Here's how you can support my efforts

Naughty Sir,

To keep me at home four afternoons upon the tip-toe of expectation — and not come near me at last. If you cannot send me a certificate, signed by the doctor and church-warden, specifying that you were too ill to travel, I have reason to be angry with you! But to show my forgiving spirit, if you will come over on Monday To dinner, I will give you something to eat, and your certificate of pardon.

I am to preach (if I can) three times on Fast-day — but have at present fixed only upon one text, which, for a certain reason, I shall not mention to you at present. I send you, however, according to order, a text and a plan which I found among my old papers. I preached it about sixteen years ago to a congregation of about twelve, in my own house, sometime before I was brought into the public ministry. I have not time to read it over; but if it may put any hints in your way, it is at your service. I cannot send you my present thoughts upon another text, for a plain reason, namely, that I am not able yet to think for myself; and I must receive — before I can communicate. It would be mocking you to offer you drink — out of an empty vessel.

Since I have begun to write, I have thought perhaps one of my texts will be either Psalm 97:1, or Psalm 19:1. The whole system of my politics is summed up in that one sentence, “The Lord reigns!” I wish you would send me, by the bearer, some hints towards a sermon on it. It would be a good text if I knew how to manage it.

The times look awfully dark indeed; and as the clouds grow thicker, the stupidity of the nation seems proportionally to increase. If the Lord had not a remnant here, I would have very formidable apprehensions. But he loves his children; some are sighing and mourning before him, and I am sure he hears their sighs, and sees their tears. I trust there is mercy in store for us at the bottom; but I expect a shaking time before things get into a right channel, before we are humbled, and are taught to give him the glory.

The state of the nation, the state of the churches — both are deplorable. Those who should be praying — are disputing and fighting among themselves! Alas! how many professors are more concerned for the mistakes of government, or of the Americans, than for their own sins! When will these things end?

Love me, and pray for me, and come to see me — for I cannot come to you. With my love and Mrs. Newton’s to you and Mrs. Bull,

I remain, your obliged friend,

John Newton Olney, 24 Feb., 1778.

(Source: https://www.gracegems.org/Newton/109.htm)

Share

What do you think? Leave your thoughts below.

Help support my effort

My dear Madam,

It is not owing to forgetfulness that your letter has been thus long unanswered. It has lain within my view this two weeks, demanding my first leisure hour—but affairs of daily occurrence have been so many and so pressing, that I have been constrained to put it off until now. I trust the Lord, by his Spirit and providence, will direct and prosper the settlement of your children. Give my love to your daughter, Miss M****. My idea of her enlarges. Methinks I see her aspiring to be as tall as her mamma. I hope likewise, that she increases in grace and wisdom, as in years and stature; and that hearing our Lord’s flock is a little flock, she feels a thirst to be one of the happy number which constitutes his fold. If she has such a desire, I can tell who gave it her, for I am persuaded it was not born with her; and where the good farmer sows, there will he also reap. Therefore, dear Miss M****, press forward—knock, and it shall be opened unto you, for yet there is room. O what a fold! O what a pasture! O what a Shepherd! Let us love, and sing, and wonder!

I hope the godly people are praying for our sinful, troubled land, in this dark day. The Lord is angry, the sword is drawn, and I am afraid nothing but the spirit of wrestling prayer can prevail for the returning it into the scabbard. Could things have proceeded to these extremities, except the Lord had withdrawn his beneficial blessing? It is a time of prayer. We see the beginning of trouble—but who can foresee the possible consequences? The fire is kindled—but how far it may spread, those who are above may perhaps know better than we.

I do not meddle with the disputes of party, nor concern myself with any political quarrels—but such as are laid down in Scripture. There I read that righteousness exalts a nation, and that sin is the reproach, and, if persisted in, the ruin of any people. Some people are startled at the enormous sum of our national debt. Those who understand spiritual arithmetic may be well startled if they sit down and compute the debt of national sin.

• Item, The profligacy of manners.

• Item, Perjury.

• Item, The cry of blood, the blood of thousands, perhaps millions, from the East Indies.

It would take sheets, yes quires of paper, to draw out the particulars under each of these heads—and even then, much would remain untold. What can we answer, when the Lord says, “Shall not I visit you for these things? Shall not my soul be avenged on such a nation as this?”

Since we received the news of the first hostilities in America, we have had an additional prayer-meeting. Could I hear that professors in general, instead of wasting their breath in censuring men and political measures, were plying the Throne of Grace, I would still hope for a respite. Poor New England! once the glory of the earth, now likely to be visited with fire and sword. They have left their first love, and the Lord is sorely contending with them. Yet surely their sins as a people are not to be compared with ours. I am just so much affected with these things as to know, that I am not affected enough. Oh! my spirit is sadly cold and insensible, or I would lay them to heart in a different manner. Yet I endeavor to give the alarm as far as I can. There is one political maxim which comforts me. “The Lord reigns!” His hand guides the storm; and he knows those who are his—how to protect, support, and deliver them. He will take care of his own cause; yes, he will extend his kingdom, even by these formidable methods. Men have one thing in view; He has another—and his counsel shall stand!

The chief piece of news since my last is concerning B.A. She has finished her course, and is now with the great multitude who have overcome by the blood of the Lamb, and by the Word of his testimony. Tuesday the 1st of February she was in our assembly, was taken ill the next day, and died while we were assembling the Tuesday following. She had an easy death, retained her senses and her speech until the last minute, and went without a struggle or a sigh. She was not in raptures during her illness—but was composed, and maintained a strong and lively faith. She had a numerous gathering about her bed daily, who were all witnesses to the power of faith, and to the faithfulness of the Lord, enabling her to triumph over the approaches of death; for she was well known and well respected. She will be much missed—but I hope He will answer the many prayers she put up for us, and raise up others in her place. “Blessed are the dead who die in the Lord.” Blessed are they who know whom they have believed, and when death comes can cheerfully rest their hopes on him who died that we might live. She had been long a precious and honorable woman—but her hope in the trying hour rested not in what she had done for the Lord—but upon what he had done for her; not upon the change his grace has wrought in her—but upon the righteousness he had wrought out for her by his obedience unto death. This supported her; for she saw nothing in herself but what she was ashamed of. She saw reason to renounce her own goodness, as well as her own sins—as to the point of acceptance with God, and died, as Paul lived, determined to know nothing but Jesus Christ and him crucified.

