A Christless Christianity
Dr. Michael Horton from the White Horse Inn.
Filed under: Church Life, Culture | Leave a Comment
Divine Sovereignty and Human Responsibility. Again.
Acts 27 is that great chapter where Luke chronicles Paul’s journey to Rome and describes how he was shipwrecked along the way. Two verses in that chapter make an interesting contrast.
In verse 22, Paul prophesies: “There will be no loss of life among you, but only of the ship.” But in verse 31, when some sailors try to escape the sinking ship secretly, Paul tells Julius (the Roman centurion in charge of his transport to Rome): “Unless these men stay in the ship, you cannot be saved.”
There you have the twin principles of divine sovereignty and human responsibility perfectly juxtaposed against one another. These are the very truths so many people (ranging from the rankest Arminian to the most rigid hyper-Calvinist) insist are contradictory truths. But here they appear side by side and in perfect harmony in the Bible.
There is no contradiction. Both things are true. Not one soul on that ship was going to die, because God had decreed it. Yet unless the crew stayed on the ship and brought it aground on the island of Malta, the passengers could not be saved.
How can both truths be simultaneously true? Simple. Because God ordained the means as well as the end, and the means He had ordained for saving that ship depended on the crew’s ability to steer the ship to the island of Malta and run it aground in the sand and surf. God’s sovereignty did not annul the sailors’ responsibility. In fact, God’s sovereignty is the very thing that established their responsibility.
God works through instruments. And He often uses human instruments. He could, of course, accomplish all His good pleasure solely by the direct agency of His own hands. He could accomplish His will simply by speaking the word, as He did when He first said in Genesis 1:3, “‘Let there be light,’ and there was light.”
But most often, God works by secondary causes indirectly through whatever instruments He chooses. He set the sun in the heavens to give light to the earth. Could He have illuminated the earth by direct light from His own glory? Certainly. That is how heaven will be illuminated. Revelation 21:23 says the New Jerusalem has “need of sun or moon to shine on it, for the glory of God gives it light, and its lamp is the Lamb.”
God can work any miracle He chooses and accomplish His will with or without means. But in ordinary cases, He uses ordinary means. That is how He has established His universe, and that is why we are responsible to do as He commands, even though we know He is utterly sovereign and His will cannot be thwarted.
It was absolutely and perfectly true that God’s ultimate purpose was for every man in that vessel to be saved from the storm. It was also absolutely and perfectly true that unless the sailors remained with the ship, lives would be lost. The same God who decreed the end determined the efficacy of the means He chose. His sovereign decree to save every passenger did not nullify the duty of the sailors; it established and affirmed their duty.
Verse 22 makes clear that it was God’s certain and infallible purpose to save every soul on that ship. Verse 31 establishes the fact that their salvation would be brought about by the actions of the centurion, and on the subsequent actions of the crew. The whole thing was done by the appointment and the decree of God. It was also accomplished by voluntary action on the part of the centurion and the sailors. Both things are true, and there is no difficulty whatsoever, if you understand that God ordained the means as well as the end.
Paul’s knowledge of God’s ultimate purpose did not prevent him from issuing a warning and directions to Julius. Neither did the knowledge of God’s purpose prevent Julius and the soldiers from doing what they needed to do. Remember this: The belief that God wills something is a powerful reason to use every means available to effect God’s will; it is not a reason to fold our hands and say, “God will do it, whether we do anything or not.”
People often claim that God’s sovereignty in salvation nullifies our duty in evangelism. If God has ordained that His elect will be saved, what need is there for preaching and personal evangelism? That is one of the favorite arguments Dave Hunt, Ergun Caner, and most of the rabid anti-Calvinists in the SBC (and elsewhere) like to use against the doctrine of predestination. But it’s nonsense if we understand that God ordains the means as well as the end, and the means He chose by which to call the elect is by the preaching of the gospel.
Romans 10:14-15: “How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? And how are they to preach unless they are sent?” In fact, “knowing the fear of the Lord, we persuade others” (2 Corinthians 5:11).
It is in no sense incompatible with the truth of election or the principle of God’s sovereignty in salvation to persuade sinners, plead with them, beseech them even beg them as ambassadors of Christ, in His stead, to “be reconciled to God” (v. 20). That plea is the very instrument God has ordained to turn the hearts of people to Himself. That’s what Scripture means when it says the gospel “is the power of God unto salvation.” First Corinthians 1:21: “For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.”
If you understand this principle that God in His sovereignty normally accomplishes His plan through the use of ordinary means, it will clear away most of the confusion and perplexity that is so often associated with the doctrine of divine sovereignty and its twin truth, the doctrine of human responsibility.
Our duty as ambassadors of Christ is to proclaim the promise of forgiveness, to urge men to repent, and to plead with them to be reconciled with God. Those are the very means God uses to save those whom He effectually draws to Christ. He does not save sinners apart from the means He has chosen.
Filed under: Evangelism, The Gospel, Theology | Leave a Comment
Timmy Brister is a young pastor being trained under the leadership of Tom Ascol. I have enjoyed reading his blog the past few years as he worked through Southern Seminary and then transitioned to Grace Baptist Cape Coral Florida. This year was his first SBC Annual Convention Meeting. He posted his top 10 highlights and lowlights from his meeting on his blog - Provocations and Pantings.
10 Highlights and 10 Lowlights
Read the links above for a complete explanation of the points below.
10 Highlights
1. The Pastor’s Conference was really encouraging.
2. Dinner with Dr. David Dockery (president of Union University), and 13 other brothers discussing all things positive and hopeful about the future of the SBC.
3. The discussion and vote for the Great Commission Resurgence Task Force was historic and hopefully paradigm shifting.
4. I was able to spend time with three who have made a big impression on my life (outside of Tom Ascol whom I consider a father) – David Dockery , Buddy Gray ,and Al Jackson.
5. The influence and presence of the younger generation was noticeable not only on the convention floor but more conspicuously at the Founders Breakfast, Baptist 21 luncheon, and IX Marks events–all of which were packed out with standing room only.
6. I have been really impressed with Johnny Hunt’s leadership.
7. With every significant movement in history, there has been a man God has raised up to play a leading role in its development. In the Conservative Resurgence years, it was largely Adrian Rogers. In the Great Commission Resurgence, it has shown to be Dr. Danny Akin.
8. I have to wonder what the influence of Twitter was, not so much in making direct impact on the convention but informing the larger public on everything that was taking place.
9. The unanimous vote on Dr. Moore’s resolution regarding adoption and orphan care was really important.
10. Although I have blogged less than ever in my five years of doing this, I was blessed by so many people who approached me to express appreciation for what I have attempted to do here.
10 Lowlights
1. Morris Chapman
2. Motions & Moralism
3. Cultural Fundamentalism
4. Roger Moran & Anti-Driscollism
5. Anti-Calvinism
6. White Convention
7. Doughnut Sales
I know this may sound silly, but it needs to be mentioned. A couple tweeps (here and corrected here) found out that over 20,000 doughnuts were sold at the SBC meeting. Recently, I read how one blogger was proud that the bar at their hotel had to be shut down due to slow business (presumably because Southern Baptists occupied the majority of the rooms) and this is good, but no one seems to wonder why we can’t cause the doughnut shops to close down. Southern Baptists have much more to be concerned when it comes to our waistline than being able to “walk the line.” I appreciate the example of men like Ed Stetzer who, through a disciplined lifestyle and eating healthier, lost over 120 lbs. in the past year. May his example inspire many other Southern Baptists to do the same.
8. Music without Transcendence
9. Baptist Press
10. Makeup of GCR Task Force
Filed under: Church Life, Southern Baptist Convention | Leave a Comment
An Unregenerate Denomination?
This is a challenging post about the state of SBC churches in particular but probably accurate of the church at large.
At the SBC convention last year there was a resolution passed calling for regenerate church membership and integrity in membership reporting.
