their drunkenness. They do not hold conferences where they get together and celebrate their drunken identity or orientation. They do not promote drunken culture or boast of its treasures that will be carried into the New Jerusalem. It is not the Nashville Statement or orthodox Christians who have singled out homosexuality for special treatment; it is homosexuals themselves who have tried to build an entire identity around their desires. The sad thing here is that some Christians are getting sucked into it.

Johnson says he is “hurt” by those who reject “gay Christian” identity. But his feelings are not the standard of righteousness. Why should his feelings be allowed to hold the entire General Assembly hostage? Isn’t this emotional blackmail? Jesus often hurt people’s feelings. Reading the Scriptures aloud is considered a “hate crime” by some because they are hurt by the very words of God. We should certainly love everyone who identifies as LGBTQ. But loving people and people feeling loved are two different things. A child who is disciplined by a father might not feel loved in that very moment since the discipline is painful (Heb. 12:7ff). But Scripture says discipline is a form of love (Prov. 13:24). John Piper’s words on emotional blackmail are appropriate rejoinder to Johnson’s hurt feelings:

In this case, Johnson may be hurt by Article 7 of the Nashville Statement, but that is not an argument against the Nashville Statement – or at least it shouldn’t be.

As is typical of our age, Johnson sees himself as the hero-victim. And as is typical of our age, those who are suckers for misguided empathy fall for it. In his speech he described what it was like to not be able to have a family because he is gay. He has had to sit alone on Christmas Day. He does not get romantic hugs or have family phots on the mantle His line will end with him. And so forth. He is sacrificing for Jesus by remaining celibate. (Are those who invest in a wife and children making sacrifices for Jesus?) Johnson may very well be making certain sacrifices for Jesus by remaining celibate, but if celibacy is truly a gift – if it is truly his gift — he should not act as it is such a burden. The apostle Paul wished others could share in his gift of celibacy (1 Corinthians 7) whereas Johnson wishes he did not have to live a life of celibacy. Something about his way of describing his experience simply doesn’t add up. Paul, as a celibate man, could say, “I wish others could be like me.” Johnson, as a celibate man, says, “I wish I could be like others – like those who get to have a family.”

It is true that sometimes Christians have been cruel to gays. Gays have often been mocked and scorned. This is not right. When such actions have taken place, we should repent. But past failures of some Christians do not excuse the Revoice movement. Christians should learn how to minister the gospel to the LGBTQ+ persons in love and humility, but it should do so without compromise. Revoice is not the way forward. And Revoice has no place in the faithful church.

There was another interesting development at the PCA General Assembly I want to address. David Cassidy, a friend of mine and a superb preacher, delivered a sermon to the presbyters that was both challenging and stirring. Overall, the sermon had an excellent missional focus and should be taken to heart. But there was one rhetorical move in the sermon that I found unwise.

Cassidy pointed out that many folks have left the church, believing it to be judgmental, particularly towards gays. Surveys bear this out. The world already knows we are against homosexuality so we do not need to proclaim the “law” in this area. Instead, we need to focus on preaching the gospel.

I certainly agree with the focus on preaching the gospel. But I do not think we can go quiet (or silent) on speaking out against homosexuality for a couple of reasons. First, even as many inside and outside the church know that the Bible condemns homosexuality, there are many once faithful Christians who have gone wobbly in just this area. There are plenty of evangelical leaders who have changed their minds, either softening or altogether rejecting the biblical norm in this area. With so much pro-gay propaganda and pressure out there, if we want our children to stand firm on biblical sexual ethics, we most certainly need to continue to teach what Scripture says in these areas. Besides, can anyone imagine taking this approach with regard to other sins, e.g., most people know racism is wrong, so we are no longer going to preach against it, less we offend the racists we are trying to evangelize, or come as judgmental?

But perhaps more importantly, second, we need to proclaim the law in this area of sexuality with greater depth than we ever have before. We need to explain the rationale behind God’s prohibition of sodomy (just as we need to explain the rationale behind God’s prohibition on other forms of sexual activity, e.g., fornication). Today, the world sees the law of God as bigotry. The only reason they can imagine we are against homosexuality is animus or prejudice. We need to show that is not the case at all. We oppose homosexual lusts and actions in the name of true love. We need to explain to those inside and outside the church why homosexuality is unnatural and destructive of human flourishing. God’s law is not arbitrary. God’s law is for our good, to serve our flourishing in the fullest sense. The prohibition against homosexual practice is not only a biblical law; it is a natural law, and we need to unpack why this particular way of using one’s body is unnatural and harmful. We really have not done this very well – the world has not really heard what we have to say on this, and even many in the church could not explain why God commands what he commands and forbids what he forbids in the area of sexuality. I would say the opposite of Cassidy: we need to proclaim the law, in all its depth, complete with its rationale, to a world that, for the most part, has never really been confronted with the full case against homosexuality. We are not simply being judgmental or bigoted; we are advocating a beautiful and rich vision of human sexuality, a sex ethic that is fully compatible with our sexual natures because it is given to us by the Creator. Thus, instead of doing less education about homosexuality (as Cassidy seems to suggest), we need to do a whole lot more. I would suggest looking at writers like Ryan Anderson, Anthony Esolen, John Stonestreet, and J. Budziszewski, among others, for help in these areas.

Consider an analogy: In an egalitarian and feminist society, like modern America, the notion that only males can be pastors seems sexist. In the face of such misunderstanding, we need to patiently explain why God restricts pastoral leadership exclusively to men. This is not arbitrary or cruel; it fits with our sexual design. The rationale (found in both nature and Scripture) needs to be unpacked so the rule can be seen for what it is.

None of this is to say that we can actually silence the charges of bigotry. But proclaiming the whole of God’s revealed truth is our calling. And for those who are given ears to hear, the arguments we make for God’s law from Scripture and nature will be found persuasive.

FOOTNOTES

[i] At this point in their theology, the Revoice proponents say that they support the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman, and that sexual activity only belongs within marriage.

[ii] Revoice is not a totally monolithic movement, so not every Revoice participant/supporter will agree on every detail. But I believe this is a faithful summary of Revoice in general.

[iii] Quoted from Denny Burk and Rosaria Butterfield web article: Learning to Hate Our Sin without Hating Ourselves (July 4, 2018). Found at https://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2018/07/22066/

[iv] http://www.alliancenet.org/mos/1517/robert-gagnon-on-revoice#.XPYV8Ht7m01

[v] Quoted from Denny Burk and Rosaria Butterfield web article: Learning to Hate Our Sin without Hating Ourselves (July 4, 2018). Found at https://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2018/07/22066/.

[vi] Michael W. Hannon: https://www.firstthings.com/article/2014/03/against-heterosexuality

[vii] Paul’s sharp before and after language in 1 Corinthians should not be to taken to mean that practicing gays who to come to Christ will no longer struggle with same sex attraction or other associated sins. It is very likely they will – just as Christians struggle with a wide variety of sinful patterns and tendencies. While sin no longer reigns over the Christian, we all know indwelling sin remains and is often (and sadly) a very powerful force in our lives. But I think Paul’s definitive “such were some of you” answers the question of gay identity. The Christian who once lived a gay lifestyle should say, “I once was gay, now I am Christian. I may struggle with what I was, but I left the old identity behind. I am a new creation in Christ. I have a new identity.” This does not mean he never sins, but it does mean he refuses to identify with what is sinful and shameful. His struggle with homosexual practice is not his identity; it is the contradiction of his identity in Christ.

At this point, I should also point out that there are some even in Christian circles who seem to believe “once gay, always gay,” as if full change was impossible. But 1 Corinthians 6 – as well as the testimony of countless ex-gays in the world today – disprove this assertion. Some homosexuals repent, and experience a very complete victory of their former same-sex sexual desires.

[viii] I suppose this would be the place to meander into a discussion of transgenderism, but let me leave it at this: It impossible for a man to become a woman and vice versa.

[ix] Are there legitimate exceptions to this pattern of male/female union in marriage? Yes, in several passages of Scripture (e.g., 1 Corinthians 7), we find that there are some people who are called to a life of celibacy/singleness. But this gift is quite rare and unique. And in such cases, a man is still going to live out his masculinity (albeit without marrying a woman) and a woman is still going to live out her femininity (albeit without marrying a man). The crucial point here is that we reject the hetero/homo binary , which is perverse social construct, and stick to the divinely ordained male/female binary.

[x] There are a handful of Christian teachers who like to address the homosexual issue by saying something like, “If you are gay, becoming a heterosexual will not save you” or “Living as a homosexual does not send you to hell – refusing to trust Christ does.” There is some sense in which this is technically true. But it is badly misleading. Yes, homosexual practice is a sin, but simply reverting to heterosexual sexual practice is not itself saving. One could go from sinning sexually with the same sex to sinning sexually with the opposite sex. It is not as if everyone who avoids the sin of sodomy is saved. But here is the problem with this kind of rhetorical move: It confuses the issue. It still uses the gay/straight binary instead of the male/female binary. It mitigates the fullness of God’s saving grace, which ultimately restores us to the men and women God designed us to be.

[xi] In fact, if we are looking for further reasons why Revoice has become plausible in the Reformed community, it is because many in the Reformed church adopted an antinomian view of salvation (or at least a lot of antinomian rhetoric) long ago. I believe Tchividijan was disqualified for pastoral ministry before he became an adulterer. When he fell into serious sin, he was really just practicing the antinomian message he had been preaching for years.

[xii] Michael W. Hannon: https://www.firstthings.com/article/2014/03/against-heterosexuality

[xiii] I have argued elsewhere that effeminacy may be considered (from one perspective) the “original sin” in Genesis 3. Adam was given the distinctively masculine task of guarding and keeping the garden (which imaged his bride; cf. Song of Solomon, where the women is described using garden imagery). When the satanic invader entered the garden, Adam should have smashed his head. Instead, he stood by and watched as the serpent attacked his wife. Adam’s failure to crush the head of the serpent allowed his wife to be deceived by the devil. This is to say that, bound up in the fall, is the failure of a man to act as a man, to engage in a manly and godly act of violence by destroying the serpent. Adam allowed the fall to happen by becoming a pacifist when he should have gone to war; he became effeminate when he should have been manly. Our culture’s wide-ranging embrace of effeminacy and feminism (movements which essentially make men womanly and women manly) is a sign of darkness and rebellion. Our confusion about sex and sex roles is incredibly debilitating. The church’s calling includes discipling men in true masculinity and women in true femininity.

[xiv] One wonders why other categories of sinners could try the same trick. What is white supremacist “Christians” argued their position could actually benefit the church in various ways? But today, we tend to be very sensitive to the heinous sin of racism; it is disgusting and revolting to us. Meanwhile, we have been very desensitized to the various sexual sins.

[xv] https://spiritualfriendship.org/2019/02/19/about-revoices-queer-treasure/

[xvi] https://spiritualfriendship.org/2019/02/19/about-revoices-queer-treasure/

[xvii] From Denny Burk and Rosaria Butterfield web article: Learning to Hate Our Sin without Hating Ourselves (July 4, 2018). Found at https://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2018/07/22066/

[xviii] Quoted from Denny Burk and Rosaria Butterfield web article: Learning to Hate Our Sin without Hating Ourselves (July 4, 2018). Found at https://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2018/07/22066/

[xix] Much has been made of the fact the vote in favor of the Nashville Statement was relatively close. But this should not be overinterpreted. The way PCA polity works, many elders who have broad agreement with the Nashville Statement might have still voted against it, premised on the claim that the PCA already has sufficient guardrails against “gay Christianity” in the Westminster Standards. These elders would argue that multiplying documents is often pastorally unhelpful and confusing. Nevertheless, I still think denominational support of the Nashville Statement is important, for pastoral reasons (e.g., helping PCA churches and families guard against the further influence of Revoice and associated movements) and cultural reasons (e.g., it communicates to the rest of evangelicalism and to the world at large where the PCA stands). That being said, I believe those (like Greg Johnson) who see the tide turning in the PCA based on the demographic of who voted for and against the Nashville Statement are probably correct. Without some kind of significant shift, the PCA is in danger of drift.

Share

Subscribe now

I’ve appreciated some of what I’ve read from Insurrection Barbie, but this claim that biblical prophecy is always fulfilled “literally” simply isn’t true:

For example, Genesis 3:15 promises a seed of the woman who will bruise the serpent’s head, even as his own heel is bruised. Most, probably all, Christians would agree that this seed of the woman is Jesus. But the prophecy of bruising a snake’s head while having his own heel bruised is not fulfilled literally. Again, traditionally Christians believe this prophecy is fulfilled at the cross – when Jesus dies at Golgotha, he crushes Satan’s head (not that of a literal serpent), and Christ’s crucifixion wounds fulfill the “bruised heel” prophecy, but not literally.

We can see how prophecy often works by looking other examples in the OT. In Genesis 37:9, Joseph has a prophetic dream in which the sun, moon, and 11 stars bow down to him. That was fulfilled, but not “literally.” Obviously, the sun and moon were symbolic of his parents and the 11 stars symbolic of his brothers. The fulfillment is real, but the language of the prophecy was always symbolic.

Isaiah 13 is a prophecy of judgment on ancient Babylon, and it includes this language:

“For the stars of the heavens and their constellations will not give their light; the sun will be dark at its rising, and the moon will not shed its light.”

This was not fulfilled literally (obviously). But God did indeed put Babylon’s lights out, after a fashion. The sun, moon, and stars (as the example of Joseph’s dream shows) are often used in prophecy as symbols of political/earthly rulers, tracing back to Genesis 1:16.

In Jeremiah 4:23f, the prophet uses similar de-creation language for judgment that will come upon ancient Israel. When Israel is judged, she will revert to being “without form and void” (cf. Genesis 1:1-2). The fulfillment is real, but not literal.

In Matthew 2:15, Matthew applies Hosea 11:1, a text originally about Israel’s exodus, to Jesus, but it’s not literal – in fact, the way Matthew places the quotation indicates that Israel is now being viewed as Egypt (complete with a baby-murdering Pharaoh-like ruler in Herod), and Jesus represents all of Israel in himself.

In Matthew 12, Jesus treats Jonah’s 3 days in the belly of the great fish as a prophetic event, pointing ahead to his death and resurrection. The story of Jonah and the fish is not literally recapitulated in Jesus, but it does establish a pattern or type that Jesus fulfills. It is a prophetic sign, but not a literal one.

In 2 Samuel 7, David wants to build a house for God but God promises to build a house for David instead. But it’s obvious this is not a literal house – it’s a nation, a lineage, a house made of people. “House” is being in a figurative, not literal, sense. While there is a proximate fulfillment in Solomon when he builds the temple, ultimately the son of David who builds the house for God is Jesus. And as of Jesus comes from the “house” or dynasty/lineage that God builds for David. So while it might look 2 Samuel promises 2 houses – a literal temple built by Solomon and a royal dynasty preserved by God, in the end they resolve into one and the same house: Jesus and the church/temple he builds through his death and resurrection.

If we want to know how promises and prophecies about say, the land and temple, are fulfilled, we have to look at how the NT actually uses those categories. The promised land becomes the promised world in many NT texts, eg, Matthew 5:5 (cf. Psalm 37:11), Ephesians 6:3 (a promise to Jewish children living in the promised land is applied to Gentiles living in Ephesus), and most importantly, Romans 4:13. The land promised Abraham was not an end in itself; it was just a down payment on much bigger promise. God has promised the whole world to Abraham and his believing seed. Canaan was the first installment; God’s ultimate plan was always to bless the whole the world, every family and every nation. Thus, in the new covenant, the promised land is expanded into the promised earth, the promised nations (cf. Psalm 2, 22, etc.; Matthew 28:16-20). Even in Genesis 12, 15, and 17, it’s clear that what God has promised Abraham goes far beyond Canaan; Canaan will be a stepping stone on the way to a much greater, global/cosmic inheritance (cf. 1 Cor. 3:21-23).

Likewise, look at how the NT uses the imagery of the temple. Jesus and the church now take on the meaning and functions of the temple. The church is called God’s temple in numerous places, such as Ephesians 2:11ff and 1 Peter 2:4ff. To go looking for some rebuilt physical structure in Jerusalem in the name of “literal fulfillment” is to actually reject what the apostles explicitly taught about prophetic fulfillment. The temple God is concerned about is being built as the church grows.

The NT repeatedly takes titles that belong to old covenant Israel and applies them to the new covenant church — including the title of “Israel” in Galatians 6:16. And so we can speak of a certain kind of literalness when it comes to the church as the new Israel. The church is literally Israel according to the NT. Unbelieving Jews have been literally broken out of the covenant tree and believing Gentiles grafted in (Romans 11). Jesus literally took the kingdom away from unbelieving Jews and gave it to the people who embraced him as Savior (Matthew 21:43). The judgments Jesus pronounced in Matthew 24 literally came to pass before the generation then living passed away (24:34). The things signified to John in his visions took place soon after the book was written for the time was, quite literally, near (Revelation 1:1-3).

Yes, there are many straight-forward literal fulfillments of prophecy regarding Jesus, eg, he would be born in Bethlehem and betrayed for 30 pieces of silver. But the way the OT, from beginning to end, on page after page, bears witness to Jesus, is far deeper, richer, and more complex than a handful of isolated “literal” prooftexts. The Bible itself trains us to read the Bible and the apostles were not always strict literalists. They understood the OT made use of types, signs, symbols, repeating patterns, and so forth to point to the coming Messiah. And so the Messiah fulfills much more than a collection of literal prophecies; he fulfills the law, the psalms, and the prophets in their entirety. All the promises of God find their fulfillment in Christ Jesus (2 Cor. 1:20). All the prophecies of God find their fulfillment in Christ Jesus. Sometimes that fulfillment is literal; sometimes it comes to pass in other ways.

Subscribe now

Share

By time we reach the end of psalm Psalm 110, the dead bodies are piling up. In verse 1, Christ’s enemies are made into a footstool for his feet. In verse 2, he rules in the midst of his enemies — and has a scepter to smite them. In verse 5, he shatters kings in the day of his wrath. In verse 6, he executes nations and fills them with corpses.

And yet right in the middle of this “messiah on the warpath” imagery, we have a reference to Christ being an eternal priest after the order of Melchizedek. It is perhaps easier for us to see how the battle imagery of the psalm fits with Jesus’ kingship. After all, we expect kings — especially Davidic kings — to be battlefield heroes. Jesus does not disappoint in that way. He strikes and smashes his enemies from the beginning to the end of this psalm. The psalm paints the portrait of an utterly victorious king.