Our friends, Mr. and Mrs. C**** are moving to Scotland soon. All beneath the moon (like the moon itself) is subject to incessant change. Alterations and separations are graciously appointed of the Lord, to remind us that this world is not our rest, and to prepare our thoughts for that approaching last change, which shall fix us forever in an unchangeable state! O Madam! What shall we poor worms render to him who has brought life and immortality to light by the Gospel, taken away the sting of death, revealed a glorious prospect beyond the grave, and given us eyes to see it? The reflection, that we must, before long, take a final farewell of all that is most capable of pleasing us upon earth, is not only tolerable—but pleasant. For we know we cannot fully possess our best friend, our chief treasure, until we have done with all below. Nay, we cannot until then, properly see each other. We are cased up in vehicles of clay, and converse together as if we were in different coaches with the blinds close drawn round. We see the carriage, and the voice tells us that we have a friend within it. But we shall know each other better, when death shall open the coach-doors, and bring out the company, and lead them into the glorious apartments which the Lord has appointed to be the common residence of those who love him. What an assembly will that be! What a constellation of glory, when each individual shall shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father! No sins, sorrows, temptations; no veils, clouds, or prejudices, shall interrupt us then! All names of vain distinction (the fruits of present remaining darkness, the channels of bigotry, and the stumbling-block of the world), will be at an end.

The description you give of your present residence pleases me much, and chiefly because it describes and manifests to me something still more interesting, I mean the peaceable situation of your mind. Had he placed you in an Eden some months ago, it would hardly have awakened your descriptive talent. But he whom the winds and seas obey has calmed your mind, and I trust will go on to fill you with all joy and peace in believing. It is no great matter where we are, provided we know that the Lord has placed us there, and that he is with us!

(Source: https://www.gracegems.org/Newton/96.htm)

Share

I’d like to know what you think. Add your thoughts below.

Support this project

Dear friend,

Allow me to say, that it excites both my wonder and concern, that a Christian minister such as yourself, should think it worth his while to attempt political reforms. When I look around upon the present state of the nation, such an attempt appears to me, to be no less vain and foolish, than it would be to paint the cabin—while the ship is sinking! Or to decorate the parlor—while the house is on fire!

When our Lord Jesus was upon earth, He refused to get involved in disputes or politics, “Friend, who appointed Me a judge or arbitrator over you?” Luke 12:14. “My kingdom is not of this world! If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would fight!” John 18:36. God’s children belong to a kingdom which is not of this world; they are strangers and pilgrims upon earth, and a part of their Scriptural character is, that they are the “quiet in the land.” Psalm 35:20.

Satan has many contrivances to amuse people, and to divert their thoughts from their real danger!

My dear sir, my prayer to God for you is—that He may induce you to employ the talents He has given you, in pointing out sin as the great cause and source of every existing evil; and to engage those who love and fear Him, (instead of wasting time in political speculations, for which very few of them are competent,) to sigh and cry for our abounding abominations, and to stand in the breach, by prayer, that God’s wrath may yet be averted, and our national mercies prolonged! This, I think, is true patriotism—the best way in which people in private life may serve their country.

I consider the ungodly as saws and hammers in the hand of the Lord. So far as they are His instruments, they will succeed—but not an inch further! Their wrath shall praise Him, and be subservient to His designs!

If our lot is so cast that we can exercise our ministry free from stripes, fines, imprisonments, and death—it is more than the gospel has promised to us! If Christians were quiet when under the cruel governments of Nero and other wicked persecutors, when they were hunted down like wild beasts—then we ought to be not only quiet but very thankful now! It was then accounted an honor to suffer for Christ and the ‘offence of the cross’!

Those are to be greatly pitied, who boast of their ‘liberty’—and yet they do not consider that they are in the most deplorable bondage as the slaves of sin and Satan, under the curse of God’s law and His eternal wrath! Oh! for a voice to reach their hearts, that they may know their true and dreadful state—and seek deliverance from their horrific thraldom! May you and I labor to direct them to the one thing, which is absolutely needful, and abundantly sufficient.

If I had the wisdom or influence to soothe the angry passions of mankind—I would gladly employ them! But I am a stranger and a pilgrim here in this world. My charter, my rights and my treasures, are all in heaven—and there my heart ought to be. In a very short time, I may be removed (and perhaps suddenly) into the unseen and eternal world—where all that now causes so much bustle upon earth—will be of no more importance to me—than the events which took place among the antediluvians!

In the hour, when death shall open the door into eternity—many things which now assume an ‘air of importance’, will be found as light and unsubstantial as a child’s dream!

How crucial then, is it for me—to be found watching, with my lamp burning, diligently engaged in my proper calling! For the Lord has not called me to set governments right—but to preach the gospel, to proclaim the glory of His name, and to endeavor to win souls! “Let the dead bury their own dead—but you go and proclaim the kingdom of God!” Luke 9:60. Happy is that servant, whom his Master finds so doing, when He returns!

As you have forced me to respond—both duty and love have obliged me to be faithful and free in giving you my thoughts.

I recommend you to the care and blessing of the great Shepherd and Savior; and remain for His sake, your affectionate friend and brother,

John Newton

(Source: https://www.gracegems.org/Newton/135.htm)

Subscribe now

What do you think? Leave your thoughts below.

What's next? Inspire me...

Dear sir,

In my last I engaged to write again before long, though I should not have one of yours to answer. And I hope soon after you receive this, that your leisure and spirit will permit you to write, at least a few lines, to inform us of your welfare. My anxiety on your account would be greater—but that I know you are in the hands of him who does all things well, and conducts his most afflictive dispensations to those who fear him, with wisdom and mercy. As I am not fit to choose for myself, so neither can I choose for my friends.

The Lord knows what is best for you! When there is an especial need-be for your being in the furnace—He knows how to support you; and at what season, and in what manner, deliverance will best comport with His glory and your good-. These are the two great ends which He has in view, and which are inseparably connected together.

He knows our frame, and of what we are made. His pity exceeds that of the most tender parent. And though He causes grief—He will have compassion. Your afflictions which at present are not joyous but grievous, shall, when you have been duly exercised by them—yield the peaceable fruits of righteousness. I trust the Lord gives you a measure of patience and submission to His holy will. If so, everything shall be well. And when He has fully tried you—you shall come forth as gold!

The thoughts of what we have deserved at His hands—and what Jesus suffered for our sakes—when applied by his Holy Spirit, have a sovereign efficacy to compose our minds, and enable us to say, “Not my will—but may Yours be done!” How unspeakably better is it to be chastened by the Lord now—than to be left to ourselves for a season, and at last condemned with the world.