This is a lengthy post but well worth the time.
We must pray that God will move and we will be obedient to follow.
Your In Christ,
Kevin
From the site – “Camp On This”
SOUTHERN BAPTISTS – AN UNREGENERATE DENOMINATION?…a stirring wake up call; a must read
by Jim Elliff
“How are you doing?”
“Pretty well, under the circumstances.”
“What are the circumstances?”
“Well, I have a very effective arm. It moves with quite a bit of animation. But then I have my bad leg.”
“What’s wrong with it?”
“I guess it’s paralyzed. At least it doesn’t do much except twitch once a week or so. But that’s nothing compared with the rest of me.”
“What’s the problem?
“From all appearances, the rest is dead. At least it stinks and bits of flesh are always falling off. I keep it well covered. About all that’s left beyond that is my mouth, which fortunately works just fine. How about you?”
Like the unfortunate person above, the Southern Baptist Convention has a name that it is alive, but is in fact, mostly dead (Rev. 3:1). Regardless of the wonderful advances in our commitment to the Bible, the recovery of our seminaries, etc., a closer look reveals a denomination that is more like a corpse than a fit athlete. In an unusual way, our understanding of this awful reality provides the most exciting prospects for the future—if we will act decisively.
The Facts
Although the Southern Baptists claim 16,287,494 members, on average only 6,024,289 people (guests and non-member children included), a number equal to only 37% of the membership number, show up for their church’s primary worship meeting (usually Sunday morning). This is according to the Strategic Information and Planning department of the Sunday School Board (2004 statistics). If your church is anything like normal, and is not brand new, your statistics are probably similar. In other words, if you have 200 in attendance on Sunday morning, you likely have 500-600 or even more on your roll. Many churches have an even worse record.
Discerning who among us is regenerate is not an exact science, but a closer look at these numbers will at least alert us to the fact that most Southern Baptists must certainly be dead spiritually. That is so, unless, of course, you claim that there is no difference between a believer and a non-believer.
In the average church you can cut the 37% Sunday morning attendance by about two-thirds or more when counting those interested in a Sunday evening service, or other gatherings held in addition to the principal meeting of the church. In 1996, the last time the SBC kept these statistics, the number of Sunday evening attenders was equal to only 12.3% of the membership (in churches that had an evening meeting). One might ask what makes us claim that the rest are Christians, if they involve themselves with God’s people only on such a minimal, surface level? How are they any different from the people who attend the liberal church down the street—the “church” where the gospel is not even preached?
And remember that the numbers of those attending include many non-member children and guests, often making up a third of the congregation’s main meeting attendance. When all factors are considered, these figures suggest that nearly 90% of Southern Baptist church members appear to be little different from the “cultural Christians” who populate other mainline denominations.
To make matters worse, we tell a lot more people that they are true Christians (because they prayed a prayer sincerely) than we can convince to be baptized. Our largest pizza supper may bring in a hundred new “converts,” but we will likely get only a few of those on the roll. After that, the percentages that I have been mentioning kick in. In other words, if you compare all who we say have become Christians through our evangelistic efforts, to those who actually show signs of being regenerate, we should be red-faced. In the Assembly of God’s 1990s “Decade of Harvest,” out of the 3.5 million supposedly converted, they showed a net gain of only 5 new attenders for every 100 recorded professions. When one considers all of our supposed converts, including those who refuse to follow Christ in baptism and who never join our churches, our numbers are much the same. Doesn’t anybody see that there is a serious problem here?
Let me illustrate in rounded figures by looking at some of the churches where I have preached as a guest speaker. Each could be any Baptist church in any city. In one church, with 7,000 on the active roll, there were only 2000 in attendance on Sunday morning, and a mere 600-700 on Sunday evening. When you account for those attenders who are not members of this flagship church (i.e. guests and non-member children), you have about 1500 actual members coming in the morning and 500 or so in the evening. Where are the 5,500 members who are missing on Sunday mornings? Where are the 6,500 who are missing in the evening?
Another church had 2,100 on the roll, with 725 coming on Sunday morning. Remove guests and non-member children and the figure drops to 600 or less. Only about a third of that number came out on Sunday evening, representing less than 10% of the membership. Yet another church had 310 on the roll with only 100 who attended on Sunday morning. Only 30-35, or approximately 10%, came to the evening worship service.
These are all considered fine churches. All have an extremely competent level of leadership and vision. Some shut-ins and those who are sick, out of town, or in the military, certainly affect the figures a little. But those who are justifiably absent are not enough to alter the bleakness of the picture, especially when we remember that these numbers represent people who have been baptized and have publicly declared their allegiance to God and the Body of Christ. Even if you generously grant that the 37% are all true believers (an estimation that most pastors would say is way off the mark), one still has a church membership that is more dead than alive. If we are honest, we might have to ask ourselves, “Do Southern Baptists believe in a regenerate membership?”
Missing Christians are No Christians
What do these facts and figures, as general as they are, suggest?
First, they reveal that most of the people on our rolls give little evidence that they love the brethren—a clear sign of being unregenerate (1 Jn. 3:14). It is impossible to believe that anything like real familial affection exists in the hearts of people who do not come at all, or who only nominally check in on Sunday morning as a cultural exercise. Love is the greatest mark of a genuine believer (1 Jn.3:14-19). Attendance alone does not guarantee that anyone is an authentic believer, but “forsaking the assembling,” is a serious sign of the unregenerate heart. The phrase: “They went out from us, because they were never of us” (1 Jn. 2:19) may have doctrinal overtones, but it nonetheless represents many on our membership rolls.
Second, these numbers suggest that most of those who do not attend (or who only come when it is convenient), are more interested in themselves than God. To put it in Paul’s words, they are “fleshly-minded” and not “spiritually-minded” (Rom. 8: 5-9). The atmosphere that most pleases them is that of the world and not God. They can stand as much of God as makes them feel better about themselves, and they find a certain carnal security in “belonging” to a local church. But beyond that, they will politely resist getting involved. They use the church, but are not really a part of it. For some, the extent of what they can take is an Easter service now and then; for others it is an occasional sterile (and somewhat Pharisaical) trip to church on appropriate Sunday mornings as fits into their schedule. But their apathy towards regular and faithful church attendance betrays their true affections. The fact is, you do what you love to do.
Third, the numbers indicate that some people have joined other denominations and our churches have not kept up with their movements—a sign of inadequate pastoral oversight and the built-in deficiencies of the “inactive membership” concept. I’m quite certain Paul never dreamed of “inactive membership.” Embarrassingly, some left on the rolls are dead—physically! It goes without saying that a dead person is about as inactive as one could be! But others, though presumably alive physically, have disappeared without a trace. I believe it was our beloved Dr. Roy Fish of SWBTS who said, “Even the FBI could not find some of them.” Yet, if we want to claim them as members, we are responsible to keep up with them.
All of these people have “prayed the prayer” and “walked the aisle.” All have been told that they are Christians. But for most, old things have not really passed away, and new things have not come. Most are not new creatures in Christ (2 Cor. 5:17). In too many cases, obvious signs of an unregenerate heart can be found, such as bitterness, long-term adultery, fornication, greed, divisiveness, covetousness, etc. These are “professing believers” that the Bible says are deceived. “Do not be deceived” the Bible warns us concerning such people (see 1 Cor.6:9-11; Gal. 5:19-21; 6: 7-8; Eph. 5:5-6; Titus 1:16; 1 Jn. 3:4-10; etc.).
Jesus indicated that there is a good soil that is receptive to the gospel seed so as to produce a fruit-bearing plant, but that the “rocky ground” believer only appears to be saved. The latter shows immediate joy, but soon withers away (Mt. 13:6, 21). This temporary kind of faith (which is not saving faith, see 1 Cor.15:1-2) is rampant among Southern Baptists. In The Baptist Faith and Message we say we believe that saving faith is persistent to the end. We say we believe in the preservation and perseverance of the saints (once saved, always persevering). In other words, if a person’s faith does not persevere, then what he possessed was something other than saving faith.