But since the psalm also pays homage to Jesus’ priesthood, an astute reader might wonder where priestly imagery shows up in the psalm. I would contend that the battlefield imagery fits not only with the motif of Jesus as reigning king but also with him as everlasting priest. In the Bible, priests are warriors just as much as kings. Waging holy war has been a priestly calling from the beginning.

There is a lot of biblical evidence for this truth, and we will only survey a fraction of it here. Start with Adam. Adam was a priest, serving in the sanctuary of Eden. We know this because the verbs used to describe Adam’s task in Eden, “tend and keep,” or “serve and guard” (Gen. 2:15), are used later to describe the tasks of the priests at the tabernacle, e.g., Num. 3:7-8. A priestly vocabulary is used of Adam’s task from the very beginning; he is to guard and keep Eden, just as the later priests would guard and keep the tabernacle. Of course, this also came to mean that he was to guard and keep the woman (the embodiment of Eden) after she was created, just as the priests were to guard and keep the people of Israel (the living tabernacle).

When Adam was told to guard the Garden, he should have deduced that there would be an invader. And sure enough, an intruder shows up. As soon as the serpent started questioning God’s Word to the woman, Adam should have stepped between the serpent and the woman to protect her. He should have silenced the lying serpent by crushing its head. That was his priestly task, and because he failed at that priestly task, he lost both his priesthood and his sanctuary. Adam should have piled up at least one corpse in Eden; he should have made the serpent a footstool for his feet. He should have ruled in the midst of his enemy (the serpent) by shattering and executing the serpent in a show of righteous wrath. Unfortunately, he did none of those things. What should have been the day of his power became a day of weakness and failure. He failed as a priest because he failed to fight. He refused to exercise holy violence and so he lost his holy status and access to the holy place.

Later in history, God establishes the tribe of Levi as the priestly tribe within Israel. But it is important to understand why the Levites in general, and the descendants of Phinehas in particular, were chosen to have an enduring priestly office in Israel. In large measure, they were chosen because they were willing to guard in the way that Adam failed. They waged holy war against idolatry.

How did the tribe of Levi become the priestly tribe? How did the line of Phinehas confirm its standing as the High Priestly line? Two well known stories give the answer. In Exodus 32, in the golden calf incident, Moses asked the camp of Israel, “Who is on the Lord’s side?” The Levites gathered to Moses, and Moses told them to use their swords to kill the idolaters. Driven by a holy zeal, the Levites fought to exterminate idolatry from the nation. The sons of Levi obeyed Moses, and piled up about 3000 dead bodies that day (Ex. 32:28). In the language of Psalm 110, we could say they made the enemies of the Lord into a footstool; they shattered and executed them in a day of righteous wrath. Moses considers their warfare against idolatry as a kind of priestly ordination. Moses says, “Today, you have been ordained for the service of the Lord.” Because they put the Lord’s honor above son and brother, they were blessed by the Lord (Ex. 32:29). Holy war and holy office went together.

A similar story occurs with Phinehas in Numbers 25, with a similar result. Phinehas is the grandson of Aaron, the first high priest of Israel. Just like Exodus 32, Israel is once again committing idolatry. This time idolatry is combined with sexual immorality (spiritual adultery and physical adultery often go together). God sends a plague in judgment, killing 24,000. One Israelite man was so audacious in his sin that he took a Midianite woman in the sight of Moses. When Phinehas saw this intrusion of wickedness into the camp of the saints, he did not stand by and watch (like Adam in Eden). Instead he sprang into action, piercing both the man and his pagan mistress with his spear. This ended the plague and led to a great reward for Phinehas (cf. Psalm 106:28ff). Because Phinehas was filled with holy zeal for the Lord (shown in his willing to execute idolaters/adulterers in an act of holy war), the Lord establishes his line as the high priestly line. The Lord said, “Behold I give him my covenant of peace, and it shall be to him and to his descendants after him the covenant of perpetual priesthood, because he was jealous for his God and made atonement for the people of Israel” (Num. 25:12-13).

In the old covenant, Levites carried swords. Obviously, these swords were used to cut up sacrificial animals, but they could be used against any who unholy invaders who trespassed into the Lord’s tabernacle or temple. Priests, like Adam, were guardians, and sometimes guarding entailed violence. The mission of the priesthood has always had a military component. Priests must fight for the Lord and for the sake of the Lord’s people. In the old covenant, Phinehas was the model priest precisely because he was a holy warrior.

In summary, to be a priest in the old covenant world meant being willing to kill for the sake of the Lord. Priests were the kind of men who could engage in holy violence in order to guard the Lord’s honor and the integrity of his people. Psalm 110 is the climax of this theme: Jesus is better than the Levites, but like the Levites in Exodus 32, he can draw his sword and go to war with idolaters. He has a greater priesthood than Phinehas, but like Phinehas, he is full of the zeal of the Lord and his wrath will flare up against both spiritual and physical adulterers. Psalm 110 describes the High Priest-King smashing his enemies, a task which is both priestly and kingly. As the ultimate High Priest, Jesus wages the ultimate holy war.

With this in view, we can see why a psalm that celebrates Christ’s priesthood also describes him wrecking his enemies. Now, in the new covenant the meaning of this imagery has been transformed (and this transformation was already being hinted at in the OT). As I pointed out in the sermon, the imagery of subduing, shattering, etc., can be used to describe conversion just as much as it describes destruction. And so Psalm 110 can be transposed from physical warfare onto the higher plane of spiritual warfare. Nevertheless, it still describes the ruthless and brutal battle Christ our Priest will wage against idolaters. Christ is the true Holy Warrior precisely because he is the true and final priest of God’s people. As priest, he not only wages war, he also leads us into warfare. Thus, in Revelation it is no surprise that the same vision that shows Christ dressed in priestly garments also shows him leading his priestly people into battle (Rev. 19).

Another example of priestly holy war being transformed is found in Acts 2. Peter functioned as a high priest (a kind of first among equals) during Jesus’ earthly ministry. At Pentecost, he takes the lead by preaching the sermon. As his sermon reaches its climax (which is based on Psalm 110, not coincidentally), the people were “cut to the heart.” Peter has used the sword of the Word to cut open these sinners; he is killing the old unbelieving Jews so newly made Christians can arise. Like Phinenhas, he is driving the spear of God’s word through them. The result is that 3000 are saved that day, meaning that Peter’s priestly holy war ministry in Acts 2 precisely reverses the 3000 who were killed by Levitical holy war in Exodus 32. The giving of the Spirit overturns the curse that came when the law was given (and immediately broken). Peter’s use of Psalm 110 in Acts 2:34-35 invites us to interpret the whole scene in light of the categories of Psalm 110: On the day of Pentecost, the Priest King, Jesus Christ, reigned in the midst of the very enemies who crucified him. He made 3000 enemies into a footstool for his feet that day. He created an army of willing volunteers.

One more takeaway: While there are many reasons only men could serve as priests in the old covenant, and many reasons only men can serve as pastors in the new covenant, surely this is among them. Given the intensely physical, even violent, nature of the work of old covenant priests (killing animals daily and humans occasionally), it was manly work. Women were forbidden the priestly office the same way they were forbidden to be warriors. Both were combat roles in the old covenant. In the new covenant, the sword carried by pastors is not one of steel but one of the Spirit, namely, the Word of God (Heb. 4:12). But pastoral tasks still require manly courage.

Every pastor is a new Levite and a new Phinehas. Pastors must be willing to “run through” sinners with the spear of the Word. Pastors must work to crush all arguments and ideologies that set themselves up against God’s truth (2 Cor. 10:3-6). Pastors must strike idolaters with the shepherd’s rod. Pastors must be willing to apply the spiritual death penalty of church discipline to the unrepentant. Excommunication is a kind of execution — and pastors are the executioners (cf. Psalm 110:6). Ministry is masculine because it is combative.

This is not to say every fight pastors get into is worth having; Paul acknowledges that many men entangle themselves in useless quarrels that are really distractions from the central war we are called to wage. But when I am evaluating a candidate for ministry, one of the first questions I ask is, “Will other men follow this man into spiritual battle — because if he’s going to be a pastor, that’s where he is going to take them.” Or to put it another way, I ask: “Does this man have the courage to kill people with God’s Word? Could he use the sword of the Word to execute a wicked king? Can he execute the spiritual death penalty if there is unrepentant sin in the camp of the saints?” I ask those questions because those are precisely the kinds of “holy war” tasks pastors have to undertake. If you don’t have the courage of the Levites in Exodus 32 or the zeal of Phinehas in Numbers 25, don’t bother applying to the pastorate; find something else to do.

Subscribe now

Share

A few thoughts on legalism, antinomianism, and preaching the whole counsel of God:

Teaching on the practicalities of Christian living is not legalism. It’s every pastor’s responsibility.

Christians need to know the difference between legalism/moralism and making every effort to be holy (Hebrews 12:14).

There is a ditch on both sides of the gospel – legalism is the ditch on one side, antinomianism is the ditch on the other.

Sometimes, when you are warning against the ditch on one side, people will think you have fallen into the ditch on the other side. We need to preach the extremes, but we need to preach the extremes in balance – the radical freeness of God’s gracious salvation, and the radical demands of repentance and obedience should be preached in equal measure. You know, just like the inspired authors of Scripture.

We must never tame or dilute the extremes that Scripture gives us. “You are justified freely by his grace” and “repent or perish” are found side by side in Scripture without the least suggestion that there is a contradiction. “Justification by faith” and “faith without works is dead” are both true and both must be proclaimed.

One of the biggest problems in the church today is preachers who adopt antinomian formulations of the gospel.

Martyn Lloyd-Jones said that if a preacher is never accused of antinomianism, he probably isn’t preaching the gospel. That’s true. But it’s also true that if a preacher is never accused of legalism, he probably isn’t preaching the gospel either. There is a ditch on both sides.

The gospel promises the free forgiveness of sins. The gospel also demands and promises to produce obedience. Forgiveness of sins AND life transformation are gifts of grace.

Sin = man putting himself in the place of God

Salvation = God putting himself in the place of man

Sin = man claiming prerogatives that belong to God

Salvation = God taking on himself what sinners deserve

Sin is self-deification, man arrogating himself to God’s station. Salvation is God consigning himself to the place of sinners, taking the curse man deserves.

The gospel is Trinitarian. The gospel includes not only what Jesus did for me outside of me, but also what the Spirit does to me inside of me. The gospel is not just Good Friday and Easter; Pentecost is gospel too. The Father approves of the Son’s work for me and the Spirit’s work in me, and my entire salvation redounds to the glory of the Triune God.

Sin produced a double problem, legal condemnation and moral corruption. The gospel answers both of these, as it brings both justification and transformation. Both justification and transformation come by faith.

We died in Adam, we are made alive in Christ. We are under the power of sin in Adam, we are set free in Christ. We are guilty and depraved in Adam, we are righteous and obedient in Christ. Christ restores all that Adam lost, and much, much more. Where sin abounded, grace super-abounds.

The gospel God promised to Abraham included both the forgiveness is sins (Romans 4:1-12) and the gift of the Holy Spirit (Galatians 3:1-9). As Abraham’s children we have both of these gifts.

A significant part of pastoral ministry is convincing unbelievers they are totally depraved and Christians they are not.

A faithful pastor will be deeply pessimistic about what man can do on his own, and incredibly optimistic about what the Spirit can do in us. Our anthropological pessimism is matched and exceeded by our pneumatological optimism. Where the flesh is weak, the Spirit is exceedingly strong.

God has made a multitude of promises to his people. And he has never broken a single one. He is a God of his Word, and he keeps his Word.

“[T]here is an eschatological (‘already/not yet’) structure to each aspect of soteriology . . . And while it requires carefully guarded statement, it is also true that justification is an already accomplished and perfect reality, but awaits consummation…Similarly, while believers have already been justified with irreversible finality, they will appear before the judgment seat of Christ to receive what is due them (2 Cor. 5:10).”

— Sinclair Ferguson, The Holy Spirit, p. 103.

The biggest problem in the world today is worldliness in the church.

Preachers need to preach the extremes. (HT: Rob Rayburn).

When preaching free grace, make it as radically free as you can make it. Make grace amazing, astonishing, marvelous.

When preaching human responsibility and obedience, ratchet it up as much as possible. Hold nothing back.

That’s what the biblical authors do. It’s what the great preachers have done.

We need less therapeutic preaching and more fire and brimstone.

The church’s failure to do political discipleship is one of the reasons we are in the mess we are in.

When pastors stopped preaching election day sermons, politics fell into the hands of secularists and progressives.

Historically, the church discipled both civil magistrates and citizens in their political duties, according to the word of God.

Many people want to keep the church out of politics, but to do so is to muzzle the pulpit. For pastors to go along with this is to refuse to preach the whole counsel of God. There is no way to restore America to political sanity without political preaching. Without such preaching from the “black robed regiment,” America would not even exist

There are orthodox and heretical ways of seeking to express this truth, but there is no getting around the reality that good works are necessary to salvation.

There is no salvation without repentance and obedience.

All true gospel preaching will make this clear.

Political preaching is a significant part of the Reformed political tradition .

Calvin’s sermons, eg, on Deuteronomy and Samuel, continually touched on political issues.

The Puritans were known to address kings and other magistrates in their sermons.

There would have been no American War for Independence without “the black robed regiment” – preachers who applied the Word of God to the political issues facing the colonies

Election Day sermons had a long running history in British and American Reformed/Protestant churches.

The attempt to keep preachers from making political application from the pulpit has more in common with the novel “radical two kingdom view” than historic Protestant political theology.

The point of preaching is for the people of God to interface with God through the Word of God.

We live in an age of therapeutic parenting and therapeutic preaching, an age in which both parents and elders have rejected their own responsibility and authority to discipline those under their care.

Obviously the parental failures are related to the preaching failures. Neither preaching nor parenting is for the faint of heart.

Political preaching is an ancient and venerable Christian tradition. The magisterial Reformers and Puritans all stood in this Augustinian line, believing the church had a duty to apply God’s Word to the civil realm. The modern tendency to privatize biblical truth so that it only applies to individuals and not to magistrates or society as a whole is one of the evangelical church’s biggest weaknesses.

I like to say, “Romans 6 is gospel too.”

Lloyd-Jones used to say, “You haven’t preached the gospel unless the antinomian objection of Romans 6:1 is raised.”

My counterpoint is that the antinomian objection means you have not yet finished preaching the gospel.

Paul’s answer to the antinomian objection — namely, that our union with Christ means we have died to sin and now live a new life of righteousness — is not tacked onto the gospel as an addendum; rather, its inherent in the gospel.

A gospel that leaves unchanged, stuck in our sin, is not good news (or not good enough news).

Does the gospel leave us in our sins? Paul would say, “Absolutely not! How can we who have died to our sins live in them any longer?”

When preaching a comforting passage, pile on the comfort as thick as possible. Wrap people up in gospel blanket.

When preaching repentance, turn the screws and drive the nail. Call on people repent of their particular sins particularly. Attack the sins of the people in the pews in front of you, relentlessly. Sinners can be shown mercy. Sins must not be.

The gospel shows mercy to sinners, but not to sins.

The gospel simultaneously forgives our sins and declares war on our sins.

Calvin on absolution:

“[The forgiveness of sins] is dispensed to us through the ministers and pastors of the church, either by the preaching of the Gospel [including the declaration of absolution] or by the administration of the sacraments; and herein chiefly stands the power of the keys, which the Lord has gifted to the society of believers. Accordingly, let each one of us count it his own duty to seek forgiveness of sins only where the Lord has placed it.”

Again, Calvin:

“When Christ enjoins the Apostles to ‘forgive sins,’ he does not convey to them what is peculiar to himself. It belongs to him to forgive sins. This honor, so far as it belongs peculiarly to himself, he does not surrender to the Apostles, but enjoins them, in his Name, to declare the forgiveness of sins, that through their instrumentality he may reconcile men to God. In short, properly speaking, it is he alone who forgives sins through his apostles and ministers”

One more from Calvin, for good measure:

“We now see the reason why Christ employs such magnificent terms, to commend and adorn that ministry which he bestows and enjoins on the Apostles [and their successors, pastors]. It is, that believers may be fully convinced, that what they hear concerning the forgiveness of sins is ratified, and may not less highly value the reconciliation which is offered by the voice of men, than if God himself stretched out his hand from heaven. And the church daily receives the most abundant benefit from this doctrine, when it perceives that her pastors are divinely ordained to be sureties for eternal salvation, and that it must not go to a distance to seek the forgiveness of sins, which is committed to their trust.”

The problem with Tim Keller on LGBTQ is not that he held the wrong beliefs – other than having a massive blind spot regarding Revoice, I don’t doubt he held basically orthodox views on LGBTQ.

The problem is not his beliefs

It’s that he would not preach those beliefs.

Homosexuality has been one of the main battle fronts in the culture for a generation, and Keller simply would not engage the enemy from his pulpit. He did not fight with his greatest weapon in that part of the battlefield where the war rages the fiercest.

In fact, given his status and influence, he basically taught a whole generation of evangelical and Reformed preachers that there is no good way to address homosexuality in public preaching — and so its no wonder many otherwise orthodox preachers will not touch this topic. They are leaving their people vulnerable.

That’s the real problem with Keller’s legacy when it comes to LGBTQ issues.

What we need is preaching that proclaims the truth on these issues in a loving way.

Every sinner saved by grace knows that he should show compassion to other sinners, whatever their sin might be.

There is no room for smug self-righteousness.

But refusing to speak the truth about sin in the most hotly contested areas in the culture is simply not loving. It is cowardice.

We cannot go silent in those very areas where truth is most needed.

The objection of Romans 6:1 (“Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound?”) is not raised after the gospel has been preached; it is raised in the middle of preaching the gospel. In other words, the antinomian objection is not a sign that you have preached the gospel; rather, it is a sign that you have not yet finished preaching the gospel. Paul’s presentation of the gospel does not end in Romans 5:21; Romans 6 is pure gospel as well. Thus, the gospel is not preached in full if union with Christ in his death to sin and rising to new life are ignored (Rom. 6:2ff). The gospel is not preached in full unless a call for obedience to all of Christ’s commands is issued (Matt. 28:20). The gospel is not preached unless the promised gift of the Spirit, given to enable us to put to death the misdeeds of the body (Rom. 8:13), is included in the offer. The gospel is not preached unless there has been a summons to repent (Acts 17:30).