The path of affliction is sanctified by the promise of God, and by the consideration of our Lord Jesus, who walked in it Himself, that we might not think it too much to tread in His steps. Yes, it has been a beaten path in all ages; for the innumerable multitudes of the redeemed who are now before the eternal throne, have entered the kingdom by no other way. Let us not then be weary and faint—but cheerfully consent to be the followers of those who, through faith and patience, are now inheriting the promises!

If, after much tribulation, we stand accepted before the Lord in His glory, we shall not then think much of the difficulties we met in our pathway to glory. Then sorrow and sighing shall cease forever—and songs of triumph and everlasting joy shall take their place! Oh, happy transporting moment, when the Lord God Himself shall wipe every tear from our eyes!

Until then, may the prospect of this glory which shall be revealed, cheer and comfort our hearts! Hitherto the Lord has helped us. He has delivered us in six troubles—and we may trust him in the seventh. Yes, if he was pleased to deliver us when we thought little of him, much more may we assure ourselves of his help—now that he has taught us to come to his throne of grace, and given us encouragement to come with boldness, that we may obtain mercy and find grace to help at the time of need.

The newspapers (which in this retired place are the chief sources of our news) give us but a dark view of what is passing abroad. A spirit of discord is spreading in the nation, and we have hints and items respecting ecclesiastical matters, which I hope are premature, and without sufficient ground. But, whatever storms may arise, we have an infallible and almighty Pilot, who will be a Sun and a Shield to those who love Him! I endeavor to answer all fears respecting political matters with the sure declarations of the Word of God. Such as Psalm 99:1, Psalm 29:10-11, Isaiah 8:12-14, Isaiah 51:12-13, John 3:35, etc. Jesus is King of kings, and Lord of lords! He is King of the church, and King in the nations; who does his pleasure in the armies of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth. Therefore by faith in him, we may adopt the triumphant language of Psalm 2:1-12, Psalm 27:1-14, Psalm 46:1-11, and 118, for the Lord is good, a stronghold in the day of trouble, and knows how to deliver them that trust in him.

Oh, sir, what a light does the gospel of Christ throw upon the world when our eyes are open to receive it! Without it, all would be uncertainty and perplexity; but the knowledge of his person, blood, and righteousness; of the love he bears us, the care he exercises over us, and the blessings he has prepared for us—this knowledge gives peace and stability to the soul, in the midst of all changes and confusions. And, were it not for the remaining power of unbelief in our hearts, which fights against our faith, and dampens the force of divine truth, we should begin our heaven even while we are upon earth. We have need to adopt the apostle’s prayer, and to say, “Lord, increase our faith!”

Believe me to be, with great respect, your most obedient and affectionate servant.

(Source: https://www.gracegems.org/Newton/116.htm)

Subscribe now

What do you think? Add your thoughts below.

Support my project

How great is the power of God over the hearts of men! Nineveh was the capital of a powerful empire. The inhabitants were Heathen. The many prophets who, during a long series of years, had spoken in the name of the Lord to his professed people of Judah and Israel, had spoken almost in vain. The messengers were often mocked, and their message despised. The inhabitants of Nineveh, it is probable, had never seen a true prophet until Jonah was sent to them. If they had reasoned on his prediction, they might have thought it very improbable, that a great city, the head of a great kingdom, and in a time of peace, could be in danger of an overthrow within forty days. But it is said, “they believed God.” (Jonah 3:5) The awful denunciation made a general, a universal impression. The king arose from his throne, laid aside his robes, covered himself with sackcloth, and sat in ashes. A sudden cessation of business and of pleasure took place; he proclaimed a strict fast, the rigor of which was extended even to the cattle. His subjects readily complied, and unanimously concurred in crying for mercy: though they had no encouragement but a ‘perhaps’, “Who can tell? God may turn and relent; He may turn from His burning anger so that we will not perish!”

It appears from this, and other passages of Scripture, that the most express declarations of God’s displeasure against sinners, still afford ground and room for repentance. Thus, in the prophecy of Ezekiel, “So when I tell the wicked person: You will surely die, but he repents of his sin and does what is just and right—he will certainly live; he will not die.” (Ezekiel 33:14-15) and again, in the prophecy of Jeremiah, “At one moment I might announce concerning a nation or a kingdom that I will uproot, tear down, and destroy it. However, if that nation I have made an announcement about, turns from its evil, I will not bring the disaster on it I had planned.” (Jer. 18:7-8)

The Lord God speaks to us by his Word, in plain and popular language. He condescends to our feeble apprehensions. God cannot repent, he is of one mind who can turn him? (Num. 23:19, Job 23:13) Yet, when afflictive providences lead men to a sense of their sins, to an acknowledgment of their demerits, and excite a spirit of humiliation, repentance, and prayer—he often mercifully changes his dispensations, and averts from them the impending evil. Such was the effect of Jonah’s message to the Ninevites. The people humbled themselves, and repented of their wickedness; and God suspended the execution of the sentence which he had pronounced against them.

My brethren, may we not fear, that the men of Nineveh will rise up in judgment against us, and condemn us, (Mat. 12:41) if we do not imitate their example, and humble ourselves before God? They repented at the preaching of Jonah, and immediately, on their first hearing him; and they sought for mercy upon a perhaps, when they could say no more, than, Who can tell, whether there may be the least room to hope for it, after what the prophet has so solemnly declared?

God does not speak to us by the audible voice of an inspired prophet; nor is it necessary. We know, or may know, from his written Word, that it shall be well with the righteous, and ill with the wicked (Isaiah 3:10-11) The appearance of an angel from heaven could add nothing to the certainty of the declarations he has already put into our hands. He has likewise raised up, and perpetuated a succession of his ministers, to enforce the warnings he has given us in the Scripture; to remind us of our sins, and the sure and dreadful consequences, if we persist in them. Nor are we left at an uncertainty as to the outcome, if we humbly confess them, and implore forgiveness, in the way which he has prescribed. The Gospel, the glorious Gospel of the blessed God, is preached unto us. Jesus Christ, as crucified, is set forth among us. (Galatians 3:1, 1 Jo. 1:7, Romans 8:1, Acts 13:39) His blood cleanses from all sin; and those who believe in him are freed from condemnation, and completely justified. They have also free access to a throne of grace, and, like Israel, they have power, by prayer, to prevail with God and with man. (Genesis 32:28) And shall it be said of any of us, that the Lord gave us space to repent, and invited us to repentance, and we repented not? (Revelation 2:21) May his mercy forbid it!