In John 2:23-25 Jesus was the center-piece for what turned out to be a mass evangelism experience in which a large number of people “believed” in Him. Yet He did not entrust Himself to even one of them because “he knew their hearts.” Is it possible that we have taken in millions of such “unrepenting believers” whose hearts have not been changed? I say that we have. Our denomination, as much as we may love it, is on the main, unregenerate. Even if you double, triple, or quadruple my assessment of how many are true believers, we still have a gigantic problem. It is naive to believe otherwise.
There are those who would say that such people are “carnal Christians” and don’t deserve to be thought of as unregenerate. It is true that the Corinthian believers (about whom this phrase was used; see 1 Cor. 3:1-3) acted “like mere men” in their party spirit. Christians can commit any sin short of that which is unpardonable.
Undoubtedly, however, Paul did suspect that some of the Corinthians were unbelievers, for he later warns them about such a possibility in 2 Cor.12:20-13:5. A long-term and unrepentant state of carnality, is, after all, the very description of the unregenerate (Rom. 8:5-14, 1 Jn. 3:4-10, etc.). In calling some people “carnal” Paul did not mean to imply that he was accepting as Christian a lifestyle that he clearly describes elsewhere as unbelieving. He wrote, in the same letter: “Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God. Do not be deceived” (1 Cor. 6:9-11, etc.). Apparently there were some, even then, who were deceived into thinking that an unrighteous man or woman who professes faith in Christ could really be a Christian!
Is Follow-up the Problem?
A great mistake is made by blaming the problem on poor follow-up. In many churches there is every intention and effort given to follow-up, yet still the poor numbers persist. One church followed up “by the book,” seeking to disciple people who had been told they were new converts during the crusade of an internationally-known evangelist. The report of the pastor in charge was that none of them wanted to talk about how to grow as a Christian. He said, “In fact, they ran from us!” I have known some churches to go to extreme efforts to disciple new believers. We must do this. Yet, like the others, they generally have marginal success. They have learned to accept the fact that people who profess to have become Christians often have to be talked into going further, and that many, if not most, simply will not bother. Authentic new believers can always be followed up, however, because they have the Spirit by which they cry, “Abba Father” (Rom. 8:15). They have been given love for the brethren, and essential love for the beauty and authority of the Word of God. But you cannot follow-up on a spiritually dead person. Being dead, he has no interest in growth.
It was the preaching of regeneration, with an explanation of its discernible marks, that was the heart of the Great Awakening. J. C. Ryle, in writing of the eighteenth century revival preachers, said that they never for a moment believed that there was any true conversion if it was not accompanied by increasing personal holiness. Such content was the staple of the greatest of awakening preaching throughout the history of revival. Only such a powerful cannon blast of truth could rock the bed of those asleep in Zion.
Facing the Dilemma
What must be done? I suggest five responses:
1. We must preach and teach on the subject of the unregenerate church member. Every author in the New Testament writes of the nature of deception. Some books give major consideration to the subject. Jesus Himself spoke profusely about true and false conversion, giving significant attention to the fruit found in true believers (Jn. 10:26-27; Mt. 7:21-23; Mt. 25:1-13, etc.). If this sort of teaching creates doubt in people, you should not be alarmed, nor should you back away from it. Given the unregenerate state of so many professing Christians, their doubts may be fully warranted. In any case, as one friend told me, “Doubts never sent anyone to hell, but deception always does.” Most will work through their doubts, if they are regenerate and if we continue to preach the whole truth. Contrary to popular opinion, all doubts are not of the devil. Speak truthfully the whole counsel of God. You cannot “unsave” true believers.
It is true that there may be some who are overly scrupulous and overwhelmed by such examination. But most who will be affected are those who are too self-confident, having based their assurance on such shaky platforms as their response to an invitation, praying a perfectly worded “sinner’s prayer,” or getting baptized. If they are unregenerate, they may take offense and leave. But if they are truly regenerate, patient teaching and care will help them to overcome their doubts and gain biblical assurance. Such preaching may even result in true conversion for some who are deceived. And don’t forget that the overconfident ones are not the only ones at risk. Quiet, sensitive, insecure people can be deceived also.
2. We must address the issue of persistent sin among our members, including their sinful failure to attend the stated meetings of the church. This must be done by reestablishing the forgotten practice of church discipline. Each church should adopt guidelines that state just what will happen when a member falls into sin, including the sin of non-attendance or very nominal attendance. Such discipline for non-attendance is clearly found in the history of Baptists—but more importantly, in the Bible.
Everyone in the church, including new members, should be made familiar with the biblical steps of church discipline. Jesus said that a person who was lovingly, but firmly, disciplined by the church, and yet failed to repent, should be thought of as “a heathen and a tax collector” (see Mt. 18:15-17). Though David committed atrocious sins, he was a repenter at heart (see 2 Sam.12:13; Psalm 51). Every Christian is a life-long repenter and church discipline brings this out. (See “Restoring Those Who Fall,” in Our Church on Solid Ground: Documents That Preserve the Integrity and Unity of the Church, www.CCWonline.org)
Leaders must get into the homes of all our erring church members, seeking either to bring them to Christ, or to reluctantly release them to the world which they love more than Christ. Nowhere in the Bible are we taught to keep non-believers on the rolls. As a side benefit from church discipline for the SBC, remember that when we reduce our membership to what it actually is, we will be amazed at the statistical improvements in the ratio of members per baptism and members to attenders. Of course, statistics are not worth dying for, but obedience to God’s Word is.
We are never to aggressively pluck the supposed tares from the wheat as if we had absolute knowledge (Mt. 13:24-30; 36-43). We might be mistaken. However, loving church discipline is a careful process by which the obvious sinner in essence removes himself by his resistance to correction. The church is made up of repenting saints, not rebelling sinners (see 1 Cor. 5). The slight improvement in the disparity between membership and attendance in the last couple of years is likely due, in major part, to some churches beginning to practice church discipline—a matter of obedience that thankfully is regaining credence among us. Some have removed hundreds from their rolls in this process, and regained some also.
3. We should be more careful on the front end of church membership. In my estimation, the public altar call (a modern invention) often reaps people prematurely. Others will disagree or can perhaps make significant improvements on the traditional “invitation system.” We have used this method in our evangelism because of our genuine zeal to see the lost converted. But in our zeal, we have often overlooked the fact that many who do what our method calls for (i.e. respond to our invitation) may not be converted.
Though sacrosanct to Baptists, careful study should be done related to the historical use of the invitation system evangelistically. For eighteen hundred years the church did not use such a method. It was not until its principle originator, Charles Finney, a true pelagian in his theology, promoted his “new measures.” Earlier preachers were content to let true conviction play a greater part in conversion. They needed no props for the gospel—no persuasive techniques to prompt people to make a “decision.” Instead of relying on a method, their confidence was in the preached Word and the Holy Spirit. Baptist giant, C. H. Spurgeon, for instance, saw thousands converted without the use of an “altar call.” His message was his invitation. We should always offer a verbal invitation in our gospel preaching, meaning we must invite people to repent and believe. But there is no real benefit, while there is much potential harm, in our inviting them to the front of the church and then assuring them that their short walk or tearful response proves their conversion.