The pure grace of the gospel is not threatened by a call to obedience. Indeed, the gospel, properly preached, understood, and embraced, demands and promises obedience. In the Scriptures, heralds of the gospel essentially interchange faith and repentance as appropriate responses to the message (cf. Acts 2:38 and 16:34). In other places, Scripture speaks of “the obedience of faith” and calls hearers to “obey the gospel” (Rom. 1:5; 2 Thess. 1:8). In still other texts, faith and obedience (cf. Rom. 10:16) as well unbelief and disobedience (Heb. 3:18-19) are interchangeable. The basic gospel confession is, “Jesus is Lord” (Rom. 9; 1 Cor. 12:3) – which is to say, “He has given himself for me, and I now owe him my allegiance.” In the gospel, we find that God’s righteous requirements are not legalistic impositions, but gracious gifts he promises to work in us (cf. Rom. 8:1-4).

The only kind of faith that justifies is a faith that lives – that is to say, a faith that loves, obeys, repents, calls, and seeks. Thus, faith can be seen (cf. Mark 2:5) and demonstrated (Jas. 2:18); it is embodied and embedded in outward action. True, at the moment of initial justification, faith has not yet done good works. But the kind of faith that lays hold of Christ for justification is a faith that will issue forth in obedience, not because something will be added to that faith a nanosecond after its conception (as if faith had to be “formed” by additional virtues, ala Roman Catholic teaching), but because that faith already carries within itself the seeds of every virtue. The faith God works in us, in order that we might be justified by faith, simultaneously begins the process of transformation by faith. Faith never exists on its own, even at its inception. The kind of faith God gives his elect is a living, working, penitent, persevering faith. It is a faith that is inseparable from repentance and obedience. When faith grasps Christ, it grasps the whole Christ, so that he simultaneously becomes Savior and Lord. Indeed, given that faith is a gift of God, its presence in us is proof that the Spirit has already begun his work of transforming us.

Works, then, are the public manifestation of faith. When Paul describes the life of faith, in union with Christ, he immediately turns to how we re-pattern the use of our bodies (Rom. 6:12-13). Faith redirects and reorients the way we use the body. We put to death the body’s misdeeds and begin to embody future resurrection life even in this present mortal existence (Rom. 8:1-17). While faith is certainly a matter of the heart, and renews the mind (Rom. 12:1-2), it has an inescapable communal, even political/cultural, dimension as well. The person acting in faith offers his body as an instrument of righteousness (Rom. 6:13); he becomes a holistic slave of God, even as he was previously a slave to sin (Rom. 6:19). Faith gives us a new posture, a new way of “leaning” into all of life.

The faith/obedience nexus is a critical aspect of biblical theology. The key thing to note here is that the gospel is bigger than merely the offer/promise of forgiveness; it is also the offer/promise of a changed life. God accepts us as we are, but he doesn’t let us stay that way. The necessity of obedience is not bad news tacked onto an otherwise antinomian gospel message. People need (and should want) transformation and freedom from sin’s enslavement, every bit as much as they want pardon and release from the burden of sin’s guilt. A gospel that did not ultimately aim at and guarantee the complete destruction of sin in our lives and the complete renovation of our humanity would actually be mediocre news at best, not the good news of Jesus Christ. Every demand God makes is also a promised gift in the economy of grace. It is good news to hear that God not only desires to clear us from sin’s penalty, but also re-humanize us so that we can begin to enjoy the kind of life we were designed to live.

Consider the third membership vow used by many traditional Presbyterian churches. It’s used in the PCA. We use it at my CREC congregation. Note how it’s worded:

“3. Do you now promise, in humble reliance upon the grace of the Holy Spirit, that you will strive to live a life of repentance and obedience, in a manner worthy of the followers of Christ?”

This is very, very basic teaching that any Christian of age should be able to affirm.

It teaches that the whole Christian life is dependent on the Holy Spirit.

Our faith, repentance, and obedience all arise from the Spirit’s work in us.

But note that the Spirit’s work in us does not make us passive.

We must strive.

Yes, we strive in humble reliance.

But we still strive.

We work precisely because the Spirit is at work in us.

The Christian life is a life of striving, fighting, persevering, working.

This is not legalism, it’s grace.

This is not legalism, it’s love.

This is not legalism, it’s the fruit of faith.

Where there is grace, there will be good works.

Where the Spirit is at work in a person’s life, that person is striving to obey and repent – not perfectly, of course, but consistently, as a pattern of life.

This third vow teaches that good works are necessary to salvation.

It also teaches those good works are the fruit of grace in our lives.

When you are united to Christ by faith, his righteous status is your righteous status, his vindication is your vindication, his life is your life, his story is your story, his future is your future, his security is your security. You are guilt-free and shame-free in Christ. You have a clean past because of his promise of forgiveness and a glorious future because of his promise to come again.

Effort and grace are not at odds. Grace does not cancel out human responsibility but empowers us to fulfill our covenantal obligations. Jesus doesn’t believe the gospel for you or repent for you; rather he gives you the gifts of faith and repentance through the work of his Spirit. He makes you willing and able to believe, but you really do the believing.

“By grace you are saved” and “Make every effort to be holy, for without holiness no man will see the Lord” are found in the same Bible and are part of the same soteriological program. If you don’t hold to both, you are wrong, deadly wrong.

Subscribe now

Share

These notes for young men were actually written for my son many years ago. I might say a few things differently today. But I think many young men could still find them helpful so I’m publishing them here. I am also discussing them on my Collars & Calluses podcast. The first episode on the 13 Rules is now available:

A while back, I heard a talk from a pastor on “Practical Manhood” aimed at young men. I was not particularly impressed with the counsel being shared so I figured I’d develop my own list of things young men should be taught to do today. This is more “life coaching” than biblical exegesis/application, but hopefully there is some useful wisdom to be found here. Here is the list:

1. Seek wisdom and submit to it.

It’s great to have mature, godly men as peers and friends (and do all you can to maintain those friendships as you get older!), but what you really need most when you are young are older, wiser fathers and father-figure type men in your life who can share their experience with you. Don’t think you have it all figured out. Seek counsel. Find a mentor. View older men as interesting and ask them as many questions as you can. Soak up their wisdom. Hear their stories and learn from their mistakes. Anyone who is a couple decades (or more) older than you lived a lot of their life in a different age than the one we’re in now (e.g., an age without the internet or cellphones) — an age that had different blind spots, and therefore their experiences can expose the blind spots and weaknesses of the present cultural moment that you are most familiar with. Most likely, your first boss will be an older man. What can you glean from him? Be submissive to the authorities God places over you — even when you think they’re wrong, you’ll learn a lot from being under authority. Respect older men, even those who still have some obvious flaws, because they can teach you a lot about life. Find older men you can imitate (e.g., men who have succeeded in work, who are happily married, who have raised faithful kids) and learn how they got to where they are in life. All of this serves the ultimate purpose of helping you learn to live and lead as a man. The best way to prepare yourself for leading a wife as her head someday is imitating those men who are already exerting Christ-like leadership in their marriages. Many young men do not understand how to lead or what it means to exercise authority. But older men can help you learn, and this will prepare you for being a husband and a father, when a household will depend on your leadership, virtue, wisdom, and competency. Then it will become your turn to mentor the young generation of men, sharing you wisdom with them!

2. Act, speak, and dress like a man.

(The Art of Manliness website and podcast really emphasize this. Check it out.) Shake hands firmly and look the other person in the eye when speaking. Stand tall like a man, and walk like a man. Use your voice like a man, speaking clearly and straightforwardly and audibly. Speak with authority when required — that doesn’t mean speaking like a drill sergeant, but it does mean learning how to speak so others will listen, both because of what you have to say AND how you say it. (Jordan Peterson may not be a Christian, but he is a good example of this. He speaks with sincerity and gravitas. He makes his words count, so people hang on every word he says. He doesn’t have to shout or get all emotional; he’s just earnest and carefully chooses his words. He comes across like he has something very meaningful to say so people listen to him, even 45 minute lectures.) I don’t have a Bible verse for these things, but they are obvious applications of the overall picture of manhood we have in Scripture. Learn how to communicate like a man. Further: Dress like a man. Don’t dress like a slob. In an age of gender confusion, make your gender clear by your appearance, e.g., short hair (see 1 Cor. 11). No man-buns. No metro-sexual clothes. The bottom line: You need to know who you are. You need to have a well-defined sense of yourself and your mission. You serve others, but do not become a people-pleaser. You are careful and deliberate in how you allow yourself to be influenced by others. You need to be careful how you present yourself. Your strength and identity as man should be on display in the way you carry and conduct yourself. You are a man; act like one. You are a man; speak and dress like one.

3. Do the right thing, even when it is costly.

Take responsibility for yourself and your commitments. Be a man of your word. Do what you say you will do. Biblical men are men of integrity. They keep their promises, even to their own hurt. They make sacrifices. They serve. They are disciplined. Their character is predictable because they have demonstrated a pattern of righteousness in their lives. (Daniel is a good example of this. His enemies knew they could only catch him in something having to do with his God because he was so blameless in every way, and so consistently faithful in his religious devotion. But even when he was suffering for doing what was right in the lion’s den, he entrusted himself to God and let the chips fall.) Look at the qualifications laid down for an elder/pastor in 1 Timothy 3, and make those the aim of your life. They are a good summary of the Christian life for men. Recognize that masculine piety will be different from feminine piety in certain key respects, and since the church today tends to privilege feminine forms of piety, sometimes you will have to go against the grain, even in the church. A key to living with integrity is maintaining the spiritual disciplines which undergird the Christian life: going to church (Hebrews 10 — do not forsake assembling together), reading Scripture (2 Tim. 3 says the Bible equips the man of God for every good work, so know your Bible!), serving when you see an opportunity (don’t wait to be asked! jump in there and do what needs to be done!), fasting at times (e.g., Lent), and especially prayer (men are often reluctant to pray because prayer is a sign of dependence).

4. Take initiative and be chivalrous with women.

A man is especially defined in his manhood by how he relates to women, just as a woman is defined in her womanhood by how she relates to men. The gender differences should always be on display in how we interact with the opposite sex. Sure, chivalry seems old fashioned, but it’s really important. Chivalry means different things in different contexts, but here I mean manners appropriate to manhood in the presence of females. Chivalry is way of taking charge and expressing confidence. Chivalry is not just a matter of being mannerly in a generic way; it is a way of signaling and symbolizing that you are a man who can protect and provide. Treating women with respect actually never goes out of style. Hold the door open for a lady. Walk nearer to the traffic on a sidewalk. Hold an umbrella over her when it rains. Let women go first whenever there is a line. These are little things, but they add up to something huge. Treating women with chivalry creates a mindset of mutual respect and honor between the sexes; it impacts both of you. It recognizes the God-give differences between men and women, something which our culture is rapidly losing. It also shows women you are man to be reckoned with, that you will protect and provide for a woman, that you can be trusted with authority, that you know what manhood (and womanhood) is all about. Have some unscrupulous men used chivalry to manipulate and mislead women so they could take advantage of them? Sure. Will some women take advantage of your chivalry? Of course, feminism has trained women to demand equality when it suits them, and to demand special treatment when it suits them. Do not play these feminist games. But even in our day, the kind of woman you would want to date and marry will appreciate your chivalry without taking advantage of it. And today these protocols and manners are so rare, they are usually a sign that a man is the genuine article so they help you catch the eye of a woman who knows what to look for in a man. I would tell a young woman today to not consider a man as a prospective suitor/boyfriend/husband if he is not chivalrous — it’s a red flag that indicates this man does not yet know how to treat women as he should, he does not yet know how to use his masculine strength for the good of others. Learn what manners are, learn how to treat a woman, learn how to be respectful. These are tangible signs of manhood. If you show chivalry in everyday situations, you will actually find that your way of relating to your wife is much more constrained and respectful even in tense moments of disagreement — the chivalry you’ve practiced has trained you at a deep level to treat the “weaker sex” with honor even in times of sharp conflict.

5. Avoid porn.

Porn is the #1 man-killer in our age. It has been mainstreamed, so many people think of it as harmless, but it is deadly. Indeed, it is a public health crisis. Porn drives sex trafficking, rape, abortion and other sex crimes. It drains and destroys a man’s masculinity; porn is a way of wasting your strength. It saps a man’s drive and ambition. It makes a man a hollow shell of himself. Porn turns a man totally in on himself. Porn feminizes and emasculates a man because a man who is immersed in porn does not know how to pursue a real woman. Porn teaches lies to a man about his own sexuality and tells lies about a woman’s sexuality as well. It is terrible preparation for marriage. Some men are so deadened by porn, they can no longer have a sexual response with a real woman. Do not use porn to try to satisfy your curiosity about sex or thinking that porn will teach you to be a better lover; porn is not the way to get your “sex education” (there are wonderful Christian resources that can answer every question you could ever have about sex from a biblical perspective). Porn is dangerous because it is addictive; it rewires the brain similar to the way heroin or other drugs do. So fight against porn, taking even radical steps to protect yourself from it (internet filters like Covenant Eyes, accountability partners, etc.). Jesus made it clear we should deal ruthlessly with our lust (Matt. 5), and porn is like pouring gasoline on lust. Porn is not only a sin against women, it’s a sin against your own body. Flee it. Kill porn before it kills you.

6. Pursue a wife, and love her well once you find her.

Sure a small handful of men are called to singleness/celibacy and are gifted for it. But most of us are not. And so a young man needs to be open to marriage, sooner rather than later, especially given the nature of sexual temptation (cf. 1 Cor. 7:1-5). In fact, most young men need to aspire to marriage and prepare themselves accordingly. So what’s a young man to do? As soon as he has sorted out his vocational trajectory (Prov. 24:27), he needs to pursue a wife. While it is true you need to have a certain level of maturity to marry (or to be considered marriageable), nothing will accelerate your maturation like getting married. Marriage makes you grow up. There are a lot of reasons to consider getting married young, considerably earlier than the average man in our culture (which is approaching 30 years old). This will mean having what has been called a cornerstone marriage, as opposed to a capstone marriage — that is, it will be the kind of marriage, where you start out with nothing (or very little) and then build a household (your little kingdom) together as king and queen. . The Westminster Larger Catechism tells us that one way we can violate the seventh commandment is through the “undue delay of marriage.” If the male sex driven really starts to awaken around age 11 or 12, it is difficult — not impossible, because with God all things are possible — but it is obviously very difficult to remain chaste until, say, age 30. Of course, the reality is that most men are not remaining chaste, and so they enter marriage with all kinds of baggage. Cheap sex — sex without love, without commitment, without covenant — is actually very costly! God forgives sexual sin, and those who have sinned sexually can still go on to have wonderful marriages because God is gracious; sometimes the way the church has emphasized “purity culture” in recent decades has obscured that truth, so it needs to be said. But there is a price to pay if you deviate from God’s plan for our sexuality. Consider this vision of your future life: You make it to your wedding day pure, you see your wife’s naked body for the first time that night, and you are able to tell her, “You were worth the wait!” That is quite a strong foundation to build a marriage upon! Of course, making it to your wedding day is not the end of the battle. You have to fight for purity and against lust even as a married man. You have to fight against all those sins that threaten to wreck your marriage. The more you can laser-focus your sex drive on your wife, the more satisfying your sex life will be, so don’t let other women distract you from her; feeding your sex drive with images and thoughts of women besides your wife actually robs you of the joy of sex within marriage (cf. Prov. 5). The more you can learn to serve her and communicate with her (easier said than done!), the more satisfying both of you will find your marriage, and the happier you are with the marriage, the better the sex gets. Good marriages are pretty common in the church. But really great marriages are rare. To have a really great marriage is not a matter of finding “the one” — there is no perfect soulmate out there just waiting for you. No, it’s about learning to “becomes one” together, as you navigate all the challenges of married life in love and humility. Being soulmates is not a starting point for marriage; that kind of chemistry between a man and a woman is an achievement that comes only after years of loving and respecting one another in marriage. Marriage is the art of learning to live as one flesh. Do what it takes to make it work — it’s worth it. Marrying a good woman who can your crown and glory will be among the greatest blessings God gives you in this life. Marrying a woman and building a household together that lasts until death parts you will be one your greatest achievements.

7. Learn to deal with your anxieties.

We all have them, but we don’t know what to do with them. But suppressing them does not make them go away. Anxiety is at the root of so much effeminate behavior we see in men today. We have to learn how to deal with our anxieties and rise above them. We have to learn how to cast our cares upon God, because he cares for us. Stop worrying and start trusting. We have to learn how trust in the happy ending God promises. Every Christian’s life is a “fairy tale come to life;” it is a “fairy tale made fact” (Tolkien). Never give up hope, even in the hardest of times. There is always a reason for joy, a reason to keep going, a reason to keep fighting. God says to us again and again: Do not fear. Be strong and courageous. Everything is going to be ok. In fact, everything is going to be a lot better than ok. Rise above your circumstances by trusting in God’s good, gracious, and glorious plan for your life. What’s worst thing that can happen to you? Death? No problem, Jesus has already defeated death. In your whole life, you are playing with house money. You cannot lose. Everything is a gift, so give thanks, even for the hard things. And don’t worry — God’s got it all under control. Further, dealing with your own anxieties prepares you to be the stronger vessel in a relationship with a woman. In marriage, one of the ways you will lead your wife is by relieving her of anxiety. By dealing with your own anxieties, you can start to relieve her of her anxieties — which is part of God’s design for marriage and one of the ways you become the Christ-figure in the marriage. Women tend to be more anxious than men in part because they are the weaker vessel and have to depend upon and follow the lead of a man. Some husbands intensify their wives’ anxieties because they are weak and incompetent. A husband who is wise, who leads well, who acts in strength and kindness will find his wife becoming softer, more secure, and less anxious over time. But the only way a man can truly bear the burden of his wife’s anxiety is if he has figured out how to deal with his own.