He now speaks to us by his providence. His judgments are abroad in the earth; and it behooves us to learn righteousness. (Isaiah 25:9-11) His hand is lifted up, and if any are so careless, or obstinate, that they will not see, yet, sooner or later, they must, they shall see. The great God has a controversy with the potsherds of the earth. The point to be decided between him and many abroad, and, I fear, too many at home, is, whether he is the Governor of the earth or not? His own people, to whom His name and glory are dear, will hold all inferior concernment in subordination to this. If there is no other alternative, misery and havoc must spread, men must perish by millions, yes, the frame of nature must be dissolved, rather than God be dishonored and defied with impunity. But he will surely plead and gain his own cause, and, either in a way of judgment or of mercy, all men shall know that he is the Lord. I believe there is no expression in the Old Testament so frequently repeated as this, “You,” or they, “shall know that I am the Lord! Has he said it, and shall he not make it good?”

The rivers of human blood, and all the calamities and horrors which overspread a great part of the Continent, the distant report of which is sufficient to make our ears tingle, are all to be ascribed to this cause. God is not acknowledged; yes, in some places, he has been formally disowned and renounced. Therefore, God sometimes leaves men left to themselves--their furious passions are unchained, and they are given up, without restraint, to the lusts of their own evil hearts! A more dreadful judgment than this, cannot be inflicted on this side of hell. “Ephraim is joined to idols; leave him alone!” Hosea 4:17

And, though we are still favored with peace at home, the dreadful storm is at no great distance; it seems to be moving our way, and we have reason to fear that it may burst upon us. But I would be thankful for the appointment of this day; for I should think the prospect dark indeed, if I did not rely on the Lord’s gracious attention to the united prayers of those who fear and trust him, and who know it is equally easy to him either to save or to destroy, by many or by few. (1 Samuel 14:6) Our fleets and armies may be well appointed and well commanded; but, without his blessing upon our councils and enterprises, they will be unable to defend us. He can take wisdom from the wise, and courage from the bold, in the moment when they are most needful. He can disable our forces by sickness or dissension; and, by his mighty wind, he can dash our ships to pieces against the rocks, against each other, or sink them like lead in the mighty waters! “Who is there who speaks and it happens—unless the Lord has ordained it?” Lamentations 3:37

Our Lord and Savior, when speaking of the eighteen upon whom the tower of Siloam fell and slew them, said to the Jews, “Those 18 that the tower in Siloam fell on and killed—do you think they were more sinful than all the people who live in Jerusalem? No, I tell you! But unless you repent, you will all perish as well!” Luke 13:4-5. May the application of these words sink deeply into our hearts! It will not befit us to say, either to God or man, that ‘we have indeed sinned—but there are greater sinners than ourselves.’ It is true, the French Convention, and many others who are infatuated by the same spirit, have exceeded the ordinary standard of human impiety and cruelty. But I hope there are multitudes in that nation, who, though they are overawed by their oppressors, and dare not speak their sentiments, yet are mourning in secrecy and silence, for the abominations which they cannot prevent. But the French have not sinned against such advantages as we possess. They were long the slaves of despotic power, and the dupes of superstition; and of late they have been the dupes of fools, assuming the name of philosophers.

We, on the contrary, were born and educated in a land distinguished from all the nations of the earth, by the eminent degree in which we enjoy civil and religious liberty, and the light of gospel truth. These privileges exceedingly aggravate our sins; and no just comparison, in this respect, can be formed between us and other nations, until we can find a people who have been equally favored, for an equal length of time, by the providence of God—and have likewise equaled us in disobedience and ingratitude!

The most dreadful enormities committed in France, are no more than specimens of what human depravity is capable of—when circumstances admit of its full exertion, and when the usual boundaries and restrictions necessary to the peace and welfare of civil society, are judicially removed. The influence of daring infidelity and profligate example, aided by the peculiar state of their public affairs, have broken, in many instances, the strongest ties of social and relative life, and extinguished the common feelings of humanity!

Yet the unhappy French, though our inveterate enemies, are not the proper objects of our hatred or our scorn—but rather of our pity. They know not what they do! Let us pray for them. Who can tell but God, to whom all things are possible, and whose mercies are higher than the heavens, may grant also them repentance! And let us pray for ourselves, that we may be instructed and warned by their history—for, by nature, we are no better than they!

I. But it is time to attend more immediately to our own concerns. The professed purpose of our meeting today, is to “humble ourselves before Almighty God, and to send up our prayers and supplications to the Divine Majesty, for obtaining pardon of our sins, and for averting those heavy judgments which our manifold sins have most justly deserved; and imploring His blessing and assistance on our military, and for restoring and perpetuating peace, safety, and prosperity to himself and to his kingdoms.” I hope these expressions accord with the language and desire of our hearts.

Oh! for a glance of what Isaiah saw, and has described! “In the year King Uzziah died, I saw the Lord! He was sitting on a lofty throne, and the train of His robe filled the Temple. Hovering around Him were mighty seraphim, each with six wings. With two wings they covered their faces, with two they covered their feet, and with the remaining two they flew. In a great chorus they sang, ‘Holy, holy, holy is the Lord Almighty! The whole earth is filled with His glory!’ The glorious singing shook the Temple to its foundations, and the entire sanctuary was filled with smoke! Then I said, ‘Woe is me, for I am ruined, because I am a man of unclean lips and live among a people of unclean lips, because my eyes have seen the King, the Lord Almighty!’” Isaiah 6:1-5

Oh! that we, by the power of that faith, could behold the glory of the Lord filling this house; that we could realize the presence and the attitude of His attendant angels! They cover their faces and their feet with their wings, as overpowered by the beams of His majesty; and conscious, if not of defilement like us, yet of unavoidable inability as creatures, to render Him the whole of that praise and homage which are justly due to Him!

Oh! that, by faith, we could enter into the spirit of their ascription--’Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord Almighty, the whole earth is filled with His glory!’ If we were all thus affected, as the prophet was, surely each one for himself would adopt the prophet’s language. Or, if a comfortable hope in the Gospel prevented us from crying out, “Woe is me, for I am ruined!” we should, at least, say, (the Hebrew word might be so rendered,) “I am silenced, I am struck dumb! I am overwhelmed with confusion and shame; for I am a man of unclean lips myself, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips, for my eyes have seen the King, the Lord Almighty!”

If we have a degree of this impression, we shall not perplex ourselves concerning the second causes, or immediate instruments of our calamities. The evil of sin, contrasted with the holiness and glory of God, will engross our thoughts! And we shall ascribe all the troubles we either feel or fear--to our own sins, and the sins of those among whom we dwell.