We don’t need better methods to get people down to the front. What we need is more biblical content and more unction in our preaching. You cannot beat sinners away from Christ when God is bringing them in (see Jn. 6:37, 44-45). When as many as 70-90% of “converts” are giving little, if any, evidence of being saved after their first weeks or months of emotional excitement, questions should be asked, both about our understanding of the gospel and about our methods. Forget the fact, if you must, that there is no clear biblical precedent for the altar call. Even considering the matter pragmatically ought to make us quit. Though prevalent in our churches for decades, it has not helped us. (See “Closing with Christ,” www.CCWonline.org/closing.html)
The dangerous practice of receiving new members immediately after they walk the aisle must finally be abandoned. Also, more careful counsel should be taken with those entering in as members from other churches. And add to this a need for much deeper thinking concerning childhood conversion. An alarming percentage of childhood professions wash out later in the teen and college years. For unconverted yet baptized church kids, the more independence they are granted, the more they live out their true nature. (See “Childhood Conversion,” www.CCWonline.org/cconv.html)
4. We must stop giving immediate verbal assurance to people who make professions of faith or who respond to our invitations. It is the Holy Spirit’s job to give assurance. We are to give thebasis upon which assurance can be had, not the assurance itself. Study 1 John in this respect. What things were written so that they might know they have eternal life? (1 Jn. 5:13). Answer: The tests given in the book. The Bible says that the Holy Spirit testifies to our spirit that we are children of God (Rom. 8:16).
5. We must restore sound doctrine. Revival, I am finding as I study its history, is largely about the recovery of the true gospel. The three great doctrines which have so often shown up in true revival are: 1) God’s sovereignty in salvation, 2) justification by grace through faith alone, and 3) regeneration with discernible fruit. Revival is God showing up, but the blessing of the presence of God is directly affected by our beliefs. God most often comes in the context of these and other great doctrines, preached penetratingly and faithfully, and with the unction of the Holy Spirit.
As an illustration of our doctrinal reductionism, repentance is often forgotten completely in gospel presentations, or else it is minimized to mean nothing more than “admitting that you are a sinner.” Also, “Inviting Christ into your heart,” a phrase never found in the Bible (study the context of Jn.1:12 and Rev. 3:20, the verses used for this), has taken the place of the biblical doctrine of justification by faith alone. The doctrine of God’s judgment is rarely preached with any carefulness. And comprehensive studies of the meaning of the cross are seldom heard. Merely looking over the titles of the sermons which awakening preachers preached in the past would surprise most modern pastors.
Be Healthy or Be Ashamed
Which army would you rather have? Gideon’s first army or his last? No church, and no denomination, should call itself healthy unless more people attend than are on the roll. This is a standard kept by most of the world, and was kept by our great-grandparents in Baptist churches as well. We would be closer to the revival we desire if we would admit our failure, humbly hang our heads, and seek to rectify this awful hindrance to God’s blessing. When we boast of how big we are, we are bragging about our shame.
In the Philadelphia Baptist Association Minutes, our first association, our initial American statistical record shows that five times as many people attended the association’s churches as were on their rolls. Greg Wills in Democratic Religion in the South (Oxford University Press, 1997, p.14) reports that three times the number on the rolls attended Baptist churches, then located mostly along the eastern seaboard when surveyed in 1791 by John Ashlund. In 1835, the Christian Index of Georgia recorded that “not less than twice the number” of members were in attendance.
Today, in rough numbers, it takes 300 people on our rolls to have 100 attenders. In the 1790s, it took only 33. Or, to put it in larger figures, it now takes nearly 3000 people, supposedly won to Christ and baptized, to result in a church attendance of 1000. Then, it took only 333. Our potency has diminished to such an extent that we must “win” and “baptize” over 2,000 more people to get to the same 1000 to attend.
Apparently, being orthodox in terms of inerrancy and infallibility is not enough, though without these doctrines we have no foundation for true evangelism. A lot has to be done, and a lot undone. And, sadly, we have been actively transporting this mainly American problem overseas for many years.
To conclude, I suggest two remedial steps for the convention as a whole, in addition to what was suggested for the churches:
1. We might reverse some of our proclivity to continue as normal if we introduced our preachers more accurately in our evangelism meetings and convention settings. Try using this introduction: “Here is Brother ______, pastor of a church of 10,000 members, 6400 of whom do not bother to come on a given Sunday morning, and 8600 of whom do not come on Sunday evening. He is here to tell us about how to have a healthy, evangelistic church.”
It might be better to ask a man to speak who shepherd’s 100 members, all of whom attend with regularity and all of whom show signs of regeneration—a man who, in the last year, has baptized 5 people who stick—rather than a pastor of 10,000 members, 7000 of whom do not come—a man who has baptized 1000 in the past year, 700 of whom cannot be found. The smaller, but more consistent numbers of the first pastor reveal a far more effective ministry and thus a far better example for other churches. (Please understand that I don’t like this talk about “numbers,” but this is the main way we evaluate people and churches as Baptists. I am sure God is not really impressed with any of our statistics.)
2. We should establish a study group to explore our presently deplorable situation and to track its history. This group should also seek to re-examine the biblical mandate to have a regenerate church. Then this study group should report back with a strategy to help us out of the dilemma. They should be painfully honest. I am hopeful that individual churches will act without this prompting, but this would be an added stimulus to getting us to our fighting weight as a denomination. Some church leaders will not act without this sort of backing since independent action would be a departure from the status quo.
Our only alternative is to carry on in the old way—the way that produces 70-90% fallout. By continuing on as we are, we will gradually blur, and eventually obscure altogether, any distinction between the professing and the authentic Christian. In the end, we will look like every other mainline, liberal denomination. We are only one-third to one-tenth alive now. If we want to avoid complete deadness, we must take dramatic measures immediately. Like cotton candy, our apparent size does not add up to much.
Our forebears, especially those who died for the biblical concept of a regenerate church, would hardly recognize our compromised condition. It will admittedly take us down a notch or two, in the estimation of the rest of professing Christianity, when millions are removed from our rolls. But humility and a new reality might be the starting place for God’s greatest blessings on us yet!
The next time someone asks how your church and your denomination are doing, tell the truth. Tell them that we have a new confidence in the inerrant Bible. Tell them that we have seminaries that promote orthodoxy, and new evangelistic fervor among the true believers. Tell them we have a lot to be excited about. But also tell them that when considered as a whole, most Southern Baptists need raising from the dead.
an encore presentation
(Jim Elliff is president of Christian Communicators Worldwide. by More articles by Jim may be found here.
Revised edition, Copyright © Jim Elliff 2005 Christian Communicators Worldwide, Inc. 201 Main, Parkville, MO 64152 USA Permission granted for not-for-sale reproduction in exact form including copyright Other uses require written permission. Write for additional materials.
Filed under: Church Life, Southern Baptist Convention | Leave a Comment
Here is the follow up sermon by John Piper to his church went they voted to change their covenant.
He preached this sermon January 17, 1982 . . .
Reference Colossians 2:16-23
This coming Thursday evening, at the second half of our annual business meeting, we will be voting on the proposed amendment to the church covenant. I want to try to clarify this morning what is at stake in this decision and to apply the Word of God to our present situation.
From 1871 to 1946 Bethlehem had no church constitution or covenant. From 1946 to 1965 Bethlehem lived under a covenant identical to the one we have today, except that for those 20 years there was no clause about abstaining from alcoholic beverages. In 1965, the church amended the covenant to add the sentence, “We engage . . . to abstain from the sale and use of intoxicating liquors as a beverage.” The constitutional effect of this amendment in 1965 was to make total abstinence from the use and sale of alcoholic beverages a prerequisite for church membership.
The Proposed Amendment
The amendment before the church this Thursday is to replace the sentence about total abstinence from alcohol with a broader commitment that would require a good deal of heart searching and biblical self-examination. It would read as follows: “We engage . . . to seek God’s help in abstaining from all drugs, food, drink, and practices which bring unwarranted harm to the body or jeopardize our own or another’s faith.” I wish I could help everyone see that the reason I support this amendment so strongly is not to encourage, but to avoid a great evil. Alcohol abuse is a great evil in our land. And no one can reasonably construe the proposed amendment to countenance such abuse. Not only that, I regard total abstinence generally as a wise and preferable way to live in our land today. It’s the way I live, and the way I will teach my sons to live. The proposed amendment is not designed to encourage anyone to drink alcoholic beverages. It is designed to drive us to biblical, spiritual self-examination in view of the stupendous fact that we are God’s dwelling and are called to love one another and to build up faith wherever we can. The requirement of total abstinence, on the other hand, is heeded by millions of unbelievers and unspiritual church attendees. It is a regulation that requires no inner love to God or love to the church. The proposed amendment, however, drives us to God because it makes us ask, “Why abstain?” It makes us face the deep issue of whether we are following a tradition or whether we love with all our heart the holiness of God and the spiritual welfare of our fellowmen.