8. Have a plan.

Set goals. Think ahead. So much of wisdom is prudent foresight. No one controls the future; only God knows what we’re going to face. Life is vapor (Ecc. 1). But use what you know to make the best plan you can. Planning helps you grow in discipline, and in discipline there is freedom. For example, planning with money means budgeting. If you do not budget you will never have enough money, and you will never know where all the money went. You will wear yourself out trying to earn more. If you plan, and make sure your plan is shaped by God’s principles for life, the money (and everything else) will take care of itself. Of course, the plan has to be flexible, but it can still serve as a map as you navigate life’s challenges. Another example: If you want your wife to be able to stay home after you have kids, you will probably have to plan years in advance how you are going to live off of one income. Another example: If you want to put your kids into a Christian school, most likely you will need to make financial arrangements years in advance to make sure it’s a real possibility. Another example: To be able to retire without becoming a burden to others (such as your kids, or taxpayers), you need to be planning decades ahead. No plan will be perfect, but a prudent plan is far better than flailing your way through life without mission or direction. A man is defined by his mission in life. And there is no way to have a mission in life without forming a plan and then executing on it. A man is defined by the ways he extends dominion over the creation (Gen. 1-2). But is impossible for a man to take dominion in wise and effective ways without formulating a plan for doing so. Things do not just happen; men make things happen by planning and then acting on the plan. Develop a blueprint for the kind of life you want to have, then get to work building that life.

9. Learn all the skills you can, and experience as much of God’s world as you can.

Your career will probably force you to be a specialist in some area, but strive to be a generalist in the rest of life (see Richard Weaver’s Ideas Have Consequences). Learn about as many different things as you can. Be a human Swiss Army knife. Be as competent in as many fields as possible. Always be learning a new skill. Be curious. Ask questions. Find experts in different fields and pick their brains. Talk to people — especially older people. When you meet new people, make sure you learn more about them than they learn about you. Read widely — and read a wide variety of books on everything under the sun. Do things with your hands, not just your brain. Work on stuff. Fix stuff when it breaks. There’s a youtube video for just about anything. Figure it out! It’ll keep you well-rounded, it’ll keep your brain in shape. Learn to work with your hands, not just your head. Only call a handyman as a last resort. Be a modern day version of a “Renaissance man.” Travel when you can. Explore. Be adventurous. Do things that you’ll want to tell your grandkids about. Experience all life has to offer. Don’t just take pictures with your phone, actually look at the world around you and be in the moment. Wherever you are, be all there. Master life. Be your own version of “the most interesting man in the world.” Rule as much of the creation as God allows, and develop the skills needed to subdue the your piece of the world in wisdom.

10. Keep money in its place.

Money wrecks as many men as sex does. Some men get consumed with making as much money as possible. It becomes a competition, the way they prove their worth. They sacrifice their family and their health to get it. Or money becomes the way they think they will gain security and so they clench to every bit of it they have. But the cliche, often repeated but seldom believed, is true: Money cannot buy happiness. The most important ingredients in a happy life are not related directly to money (happy marriage, loving kids, meaningful work, etc.). Money wrongfully used and wrongfully pursued can actually make us very, very unhappy. When we serve Mammon, it wears us down. You cannot even enjoy what you get. If God gives you a high level of prosperity, rejoice and strive to be a good steward, holding it loosely. But if he doesn’t make you rich, rejoice as well — God has probably spared you a lot of heartaches and headaches. Be content with what you have. Live within your means. Give thanks at all times. Dethrone mammon by giving money away. Learn to use money skillfully by being generous, by tithing to your church, by saving and investing, by spending thoughtfully. But do not think that money is the key to a fulfilled life because it is not.

11. Pursue a calling, not a career.

See your vocation as a ministry. Do your work as a way of serving God and others. The work God calls you to do is central to your life mission. If the work does not serve the common good in some way, go find some other work to do. Work that serves the common good in some way is much more satisfying. Your work is assigned to you by God and you are really working for him. When you see your work as a calling, you can endure the “downsides” of the job because you know God has a purpose in it. Every job has thorns and thistles. But God is also at work in our work, not only to mature us, but to serve the needs of others. This is the Protestant doctrine of vocation, which gave rise to the Puritan work ethic, which is really what built America. Do not buy into a sacred/secular dichotomy, as if the only kind of work that pleased God is church work or mission work. God blesses all kinds of work (Gen. 1-2). Do your work with excellence and God will say, “Well done good and faithful servant.”

12. Have grit.

Grit will carry you a long way. Grit is the essence of what makes us men. Be tough, be courageous, be resilient, be persistent. Life is tough, and life is never fair. Don’t settle for being a “pretty boy” who whines when he doesn’t get his way. Grow up. Deal with it. Fight through the hard times. Keep working, keep pushing, keep fighting. Read “If” by Kipling again and again — it’s the perfect description of true grit, and true manhood. The real test of manhood, of grit, comes when things are not going our way, we’re feeling stressed, and we need to figure out what to do but there is no clear direction. Times like those reveal what we are made of. God has each one of us run an obstacle course, full of traps, trials, and temptations. Run for the joy set before you, run through the crosses God calls you to endure, run for his glory, run hard to life’s finish line (Hebrews 12). Finishing well is a huge theme in Scripture (e.g., Paul in 2 Timothy). Grit will get you there.

13. Have fun.

Sometimes we forget God actually wants us to have fun. But this is a constant theme in Scripture. God has filled the world with good gifts, and he wants us to enjoy them to the fullest. Of course, we can only do this if we are thankful. It is as if God has put the human race in a wine cellar full of the choicest wines. But only those who thank and glorify him have the corkscrew needed to open the bottles so the joy can flow out. Without giving God thanks, no matter what you have, you cannot really enjoy it. So be like Chesterton, who not only thanked God before meals, but before the opera, before the game, before making love, before the walk in the park. In Ecclesiastes, Solomon constantly counsels joy, even in the midst of this vaporous life. Enjoy your wife. Enjoy your children. Enjoy the fruit of your labors. In 1 Timothy 4, Paul tells us it is demonic to forbid those gifts of marriage/sex and food/drink that God has provided richly for our pleasure. This is Satan’s way of frustrating God’s original creation design, found in the dominion mandate of Genesis 1. Yes, life is full of hardships, and some people’s lives are harder than others. We all have a degree of suffering measured out to us in God’s wise providence. But amidst the hardships and trials of life, God wants us to taste his gifts and see that he good. He wants us to have a tangible experience of his goodness. So: Feel free to enjoy sports. Feel free to enjoy a tv show. Feel free to enjoy good music. We must never let our guard down in way that would let the world into our hearts to corrupt us, but there are plenty of ways we can enjoy God’s world while avoiding defilement. In marriage, never stop pursuing your wife. Enjoy teasing her and flirting with her — she’s bound to enjoy it as well. In your work, do not be so task obsessed that you cannot enjoy the occasional sense of accomplishment from what God has enabled you to do. In family life, your children will be tremendous sources of joy. If you put in the effort to train and discipline them when they are young, you will enjoy being around your kids for decades — and perhaps get to enjoy your kids’ kids as well. The Christian life is the blessed life. God’s way of life is the best way to live. God has filled his world with hidden treasure and the Bible its a kind of treasure map — as we follow its directives, we unearth all kinds of glorious riches along the way. Live life to the fullest, for the sake of your own joy and for the sake of God’s glory.

Subscribe now

Share

A thread from notes put together in 2018 on the Holy Spirit as the Lord and Giver of Life, and therefore the Lord and Giver of civilization, culture, and prosperity. Given all that has happened since then, some of this will seem dated, but the macrotrends are still largely holding true:

The Holy Spirit is the Lord and Giver of all life, as the Creed says. Thus, he is also the source of all civilization, of all culture, of all glory and wisdom. The Holy Spirit is the source of all the human craftsmanship, creativity, and ingenuity that keep civilization marching forward. He drives all human innovation and ingenuity. The Holy Spirit is the source of all the resources and potentiality within the creation that we use to solve our problems and improve our lives. Non-Christians do not thank or acknowledge the Spirit, but they are very much the beneficiaries of his work, at least in this life. The Holy Spirit preserves, protects, and prospers; wherever these blessings are found in the world, they are due to his work. The Holy Spirit brings peace and prosperity into the world. Again, because of the Holy Spirit, in the big picture, things keep getting better and better. There are setbacks along the way, but the Spirit continues to pull creation into greater and greater glory. And, again, this is not just true in some Spiritual or ecclesiastical sense. It is true comprehensively. By every objective measurement of human flourishing, life is better today that it has been ever since the fall of man into sin. The world is better – objectively better – than it ever has been, and it is getting better all the time. Consider some random facts:

1. The Holy Spirit is the Lord and Giver of life. Usually we take that to mean he is the giver of life in creation, and the giver of life in the new creation in Christ. He is the giver of temporal life to all, and of eternal life to the elect. But he is also the giver of all that enriches, enlivens, and extends life in this world. The Holy Spirit maintains and sustains life in this world. One thing we see the Spirit doing as the Lord and Giver of life is extend life expectancies. He gives life and in recent times he has continually increased life expectancy. No, we are not back to those crazy long lifetimes seen early in the book of Genesis (not yet anyway!), but life expectancy has been steadily increasing across the globe for a long time now (albeit with a few setbacks here and there). Global life expectancy has more than doubled in the last 100 years. This is the work of the Holy Spirit, ultimately. See Life Expectancy is Rising.

2. The Holy Spirit is the Lord and Giver of prosperity. Those who do not account for the Spirit see economics as a zero sum game, and so those who get rich must do so at the expense of the poor. But the Spirit allows us to enrich one another. The Spirit is the Lord and Giver of wealth, which is why global wealth can continue increasing. Wealth is not a fixed sum, to be divided up like slices of a pie. The Spirit enables us to create new wealth in such a way that a “rising tide lifts all boats.” The pie keeps getting bigger; the Spirit keeps bringing more and more wealth into the world for humanity to share. The Spirit keeps proceeding from the Father through the Son into the world, bringing greater and greater life, maturation, and glory to humanity. The Spirit creates a dynamic economy.

   
   Those who deny the reality of the Spirit’s ongoing creation of wealth, are likely to fall into the traps of envy and statism, thinking the state needs to control the distribution of wealth and “equalize” riches. But when the state tries to play God, when the state tries to take over the role of the Spirit and become the lord and giver (or taker?) of life, disaster always follows.

   
   An ordered free market system actually allows the economy to mimic the body of Christ. In the body of Christ, we have Spiritual gifts that we use for the good of others; as we use our gifts to serve, the body as a whole become greater than the sum of its parts and grows. A political economy that imitates the structure and freedom of the body of Christ will likewise find ever-increasing prosperity. In the body of Christ, service = glory (cf. Mark 10). In the economy, service = profit. All things being equal, profit is a way of measuring how well you are using your gifts to serve others. Profit is Spirit-given glory to reward those who use their gifts to serve others.

   
   (We have to note here that not all profit can be looked at this way because most of our economic systems, even in more capitalistic countries, are rigged, so that the government is continually interfering with the market, picking winners and losers, etc. We have all the wrong kinds of regulation. Plus, sometimes, truly gifted and hardworking people will fall on hard times through no fault of their own. What I have said here should not be interpreted along the lines of the “health and wealth” teaching found among the “prosperity gospel” teachers. The real world situation is always much more complex. Many times, the wicked prosper while the righteous suffer. We should also note that some goods and service are not lawful to profit from [e.g., the sex trade], so they must be bracketed out of this discussion. But the point made here still stands, when properly qualified: In terms of longer-term trends, what I am saying here is really no different than the message Proverbs. It is proverbial wisdom, drawn from and reflective of the way God made and sustains his world. Those who serve the best rise to the top. Those who serve receive glory. Those who serve will prosper. The free market captures this Spiritual dynamic, described by Jesus in Mark 10, and applies it to economic life.)

3. The Holy Spirit is the Lord and Giver of food. Fewer people in the world are hungry than at any time in modern recorded history. Fewer people live in dire poverty. In fact, the rate of dire poverty has gone from 85% in 1800 to less than 10% today. Some project that by 2030, dire poverty will be eradicated altogether (with the possible exception of socialist and communist countries, where government tyranny quenches the life giving, life sustaining work of the Spirit). Fewer people and less land is needed proportionally to feed the world than ever before. The Spirit is the Lord and Giver of technology, including agricultural technology, that allows us to keep feeding more and more people with greater and greater efficiency.

4. The Holy Spirit is the Lord and Giver of wealth. The wealth of virtually every nation that participates in the modern economy has exploded, starting with Western nations after the Reformation (and especially the Industrial Revolution), but now that same wealth explosion is happening in other places. Sometimes tyrannical, socialist, and communist governments quench the work of the Spirit; indeed, most famines in the modern world are due to centralized “control” leading to mismanagement and misallocation of resources. But the main thing to see is that the Holy Spirit allows the human race to continue creating new wealth. Total world wealth keeps increasing virtually every year. While we might want to see the wealth of the world spread around more in some cases, the most important thing to note is that even the world’s poor are growing in wealth. As the Spirit Christianizes nations, they will bring their peculiar treasures into the kingdom (Isaiah 60). See

   1. Falling Poverty Rates

   2. What 95% of Americans Don’t Know About World Poverty

   3. Early 2020 Coronavirus Cure

   4. Explaining Our Miraculous Flourishing

5. The Holy Spirit is the Lord and Giver of money. Global prosperity continues to increase. Over 300,000 people get electricity and clean drinking water every day. Most of the world is connected via mobile phones and the Internet so we can communicate with one another anywhere in the world cheaply and instantaneously. See https://humanprogress.org/article.php?p=1247 and https://humanprogress.org/article.php?p=845. See also Herman DeSoto’s The Mystery of Capital, which argues that the most prosperous places in the world are places where the gospel has penetrated, and this is no coincidence. The “western legal property system,” the foundation of the success found in Western civilization, is the fruit of the Spirit. Spirit-enabled law-keeping is the true key to prosperity.

6. The Holy Spirit is the Lord and Giver of technology and health care. More people receive effective medical care than ever before. More people have more comforts and conveniences and luxuries than ever before. Even the poorest people in Western countries live and eat and are cared for better than kings were just a couple centuries ago. All genuinely helpful advancements in human dominion, knowledge, and technology flow from the Spirit.

7. The Holy Spirit is the Lord and Giver of education and literacy. The Spirit inspired the Word; the Spirit cultivates a love for the Word and for words. More people are educated and a lower percentage of the world is illiterate than ever before in recorded history. Much of the progress in education, rising standards of living, access to health care and technology, parallels the growth and expansion of the church. Where the church goes, blessings for all follow, especially literacy (since we are the “people of the book” and the Spirit who inspired the book certainly wants people to be able to hear it and read it).

8. The Spirit is the Lord and Giver of culture. We can trace this all the way back to Bezalel in the book of Exodus, when the Spirit enabled him to produce glorious works of art and craftsmanship. Art, music, architecture, the culinary arts, etc., are all the result of the Spirit’s work within the human race. There really is such a thing as Christian architecture, Christian plumbing, Christian cooking, etc. These are gifts of the Spirit, given in greater measure to cultures where the Spirit’s presence is more manifest. If we do not see this it is only because we have come to take the Spirit’s work in our midst for granted. The Spirit is the source of all human culture and the Spirit transforms and elevates the products of human culture, especially when the church is at work discipling a culture. Cultures that have more of the Spirit’s work are going to be superior to those that have less. Cultures that have the Spirit’s work in greater measure are going to be both freer and better structured than those that have less.

9. The Holy Spirit is the Lord and Giver of environmental stewardship. While the Industrial Revolution temporarily caused the environment to suffer in some places, the Holy Spirit led us to creative solutions to the problems of pollution. The earth is now cleaner and greener than it ever has been in modern recorded history. There is wide ranging evidence that man’s cultivation of the earth has actually made the world a far greener, more productive planet. The earth produces more food now than ever, using fewer workers and less land. Overall, the earth is in better shape than at any time in recorded history. See:

   1. https://humanprogress.org/article.php?p=415

   2. https://humanprogress.org/article.php?p=420

10. The Holy Spirit is the Lord and Giver of natural resources. When you consider that we have never run out any needed resource in the history of humanity, you might consider that the human race is being sustained by some kind of miraculous provision, ala the oil in the widow’s lamp in 1 Kings 17 and 2 Kings 4. Think about that: In the history of the human race, we have never run out of a single resource. What a breathtaking miracle of the Spirit! We are constantly told the earth is running out of natural resources. But is this really the case? These scares never actually come to pass. I can remember when I was growing up, there were constant scares about “peak oil.” And there were occasional oil shortages. But these were caused by political events and mismanagement, not by an actual shortage. Today, no one talks about peak oil because we have so much oil available it’s a non-issue. In the 1970s and 1980s, the thought that America would ever export oil seemed impossible, but today it is a reality. The Holy Spirit is the Lord and Giver of oil, and other forms of energy. The Holy Spirit keeps giving us cheaper and cheaper forms of energy. Not only that, the Holy Spirit is the Lord and Giver of precious metals. New supplies of once “rare” metals have been discovered; the Holy Spirit is the Lord and Giver of yttrium and dysprosium. The Holy Spirit gives and keeps on giving. Indeed, even when we seem to facing shortages, the Holy Spirit helps us innovate our way out of them. How long until the Holy Spirit leads us to find even better sources of energy, clean water, etc. than we have now? See

    1. https://seekingalpha.com/article/4060990-peak-oil-peak-gold-peak-anything-peak-nonsense

    2. https://humanprogress.org/article.php?p=1268
       
       

    Consider this also, although I admit I do not know enough to argue that oil is actually a renewable resource but certainly some scientists believe it is:

    1. https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/plugged-in/oil-might-be-a-natural-resource-and-other-things-you-did-not-know/

    2. http://321energy.com/editorials/bainerman/bainerman083105.html.

    
    On new discoveries of lithium being made all time, see: http://321energy.com/editorials/oilprice/oilprice050518.html. One scientist described these newly discovered deposits as providing a “semi-infinite” supply of these metals!
    
    For weak attempts at refuting the points made here about abundance vs. scarcity, see

    1. https://futurism.com/how-long-do-we-have-until-we-exhaust-all-of-our-resources/

    2. https://theguardian.com/environment/blog/2011/oct/31/six-natural-resources-population?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

    3. http://slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2010/10/has_the_earth_run_out_of_any_natural_resources.html

11. The Holy Spirit is the Lord and Giver of the environment. This means the environment is not nearly as fragile as we have sometimes been led to think. I remember when the BP oil spill happened in the Gulf of Mexico. At the time, we were told the beaches might be damaged for a generation, and indeed might never recover. And yet, in a very short period of time, the beaches were as good as ever and the spill a distant memory for most. Now, certainly we should advocate care so that such spills are avoided whenever possible – they are damaging to be sure. And we should also thank those played a role in cleaning up after the spill. But the fact is that earth’s environment has proven to be far tougher and more resilient than many believed possible.