1. Let us first look to OURSELVES. “I am a man of unclean lips! I am a sinner!” This confession suits us all, and is readily made by all who know themselves. A person approaching London from the neighboring hills, usually sees it obscured by a cloud of smoke. This cloud of smoke is the aggregate of the smoke, to which every house furnishes its respective quota. This cloud of smoke is a fit emblem of the sin and the misery which abound in this great metropolis! The Lord said of the Amorites, at a certain period, “Their iniquity is not yet full.” (Genesis 15:16) I hope the measure of our iniquity is not yet full; but it is filling more every day, and we are all daily contributing to fill it.

True believers, though, by grace, delivered from the reigning power of sin, are still sinners. (Romans 6:14) In many things, we all sin in thought, word, and deed. We are now called upon to humble ourselves before God, for the sins of our ignorance, and for the more aggravated sins we have committed against light and experience; for those personal sins, the record of which is known only to God and our consciences; for the defects and defilements of our best services; for our great and manifold failures in the discharge of our relative duties, as parents, children, husbands, wives, masters, or servants, and as members of the community. Our dullness in the ways of God, our alertness in the pursuit of our own will and way; our indifference to what concerns his glory, as compared with the quickness of our concerns, when our own temporal interests are affected, are so many proofs of our ingratitude and depravity! The sins of the Lord’s own people are so many, and so heightened by the consideration of his known goodness, that, if he was to enter into judgment with them alone, they could offer no other plea than that which he has mercifully provided for them, “If you, O Lord, kept a record of sins, O Lord, who could stand? But with you there is forgiveness; therefore you are feared!” (Psalm 130:3-4)

2. It is easy to declaim against the wickedness of the times. But only they who are duly affected with the multitude and magnitude of their own sins can be competent judges of what the prophet meant or felt, when he said, “I live among a people of unclean lips.” We ought to be no less concerned (though in a different manner) for the sins of those among whom we dwell, than for our own. We shall be so, if, with the eyes of our mind—we behold the King, the Lord Almighty; because his glory, which should be the dearest object to our hearts, is dishonored by them.

I think this nation (England) might be considered as the Israel of the New Testament, both with respect of his goodness to us, and our perverse returns to him. He has been pleased to select us, as a special people, and to show among us such instances of his protection, his favor, his grace, and his patience—as cannot be paralleled in the annals of any other nation!

We have no certain account when the name of Jesus the Savior was first known in England; it was, probably, at an early period of the Christian era. But we do know, that after the long dark night of superstition and ignorance which covered Christendom for many ages—the dawn of returning gospel light was first seen among us! From the time of Wickliffe, the morning-star of the Reformation, the true Gospel has been known, preached, received, and perpetuated to this day. There have been times when those who loved this Gospel have suffered for it. They were preserved faithful, in defiance of stripes, fines, imprisonment, and death itself! But those times are past. We enjoy not only light—but liberty, and the rights of conscience and private judgment, in a degree until of late unknown!

We have likewise been long favored with national peace, though often other nations in wars have suffered great calamities. Our internal broils at different times have contributed to form and establish our present happy constitution. We breathe the air of civil liberty. Our insulated geographical situation, and naval force, by the blessing of God, have preserved us from foreign invasions; and, when such have been attempted, the winds and seas have often fought our battles! Our wide spreading and flourishing commerce, has raised us to a pitch of opulence which excites the admiration and envy of other nations. Great Britain appears as but a small spot upon a globe or map; but our interests and influence extend, in every direction, to the uttermost parts of the earth!

Will not the Lord’s words to Israel apply with equal propriety to us? “What more could I have done for My vineyard than I did? Why, when I expected a yield of good grapes—did it yield only worthless grapes?” (Isaiah 5:4)

How is the blessed Gospel improved among us? This would be a heavy day to me, if I did not believe and know, that there are some among our various denominations, who prize and adorn the Gospel. If these could be all assembled in one place, I hope they would be found to be a very considerable number; and, for their sakes, and, in answer to their prayers, I humbly trust that God’s mercy will still be afforded to us. But, compared with the multitudes who reject, despise, or dishonor the Gospel—I fear they are very few! Too many hate it with a bitter hatred, and exert all their influence to oppose and suppress it. The great doctrines of the Reformation are treated with contempt; and both those who preach, and those who espouse them, are considered as wild enthusiasts or hypocrites, knaves or fools. The Gospel of God is shunned as a pestilence, or complained of as a burden, almost wherever it is known!

“I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes” (Romans 1:16) The Gospel—recalls them from error, from wickedness, and from misery; guides their feet into the ways of peace, and teaches them to live soberly, righteously, and godly in the world. (Titus 2:12) But in the number of those who profess to receive it, there are too many who confirm and increase the prejudices of those who speak against what they know not. Alas! what extravagant opinions, what fierce dissensions, what loose conversation, what open offences, may be found among many who would be thought professors of that Gospel which only breathes the spirit of holiness, love, and peace!

What, then, must be the state of those who avowedly live without God in the world? I need not enlarge upon this painful subject, which forces itself upon the mind, if we only walk the streets, or look into the newspapers. It is not necessary to inform my hearers, that infidelity, licentiousness, perjury, profaneness, the neglect and contempt of God’s worship, abound. The laws of God, and the laws of the land, so far as their object is to enforce the observance of his commands, are openly and customarily violated in every rank of life. In a day when the Lord Almighty calls to weeping and mourning— thoughtless security, dissipation, and open sin, are the characteristics of our national spirit. (Isaiah 22:12-13) The loss of public spirit, and that impatience of subordination so generally observable, so widely diffused, which are the consequences of our sins against God, are, in themselves, moral causes sufficient to ruin the nation, unless his mercy interposes in our behalf!

I would be inexcusable, considering the share I have formerly had in that unholy business, if, upon this occasion, I should omit to mention the African slave-trade. I do not rank this among our national sins, because I hope, and believe, a very great majority of the nation earnestly long for its suppression. But, hitherto, petty and selfish interests prevail against the voice of justice, humanity, and truth. This enormity, however, is not sufficiently laid to heart. If you are justly shocked by what you hear of the cruelties practiced in France—you would, perhaps, be shocked much more, if you could fully conceive of the evils and miseries inseparable from this slave traffic, which I know, not from hearsay—but from my own experience and observation, are equal in atrocity, and, perhaps, superior in number, in the course of a single year, to any, or all the worst actions which have been known in France since the commencement of their revolution. There is a cry of blood against us; a cry accumulated by the addition of fresh victims, of thousands, of scores of thousands, I had almost said of hundreds of thousands, from year to year!