What is more, the proposed amendment will give a tremendous support to those of us who believe that alcoholic beverages can be dangerous and should generally be avoided. It supports the choice of abstinence not by explicitly requiring it for church membership, but by giving the deeper, spiritual, biblical mandate of purity and love which lead to abstinence for those who judge alcohol harmful. The proposed amendment is not weak on alcohol. If we believe alcohol is harmful to health or faith, the amendment charges us to give it up. Therefore, as I said earlier, the reason I support the amendment is not to encourage a great evil, but to avoid a great evil.
The amendment will help us avoid evil in two ways. It will help us by drawing our attention to other activities besides drinking which enslave us and do no good to this bodily temple of God or to anyone’s faith. The amendment says that we will “seek God’s help in abstaining from all drugs, food, drink, and practices which bring unwarranted harm to the body or jeopardize our own or another’s faith.” All drugs, all food, all drink, and all practices are to be passed through this biblical sieve: do they bring unwarranted injury to the body, and do they threaten anyone’s faith? Among other things, this is a strong statement against the use of mind altering drugs, because no one experiments with drugs in order to increase his trust in God, and build the faith of his friends, and preserve the health of his body. The amendment is broad and goes to the root issues of holiness and love and, therefore, it is flexible and able to address with power every new threat to holiness and love that comes along from year to year.
A Biblical Definition of Legalism
But the main reason the proposed amendment will help us avoid evil and the chief reason I support the amendment is that it helps guard us from an unbiblical legalism and exclusivism. Let me define what I mean by legalism. The New Testament does not use the word “legalism” and, therefore, it is thrown around today pretty carelessly. I want to try to define it in such a way that you can see that it is evil and that the New Testament does indeed deal with it, even if it does not use the word. I use the word “legalism” in at least two senses, but both have a common root problem. First, legalism means treating biblical standards of conduct as regulations to be kept by our own power in order to earn God’s favor. In other words legalism will be present wherever a person is trying to be ethical in his own strength, that is, without relying on the merciful help of God in Christ. Simply put, moral behavior that is not from faith is legalism. The legalist is always a very moral person. In fact the majority of moral people are legalists because their so-called Judeo-Christian morality inherited from their forefathers does not grow out of a humble, contrite reliance on the merciful enabling of God. On the contrary, for the legalist, morality serves the same function that immorality does for the antinomian, the free-thinker, the progressive, namely, it serves as an expression of self-reliance and self-assertion. The reason some Pharisees tithed and fasted is the same reason some German university students take off their clothes and lie around naked in the park in downtown Munich. The moral legalist is always the elder brother of the immoral prodigal. They are blood brothers in God’s sight because both reject the sovereign mercy of God in Christ as a means to righteousness and use either morality or immorality as a means of expressing their independence and self-sufficiency and self-determination. And it is clear from the NT that both will result in a tragic loss of eternal life. So the first meaning of legalism is the terrible mistake of treating biblical standards of conduct as regulations to be kept by our own power in order to earn God’s favor. It is a danger we must guard against in our own hearts every day. And please know that my old self is just as prone to it as anyone.
The second meaning of legalism is this: the erecting of specific requirements of conduct beyond the teaching of Scripture and making adherence to them the means by which a person is qualified for full participation in the local family of God, the church. This is where unbiblical exclusivism arises. There is no getting around the fact that the church does not include everyone. We do exclude people from membership because we believe worship should imply commitment to the lordship of Christ, the head of the church. But exclusion of people from the church should never be taken lightly. It is a very serious matter. Schools and clubs and societies can set up any human regulations they wish in order to keep certain people out and preserve by rule a particular atmosphere. But the church is not man’s institution. It belongs to Christ. He is the head of the body, and he alone should set the entrance requirements. That is very important!
As the church covenant presently stands, we are compelled in principle to say (and I am concerned precisely with the principle): “Brother (or sister), even though you trust Jesus Christ as your Savior and aim with all your heart to live under his lordship and have been duly baptized according to his ordinance and give hearty assent to our affirmation of faith, nevertheless, you can’t be a full participant in the family of God here because your use of wine doesn’t square with ours.” I am persuaded in my mind and in my heart that such a regulation falls into the category of legalism and falls under the judgment of the apostolic word in Scripture. I’ll try to show why in a moment.
The Root of Legalism Is Unbelief
But first, recall that I said these two uses of the word “legalism” have a common root. I want to bring out what that is before we look at Colossians 2. On the one hand, legalism means treating biblical standards of conduct as regulations to be kept by our own power in order to earn God’s favor. On the other hand, it means erecting specific requirements of conduct beyond the teaching of Scripture and making adherence to them the means by which a person is qualified for full participation in the local family of God, the church. In the first case, we use our own power to make ourselves moral. In the second case, we use our own power to make the church moral. In the first case, we fail to rely on the power of God for our own sanctification. In the second case, we fail to rely on the power of God for the sanctification of others. Therefore, what unites these two forms of legalism at the root is unbelief—unbelief in regard to ourselves that it is God who works in us to will and to do his good pleasure (Philippians 2:12, 13); and unbelief in relation to others that God will make his will known and incline them to do it. As Paul says in Philippians 3:15, “Let those of us who are mature be thus minded, and if in anything you are otherwise minded, God will reveal that also to you.” He confidently entrusts the purification of the church to God. Wherever happy confidence in the sovereign power of God for our own lives and the lives of others grows, weak legalism creeps in. For we inevitably try to compensate for loss of dynamic faith by increased moral resolve and the addition of man-made regulations. But wherever joyful confidence in the power of God is waning, the flesh is waxing. Which means that the very morality that we had hoped would save ourselves and the very regulations we hoped would purify our church fall victim to the massive power of the flesh, and become its instruments of self-reliance and self-sufficiency.
Brothers and sisters, these are not the words of a man who in soft on evil. I hate evil, with the apostle who said, “Abhor what is evil, and cleave to what is good” (Romans 12:9). I abhor the evil remaining in my own heart and see enough of it there to break the stiff-neck of my pride every day. I want to hate what God hates and love what God loves. And this I know beyond the shadow of a doubt: God hates legalism as much as he hates alcoholism. If any of you still wonders why I go on supporting this amendment after hearing all the tragic stories about lives ruined through alcohol, the reason is that when I go home at night and close my eyes and let eternity rise in my mind, I see ten million more people in hell because of legalism than because of alcoholism. And I think that is a literal understatement. Satan is so sly. “He disguises himself as an angel of light,” the apostle says in 2 Corinthians 11:14. He keeps his deadliest diseases most sanitary. He clothes his captains in religious garments and houses his weapons in temples. O don’t you want to see his plots uncovered? I want Bethlehem to be a place Satan fears. I want him to be like the emperor in “The Emperor’s New Clothes.” And we will be the babes (not in thinking! 1 Corinthians 14:20) who say, “Look, he thinks he is clothed in white, but he is naked and ugly.”