12. The Holy Spirit is the Lord and Giver of hope. Yes, it is true, we are constantly bombarded with doomsday scenarios, such as Paul Erhlich’s Population Bomb (which predicted we would have all died of mass starvation years ago) and Al Gore’s Inconvenient Truth (which was wildly wrong on the changing environmental conditions and their civilizational impact). The fact is apocalyptic scenarios almost never come to pass. And even when they do – even when the ship of a civilization crashes (e.g., the fall of Rome; a hurricane wiping out a city; etc.) – the Spirit saves many people alive to go on to build an even better civilization in its place. In the history of the world, on macro scale, this has never not happened. The end of one era gives way to a better era, even if it takes some time. The earth is not overpopulated. The earth is not fragile. There is no reason to be pessimistic. See:

    1. https://humanprogress.org/article.php?p=1269

    2. https://fee.org/articles/a-lot-of-people-on-earth-share-thanoss-misguided-ideas-on-population-and-scarcity/?utm_campaign=FEE%20Daily&utm_source=hs_email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=62720904&_hsenc=p2ANqtz–vxLC8d6mIstt4jMxOS4GIJ2CXPxoGPM8xKy0LdMrH7Uphp3XDIj87iTmG9_HlAfv0bQFl6mX8QPH0lMZjcgFhuWW1nQ&_hsmi=62720904

13. The Holy Spirit is the Lord and Giver of people. People are actually the Spirit’s greatest resource. This is why the over-population myth is so dangerous. It’s one reason why forms of artificial sterility, like abortion and homosexuality, are so problematic and destructive; they are anti-Spiritual. The Holy Spirit is no doubt grieved when countries drop below replacement level birth-rates. To the degree that these declining birth rates are caused by tyranny (e.g., China’s enforced one child policy) and by pessimism about the state of the world, they completely avoidable. The good news is that God’s people are, generally speaking, more faithful in having children. If we cannot convert the world, perhaps we can outbreed the world in the next generation. Having babies and raising them up as “godly offspring” is the most important key to future prosperity for humanity.

    
    Declining birth rates are a sign of judgment on a people, a sign that the water of the Spirit is drying up in a given place. But we know God’s Spirit will continue to work as the Lord and Giver of life. While non-Christian secular people have stopped having children, most faithful Christians still want larger than average families. Where the Spirit is at work, people affirm and embrace new life. Where the Spirit is at work, families are valued. Where the Spirit is at work, children are embraced as Spiritual blessings.

None of this is intended to diminish the reality of human suffering. There are certainly personal and societal storms and set backs. Some of you may be in tremendous pain, from the loss of loved one or the reality of a deadly disease that is afflicting you. Some of you may be suffering economically and do not find it particularly consoling to hear that standards of living are rising in other parts of the world. What I am talking about here is not intended to address those concerns But do not let anecdotes about terrible things reported on the news overshadow the brightness of the Spirit’s good work in the world. The future is always as bright as God’s promises. Do not ever let your own suffering and struggles blind you to the reality that we live in a good world sustained and cared for by a good God. Our suffering is part of his design as well. God may put individuals and societies through terrible times of tragedy and pain. But in terms of the big picture, his sustaining hand is clearly on the human race. His providence reveals he is a God who delights to do good to us, in spite of our sin and folly. He loves and provides for all he has made, as the psalmist declares again and again.

Further, none of this intended to make us think that temporal prosperity is the most important measure of human flourishing. The real key to human flourishing is always worship of the living God since we were made to thank and glorify him. We can flourish in the deepest sense even when we have almost nothing (cf. Phil. 4, 1 Tim. 6). But humans are aspirational creatures by design and material abundance is certainly a sign of God’s favor, all things being equal. There is nothing wrong with desiring prosperity for oneself and one’s children, provided it is kept in its proper place, relative to God’s calling on our lives. It is fully and perfectly human to desire “the good life.” We should never be embarrassed by the privileges God gives us. Instead, we should rejoice and give thanks. If the world is growing richer, this should be regarded as good news, even as we remember that riches bring certain dangers.

Original post (with links) can be found here:

Subscribe now

Share

Fake friends are like shadows. They stay close to us while we’re in the sunlight, only to leave us immediately as we step into the darkness.

Understand that not everything is meant to be understood. Live, let go, and don’t worry about what you can’t change.

You can apologize over and over but if your actions don’t change, the words become meaningless.

Good things come to those who wait. But better things come to those who work.

Worrying is literally a waste of energy. It will not drain tomorrow of its troubles, but it will drain you of your strength today.

The more you resist putting in the hard work, the harder your life will become.

Men fight physically, women psychologically.

Men are cruel to each other but don’t mean it, women are nice to each other but don’t mean it.

Feed your faith, and all your fears will starve to death.

You can’t live out your dreams if you’re you’re controlled by your nightmares.

If you want your dreams to come true, don’t oversleep.

What you can become depends upon what you can overcome.

You can’t correct a mistake if you never take ownership of it.

There is always, always, always something to be thankful for.

Don’t waste time on payback, getting even will stop you from getting ahead.

Your life is your responsibility.

The chief cause of failure and unhappiness is trading what we want most for what we want at the moment.

Live the life that unfolds before you.

Not everything in your life is your fault, but everything in your life is your responsibility.

Your actions and your words should always agree with each other. Don’t say one thing, then do another.

Life is all about balance. Be kind, but don’t let people run you over. Trust, but don’t be deceived. Be content, but never stop improving.

Even though no one can go back and make a brand new start, anyone can start from now and make a brand new ending.

Life is too short, so laugh when you can, apologize when you should and let go of what you can’t change.

Always make yourself a bargain to your employer.

Life goes on, even if you don’t want it to.

Do what is right, not what is easy.

Never stop learning, because life never stops teaching.

Whoever is trying to bring you down, is already below you.

The most memorable people in life will be the friends who loved you when you weren’t very lovable.

If you can’t say it to their face, then don’t say it behind their back.

Remember, people will judge you by your actions, not your intentions.

Will you find a way or find an excuse?

The hardest thing in life is to know which bridge to cross and which to burn.

Tough times create tough people.

More people would learn from their mistakes if they weren’t so busy denying them.

If you want something you have to work for it. If you don’t get it, work harder.

Don’t bother apologizing if you’re just going to continue doing the things you said you were sorry for.

Make every song you sing your favorite tune.

It’s important to remember that we cannot become what we need to be, by remaining what we are.

There are two ways of being rich. One is to have all you want, the other is to be satisfied with what you have.

One day, you’ll be just a memory for some people. Do your best to be a good one.

Be the most reliable person in your circle of friends.

Trust takes years to earn, but just a second to break.

Despite the cost of living, it’s still popular.

Don’t ask someone for advice unless you’re actually ready to listen.

People do not realize how important decisions are until they make the wrong ones.

True strength is doing what you know is right when you really don’t want to.

Subscribe now

Share

An X post and subsequent discussion:

Few areas of theology caused as much controversy at the time of the Protestant Reformation as that of the way in which Christ is present in the Lord’s Supper. Briefly consider the parameters of this debate and the Reformational answer.

On one end of the spectrum, were the Anabaptists (and supposedly Zwingli shared their view, though historians still debate Zwingli’s view). The Anabaptist conception is essentially the modern baptistic understanding: Christ is in no way present in the sacrament and therefore the Supper is a mere remembrance of Christ’s suffering. In this view, the Supper is something like a memorial for a departed friend. The only presence of Christ in the Supper is subjective (in the mind of the worshipper). This view is an historical novelty and cannot account for the biblical language about the Eucharist. The biblical data points to something more going on when we come to the table. The Eucharistic is symbolic, to be sure, but not a mere symbol.

On the other end of the spectrum was the Roman Catholic view, known as transubstantiation. Rome had heavily imbibed an Aristotelian metaphysic, separating the accidents (or attributes) and substance of a thing. Thus, in the Supper, the elements retained the accidents of bread and wine, but the substance was transformed into the physical body and blood of our Lord. This doctrine may be rejected immediately as an abomination, since it seems to make the Lord’s Supper a resacrificing of Christ (though many Romanists would deny this), contrary to Heb. 9:28, and since it is built on an attempted synthesis with pagan philosophy that is foreign to the context of Jesus and the apostles.

Transubstantiation was not the view of the early church. It could not have been, as it relies on the Aristotelian categories of substance and accidents, and Aristotle was not commonly known in the West until the revival of Aristotelian philosophy in the medieval period. The term “transubstantiation” first appears in 11th century, in the writings of Hildebert of Tours. There were debates over the nature of Christ’s real presence in the Supper at the time (see James Jordan’s article “Christ in His Supper” for an account), showing there was no uniformly agreed upon doctrine up to that point in church history. Everyone agreed the Supper was more than a symbol, but the way in which Christ was present was debatable (in ways that foreshadowed later Reformational debates). Aquinas used Aristotelian categories to explicate the real presence of Christ in the Supper and the Council of Trent later codified his doctrine.

The early Reformers, particularly Luther and Calvin (whose views we will come to momentarily), made strong arguments against transubstantiation, which I will not repeat here. But note that the NT itself does not use Aristotelian categories to explicate the Supper and continually refers to what we eat as bread: “The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?…we all partake of the one bread…For as often as you eat this bread…Whoever, therefore, eats the bread…Let a man examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread…” (1 Corinthians 10:16-17, 11:26-28). The bread is a participation in the body of Christ which means something more than a mere subjective remembrance is going on — but according to Paul’s own language, it remains bread. There is no conversion of the element into something else.

The Lutheran view, called consubstantiation, taught that Christ’s flesh and blood are present in, with, and under the elements — in other words, the flesh and blood of Christ somehow occupy the same space as the bread and wine. (As proof, Lutherans pointed to John 20:19 where Christ apparently passed through a wall. As Christ entered the room, his body and the wall must have occupied the same space.) In the Lutheran view the elements are bread, but also body, and wine, but also blood. Hence, Lutherans would say we really partake of Christ with our mouths. Yet Lutherans rejected the Capernaitic heresy, which taught that our teeth actually tore apart his flesh. Its hard to see how this is a consistent position: if Christ is physically present in the bread, how do we not tear his flesh with our teeth when we bite into the bread? The solution, given in the Formula of Concord, is that we partake of Christ supernaturally.

Lutherans were careful to distinguish their view from the Calvinistic view. Calvin similarly often went to great lengths to distance himself from the Lutheran view. However, he insisted on the real, objective presence of Christ in the Supper and both Lutherans and Calvinists insisted on faith if one was to partake worthily. Calvin wrote, “[It] is not an empty or unmeaning sign which is held out to us, but those who receive this promise by faith are actually made partakers of his flesh and blood. For in vain would the Lord command his people to eat bread, declaring that it is his body, if the effect were not truly added to the figure. Nor must it be supposed that we dispute this point [with the Lutherans, I assume, since he had just previously referred to their doctrine], whether it is in reality, or only by signification, that Christ presents himself to be enjoyed by us in the Lord’s Supper; for, though we perceive in it nothing but bread, yet he does not disappoint or mock us, when he undertakes to nourish our souls by his flesh. The true eating of the flesh of Christ, therefore, is not only pointed out by the sign, but is likewise exhibited in reality…our souls feed on Christ’s own flesh in precisely the same manner as bread imparts vigour to our bodies. The flesh of Christ, therefore is spiritual nourishment, because it gives life to us. Now it gives life, because the Holy Spirit pours into us the life which dwells in it” (Comm. on Mt. 26:26).

Calvin’s view became known as “receptionism,” as opposed to “consecrationism.” The elements of the Supper are not converted into something other than what they are at some point of consecration. Rather, Christ is present through his Spirit to give his body and blood to us as we eat and drink. Bread and wine do not become body and blood; rather Christ gives his body and blood to us through the bread and win. This is why Calvinists have never been superstitious about the leftover elements of the Supper.

Further, Calvin argued that while Christ’s body remains in heaven, the Spirit lifts us up to Christ’s heavenly presence in worship. “Lift your hearts up to the Lord! We lift them up to the Lord.” Christians worship in the heavenly sanctuary, where Christ is seated at the Father’s right hand. Rather than Christ descending to meet with us at his table, as in Luther’s view, by the work of the Sprit, we mystically ascend to be with Christ in the heavenlies. The bread and wine are Spiritual food and drink precisely because Christ is present as we partake by the working of his Spirit.

Both Calvinists and Lutherans wrestled with the mystery of the real presence, coming to different answers. I must confess I find Calvin’s view superior and closer to the biblical truth, because it does not compromise with the Eutychian or Nestorian Christological errors* and it quite properly emphasizes the sacramental role of the Holy Spirit in the Supper. The Holy Spirit acts not as a replacement or substitute for Jesus, but to make Him present to us in his undivided deity and humanity. However, neither side can claim (or would want to claim) to have fully solved the enigmas of Christ’s presence in the Supper. The Lutherans claim we partake of Christ “supernaturally”; Calvin and the WCF used the term “spiritual” to describe our communion with Christ. (I would prefer “Spiritual” with a capital S to emphasize it is the work of the Holy Spirit.) At best, the way in which Christ is present in the sacrament has been hemmed in, not pin-pointed. Certain errors can be excluded and certain truths affirmed — the Supper is more than a mere symbol, but the substance of the elements remain unchanged, as Christ is truly present by His Spirit to give himself to us as we eat the bread and drink the wine. Christ is really giving himself to us at the table but the mechanics of it remain mysterious.

*The Calvinistic doctrine of Christ’s presence in the sacramental feast must be carefully circumscribed to avoid the heresies of Eutychianism and Nestorianism. Eutychius had been the leader of one of the parties represented at the Council of Chalcedon in 451 A.D. He taught that Christ was neither fully human nor divine, but a mixture of both. Christ possessed only one nature, his humanity being divinized. The Lutheran view of consubstantiation appears to have a trace of Eutychianism in it, since it requires the virtual omnipresence of Christ’s humanity. Rather than teaching God’s people are raptured up into Christ’s presence by the Holy Spirit in sacramental worship, as Calvin taught, Lutherans claimed Christ descended to dwell in the elements. Thus Christ’s body must be capable of being in more than one place at a time. But human bodies — even glorified bodies — face limitations of space and time that divinity does not; in other words, even though resurrected bodies have properties we cannot fathom, they remain bodies. Calvinists have always seen this problem of the ubiquity of Christ’s human body as the Achilles’ heel of the Lutheran position (see Calvin’s Institutes, 4.17.30-31).

At the same time however, Calvinists must beware of the Nestorian error. Nestorius, the leader of another theological party represented at Chalcedon, was accused of separating the two natures of Christ in such a way that they were two distinct personalities/persons. The Reformed are in danger of Nestorianism because sometimes they give the impression only the divinity of Christ is present in the sacrament, to the exclusion of his humanity.

Chalcedon affirmed the orthodox position, condemning both Euthychianism and Nestorianism, by teaching that Christ is both truly God and truly man, having two natures in one person, “without mixture, without change, without separation, without division.” An orthodox doctrine of Christ’s presence in the Supper must be based upon an orthodox understanding of the incarnation. Eucharistology must be based on Christology. The best defense of the classical Reformed view is John Williamson Nevin’s The Mystical Presence and his lengthy response to Charles Hodge published in the Mercersberg Review. Anyone interested in these questions must read and study Nevin’s writings.

Subscribe now

Share

Introduction: Focusing the Questions

Historical Background

Our children are a gift from God, which means parenting is a form of stewardship. As John Calvin emphasized, every child is a special blessing from God and every birth is a divine visitation. Parents are given a tremendous task: they are to take these little bundles of blessing and help them grow to Christian maturity. But while virtually all Christian parents share a common goal for their children (Christ-like character), not all agree on the starting point or how to arrive at the desired destination. The Spiritual nurture and formation of our children are weighty, difficult issues. One key question revolves around the nature of the child’s relationship with God even from womb. More specifically, this is the question of fides infantum, or infant faith.

The question of whether or not infants belonging to believing parents can have faith has been a troubling one in the history of the church. On the one hand, if we deny that they can have faith, we must either say that these children are lost if they die in infancy or that their salvation is an exception to the great Reformation principle of sola fide. (A further option is tendered by some Anabaptists who simply deny original sin. Infants are not yet sinners so they cannot be condemned. Of course, one wonders why they are subject to the curse of death at all if they are innocent!) On the other hand, if we affirm the possibility of infant faith, we have the difficult task of explaining how persons who lack intellectual and verbal abilities can enter into personal, trusting relationships with others. Is infant faith theologically credible and psychologically plausible?

Some have adamantly denied the possibility of infant faith. Certainly this has been true of the Anabaptist and Baptistic traditions, but it has also been the case with many Reformed theologians as well. Others have vigorously affirmed infant faith, pointing to infants as the best illustrations of gospel grace. Apart from intellectual and rational abilities, the Spirit is able to regenerate and sanctify infants so that they have a kind of “baby faith.” This view was advocated by Martin Luther, Ulrich Zwingli, John Calvin, and Zacharias Ursinus among others. They all connected infant faith with infant baptism. They insisted that faith was necessary to a right reception of the sacrament and that infants were capable (by grace) of such a right reception. Many early Reformers viewed infant faith as having a kind of normativity with regard to those infants born in the context of the church.

To further complicate the subject, however, some later theologians, such as scholastic Francis Turretin, tried to take a middle way, insisting that covenant infants have a seed of faith, a kind of potential faith, but denying that this is actual or active faith. Many fine nuances were made in order to create a distinction between the faith of infants and adults since adult faith includes a propositional confession (e.g., Rom. 10:9-10, 13). The net result, at least in some instances, was to make infant baptism latent until the child had a conversion experience.

The questions we are left with are these: Is infant faith taught in the Scriptures, and if so, what version of infant faith? Is such faith active or passive? How much continuity does it possess with full grown faith? Is there any psychological evidence for infant faith, and if so how does it relate to Bible’s teaching on the subject? How does infant faith relate to the life of the church community, including the administration of the sacraments?

The Issues at Hand

How we answer this question about infant faith has sweeping implications for covenant children who are snatched from this life in their youth, as well as those who live to older years. For those who die in infancy, pastors and parents must grapple with ominous questions surrounding the fate of the child. Again, Christian positions have varied here, running along a spectrum from saying that all such children are saved to denying that any are saved. As a pastor, I know that providing an honest way to comfort grieving parents is of great significance. And so the question is: What do the Scriptures actually teach about infants dying in infancy? Is there any biblically grounded solace we can offer? Can we regard them as saved with certainty?