It is but a brief and faint outline I have attempted to give of the present state of this nation in the sight of Almighty God, and of the sins for which we are this day assembled to humble ourselves before him!

II. Have we not, therefore, cause to say, with the Ninevites, “Who can tell?” Is there not at least, ‘a perhaps?’ Is there at least a possibility—that we may yet obtain mercy?

If our sins are no less numerous, no less of a scarlet dye, than those of other nations; and exceedingly aggravated beyond theirs, by being committed against clearer light, and the distinguished advantages we have long enjoyed; if we have not only transgressed the laws of God in common with others—but daringly trampled upon the gracious offers of his forgiveness, which he has long continued to propose to us, with a frequency and energy almost peculiar to ourselves; if “All day long I have spread out My hands to a disobedient and defiant people,” (Romans 10:21) and, hitherto, almost in vain; if neither the tokens of his displeasure, nor the declarations of his love, have made a suitable impression upon our minds—who can tell if he will yet be entreated? May we not fear, lest he should say, “My Spirit shall strive with them no more!” “They are joined to their idols—let them alone!” “When you lift up your hands in prayer—I will refuse to look. Even though you offer countless prayers—I will not listen!” (Hos. 4:17, Isaiah 1:15)

Where are now the mighty empires, which were once thought as rooted and established as the everlasting mountains? They have disappeared like the mists upon the mountain tops. Nothing of them remains but their names. They perished, and their memorials have almost perished with them. (Psalm 9:6) The patience of God bore with them for a time—until the purposes for which he raised them up were answered. But, when the measure of their iniquity was full—they passed away, and were dispersed, like foam upon the waters! What security have we—against such a catastrophe? Or, what could we answer, if God should put that question to us, “Should I not punish them for this?” asks the Lord. “Should I not avenge Myself against a nation such as this?” (Jeremiah 5:9)

Where are now the churches which once flourished in Greece and in Asia? When the apostle Paul wrote to the Gentile churches, and when our Lord wrote his epistles to the seven churches in Asia (Revelation 1-3) most of them were in a prosperous state. If there ever was a time when the commendations given to them were applicable to professors of the Gospel in our land, I fear we can hardly claim them at present. Can it be justly said of us, that our faith and love are everywhere spoken of, and that we are examples to all who believe? That our works and service, and faith and patience, are known, and the last works, to be more than the first? (Romans 1:8, 1 Th. 1:7, Revelation 2:1, 18, 19)

Or rather, may it not be truly said of too many, that while they profess to believe in God—that in works they deny him? that they are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold? that they have a name to live, and are dead? that they have forgotten their first love? (Titus 1:16, Revelation 3:1-15, 2:4) When these defects and declensions began to prevail in the first churches, the Lord admonished and warned them; but, instead of watching and repenting, they gradually became more remiss! At length their glory departed, and their candlesticks were removed out of their places. Many regions, which once rejoiced in the light of the Gospel, have been long overspread with Mohammedan darkness, and the inhabitants are wretched, ignorant, slaves!

Let us not trust in outward privileges, nor rest in a form of godliness destitute of the power. It will be in vain to say, “The temple of the Lord, the temple of the Lord are we!” (Jer. 7:4) if the Lord of the temple should depart from us! When the Israelites were afraid of the Philistines, they carried the ark of the Lord with them to battle. But God disappointed their vain confidence. He delivered the ark of his glory into the hands of their enemies, (1 Samuel 4:5-11) to teach them, and to teach us, that formal hypocritical worshipers have no good ground to hope for his protection.

Alas! then, who can tell? Appearances are very dark at present. Besides what we may expect or fear from the rage and madness of our foreign enemies, we have much to be apprehensive of at home! A spirit of discord has gone forth. “Israel grew fat—and rebelled; the people grew heavy, plump, and stuffed! Then they abandoned the God who had made them; they made light of the Rock of their salvation!” (Deut. 32:15) Many Britons seem weary of liberty, peace, and order. Our happy constitution, our mild government, our many privileges, admired by other nations—are despised and depreciated among ourselves; and that not only by the thoughtless and licentious, by those who, having little to lose, may promise themselves a possibility of gain in a time of national disturbance and confusion; but they are abetted and instigated by people of sense, character, and even of religion! I would be quite at a loss to account for this, if I did not consider it as a token of the Lord’s displeasure. When he withdraws his blessing, no unity or peace can long exist.

“Because you did not serve the Lord your God with joy and a cheerful heart, even though you had an abundance of everything, you will serve your enemies the Lord will send against you, in famine, thirst, nakedness, and a lack of everything. He will place an iron yoke on your neck until He has destroyed you!” Deuteronomy 28:47-48. These words of Moses to rebellious Israel emphatically describe the former and the present state of many of the French nation, who have been plundered, and were glad if only they could escape (great numbers could not so escape) with the loss of their all, and at the peril of their lives, to a more peaceful shore. May their sufferings remind us of our deserts! Who can tell if the Lord may yet be merciful unto us, and exempt us from similar calamities!

III. But though we have much cause to mourn for our sins, and humbly to confess our deserved judgments, let us not despond. The Lord our God is a merciful God. “Who can tell? Perhaps even yet God will have pity on us and hold back his fierce anger from destroying us!”

If the fast of this day is not confined to one day—but if, by his blessing, it may produce sincere repentance—then I am warranted to tell you, from his Word, that there is yet hope! You who tremble for God’s ark, for the cause of God, whose eyes affect your hearts, who grieve for sin, and for the miseries which sin has multiplied upon the earth—take courage! Let the hearts of the wicked shake, like the leaves of the trees when agitated by a storm; (Isaiah 7:2) but you have no cause to tremble like them. The Lord God is your refuge and strength, your resting place, and your hiding place! Under the shadow of His wings—you shall be safe! (Psalm 46:1, Psalm 90:1, Psalm 119:114)

1. He who loved you and died for your sins—is the Lord of glory! All power in heaven and in earth is committed unto him. The Lord reigns—though the earth be ever so agitated. All creatures are instruments of his will. The wrath of man, so far as it is permitted to act, shall praise him; and shall be made subservient to the accomplishment of his great designs! And the remainder of that wrath, of all their projected violence, which does not coincide with his wise and comprehensive plan, he will restrain! (Mat. 28:18, Psalm 99:1, Psalm 76:10) In vain they rage, and fret, and threaten! They act under a secret commission, and can do no more than he permits them! If they attempt it—he has his hook and a bridle in their mouths! When the enemies would come in like a flood—he can lift up a standard against them. As he has set bounds and bars to the tempestuous sea, beyond which it cannot pass, saying, “This far you may come and no farther; here is where your proud waves halt!” So, with equal ease, he can “still the tumults of the nations!” (2 Kings 19:28, Isaiah 59:19, Job 38:10-11, Psalm 65:7)