Listen as I uncover one of his plots. Legalism is a more dangerous disease than alcoholism because it doesn’t look like one. Alcoholism makes men fail; legalism helps them succeed in the world. Alcoholism makes men depend on the bottle; legalism makes them self-sufficient, depending on no one. Alcoholism destroys moral resolve; legalism gives it strength. Alcoholics don’t feel welcome in church; legalists love to hear their morality extolled in church. Therefore, what we need in this church is not front-end regulations to try to keep ourselves pure. We need to preach and pray and believe that “Neither circumcision nor uncircumcision, neither teetotalism nor social drinking, neither legalism nor alcoholism is of any avail with God, but only a new creation (a new heart)” (Galatians 6:15; 5:6). The enemy is sending against us every day the Sherman tank of the flesh with its cannons of self-reliance and self-sufficiency. If we try to defend ourselves or our church with peashooter regulations, we will be defeated, even in our apparent success. The only defense is to “be rooted and built up in Christ and established in faith” (Colossians 2:6); “Strengthened with all power according to his glorious might for all endurance and patience with joy” (Colossians 1:11); “holding fast to the head from whom the whole body, nourished and knit together, . . . grows with a growth that is from God” (Colossians 2:19). From God! From God! And not from ourselves.
Five Implications of the Redemptive Work of Christ
And now I focus your attention on the text which has been the seedbed of all these thoughts. Colossians 2:16-23. We will undertake a detailed study of this letter at another time and try then to describe the false teaching at Colossae. But short of that there are five very brief observations that we can make from verses 16-23 relating to the issue of total abstinence as a criterion for church membership.
In the preceding paragraph Paul teaches that when we are baptized as an expression of our faith in Christ, we die with him and are made alive as new people. We are forgiven all our sins, and the warrant that the law had out for our arrest is torn up. Christ so fully satisfied the righteous demands of God on our behalf that we are freed from the curse of the law; and the demonic powers that loved to torment us with guilt and enslave us with legalism are disarmed and defeated. How then should we live as new creatures in Christ, set free from the power of legalism?
In verses 16-23 Paul draws out some implications. I’ll try to sum up what he says in five observations. First, “Let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink.” The consumption of food and drink is in itself no basis for judging a person’s standing with God or standing in God’s family. To be sure Paul had to deal with the abuse of food and drink; the problem of eating meat offered to idols and the problem of drunkenness (1 Corinthians 8, 11:21; Romans 14). But his approach to these abuses was never to forbid food or drink. It was always to forbid what destroyed God’s temple and injured faith. He taught the principle of love, but did not determine its application with regulations in matters of food and drink. This is also the aim of the proposed amendment to the church covenant.
Second, verse 18, “Let no one disqualify you, insisting on self-abasement and worship of angels,” etc. The false teaching at Colossae had two parts: it called for angel worship on the one hand, and strict ascetic regulations on the other. Both of these were erected as requirements for those who wanted to qualify for “fullness of life” (2:10) or for full participation in the spiritual community. Paul denounced both requirements. Their theology is wrong because all the fullness of deity dwells in Christ (2:9), not angels. And their ascetic regulations regarding food and drink are useless because they are only shadows of reality and lead to being puffed up.
Third, the source of life and purity and growth is not through religious visions (2:18) and regulations about food and drink, but as verse 19 says, through “holding fast to the head (Christ) from whom the whole body, nourished and knit together through its joints and ligaments, grows with a growth that is from God.” The only hope for spiritual growth and health in the body of Christ (Bethlehem Baptist Church) is personal cleaving to Christ the head, not exclusivist regulations.
Fourth, verses 20 and 21, “If with Christ you died to the elemental spirits of the universe, why do you live as if you still belonged to the world? Why do you submit to regulations, ‘Do not handle, Do not taste, Do not touch’ (referring to things that all perish as they are used), according to human precepts and doctrines?” The implication of these verses is that a church which erects regulations about food and drink as a means of judging or disqualifying does not yet know what it means to die with Christ and be freed from the powers of the world. It seems to me that this is exactly what I said earlier: wherever authentic, joyful confidence in Christ diminishes, regulations are brought in to preserve what the power of Christ once created. If you erect enough regulations and build a big enough endowment, an institution can endure for decades after the spiritual dynamic that brought it into existence is gone.
But, and this is the fifth and final point, (verse 23) “These regulations, though they have an appearance of wisdom in promoting vigor of devotion and self-abasement and severity to the body, nevertheless are of no value in checking the indulgence of the flesh.” The entrance requirement of total abstinence at our church may secure for us a membership with one common attitude towards alcohol, but it is no help in making us a pure people who do not live according to the flesh (Romans 8:13). On the contrary, by imposing a restriction which the NT never imposes, this entrance requirement in principle involves us in a legalism that has its roots in unbelief. It is a sign of the faded power and joy and heart righteousness that once was Bethlehem, and, God helping us, will be again.
I think the best way I can summarize what I have tried to say is to read a letter from my Father dated November 10, 1981. With this I close.
. . . Your previous letter had raised the question of alcoholic beverages in relation to church membership. This is a real toughy. Most of the churches in which I minister have it directly in their constitutions and by-laws that no member will buy, sell or use such beverages.
I think my attitude and thought is this: The church should take a strong stand against such an evil and such an enormous destructive force, but should not include this or any such evil in its by-laws. My reason for this is first, that you cannot legislate righteousness or make people more holy by having laws, one any more than another. For example, what about living as man and wife without benefit of marriage and what about homosexual practices, or for that matter what about smoking or gambling.
Understand me, as I am sure you do, I am definitely for living a separated life. And, I think as ministers we are responsible to expose all such evils and let the church know what is wicked and wrong in this world. But I faced and saw the weakness of legislated righteousness years ago. I cut my eye teeth on preaching against THE BIG FIVE—dancing, drinking, smoking, gambling, and theater going. I heard messages against these things by the dozen. I heard very little about gossip, covetousness, a hateful spirit, etc. I observed that people who adopted this separated life often become pharisaic and proud of their separation, and I heard very few sermons against such pride. For example, one preacher I knew observed that while some women thought separation meant wearing long hair, they often had tongues as long as their hair!
So, while the problem is surely not a simple one, I think if I had a church and wrote my own constitution, I would word it positively, perhaps saying, “It is expected that all members will abstain from habits and life styles that fail to honor Christ and will seek to perfect holiness in the fear of God doing everything in word and deed to His honor and glory.” Something like that, anyhow. And then leave it to the Holy Spirit through the preaching of the word to effect the right results . . .
© Desiring God
Permissions: You are permitted and encouraged to reproduce and distribute this material in any format provided that you do not alter the wording in any way and do not charge a fee beyond the cost of reproduction. For web posting, a link to this document on our website is preferred. Any exceptions to the above must be approved by Desiring God.
Please include the following statement on any distributed copy: By John Piper. © Desiring God. Website: desiringGod.org
Flesh Tank and Peashooter Regulations :: Desiring God Christian Resource Library
Shared via AddThis
Filed under: Church Life | Leave a Comment
A sermon preached by John Piper to his church – Bethlehem Baptist – on October 4, 1981. He explains why he is calling for a change to the church’s covenant.
His sermon . . .
There are two questions I want to discuss tonight. One is: Should Christians in America today abstain from the use of alcoholic drink as a beverage? The other is: Should such abstinence be a requirement for church membership? My answer to the first question is yes, and my answer to the second question is no. Total abstinence is the best way to treat alcohol today, but total abstinence should not be a requirement for membership in the local church. I’ll try to show from Scripture why I have these convictions. My assumption is that we should desire to bring all our personal and church life into conformity to Scripture.
Article III of our church constitution says:
The membership of this Church shall consist of persons who confess faith on the Lord Jesus Christ as personal Savior, who give evidence of regeneration by a living consistent with their profession and with the views of faith, doctrine, and practice of this Church, who have been baptized by immersion, and who have been received into its membership according to the By-Laws of this church.
It says that members should give evidence of living consistent with “the practice of this church.” The “practice” toward which the church agrees to aim is found in Article II, “Our Church Covenant.”
1) Having been led, as we believe, by the Spirit of God, to receive the Lord Jesus Christ as our Savior, and, on the profession of our faith, having been baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, we do now, in the presence of God, angels, and this assembly, most solemnly and joyfully enter into covenant with one another as one body in Christ.