For children who live normal lives and come of age, the question of infant faith is right at the heart of the debate over how we should raise our children. For instance: Do we seek to nurture them in a covenant relationship they already own? Or do we treat them as outsiders, hoping to convert them once they reach years of discretion? Do our children belong to Christ or to the world? Fundamentally, we can put the issue this way: Is a Christian parent’s first task to disciple his child or to evangelize his child? Is his child inside or outside the kingdom? Does the child need initial salvation or ongoing perseverance?

Further, what are the psychological implications of choosing to treat our covenant children as Christians? What are the psychological implications of treating them as non-Christians? How do we best inculcate in our children an understanding of the free and undeserved grace of the gospel so they develop a “psychology of grace”?

Last but least, the question of infant faith is related to sacramental participation and sacramental efficacy. If our children have faith, how does this bear upon their reception of the sacraments? If we see biblical evidence that they have faith, can we justly withhold the Lord’s Supper from them? And if we deny that they have faith can we justify baptizing them anyway? Must we take into account the maturity level of their faith when contemplating their access to the Eucharist? Or is faith alone–of any quality–sufficient?

This essay cannot deal comprehensively with any of these questions, though we will touch on all of them in various ways. In particular, we want to look at one slice of the biblical canon as it bears upon the question of infant faith, namely, the book of Psalms. We will find that the Psalter provides a rich and practical theology of covenant children. Then we will deal very briefly with issues related to the salvation of children dying in infancy and the debate over covenant nurture in the Christian home. Because there is so much current interest in child psychology, we will pay a quick nod to this discipline as a way of further understanding and unpacking the biblical teaching.

My overall argument will be that in the book of Psalms we see strong testimony of infant faith, and this provides great comfort and encouragement for Christian parents, whether their children die in youth or live to reach old age. We will find that Psalter-based parenting and piety stand in marked contrast to the patterns of American, revivalistic, individualistic Christianity. We will also see that both paedobaptism and paedocommunion are necessary corollaries of sola fide and the Bible’s covenant promises.

Infant Faith in the Psalter

Psalm 22

In Psalm 22:9-10, David asserts that he had faith as an infant. His strongest statement is in verse 9b: “You made me trust while on my mother’s breast.” In other words, David had a God-ward orientation from his earliest days. In recounting his formative experiences, David never points to a dramatic “conversion experience,” but traces back the origin of his Spiritual life to the very beginnings of his physical life. As far as David knows, a relationship with God was always already there. He was a believer from the beginning.

This was certainly not because David believed infants somehow escaped the pollution of original sin or possessed an innate moral goodness. David was not a naïve sentimentalist or a proto-Pelagian. In fact, David confesses elsewhere that he was conceived in iniquity (Ps. 51:5). He knew he was programmed by nature for evil. But he also reckoned that because of the covenant promise, God must have been working to counteract that innate desire for wickedness from his life’s origin. Thus, grace was already battling sin in his heart from the beginning. Apparently for David, sin and faith were no more mutually exclusive in infants than in adults. Man is born a sinner from the moment of conception; and yet for those infants who are also participants in the covenant promises, God’s grace is already operative as well.

How did David know that he had faith as an infant? Certainly not through conscious remembrance. Obviously, none of us can remember that far back in our experience. But it seems that this observation only strengthens the case for infant faith as a general, covenant-wide phenomenon. David must derive the fact that he had faith as an infant from broader covenant principles–that is, from the covenant promises as such (e.g., Gen. 17:1, 8). God’s declaration that he is a God to our children must include giving them his Spirit (Isa. 59:21), who enables them to have a trusting relationship with their Heavenly Father, even apart from ordinary means. Infant faith is a normative covenant reality.

There is another reason why David cannot be presenting his infant faith as a unique case. After all, his description of faith, even from the womb, was part of Israel’s public hymnbook, used in corporate worship. This is not a private prayer journal, but part of a covenantal liturgy. In public praise, every Israelite would have made the words of David his own, and would have been expected to be able to identify with them in some form or fashion. Thus, infant faith is paradigmatic. It is the normal course of events, part of a typical covenant child’s pattern of development. In much the same way that hymns like John Newton’s “Amazing Grace” have made adult conversion the norm (Newton recalls a period of blindness and “the hour I first believed . . .”) in many revivalistic churches, so David’s psalm made infant faith and covenant nurture the norm in ancient Israel. Certainly, God is free to work when, how, and where he pleases, but God’s ordinary way of dealing with covenant infants includes giving them the gift of faith in the womb. The revivalistic paradigm turns David’s experience inside out and effectively eliminates the possibility of growing up Christian.

What is the nature of this faith that David exercised even as an infant? Clearly it was not a matter of cognitive reflection. Instead, it seems to be a matter of relational disposition. For example, David perceives the care of God through his mother’s breast. Her milk becomes a means of grace to him. His mother stands in loco Dei. Even though he knows no more propositions about his mother than he knows about Jesus, he still has a dependent, trusting stance towards her. Really, this relational posture is the essence of faith.

Faith is, as James Fowler has said, a particular way of “leaning into life.” Faith is an inescapable aspect of human life and development, though apart from grace, faith is always misdirected (e.g., Jer. 17:5-6). Given that there is no religious neutrality, even for infants, we might even say that infant faith (and human faith in general) is universal since every person at every stage of development has some particular “approach” to life. The only question, then, is, “Towards whom is this faith directed? The living God? Or an idol?” David’s claim is that he was “leaning into life” in God’s way even from his earliest days. He had a relational inclination and desire for God from infancy. As his sense of self-identity and view of the world developed, they were profoundly directed towards and integrated by his faith-relationship with Israel’s Lord. His life leaned towards God, rather than away from him, from the outset. Obviously, this was not a natural disposition, but a gift of covenanted grace.

Psalm 71

Of course, Psalm 22 is not the only reference to infant faith in the Psalter. We find something similar in Psalm 71:5-6. Here, the psalmist once again describes himself as having a trusting, personal relationship with God from his earliest days. The beginning of Spiritual life is, for the child of the covenant, coordinated with the beginning of physical life. When a sperm and egg unite in a covenant womb, the embryo already has a promise from God and an inescapable relationship with God. Just as covenant marriages belong to God, so the fruit of those marriages is claimed by God as well (cf. Mal 2:15). This is not because infant faith is some kind of natural inheritance from the parents. Rather, it is because the child has a relationship with God, created by Christ through the Spirit, in accord with the covenant promises. Parents do not save their children by their genetics or bloodlines any more than by their works (cf. Jn. 1:12-13); but the divine promise of salvation provides a basis for parents to serve as means of grace to their children, building upon a work God has already begun. Because God is at work in the child, the parents can be effective in parental nurture.

Specifically in 71:5, the psalmist speaks of having hope in God from his earliest days. There was apparently never a time in his life when he lived without this hope. In verse 6, he speaks of God’s special care for him from birth. God brought him out of the womb safely, and it is this past track record of divine faithfulness that serves to bolster the psalmist’s mature confidence that God will now deliver him from the wicked men who seek his harm and ruin (71:4). Because God has sheltered him with favor and care from his earliest days, he will continue to do so on into old age (71:9). From cradle to death bed, the Lord will be faithful to the covenant. Infant faith is simply a manifestation of God’s own covenant fidelity. The covenant provides cradle to grave security for believers.

If we take the framework of the psalmist seriously, the covenant child would never need to pose the question, “What must I do to be saved?” in the way an outsider must ask that question. Indeed, that question would never even occur to the child if he is made to understand the covenant relationship that has been given to him. Salvation has belonged to him from the beginning because of God’s covenant promise (71:6; Acts 2:39, 16:31). He does not need a “conversion experience” when he reaches a mythical “age of accountability.” Instead he simply needs to continue maturing and growing in the trust of his youth (71:5). Indeed, the psalmist pledges himself to just this kind of faith-filled, grace-enabled perseverance later on in his prayer (e.g., 71:14-16).

Certainly this paradigm of covenant nurture in the Psalter does not preclude the possibility of passing through various “crisis points” as the child matures. It does not mean the child’s growth will be a straight upward climb. In fact, even in Psalm 71 we find David facing challenges to his faith. As God brings him through the trial, he will enter a new phase of maturity. His faith will be strengthened and confirmed, and he will confess that faith publicly in a new way. A fresh chapter will have been added to his testimony of God’s care and provision. Thus, infant faith does not negate the need for the child’s Spiritual growth; rather, it gives us a basis for expecting our diligent instruction, discipline, and nurture to be effective in the life of the child, as he grows towards maturity.

If covenant parents grasp the reality of who their children are, they will be in a better position to shepherd them through life’s vicissitudes and quietudes. David had a covenantal framework for dealing with his trials and struggles. He knew he could bank on God’s ongoing covenant care because his eyes had been trained to see God at work all through the course of his life. In the same, way we must provide a covenantal platform for our children so that they can rightly interpret the pattern of God’s covenant faithfulness at work in their life-stories, discerning his love and provision even from their earliest days. By teaching our children that they were already embraced in God’s care from infancy, we bolster their confidence in God for the future. This nurture does not guarantee their perseverance in faith, of course, but it does press them in the right direction.

Psalm 139

Another important Psalm is 139. Psalm 139:14-15 have been pressed into generic usage because of contemporary debates over abortion, but these verses have a very specific, covenantal focus. Jack Collins, professor of Old Testament at Covenant Theological Seminary, suggests the following as the best translation of 139:14: “I praise you for the fact that I have been awesomely distinguished [as a member of your covenant people]; your works are wonderful, and my soul knows it well.” Without repeating Collins’ fine linguistic work on the passage, we should note the nuance of the verb “to be distinguished” in this context. Collins points out that each time this verb is used in the OT (e.g., Ex. 9:4; 11:7; 33:16; Ps. 4:4) “the distinction is one in which the covenant member is set apart for God’s gracious attention.” Thus, in Psalm 139:14, the psalmist is expressing awe not simply over God’s creative work in forming him in his mother’s womb (as many translations imply); rather, he is praising God for having set him apart as a participant in his covenant of salvation. “In context this is praise that one’s experience of God’s covenantal blessings extends back to the very beginning of one’s existence,” as Collins puts it. This is not a generic declaration, applicable to all in utero children; it is a special proclamation of God’s care and favor for those children who belong to his covenant. These children are “awesomely distinguished” from children conceived outside the pale of the covenant community (cf. 1 Cor. 7:14).

Collins echoes my earlier point about Psalm 22:9-10: it will not do to say that this is an experience unique to David. It has normative force, and so we are warranted in applying it to covenant children as a class. All such children are conceived and grow up within the sphere of covenanted mercies. They are awesomely distinguished as believing members of the covenant community even from infancy.

Is this simply a record of the personal experience of the author? No: whatever its origin, it is now in the Psalter, which means that its primary function is to provide fitting words for God’s covenant people to use in their public corporate worship. The redemptive-historical setting of this psalm is an era in which virtually all the pious members of the covenant people were raised in what we would call believing covenant homes; and this psalm is equipping them to trace their experience of God’s intimate love and care right back to the time they were embryos . . .

[T]he people sing that their relationship with God dates from their time in the womb. Indeed God’s care for the children of his covenant people is inherent in the covenant itself (Gen. 17:7; 18:19; Ex. 34:7, “who keeps loving-kindness for thousands [of generations]”), so it is hardly surprising that it would figure in the worship of the covenant people.

Psalm 139:14 does not contain an explicit reference to the psalmist’s infant faith the way Psalm 22 and Psalm 71 do. However, it is not at all difficult to see the connection between the way David describes his pre-birth experience of grace here with the way it is described elsewhere. Even in the womb, the relationship between David and his God is so intimate, it must have been one of mutual faithfulness. It is not simply that God knew (loved) David, but that David knew (loved) God. Surely such knowing and loving on David’s part included faith. The covenant distinction that set David apart even in the womb strongly suggests the presence of embryonic trust, consistent with what we find elsewhere.

Psalm 139:15 is also interesting in regard to the question of infant faith. The psalmist speaks of God having “woven” him together in his mother’s womb. The verb used here does more than merely indicate that each new conception and gestation is a work of God, through created means and processes. This verb is used elsewhere in the OT to describe the making of the veils and curtains that hung in the tabernacle (e.g., Ex. 26:36). The covenant infant is woven together, like fine fabric, for holy purposes. The child is already a sacred person (cf. 1 Cor. 7:14), a kind of mini-temple in which God dwells by his Spirit (cf. 1 Cor. 6:19). Obviously the child will enter a greater degree of holiness at circumcision (or baptism in the new covenant), and will need to grow up into his covenantal status by professing faith and walking in obedience in the years to come. His infant faith must grow into mature, more fully actualized adult faith. But the covenant child’s starting point should be clear: he belongs to the Lord; he is God’s special workmanship; he is a member of the believing covenant people.

Other Psalms

Finally, we should make brief mention of a few other passages in the Psalter which bear upon the question at hand. Psalm 8:2 speaks of infants as true worshippers of God. Babbling covenant children are actually chanting God’s praises. As Calvin says in commenting on this text, God does not wait until men reach mature years in order to make his glory shine through them; rather, “even from the very dawn of infancy [his glory] shines forth so brightly as is sufficient to confute all the ungodly . . . [God] has no need of rhetoricians, nor even of distinct and formed language, because the tongues of infants, although they do not yet speak, are ready and eloquent enough to celebrate it.” Calvin rejects the allegorical interpretation of this verse which makes infancy a metaphor for new Christians and insists the Psalm is describing actual infants as “witnesses and preachers of God’s glory” and “invincible champions of God.” It is hard to escape the conclusion that if infants are all these things, they must also be believers in some sense. Infant faith is presupposed rather than stated, but it cannot be denied.

Psalm 78 calls upon covenant parents to train their children in the story of God’s gracious dealings with Israel. Children love stories, of course, and certain narratives become fundamental to their personal and corporate identities. In verses 1-8, Asaph calls upon fathers in Israel to inculcate a sense of covenant “belongingness” in their children, so that they will understand themselves in light of Israel’s history. By knowing their past, they are also inspired with hope for the future, for the story reveals the triumph of God’s mercy over and over again (78:9ff). Giving our children the redemptive story in such a way that it becomes their story is a way of forming their character and strengthening their faith. Again, there no overt mention of faith on the part of the children, but it is easy to see how their faith is a presupposition of the text. Covenant nurture in the covenant narrative makes sense because the children are regarded as full covenant members.

Psalms 127 and 128 are useful in drawing out the Psalter’s theology of children. The Psalmist says children are a heritage and reward from the Lord (127:3), meaning they are distributed to us not by chance but in accord with God’s counsel and pleasure for our benefit. We should rejoice when God gives us offspring (Psalm 128:1, 3).

But we know that many children grow up to cause their parents grief and sorrow. How can the Psalter speak of children as such blessings? It is because God promises to give us children who are like arrows in the hands of a mighty warrior (127:4). If parents sharpen and straighten these arrows through faithful nurture, their children will be equipped to fight the wicked in the city gate (e.g., in public and cultural life).

Psalm 128:3 reinforces this point. Our children are like olive plants. Provided that we water and fertilize them, prune and protect them, we can be assured they will grow into fruitfulness. Olive plants elsewhere are symbolic of covenant membership (e.g., Rom. 11) and holiness (Zech. 4). Our homes and churches are to be like greenhouses in which we seek to optimize growing conditions for these covenant seedlings. Through our stories and songs, our festivals and fasts, our public and familial worship, our teaching and discipline, and our example and prayer, we control the lighting, humidity and temperature levels in the greenhouse, enabling our little olive plants to flourish.

While neither of these psalms speak directly of infant faith per se, it is easy to see how compatible these images and metaphors are with the Psalter’s more literal description of covenant children elsewhere. These images mesh well with David’s profession to have been a paedo-believer. No conversion experience is demanded in order for our children to be regarded as arrows or olives; instead this is simply who they are from their infancy, by virtue of God’s covenant. We are called upon to receive and raise them accordingly.

Psalm 58:3 is important to our discussion, even if only by way of contrast. We are told the wicked are alienated from God from birth. Indeed, they are actively, not just potentially, wicked. As soon they are born, they speak lies. Obviously, this forms a sharp contrast with the babies of the righteous who speak truth and praise God even in their youth (cf. Ps. 8:2). But if the sons of the wicked are practicing idolatry even from infancy, it only makes sense (in terms of the text’s implied contrast) that the children of the righteous are in some way practicing righteousness. Their faith is not just latent; it is every bit as concrete and “actual” as the wickedness of covenant breaking children. Of course, both sin and faith will be more fully actualized later on life, but the Bible does not draw a hard and fast line between infants and adults in their exercise of the will for or against God. There is no religious neutrality, even in the womb.

At this point we should add a qualification. None of these Psalms surveyed indicate that faith among covenant infants is absolutely universal. The covenant often has fuzzy boundaries. For example, it is hard to imagine Psalm 22:9-10 applying with the same force during times of declension and idolatry in Israel as it did in David’s time, given that he was raised in the godly home of Jesse. In our day, many infants are baptized in a context of apostasy because the family or church (or both institutions) have rejected the orthodox faith and only carry on an outward shell of the sacrament of baptism. In these cases, where a child is baptized unlawfully or where there can be no realistic expectation that baptism will be followed up by parental discipleship and nurture, the probability of infant faith is uncertain.

But in more normal circumstances, such as those addressed by the Psalter, where the faith of the parents and the covenant community is in tact, there is no good reason to doubt the presence of faith in the heart of the child. In a faithful situation, the children have faith as well as their parents. The children share their parents’ posture of trust and God-ward orientation. They have a favorable relationship with the Lord.

If we ask why there aren’t even more references to infant faith in the Psalter (and elsewhere in Scripture), we should note that this is one of those relatively “invisible” doctrines. That is to say, it is everywhere assumed but rarely talked about explicitly. However, there are all kinds of corroborating evidences.

For example, we do not see the patriarchs in Genesis seeking to convert their children out of unbelief and into faith when they reach a certain age point. Jesus does not say that little covenant children need to be converted so they can enter the kingdom of God, but says they already belong to the kingdom. Paul does not tell Ephesian children to believe the gospel, but to obey their parents in the Lord. In other words, he deals with them as saints and disciples, not as unbelievers in need of conversion. In the same way, Paul does not instruct Ephesian fathers to seek the conversion of their children, but instead tells them to provide a comprehensive pattern of training for their children in the Lord. For Christians, the whole parent-child relationship is contextualized “in the Lord.” And so on.

Everywhere along the way, it assumed that the children of God’s people belong to God from their youth, and this assumption is grounded in God’s covenant promise. The picture drawn in the Psalter is consistent with what we find in the rest of Scripture.