You do well to mourn for the sins and miseries—of those who know him not. But if you make the Almighty God your fear and your dread—he will be a sanctuary to you, and keep your hearts in peace! “Therefore we will not be afraid, though the earth trembles and the mountains topple into the depths of the seas!” (Isaiah 8:13-14, Psalm 46:2)

2. Your part and mine is to WATCH and PRAY. Let us pray for ourselves, that we may he found waiting, with our loins girded up, and our lamps burning, that we may be prepared to meet his will in every event. (Mark 13:35, Mark 14:38) Let us pray for the peace of Jerusalem, for God’s church, which is dear to him, as the pupil of his eye, for the spread of his Gospel, and the extension of his kingdom—until his great name is known and adored from the rising to the setting of the sun, (Mal. 1:11) and the whole earth shall be filled with his glory!

Many splendid prophecies are yet unfulfilled; and he is now bringing forward their accomplishment. Light will undoubtedly arise out of this darkness. Let us earnestly pray for a blessing from on high, upon our counsels of government and parliament, and upon all subordinate authorities in church and state—that we may lead quiet and peaceable lives in all godliness and honesty, that true religion and good order may be established, and iniquity be put to shame and silence! Thus we may hope to be secured by the sure, though secret, mark of divine protection. The Lord will be our shield—though many should suffer or fall around us. The very hairs of our heads are numbered. Or if, for the manifestation of our faith, and the power of his grace—he should permit us to share in common calamities, we may rely upon him to afford us strength according to our day. He is always near to his people, a very present help in the time of trouble; and he can make the season of their greatest tribulations, to be the season of their sweetest consolations! (Ezekiel. 9:4, Mat. 9:30, Deu. 33:25, 2 Corinthians 1:5)

3. And let us pray in FAITH. Let us remember what great things the Lord has done in answer to prayer. When sin had given Sennacherib rapid success in his invasion of Judah, he did not know that he was no more than ‘God’s axe’, or a ‘saw in the hand of God’. He ascribed his victories to his own prowess, and thought himself equally sure of capturing Jerusalem. But Hezekiah defeated him—upon his knees. He spread Sennacherib’s blasphemous letter before the Lord in the temple and prayed—and the Assyrian army melted away like snow. (Isaiah 10:15, 37:14-36) When Peter was locked up and chained in prison—the chains fell from his hands, the locks and bolts gave way, and the iron gate opened—while the church was united in earnest prayer for his deliverance! (Acts 12:5-13)

And as we have heard—so have we seen. God has signally answered the prayers of his people, in our own time. Much prayer, both public and private, was offered for our beloved King during his late illness; and how wonderful, how sudden, how seasonable, was his recovery! Surely this was the finger of God! When God thus removed our fears, “we were like men who dreamed!” (Psalm 126:1)

I believe prayer was no less efficacious, towards the end of the year 1792. I know many people treated the idea of danger at that time as false, because the Lord was pleased to avert it. But I hope we have not quite forgotten the language we heard, and the people we daily met with in the street, the many daring conspiracies which were held in this city, and the threatenings which were written in large characters, upon the walls of our houses, at almost every corner. But the hearts of men were turned like the tide, in a critical moment. Then I think the interposition of the Lord was evident. We have had repeated proofs that God hears and answers prayer.

The present likewise is a very important crisis. All that is dear to us, as men, as Britons, as Christians, is threatened. Our enemies are inveterate and enraged! Our sins testify against us. But if we humble ourselves before God, forsake our sins, and unite in supplications for his mercy—who can tell, but that he may be entreated to give us that help which it would be in vain to expect from man? Yes, we have encouragement to hope, that if God will be for us—then none can prevail against us. (Romans 8:11) But without his blessing, our most powerful efforts, and best concerted undertakings, cannot succeed for a moment!

You who have access to the throne of grace, whose hearts are concerned for the glory of God, and who lament not only the temporal calamities attendant upon war—but the many thousands of souls who are yearly plunged by war into an eternal, unchangeable state--you, I trust, will show yourselves true friends to your country, by bearing your testimony, and exerting your influence against SIN—the procuring cause of all our sorrows; and by standing in the breach, and pleading with God for mercy, in behalf of yourselves, and of the nation. If ten people, thus disposed, had been found even in Sodom—it would have escaped destruction! (Genesis 18:32)

IV. There may be some people in this assembly, who are little concerned for their own sins, and are, of course, incapable of taking a proper part in the service of this day. Yet I am glad that you are here; I pity you, I warn you. If you should live to see a time of public distress—what will you do? To whom will you look, or where will you flee for help? All that is dear to you may be torn from you, or you from it!

Or if it pleases God to prolong our tranquility, you are liable to many heavy calamities in private life. And if you should be exempted from these, death is inevitable, and may be near! My heart wishes you the possession of those principles which would support you in all the changes of life, and make your dying pillow comfortable. Are you unwilling to be happy? Or can you be happy too soon? Many Christian people are now looking upon you—who once were as lost as you are now. And I doubt not—that they are praying that you may be as they now are. Try to pray for yourself! Our God is assuredly in the midst of us. His gracious ear is attentive to every supplicant. Seek him while he is to be found. Jesus died for sinners, and he has said, “those who come to me—I will never cast out.” (John 6:37) He is likewise the author of that faith, by which alone you can come rightly to him. If you ask him for saving faith—he will give it to you; if you seek it, in the means of his appointment, you shall assuredly find it. (Mat. 7:7)

If you refuse this, there remains no other sacrifice for your sin. (Hebrews 10:26-27) If you are not saved by faith in his blood—you are lost forever! “Oh! Pay homage to the Son, or He will be angry, and you will perish in your rebellion; for His anger may ignite at any moment! Blessed are all who take refuge in Him!” Psalm 2:12

(Source: https://www.gracegems.org/Newton/148.htm)

Subscribe now

What do you think? Leave your thoughts below.

I live in Charlotte, NC, which was once known as the most-churched city in the US. At one point, more people here went to church per capita than anywhere else. Even if that’s not true anymore, it still feels that way. Charlotte has dozens of multi-site megachurches. The biggest, Elevation, is well known, and several others are almost as large.