2) We engage, therefore, by the aid of the Holy Spirit, to walk together in Christian love, to strive for the advancement of this Church in knowledge, holiness, and comfort; to promote its prosperity and spirituality; to sustain its worship, ordinances, discipline, and doctrines; to contribute cheerfully and regularly to the support of the ministry, the expenses of the Church, the relief of the poor, and the spread of the Gospel through all nations.
3) We also engage to maintain family and secret devotions; to educate our children in the Christian faith; to seek the salvation of our kindred and acquaintances; to walk circumspectly in the world; to be just in our dealings, faithful in our engagements, and exemplary in our deportment; to avoid all tattling, backbiting, and excessive anger; to abstain from the sale and use of intoxicating liquors as a beverage; and to be zealous in our efforts to advance the kingdom of our Savior.
4) We further engage to watch over one another in brotherly love; to remember one another in prayer; to aid one another in sickness and distress; to cultivate Christian sympathy in feeling and courtesy in speech; to be slow to take offense, but always ready for reconciliation and mindful of the rules of our Savior to secure it without delay.
5) We moreover engage that when we remove from this place, we will, if possible, unite with a church where we can carry out the articles of this confession and the spirit of this covenant.
That is a beautiful, biblical summary of what the church should expect all of its members to pursue. With the exception of one sentence, the requirements are biblical and general in nature. For example, it says we will “strive for the advancement of this church in knowledge,” but it does not say we will read a certain number of books or attend a certain number of classes. It says we will “contribute cheerfully and regularly to the support of the ministry,” but it does not make tithing a requirement (even though there is biblical warrant for urging the tithe as a minimum). It says we will “educate our children in the Christian faith,” but it does not prescribe a lesson plan or curriculum. It says we will contribute to “the relief of the poor,” but it does not endorse any particular social program. In every case but one, we are called to general biblical principles of attitude and behavior, while latitude is allowed for how the principles are applied in our particular case. Only one sentence departs from this pattern, namely, “We engage . . . to abstain from the sale and use of intoxicating liquors as a beverage.” Here there is no biblical principle with latitude for application. A definite action is singled out, and it is forbidden. This means that every member of the church must, according to the constitution, be committed to total abstinence and that prospective members who are not teetotalers will be excluded from membership.
The sentence on abstinence in the Church Covenant seemed so out of keeping with the other parts that I did some research to see if it were part of the original. Here’s what I found. For 75 years Bethlehem lived without a formal constitution. But in 1945, the church approved its first constitution which took effect January 1946. That document contains our present Church Covenant with everything exactly the same except that the words “to abstain from the sale and use of intoxicating liquors as a beverage” are missing. The present constitutional revision happened in 1965, and I presume that is when the sentence on total abstinence was inserted. I don’t know how many times the Covenant has been read by the congregation in the last 16 years, but one person told me that he could not recall its being read anytime in the last eight years. Some of the deacons also recalled that when the vote on total abstinence was taken, there was a split vote. That probably is why the Covenant has fallen into disuse. It prohibits behavior on which there is real difference of conscience among believers, and, therefore, it divides rather than unites the congregation. I would like to see the Covenant revived and to that end amended in keeping with its original spirit and biblical breadth.
But before we talk about a specific amendment, let’s return to the first question: Should a Christian in America today abstain from alcoholic drink as a beverage? We will start by just getting an overview of the biblical attitude toward alcoholic beverages and the problems associated with them. There is no reason to think that Jesus was a teetotaler since he made wine for a wedding in John 2 and said in Luke 7:33-34, “John the Baptist has come eating no bread and drinking no wine; and you say, ‘He has a demon!’ The Son of Man has come eating and drinking, and you say, ‘Behold a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners.”‘ The people in Jesus’ day were doubly guilty because they took offense both at John’s abstinence and Jesus’ drinking. They slandered one as a demon and the other as a drunkard. In Psalm 104:15 wine is pictured as a gift from God to gladden man’s heart, and in Deuteronomy 33:28 the hope of Israel is described as a bountiful land of corn and wine. And in Deuteronomy 14:26 God gave permission to enjoy wine at certain feasts.
But on the other side, priests were prohibited from drinking wine or strong drink while serving the tent of God (Leviticus 10:9). Part of the Nazirite vow was total abstinence (Numbers 6:3). The Proverbs warn against the dangers of strong drink: “Wine is a mocker, strong drink a brawler; and whoever is led astray by it is not wise” (20:1). “Who has woe? Who has sorrow? Who has strife? Who has complaining? Who has wounds without cause? Who has redness of the eyes? Those who tarry long over wine, those who go to try mixed wine. Do not look at wine when it is red, when it sparkles in the cup and goes down smoothly. At the last it bites like a serpent, and stings like an adder. Your eyes will see strange things, and your mind utter perverse things. You will be like one who lies down in the midst of the sea, like one who lies on the top of a mast. ‘They struck me,’ you will say, ‘but I was not hurt; they beat me, but I did not feel it. When shall I awake? I will seek another drink’” (23:29-35). “It is not for kings, O Lemuel, it is not for kings to drink wine, or for rulers to desire strong drink; lest they drink and forget what has been decreed and pervert the rights of all the afflicted” (31:4, 5). The prophets also attacked the abuse of strong drink: “Woe to those who rise early in the morning, that they may run after strong drink, who tarry late into the evening till wine inflames them” (Isaiah 5:11). And in the New Testament Paul repeatedly denounces drunkenness as a work of the flesh (Ephesians 5:18; Romans 13:13; Galatians 5:20; 1 Thessalonians 5:7). And it appears that Timothy had committed himself to total abstinence for a while, because Paul had to urge him, “No longer drink only water, but use a little wine for the sake of your stomach” (1 Timothy 5:23).
The least we can infer from all this is that while drinking is not always viewed as wrong, its dangers and harmfulness were such as to call forth numerous warnings, and in some cases (priestly service, Nazirite vow, Timothy’s apostolic efforts) abstinence was seen as commendable. Drunkenness is always wrong.
The implication of this for our lives today is that we must look at the fundamental ethical principle of Scripture, take stock of our own personal and societal situation, and decide whether total abstinence or moderate use is the best way to go. For myself and my family the way I have decided to go is total abstinence. I also believe, in general, that this is the best way for all believers in America today to go. There are four basic reasons. As I describe them, I will try to make their biblical basis clear.
1. First, I choose not to drink because of my conscience.
I would feel uneasy and somewhat guilty if I were to purchase and use alcoholic beverages. The biblical principle here is that we should not act against our conscience, even if our conscience condemns us for actions that are morally neutral in themselves. Paul said in Romans 14:14, “I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself, but it is unclean for anyone who thinks it unclean.” Then in verses 22, 23 he says, “Happy is he who has no reason to judge himself for what he approves. But he who has doubts is condemned, if he eats, for whatever does not proceed from faith is sin” (cf. also 1 Corinthians 8:7, 12). The main point of Romans 14 and 1 Corinthians 8 and 10:23ff. is that we should not tempt others to do what they feel qualms about doing; but that also means that we who have qualms about a thing should avoid it.
Now if there were some good reason, I could work to reeducate my conscience on this matter. But in view of what I know about alcohol, I have no inclination to rid myself of my conscientious misgivings about the use of alcohol. Many young evangelicals need to have a far more positive attitude toward the sensitivities of conscience which many owe to their parents and church. It is a mark of great immaturity to be constantly kicking against the ways our parents taught us. I know I owe my conscientious misgivings about alcohol to my parents. We never drank, and I am glad. I never felt the least slighted. On the contrary, we were the happiest family I ever knew. Total abstinence paid off.