What Infant Faith Is Not: The Role of Baptism and the Psychological Pressure of Communal Expectations

Infant Baptism and Infant Faith

Thus far, we have seen that there is strong biblical warrant for believing that our children are believers. However, we need to clear away a couple of important misconceptions before unpacking the practical implications of this teaching.

First, this doctrine of infant faith means, simply put, that Christian parents give birth to Christian children. After all, what could be more sensible? If anything is evident from providence (not to mention the Bible), God has ordained an intimate life-bond and organic connection between parents and children. Muslims give birth to Muslim children. Jews give birth to Jewish children. Chinese parents give birth to Chinese children. Roman Catholic parents give birth to Roman Catholic children. Presbyterians give birth to Presbyterian children. Baptists give birth to . . . well, never mind! But the point should be clear. Children inescapably share in the cultural and religious life of their parents.

However, the point is also easily misunderstood because, when it comes to Christian children, there is a complicating factor. Scripture makes it plain that because of our fallenness, everyone is by nature out of fellowship with the living God (e.g., Eph. 2:1ff). Left to themselves, the children of even the holiest parents would be conceived as God-haters and unbelievers. Our children are not innocent or even neutral; they are without God and without hope on their own. Grace is a not a natural possession that can be passed on from one generation to the next the way other traits are. Faith in the Triune God is not a natural inheritance but a gift of divine mercy.

This is precisely why the covenant is so important. The covenant promises reveal that God does not leave our children to themselves–even for a moment. He takes initiative to claim the children of his people and make them his own. He does not wait for either parents or the children to make the first move. His grace runs ahead of us, and prepares the way for us. His Spirit is always already there in the life of the covenant child. God’s people do not give birth to children of trouble but for blessing (Isa. 65:23; cf. 59:21).

It is sheer mercy, not some natural necessity that makes the next generation partakers of the covenant relationship. Covenant membership becomes part of the “givenness” of the child’s life situation, not because of his own virtue or his parents’ virtue, but because of God’s free favor. Covenant children share their parents’ relationship with God because God graciously wills it to be so, and binds them to himself. In this way, grace intersects and transforms nature. Grace interrupts the “natural” transmission of the Adamic curse, restoring the creation (specifically the family) in and through Christ and the Spirit.

The only question, then, is this: At what point in the life of the covenant child can we expect the grace of God to begin taking effect? At what age in the life of the child do the promises become operational? Does God put his blessing on hold, and wait until the child reaches a certain age to become the God of that child? Or does he act earlier in the child’s life, even in the womb? At what age can parents begin to claim and apply God’s promises to their children?

The answer of the Psalter is clear. The promises are effective from the moment of conception forward. God is the God of believers; if he is the God of our children, that must mean our children have faith. This does not exempt our children from participating (organically and legally) in the corruption and guilt of original sin. But it means that God is already at work counteracting the native depravity and culpability of our children from the beginning of their lives. There is never a time during which they exist outside the bounds of the covenant of grace. In fact, to affirm original sin, and simultaneously deny that God can and does perform a counterwork in the children of his people is, as Charles Krauth suggested, to make nature more potent than grace since it places a portion of “nature” (infants) in the grasp of sin but beyond the reach of mercy.

Of course, the answer of the Psalter makes perfect sense in light of the promises God makes in his covenant. God does not say, “I will be a God to you and to your teenagers.” Nor is it even, “I will be a God to you and to your toddlers.” No, it is “I will be a God to you and to your children.” The promise covers our children as soon as they exist. But note that it is the covenant promises, not some natural faculty, that ensures our children’s standing before God. It is the trans-generational covenant of grace, not a biological connection, that makes our children heirs of life together with us. The tie binds parents and children together in the Lord is not shared bloodlines or DNA, but the promised grace of the Holy Spirit, who sanctifies what would otherwise be unclean (cf. 1 Cor. 7:14).

Thus, the sacrament of initiation into the covenant (circumcision in the old covenant, baptism in the new) plays a critical role. The practice of infant baptism proves that our children are fallen and that the resources of father and mother cannot restore them. The parents are impotent to pass along saving grace to their children. When parents bring their child for baptism they are confessing that child needs a redemption and cleansing they cannot provide. They are confessing the family is fallen and has no redeeming powers within itself. But, again, this is precisely where the covenant promises step into the situation and answer to our need.

This means we must beware of so emphasizing parental nurture that we squeeze out the importance of the covenant administration in the church. Parents are not sacraments, and parental training, no matter how important or influential, cannot replace baptism. There is no substitute for the divinely appointed and ordained means of grace in the church.

The purpose of baptism, then, is to put a solid foundation of grace underneath the work of the parents. Through the ministry of the church, God enfolds families into his eschatological family, so they function as he originally designed (cf. Mal. 4:6). Parental nurture then builds upon the solid foundation laid down in covenantal baptism.

The fact that we baptize our infants manifests and testifies that [1] our children are not “ok” as they are, in a state of nature, but are in need of the cleansing blood of Christ and the gift of the Holy Spirit, which gifts are already promised to them in baptism; [2] God makes his claim on covenant children through their parents, as they are compelled by promise to bring their children for initiation into the covenant and correspondingly pledge to raise them accordingly; and [3] God acts publicly in baptism to make our children part of his family in their earliest days, loving them long before they can express love in return to him.

So what changes at the baptism of a covenant child? If our children already have faith in some sense, what does baptism effect? Before baptism, the covenant is already applicable to our children in some form or fashion. Psalm 22 indicates the Spirit is already at work, even in the womb. Indeed, it is the Sprit’s prior work in the child that makes infant baptism reasonable and necessary. When we baptize our children, we are baptizing believers. In evangelical, faithful churches, paedobaptism is a subspecies of believer’s baptism. After baptism, the covenant becomes the child’s full possession, since he has been officially adopted into God’s family and united to Christ. In baptism the child transitions into a state the Bible calls “forgiveness” (Acts 2:38) and “regeneration” (Tit. 3:5), though that in no sense precludes possession of those blessings in some way even prior to baptism. Baptism is not merely a re-appropriation of a pre-existing relationship, but neither does it create a relationship from scratch. Instead, it is the means God uses to bring his relationship with the one baptized into a new and solemnized state. Baptism does for the child what a wedding service does for an engaged women or a coronation service for a prince-in-waiting.

If asked the question, “Do you baptize your children because they are already Christians or in order to make them Christians?” we can only reply by saying, “Both!” This is like asking a godly man, “Did you marry your wife because you love her, or do you love her because you’re married to her?” The pre-baptismal relationship of mutual faith and love provides a basis for baptism; after baptism, the God-child relationship takes on a more formalized covenant structure. Thus, we can do justice to passages which speak of pre-baptismal faith and grace (e.g., Ps. 22:9-10), as well as those which describe baptism as a decisive, transitional event in a person’s life (e.g., Rom. 6:1ff; Acts 22:16).

The Psychology of Infant Faith and Conversion

This doctrine of infant faith does not mean that our children never have a conscious point when it first dawns on them that they are believers. Infant faith does not negate the varieties of religious experience our children may undergo. It does not mean that every Christian child should be forced into the same straight jacket of experience, so that they all have identical stories to tell.

In fact, as we continually press upon our children the need to repent and believe, we expect them to experience the grace of God in a wide range of dramatic ways as they grow up. But the way this happens requires us to be willing to rethink the evangelical doctrine of conversion as it is usually understood. We have not done justice to the psychology of the Spirit’s work in our children.

What is going when kids today from faithful, evangelical homes grow up and have what are often deemed “conversion” experiences? It is quite simple, actually. Parents and churches insist and expect that that their kids will have a decisive and dateable transition point, and (guess what?) they do so. However, in light of the above data, it is actually likely that such experiences are not about “conversion” per se, except in the more general sense that the whole Christian life is one of continued deeper and deeper conversion from sin and unbelief to repentance and faith (e.g., Lk. 22:32). It is more likely that they are appropriating an already existing relationship with God in a new and more mature fashion. The confused interpretation of the experience stems from a confused paradigm.

Consider David’s case again: he grew up trusting in God, but at several junctures in his life (as we know from numerous Psalms!) he is “re-converted” and renewed as he passes through crisis situations. The same dynamic happens to all of us, including our children. Thus, we shouldn’t discount their new experiences of God’s grace as they hit puberty, or go off to college, or start families of their own, or face illnesses. These are experiences through which God brings true change, and real spurts of Spiritual growth.

But these “awakenings” or “mini-conversions,” however powerful, should not be confused with initial conversion, as though the child was not a believer in any sense until he went off to a summer camp in high school or got involved in a campus ministry in college or met with the church elders to state his profession of faith for the first time publicly. These experiences should be interpreted against the backdrop of texts like Psalm 22:9-10 and 71:5-6.

In light of the current evangelical conversionist paradigm, many covenant children grow up and come to despise, or at least discount, the Christian nurture they were given in their youth. They say, “Well actually, I was never a Christian until I got to college and finally heard the gospel.” But if they grew up in an orthodox context in home and church, this is either a sign that something went drastically wrong or a sign that their experience is being badly misinterpreted.

Unfortunately, this misinterpretation of experience is not harmless. Kids who grow up under Christian nurture in some form or fashion, only to have their experience squeezed into a revivalistic mold, are taught (implicitly or explicitly) to disregard the worth of God’s work in them as children. They do not value the baptism they received in infancy and they become skeptical about the Spiritual experiences of children in general. They think, “I was not a Christian in my youth, and so no one can be.” They tend to pin their assurance on an experience.

Further, because the emphasis is placed on their independent decision (often apart from the influence of family or church), they come to regard Christianity as a highly privatized, individualistic affair. They are told to explicitly break with the faith of their parents or the church community, rather than being called into a more personalized appropriation of that same faith. The conversionist paradigm treats the decision to believe in Jesus as a basically autonomous choice, which must be made apart from parental or pastoral persuasion (though explicit or implicit pressure from others is, of course, unavoidable). We have to ask: Is this approach likely to foster in our children an appreciation of the covenant community and the corporate dimensions of Christian living? Or is it going to make them think of Christianity as a privatized “me and Jesus” affair?

In addition, they may all too easily fall into a “once saved always saved” doctrine in which a one-time crisis conversion experience is thought to secure salvation even apart from a subsequent life of obedience. Parents pressure them to make a one-time decision (which is easy enough to coax out of the child), and then fail to follow-up with the much harder work of discipling them in the whole counsel of God. All this fosters an unhealthy view of the means of grace and a hankering after spectacular experiences rather than an appreciation for God’s more ordinary ways of working in the sacraments and the covenant family. It puts more weight on a crisis conversion experience then the objective promises of God.

The bottom line is this: The Psalter is the Bible’s comprehensive handbook of covenant life and experience, and yet (as we have seen) there is not a shred of evidence that covenant children must pass through some distinct “conversion” experience, or make some independent decision, in order to be regarded as believers and full members of the people of God. In the covenantal paradigm, we continually call upon our children to express and live out their faith, but we do not ever treat them as unbelievers (unless and until they grow up and apostatize.) Nor do we call upon them to make an independent, autonomous decision in favor of Christ, since such a decision is impossible anyway.

Colin Buchanan provides some helpful thoughts on how infant faith functions as the child matures psychologically and Spiritually. There is no legitimate psychological argument against infant faith and to deny its possibility creates insuperable practical problems:

To put this another way – it is not that one day a child comes face to face with the Savior and makes a conscious decision. It is that, growing up in a home where the Savior is known, only slowly does it dawn upon the child that there are odd people (at school and elsewhere) who are trying to live life on their own. One could go further into the psychology of this. Is it, for instance, probable that the parents stand in loco Dei from the earliest moments, and the transfer of devotion to God himself by the child is a gradual and unselfconscious process which he or she cannot possibly be expected to report accurately? If so, we are surely best trying to treat the child as a believer in the true God, rather than try to catch the child at the point of the watershed, and baptize him or her then. It is not, after all, that the child is passing from heresy to faith – it is that God himself has chosen to reveal himself to the child in this way, and the faith in a parent who is in loco Dei is to be accepted as faith in God. Consciousness, we say, dawns. But who can say when dawn begins? Many psychologists would say this dawn begins before birth.

The fundamental problem with the conversionist paradigm is not that the children lack faith, but that their parents do! They refuse to take the covenant promises about their children seriously. Again, I am not necessarily saying the conversion experiences of evangelical kids are “trumped up” by parental and ecclesial expectations, but I do think those expectations bear a lot of weight in shaping their Spiritual experiences. The wrong framework is controlling how they interpret the data of their own experience. If we applied the Davidic paradigm to our children (reckoning them as believers and treating them accordingly from infancy onwards), we might be surprised at how differently their experiences of God’s grace would look and feel and sound. No doubt, they would be considerably more in line with the testimony given in Psalm 22:9-10.

Montagu Barker has also examined several factors that shape the way we experience God’s grace (or at least the way we interpret our experience of God’s grace). Our personality tendencies play a critical role in the way we process experiences and the expectations we create for ourselves and others. Even more relevant for our purposes is Barker’s demonstration that our religious experiences and practices are radically shaped by the family and church context in which we grow up. Barker’s fascinating study explains how various branches of evangelicalism have emphasized their own particular understandings of conversion, with unsurprising results:

Statistics bear out Barker’s thesis with remarkable consistency:

In other words, when it comes to covenant children, we basically get what we expect (because our expectations are inescapably tied to our faith in God’s covenant and shape the way we carry out the parenting project). Our children are extremely malleable, and we have incredible influence over their sense of identity and their interpretation of experience. Given these facts, why not expect (by faith) the best case scenario? Why not impress upon our children a Christian self-concept from the beginning? Why not expect our children to grow up as believers (especially since the surest way to lead them to unbelief is to treat them as unbelievers)? Why not reinforce their covenantal identity from their earliest days so that we do not lose precious time that can be used positively in character formation? Why not expect every covenant child to share David’s testimony? In short, why not expect God to keep his promises from the very beginning of our children’s lives?

Infant Faith in Light of Science and Psychology

Our case for covenantal infant faith rests exclusively on a biblical basis. It is the teaching of Scripture that drives us to believe that our children are already believers. But within the framework of a biblical world view, there is room for bringing in extra-biblical evidence, provided we evaluate it in light of Scripture and do not allow it usurp Scripture’s authority. We have already gestured towards this point in various ways above, as we have touched on extra-biblical corroborations for the infant faith paradigm, but now we will explore that evidence more fully.

A recent lead article in Newsweek magazine examined the latest discoveries in baby brain research. We now have more insight than ever into how even preverbal babies think and feel. Obviously, all data of this nature is tentative and open to revision, but it is still interesting to examine, especially since it seems to reinforce to the biblical teaching we’ve already seen in the Psalter.

Pat Wingert and Martha Brant’s research explains the even the youngest infants have rich and complex relational capacities. They have near “superpowers” of observation and are sophisticated social learners well before their first birthdays:

Research suggests that relational skills like emotional sensitivity and language aptitude are actually better indicators of future competency in adulthood than are motor skills. There is also ample evidence to suggest what we saw above in our survey of the Psalter, namely, that infants are capable of relational interaction. They are “hard-wired” for empathy and other inter-personal emotions. But they only empathize with other living babies crying in their presence, not with tape recordings of babies crying. They can detect the presence of others and interact with them at some level.

Infants have highly refined personal and relational skills. They are skilled at discerning the emotional states of others from facial expressions. They pick up on language skills from other humans, but not from recordings of human speech. In other words, they learn in the context of relationship, where there is some emotional attachment to another person. One researcher concludes, “[P]eople – at least babies – need people to learn.” Again, this fits well with Psalm 22—David learned of God through his mother. In her womb and at her breast, she became the means through which God reached him and created a relationship of trust.

Wingert and Brant summarize their research as it pertains to infant relationships:

If infants are capable of relational engagement and bonding with other humans–indeed, if they are specially suited for just this kind of interaction–what should hinder them from interacting relationally with the ever present God in whose image we are all made? What should prevent God from using the most basic forms of parental care and nurture (e.g., breastfeeding; cf. Ps. 22:10) to create a bond with the child from life’s earliest days? Infant faith is entirely plausible in light of our best understanding of infant psychology. Current scientific data on infants (for what’s it worth) is entirely consistent with the Scriptural picture. It would be absurd to say that parents can have a relationship of trust with their child before God can. It would be incongruous to say that parents are in a better position to cultivate a mutual relationship of love before the child’s Creator and Lord can do so. At the very least, the child’s relational connection to his parents should be understood to coincide with his relational connection with God. As soon as parents can have a relationship with the child, God can as well.

There are other studies of note. For example, Melanie Catania’s short article “What Do Babies Think before They Start Talking?” in Exploration: The Online Research Journal of Vanderbilt University suggests babies have ways of categorizing things before speech develops. They can think before they can speak. This would obviously bear upon those pastors and parents who want to emphasize a verbal profession as the only way to ascertain faith in the heart of a child. Faith (relational trust) can pre-exist speech.

The books by Alison Gopnik, Andrew Meltzoff, and Patricia Kuhl, How Babies Think: The Science of Childhood (London: Orion, 2001) and The Scientist in the Crib: What Early Learning Tells Us About the Mind (New York: William and Morrow, 1999), while not deriving from anything like biblical presuppositions, contain a lot of interesting information about infant abilities and development. Much here can be “pirated” for use by covenant theologians and set within a biblical frame of reference. Given that John the Baptist was able to respond to Mary and Jesus while still in the womb (Lk. 1:41, 44) , we should not underestimate the abilities of in utero children. John the Baptist was able to respond to Mary’s voice; why shouldn’t other covenant children be able to respond to adult speech as well? John the Baptist was able to receive blessing in the womb (Lk. 1:42); why shouldn’t other covenant children receive blessing in the same way? There is no biblical or scientific basis for excluding covenant children from responsive relationships of trust and love.

Carol Sorgen’s essay “Bonding with Baby Before Birth” argues that “making a connection with your unborn child can strengthen the bond you share, make you feel closer, and enrich you and your baby’s lives.” The article provides evidence that parenting actually begins before birth. Babies can bond and respond in the womb. They can actually begin to exercise trust in the context of relationships from very early in life: “When there’s a healthy attachment between baby and parent…the baby comes to believe that the world is a safe place. This is the beginning of the establishment of trust.” The article recommends practices such as talking to the baby in the womb, playing music, and even playing “games,” because the baby is already a responsive person. Other studies have shown that failure to bond with caregivers in infancy can have life-long disastrous effects on relational, emotional, and even physical development. The early period of a child’s life is extremely formative.

Finally, we should note that many of the things being learned about infancy correspond to what is being learned about elderly senility. For example, Lynn Bolt Rosendale’s article “Alzheimer’s and Faith,” suggests that while older Christians who develop Alzheimer’s may no longer be able to follow a sermon or a Bible reading plan, they can be blessed by participation in the sacramental meal in the context of other believers:

Weaver suggests that the church might consider the importance that sacramental worship has for effective pastoral care. “In fact,” he wrote, “the episodes of greatest spiritual assurance for Alzheimer’s patients seem to arise in regular opportunities to relive very familiar practices that witness to the spiritual meaning of a person’s life. I like to think of these experiences as patients’ participation in the rhythms of God’s grace.”

Both the very young and the very old are capable of relating to God and receiving from God apart from fully operational mental faculties. Only sheer ageism (often masked under rationalism, which privileges those with strong, clear minds) prevents us from seeing these truths.

Having built a case for covenantal infant faith primarily from the Psalter and secondarily from science, we now to turn to the practical and pastoral import of this teaching.

Infants Dying in Infancy

If the doctrine of infant faith sketched above is true to Scripture, then the question about the fate of covenant infants dying in infancy is all but answered. If salvation is received through faith, and our infants have faith, they have salvation. For those infants whose covenant membership is secure (e.g., those not in liberal or apostate churches), there is no reason to doubt their salvation. In the fuzzier cases, we may have considerably less certainty, but we can remain hopeful. Perhaps their early death was a great mercy.

Now, to be sure, we could still ask if all our covenant infants actually have saving faith in the strongest sense of that term. After all, many infants who have faith and grow to years of discretion stumble and fall away from the faith (cf. Mt. 18:6), showing they never possessed saving faith in the full, persevering sense. Infant faith is a reality, but the possibility of apostasy is as well.

This is quite possibly what we find in the case of Esau (though not all exegetes believe he was a reprobate). Esau received the covenant promises in his circumcision, just like Jacob, but later rejected his inheritance, in accord with God’s decretal rejection of him (cf. Gen. 25:12-34; Rom. 9:10-13). But even those covenant children who turn out to be Esaus are given an initial covenantal inheritance, though (sadly and tragically) they eventually forsake it. They have the same starting point, covenantally speaking, as covenant children who will persevere in faith. Unless God gives parents specific revelation that he has reprobated one of their children, as he did to Isaac and Rebekah, Christian parents should regard their children as full covenant members, with a conditional promise of covenantal inheritance. If a Christian parent asks, “How do I know if my child is an Esau or a Jacob?” we must remind him that he has to be governed by what God has revealed (Dt. 29:29). God has revealed covenant promises that are applicable to every covenant child, head-for-head. He has not told us that our children are reprobates. We should raise our children in terms of the covenant promises and trust God for the rest. Our parenting methods should not be controlled by the fearful reality that our child might not be elect. Instead, we should walk by faith, even in our child-rearing.

The case of Esau certainly reminds us of the mixed nature of infant faith. But there is no reason to assume that any of our children, taken from us in their earliest days, have apostatized. In other words, we can have the same confidence about their salvation we would have in the case of any mature, faithful adult who dies in the context of the covenant community. (We could always ask, “If Joe had lived longer, would he have eventually apostatized?” but what would be the point?)

Covenant infants who die in infancy have saving faith and no one can prove otherwise. Grieving parents should be made to feel the full weight of this, availing themselves of all the comfort God’s covenant has to offer. Losing a child is still painful, but at least the child is safely in the arms of God, enjoying the glory of heaven and awaiting the final resurrection. We can share the confidence of David in this matter (cf. 2 Sam. 12:22-23).

Infant Faith, Pastoral Practice, and Covenant Nurture

This doctrine of infant faith also has important implications for parental nurture. How we care for our children reveals our deepest religious commitments. Parenting bridges the gap between theology and practice; as we nurture our children, our theology flows out our fingertips and mouths into public view. Our operating instructions, as parents, are found in the Bible’s teaching on the covenant. Far, far too many of our parenting discussions (e.g., the nature vs. nurture debate) leave out the vital role of God’s covenant. We fail to believe God’s promises and parent accordingly. We wrongly either presume (note that presumption is quite different from faith!) upon God and grow lax, or we cut our children off from God for all practical purposes and become hardened legalists.

Full treatment of this deep and controversial topic would require something more like a book. To put things briefly, we should note that parents must have a grasp of the nature of the child they are called to raise. The Psalter’s doctrine of infant faith stands against all forms of conversionism, which put certain models or types of conversion experience at the center of the Christian life. Conscious experience of both conviction of sin and of God’s redemptive grace must take place in due time in the covenant child. But however important those experiences are, they cannot be absolutized into the sole barometer of a child’s Spiritual state. After all, our experience often deceives us; in the end we must rely upon the sure and firm Word of God. Moreover, we must interpret our experience in light of God’s revealed covenant, rather than looking at the covenant in the light of our experience. The covenant is not the product of our experience, but the ground of it.

Faith in its mature form includes manifest and multifaceted conscious experiences of God’s grace. We expect and anticipate these things in our children, as they come to own the covenant more and more fully for themselves. However, the Davidic paradigm in the Psalter shows that growing up in the covenant does not require a dramatic conversion experience in which a child can name the time and place of his salvation; indeed, such an experience might be a sign something has gone terribly wrong somewhere along the way. Likewise, in the new covenant, the words of Jesus (Mt. 18:1-14; 19:13-15) and the experience of Timothy (2 Tim. 3:14-15) show that covenant nurture-unto-perseverance is still the norm for children of believers in the new age. The “normal” covenant child is one who (like David!) grows up never remembering a day when he did not trust the Lord and know him as Father.

So, to answer our earlier question, we seek to disciple our children, rather than evangelize them. They are not merely “likely converts” or “prospective Christians” or “potential disciples;” they are already members of the kingdom of Christ because of God’s covenant promise (cf. Mt. 19:14). This should not be misunderstood, however. We still give our children the gospel. But we do not offer it to them as though they were outsiders to it. Instead we give it to them in such a way that they will know the gospel is already their treasured possession. They are part of the people of God, the community of faith. As such, the gospel story is their story, and they are to increasingly internalize it and frame their lives according to it. They are to be brought up from within the circle of God’s favor, rather than being told they need to do something to enter into that favor. They began in grace; we train them to continue in that same grace.

Again, certainly, we expect our children to have a wide array of experiences of God’s grace as they grow up under his covenant care and nurture at home and in the church. The covenant promises do not turn us into cookie-cutter parents. Every covenant child is unique and the program of covenantal child-rearing must be tailored for the special needs, strengths, and weaknesses of each covenant child. The covenant has a subjective side, and for the blessings of the covenant to be realized, they must be received by a living, vibrant, growing faith. As the child’s faith moves toward maturity, the child will experience his faith in the gospel at work overcoming trials, resisting temptation, seeking the Lord’s guidance through prayer, and so forth. At times, the child may be overwhelmed with the reality of God’s grace and at other times the child may experience a period of aloofness. There may be crisis points, through which God’s grace is experienced in unique and fresh ways. But the child should not be trained to seek after or expect a dramatic conversion experience from unbelief into faith as the absolutely necessary mark of true religion. This experientialism has been the bane of much American evangelicalism, going back to some of the more extreme Puritans, and especially the revivalists of the Second Great Awakening. It has affected every sector of the American church. More often than is bearable, its pessimism regarding covenant children has led to self-fulfilling prophecies of children who walk away from the church, often for good.

Covenant-based parenting provides an alternative to the revivalist, conversionist model. Thus, covenant nurture in the home should help parents guard against both anxiety (“Will my child ever become a believer?”) and presumption (“My child is already a covenant member, so my work is done”). Or, translated into more practical terms, a proper notion of the covenant helps parents steer clear between the shoals of both legalism and permissiveness.

The covenant contextualizes rules that parents make by situating those standards in an environment of grace. The covenant also provides a secure basis for mutual forgiveness and fellowship in day-to-day life within the home. Apart from this understanding of the covenant (including faith’s origins in infancy), children would have to be regarded as alien (pagan) invaders into a Christian home. Parents would have no reasonable basis for expecting their children to be able to measure up to Christian norms of conduct. If they are non-Christians, how can we impose a Christian morality on them? If our children do not possess the grace of God, what can we do to motivate them or enforce a Christian pattern of life upon them? All we have are rules, rules, and more rules – usually focused only on externals and applied with an ever shortening fuse. This is a recipe for disaster.

The covenant means that parents should be controlled by faith rather than fear as they undertake one of the greatest tasks on earth. Parents should trust in God’s covenant promises, not their own ability to build hedges around the home that will keep the world from reaching into their kids’ lives. Parents should trust in God’s covenant rather than their ability to manipulate their kids into obedience through setting a near-perfect example, or disciplining in just the right way every time it’s needed, or whatnot. Parents should trust God, not their own efforts. But having put their faith in God, they should make every effort. Faith works, after all. The works of faith may often be outwardly indistinguishable from the works of the flesh, but the difference is absolute. Faithful, promise-driven parenting is calm, confident, and consistent. Fleshly parenting is full of anxiety and fear. Because of the comfort found in the promises, parents should be diligent, but they should not put undue pressure on themselves. Any assurance they have that their children will walk with the Lord should spring from the gracious promises and work of God, not their masterful parenting skills. When they fail (as all parents do every day), they should call on God’s grace to overcome their weaknesses and fill in their gaps. They should ask forgiveness from their children if they have sinned against them and look to the cross for consolation.

Parents do not need to worry about the status of their covenant children. God has made a promise about their children that can be trusted. They may be assured that God is at work in their children’s lives and will continue that good work. They should begin with the end already in view. Their aim is to produce mature disciples of Christ. Like farmers, they are called upon to cultivate the seed of faith that has already been planted. They tend it and fertilize it through faithful application of the means of grace, by administering loving and prayerful discipline, and by creating an ethos of humility, charity, and hilarity in the home. God will take care of the growth.

When parents raise their children accordingly, they are going with the grain of God’s prior and ongoing work in the lives of their children. They are strengthening and reinforcing their children’s faith so they can live their whole lives according to the good beginning made in infancy, aligned with the covenant promises and the work of the Spirit even in the womb.

Knowing that their children are already inclined to faith also encourages parents to deal with heart and attitude issues rather than merely outward behaviors. God’s promises provide parents with a basis for expecting and requiring the child to practice Christian virtues of love, joy, and respect. We assume our kids will struggle with sin as they grow up (as all Christians do), but we also trust that God has provided them with resources necessary to deal with sin and grow in holiness. The covenant promises should not make parents naively optimistic about their children. We must remain utterly realistic about the force of indwelling sin in Christians, especially those who are the most foolish and unlearned. We must remember that our children are “baby Christians,” with a long road to travel before they reach maturity. Our calling is to help them get there. We should also always keep in mind that we are merely parents, not gods. We cannot control how our children respond to the grace God gives them, or to our nurturing efforts, or to situations they encounter in the world. While our parental diligence is highly influential in their character formation, it is not the only factor. We should resist the temptation to get cheap and easy results through manipulation or a focus on mere externals.

Parents should view their children through the lens of God’s covenant promises. At the same time, parents should not take the covenant blessings for granted. There is nothing mechanical or automatic about the covenant promises. Parents must bank on God’s promises with a diligent, working faith, but faith is not the same as presumption. They must teach their children to rely on those promises as well, and warn them against simply counting on their Christian heritage as a guarantee of salvation (cf. Mt. 3:9). Our children must be trained to never treat their covenant membership as an inalienable right or a deserved privilege. Instead it is a precious family treasure to be guarded and preserved at all costs.

If the child grows up and refuses to embrace the promises on his own, or grows up to live in flagrant rebellion against the covenant, he will need to be called to repentance. Eventually, he may even need to be disciplined formally by the church if he proves totally recalcitrant. (One of the most helpful by-products of taking our children’s covenant membership seriously is that it gives us leverage to use against them if they ever do rebel. We have traction to do church discipline with them. But disciplinary action should always be shot through with love, humility,, patience, and readiness to forgive. Anger and self-righteousness make a travesty of the disciplinary process.)

Focusing on covenant faithfulness means we will be rather counter-cultural in our parenting principles and methods. Whereas most American parents simply want their children to be comfortable and happy, and thus cave in to wanton consumerism and hedonism in parental practices, we will be far more focused on producing children who are humble, holy, and disciplined. We teach our children that God is more concerned with their conformity to Christ than their personal comfort, and more concerned with their holiness than their happiness.

Covenant consciousness also reminds us we have a stake in more than just the Spiritual health of our own children. Thus, we will not be focused only on our own children in a narrow minded (and narrow hearted) way, but will also take concern for other children in the covenant community since we know our children’s lives are so intertwined with their lives. Thus, we will want to be a part of creating a church culture in which children can thrive as they wrestle with the call to embody the gospel’s radically alternative lifestyle of cruciform service. We will not demand uniformity from other families but will strive for like-mindedness as much as possible, while allowing for legitimate, methodological differences in the application of biblical truth.

We will not coddle our children with the ethic of instant gratification, we will not make excuses for their sins and failures, we will not be so obsessed with their self-esteem that we are unable to correct and rebuke them when called for, and we will not tempt them with too much free time or discretionary money before they are ready. We will also refuse to make our children serve our own adult interests, using their success to prop up our own sense of achievement or trying to re-live our youth vicariously through them. All in all, whatever burdens we find in raising our children (e.g., sacrifice in luxuries or career advancement or recreational time), we will insist that our children are worth the cost because they are (after all) priceless gifts of God.

In all these ways, the covenant structures our approach to parenting from beginning to end. Of course, this directly impacts the way our children come to understand themselves as well. This doctrine keeps our children from the twin dangers of anxiety (“Does God love me?”) and antinomianism (“I have Christian parents, so I’m saved no matter how I live”). The child learns of God’s favor and care from his earliest days. Just as he can never remember being introduced to his earthly father, so it is with his Heavenly Father. He is given a foundation on which to build a life of faith and gratitude. However, at the same time, he learns that all the blessings bestowed upon him are a matter of sheer grace, and can be taken away if he refuses to abide by the terms of the covenant (faith and repentance). He learns to value his Christian background, rather than take it for granted. He learns he is a branch on the vine of Christ, but he must bear fruit. He learns both grace and obligation in terms of the covenant.

Infant Faith and the Sacraments

Finally, we come to the main question at hand. How does this theology of covenant children bear upon our children’s participation in the life of the church, especially in the sacramental dimension of the church’s ministry? Obviously, this doctrine of infant faith means our children have every right to the sacraments. If they are actually believers, promised the benefits of the covenant of grace, then nothing hinders them from being baptized. Indeed, they must be baptized. The major Baptist objection to infant baptism is cut away since our infants consent (after a fashion) to baptism through their relational trust in the Lord. They are not strangers and aliens to God; indeed, we know that he desires to have them enrolled into his family in the initiatory waters of baptism. We trust that our children fit the Davidic mold. We treat them as Jacobs until and unless they prove to be Esaus.

Likewise, the table belongs to covenant children. They can receive the body and blood of the Lord through the elements of bread and wine as soon as they are able to eat. To hold them back from the table is to demand something in addition to faith, which in principle denies sola fide and tends towards works-righteousness. If Christ is received by faith alone, and our children have faith, then the case for paedocommunion is closed. To demand that their faith must have a certain quality (e.g., a certain level of intellectual maturity or discernment) is to suggest that faith alone is not enough after all. There is only one entry requirement to the table, and our children meet it.

In other words, paedocommunion is simply a corollary of sola fide. The table is a gift to us and to our children; it is a matter of pure, unearned, unalloyed, uncompromised, unmixed grace. Our children belong to God and he desires to feed them with his free food. This is his highest and best form of “youth ministry” the church can provide! When God’s children ask for bread (even if it’s an inarticulate cry!), he is happy to oblige. The denial of paedocommunion is an implicit (albeit unintentional) threat to the great Reformation principle that God’s gifts are received by the instrumentality of faith alone. It is a threat to the Reformational teaching that Christ (even in the bread and wine of the Eucharist) is received by a simple faith, and nothing but faith. There are no other hoops to jump through – no special experiences, no minimum score on a theology exam, no minimum number of Bible verses memorized, no set quantity of good works.

To withhold our children from the table because they cannot yet perform some work like answering catechism questions, narrating a testimony, or having a protracted and dramatic crisis conversion experience, is to risk psychologically damaging the child’s ability to understand and live by grace. We take from him the very thing God intends to give him in baptism and at the table, namely, a sense of covenantal identity and belonging. A child may not know much systematic theology, but he does know what it is like to be included or excluded, especially when food is involved. He may not have a deep grasp of doctrine, but he intuitively senses the importance of ritualized, symbolic actions. He may not be able to articulate his feelings, but he knows when he is being asked to perform some work in order achieve a reward, as opposed to being given a free and unearned gift. Paedocommunion is important because of the way it shapes our children’s psychology of grace.

I consider the exegetical case for paedocommunion to be firmly established (as the rest of this book shows). But there is more at stake in the paedocommunion debate than simply exegeting a few key texts. Our whole understanding of the covenant promises, the way God would have us regard and rear our (really, his) children, the relationship of the sacraments to faith and the covenant community, and more, are bound up in the paedocommunion debate. Many Christian parents are faithful in the work of covenant nurture in many respects, but they do not practice paedocommunion. They treat their children like Christians, on the whole, reminding them of God’s grace, inculcating in them the skills and virtues that constitute a life of discipleship, and they assure their children that God loves them. They teach them to pray “Our Father” and sing “Jesus loves me.” They do everything but the most central thing, namely, include their children at the table. This is a sad inconsistency. A fully covenantal and consistent approach to our children requires the whole package, combining parental faith in the promises, the application of the sacraments to our children, and continual parental nurture through teaching, discipline, and prayer.

Conclusion: Taking David’s Testimony Seriously

Infant faith is biblically plausible, pastorally practical, and psychologically credible. By taking seriously David’s claims to infant faith, we can construct a doctrine that embraces both the free grace of the covenant as well as its stipulated condition of faithfulness. However mysterious, our children have a relationship with God based on faith and grounded in grace. We are called to raise our children accordingly, so their testimonies will match David’s: “From my mother’s womb, You have been My God.” Hopefully this essay demonstrates the way paedofaith, paedobaptism, paedocommunion, and parental nurture all converge together in God’s beautiful design for church and family.

Subscribe now

Share