I might just add that I am also glad about some other so-called fundamentalist no-nos. My parents almost never went to movies, and I almost never go to movies. The reason is very simple: there are almost no movies that don’t ask me to be entertained by attitudes, motives, and actions which Jesus died to eradicate. My heart will not allow me to be entertained by worldliness. My parents never smoked, and their way has proven best. Seminars on how to quit smoking would have been laughed to scorn as religious bigotry 25 year ago. Today it’s a law in Minnesota that you can’t blow smoke in my face in a restaurant. I just mention a few of these wonderful “hang-ups” to illustrate that young believers should be very slow to liberate themselves from the scruples of their parents. And in any case, one should never act against one’s conscience. This is the first reason I am a teetotaler.
2. The second reason is that alcohol is a mind-altering drug.
In its effect upon the mind alcohol works most quickly as a depressant to eliminate restraints. “The fine shades of moral restraint are among the first to become blurred. Further, split-second decisions and the quick neural reflexes leading to physical action become sluggish—as well as our judgment as to whether or not our critical faculties have been at all affected by our drinking” (Christianity Today, September 18, 1981, p. 13).
This inclines me toward total abstinence, first, in relation to myself, and then, in relation to others. In relation to myself, what this says to me is that alcohol could hinder me in what I want most, namely, to recognize and to do the will of God. The Bible says, “Be renewed in the spirit of your mind that you may prove what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect” (Romans 12:2). And in another place, “Do not be foolish, but understand what the will of the Lord is” (Ephesians 5:17). The mature believer does not ask: How many enjoyable things can I do and still not transgress God’s will? But rather: Is there anything at all that I can do or stop doing which will refine my ability to recognize and do the will of God. In general, drinking alcoholic beverages does not increase one’s sensitivity to the will of God. On the contrary, it weakens the intensity of our desire to be holy as God is holy. Therefore, I feel no need whatsoever to make wine or beer or any other alcoholic beverage part of my diet. It contradicts and threatens what I value most.
In relation to others, this desensitizing effect of alcohol inclines me to total abstinence, first, because I don’t want to encourage others to do what I reject for myself, and second, because the blunting of my judgment and the slowing of my reflexes could harm others both morally and physically. It is easy to see here that the command to “love your neighbor as yourself” demands that we not put our neighbors’ integrity or health in jeopardy.
3. The third reason why I choose total abstinence is that alcohol is addictive.
I simply cannot see any reason why I should incorporate into my way of life a beverage which not only blurs the fine shades of moral restraints, but also could easily become habit-forming. I say with Paul, “All things are lawful for me, but I will not be enslaved by anything” (1 Corinthians 6:12). If someone laughs and says, “Why not prove you can hold your liquor. Why rule it out on the basis of a possible weakness?” my response is, “I’ve got nothing to prove. God forbid that I should boast in anything except the cross of Christ by which the world is crucified to me and I to the world” (see Galatians 6:14). I don’t have any inclination to prove to anybody that I’m not weak. I have values in my life that are infinitely more important than proving to myself or to someone else that I can drink and not be addicted.
4. The fourth reason I choose total abstinence is to make a social statement.
Some people rank alcoholism as our second greatest health problem in America (others say 3rd or 4th). There are about 10 million alcoholics and 20 million persons who consume an immoderate amount of alcohol. About 70% use alcohol as a beverage. As a result, alcohol contributes to 205,000 deaths each year. Life expectancy of the alcoholic is reduced by at least a decade. One-half of all traffic fatalities are the direct result of the abuse of alcohol. It is directly connected to one-half of the homicides and one-third of the suicides. It costs business alone 19 billion dollars a year. And now one out of every twelve marriages comes apart over drinking.
It is clear that millions and millions of people are stumbling over alcohol and ruining their lives, their families, and their businesses. Christians ought to care about that and ought to want to say something and do something. What I choose to say is, “Stop drinking, America!” Or, since America is not listening to me, I say, “Stop drinking, Bethlehem!” And I choose to oppose the carnage of alcohol abuse by boycotting the product. If people can go on hunger strikes to make a political statement, and boycott Nestle’s products to make a statement about child nutrition and third world exploitation; if people can go without lettuce for the sake of solidarity with Southern Californian farm workers, or swear off white bread and granulated sugar, is it really so prudish or narrow to renounce a highway killer, a home destroyer, and a business wrecker. If we were ever hesitant to make a social statement about the tragic effect of alcohol abuse on our land for fear that we would be out of step with the times, we can put that hesitancy aside forever. Time magazine just carried a full-page ad about why one big corporation (ITT) is concerned with alcohol abuse. The danger and damage of alcohol is so great and so well-known that your insistence of an alternative drink at the office party will soon need no justification at all. Most businesses know there are so many dry alcoholics they must give non-alcoholic alternatives.
For these four reasons, then, I am a very happy teetotaler, and I think you should be too. But that brings us to our second question: Should total abstinence be a requirement for church membership? My answer is, No. The reason is this: the New Testament allows for a difference of conviction and practice on this issue in the church, and, therefore, it is wrong not to allow for that same difference in the church today. Romans 14:20, 21 puts wine-drinking in the category of eating meat and leaves the ethical judgment with the believer to grapple with whether his behavior will make the brother stumble.
The original framers of our Church Covenant were sensitive to the nature of biblical ethics and their relation to church membership. They did not get so specific as to eliminate believers with biblically warranted differences of conviction. But the persons who added the total abstinence clause in 1965 were also well-intentioned. They see rightly the rising harmfulness of alcohol. What I am urging the church to do is amend the Church Covenant to preserve the wisdom in both of these groups of Christians.
To preserve the wisdom of the 1965 group, we should include in our Covenant a pledge to abstain from harmful drugs, food, drink, and practices. But to preserve the wisdom of the 1945 group, we should not specify what drugs, foods, drinks, or practices are intended. This allows the biblical latitude of sincerely differing consciences, but also commits us to examine everything we eat and drink and do with a view to its harmful or loving effect on ourselves and others. No one will be able to say, “I do not drink, so I have done my duty.” He must now examine why he does not drink and whether any other practices should be abandoned.
We recommend, therefore, that the words, “We engage . . . to abstain from the sale and use of intoxicating liquors as a beverage,” be replaced by the words, “We engage . . . to seek God’s help in abstaining from all drugs, food, drink, and practices which harm the body or jeopardize our own or another’s faith.”
© Desiring God
Permissions: You are permitted and encouraged to reproduce and distribute this material in any format provided that you do not alter the wording in any way and do not charge a fee beyond the cost of reproduction. For web posting, a link to this document on our website is preferred. Any exceptions to the above must be approved by Desiring God.
Please include the following statement on any distributed copy: By John Piper. © Desiring God. Website: desiringGod.org
Total Abstinence and Church Membership :: Desiring God Christian Resource Library
Shared via AddThis
Filed under: Church Life | Leave a Comment
Temperance
Temperance
Temperance is, unfortunately, one of those words that has changed its meaning. It now usually means teetotalism. But in the days when the second Cardinal virtue was christened “Temperance,” it meant nothing of the sort. Temperance referred not specially to drink, but to all pleasures; and it meant not abstaining, but going the right length and no further. It is a mistake to think that Christian ought all to be teetotallers; Mohammedanism, not Christianity, is the teetotal religion.
Of course it may be the duty of a particular Christian, or of any Christian, at a particular time, to abstain from strong drink, either because he is the sort of man who cannot drink at all without drinking too much, or because he wants to give the money to the poor, or because he is with people who are inclined to drunkenness and must not encourage them by drinking himself. But the whole point is that he is abstaining, for a good reason, from something which he does not condemn and which he likes to see other people enjoying.
One of the marks of a certain type of bad man is that he cannot give up a thing himself without wanting every one else to give it up. That is not the Christian way. An individual Christian may see fit to give up all sorts of things for special reasons – marriage , or meat, or beer, or the cinema; but the moment he starts saying the things are bad in themselves, or looking down his nose at other people who do use them, he has taken the wrong turning.
C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity pp. 61, 62
Filed under: Church Life | Leave a Comment
-
My Pictures on Flickr
More Photos