A few Sundays ago, I visited a megachurch. It isn’t one of the largest in town, but a couple thousand people were there. As I sat in the service, I started to wonder: If Charlotte has so many Christians, why is there still poverty? Why isn’t the murder rate zero? Why isn’t everyone happy, healthy, peaceful, and generous? Why are the drivers so bad? What’s missing?

How do churches get so big?

Part of the reason churches in Charlotte have grown is because of population shifts. More people are living in cities now than before. As people move from rural areas, their church habits change, and they might end up at a megachurch. Rural areas just can’t support the cost or infrastructure of a megachurch.

Big churches also grow because they can offer more. With more resources, they have engaging youth programs, fun children’s activities, and ministries for specific groups that smaller churches can’t provide. Growth speeds up as people leave smaller churches, maybe because they don’t have youth programs, and join a megachurch that serves both kids and parents.

These two reasons explain some of the growth of megachurches, but they mostly show how people move from smaller or rural churches to larger ones. There might be more going on, though.

A recent article in The Economist talked about the rise of megachurches. One reason for their growth is the Prosperity Gospel. This teaching holds that true believers will only succeed in life. This is a heresy. In its most extreme form, some even deny the death of Christ, saying God would never let Jesus fail. I’m glad he did, though, because that wasn’t the end of the story.

I get why this idea is appealing and why churches that teach the Prosperity Gospel might grow. But I also see how it can make people focus on themselves and be less likely to help others. In this view, if someone isn’t successful, it’s seen as their own fault.

It’s easy to blame churches that preach the Prosperity Gospel, but I don’t think that’s the whole story about why so many people go to church in Charlotte. Many big, growing churches here don’t teach that message. The one I visited didn’t. So there must be another reason.

The Economist article gives another reason for church growth: megachurches usually stay away from politics. In a world full of political arguments, it can feel good to find a place that avoids those topics and focuses on people “getting saved.”

Support My Work

Saved from what?

Before I go on, I want to be clear: you need to be saved, and so do I. Saved from what? From our sin. Because of our sin, we deserve not just death but eternal punishment. How can we be saved? We can’t do it ourselves. Only Jesus’ death and resurrection can save us. In his death, he paid the penalty we deserved, and his resurrection shows that God accepted his sacrifice. The Apostle Paul said it best:

The wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. (Romans 6:23, NIV)

This is an important message people need to hear. If this is why some megachurches are growing, that’s a good thing.

I grew up, was baptized, and confirmed in a mainline church. But I never heard that I was a sinner who needed salvation; I learned that somewhere else. The decline and closure of mainline churches doesn’t surprise me. It seems people finally realized just showing up wasn’t enough.

But there’s a problem if the message of salvation ends there.

If we’re only concerned with saving people, we might ignore their other problems.

I once worked as a waiter. That experience taught me that everyone should wait tables at least once to develop empathy for people who earn tips. Sometimes, customers were difficult. Sometimes groups meant less money, like during prom season when students didn’t tip. The worst group was the annual religious conference.

If you’ve ever waited tables, you know that Christians can be tough customers. Many don’t drink alcohol, which means smaller bills and lower tips. People who drink often eat more and stay longer, but that’s not true for some Christians, so tips end up lower.

The worst part was when some people left a tract instead of a tip. One even looked like a $100 bill but was fake, trying to tell you about the riches in Jesus.

In some ways, I get it. The wait staff needs to be saved! This could be their last day on earth, and your last chance to share the Good News with them. How could you pass that up?

But, brother: I gotta pay my rent!

When Christians focus only on saving people, they can miss real-world needs.

If we’re only concerned with saving people, we might tolerate corrupt systems.

A few months ago, I went to a regional meeting of church leaders as a representative of our church. We showed up, handled our business, had some lunch, and then went our separate ways.

Meanwhile, while we met, ICE and Border Patrol were searching our city for people with darker skin and taking them away. We still don’t know where or how many. As a result, some people, including members of our churches, were hiding and scared. Still, nobody mentioned what was happening in our city.

At lunch, I sat with Hispanic pastors. They welcomed me and shared their fears and those of their congregations. No one else joined us or asked how they were doing. Others just walked by, ignoring them.

The meeting still did what it was supposed to do: install pastors and talk about new churches, all focused on saving more people. But the disconnect from what was happening in the city was shocking.

While focusing on saving souls, our church had the luxury of ignoring our government’s overreaching actions.

Saved for what?

So, while we all need salvation, as these examples show, stopping there means ongoing suffering persists in the world.

The poor you will always have with you, but you will not always have me. (Matthew 26:11, NIV)

But the story doesn’t end there. We aren’t saved by what we do, but by faith. That faith should move us to act. James says it better than I can:

What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save them? Suppose a brother or a sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to them, “Go in peace; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about their physical needs, what good is it? In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead. (James 2:14-17, NIV)

This verse is important in Protestant church history. Martin Luther reminded the church that we’re saved by faith, not by what we do. I’m grateful for that reminder. In fact, Luther’s commentary on Galatians is the only theology book that ever made me cry from joy.

Unfortunately, Luther seemed to stop his theology there. He even questioned whether the Book of James should be in the New Testament, mostly because of these verses and his belief that they went against justification by faith.

It took another Reformation theologian, John Calvin, to bring these ideas together. Calvin learned about justification by faith from Luther and left France, hoping to study with him. Fortunately (providentially) for us, he got sidetracked and ended up in Geneva, where he became a pastor and a major leader.

Calvin agreed with Luther that we’re saved by faith, but he didn’t see James’ call to live out our faith as a contradiction. Instead, he saw it as a result of faith. Calvin said that good works show you have faith. This idea matters: if your faith leads to good works, it changes how you live, from your family to how you help run your city, state, or country.

Keep preaching the Gospel, and sometimes use words.

If megachurches are growing because they preach the Gospel—that we need to be saved from our sins and only Jesus can do that—that’s a good start. But let’s also let our faith lead us to action and start making changes in our world out of gratitude for that salvation.

Or, as an old preacher used to say, “don’t be so heavenly minded that you’re no earthly good.”

Share

The reason there were only two of us: our troop was just restarting, and Jeff and I were its first recruits. And we were miserable.

The Scoutmasters were desperate. How could they persuade two freezing, wet boys to return? Get something warm and tasty in their bellies. Anyone who’s camped knows food tastes better over a fire- maybe it’s the smoke, maybe something primal. With nothing else working, this was the Scoutmasters’ last resort. To save the troop, they needed to start a fire.

Every Boy Scout learns to start a fire at one point in their journey. To advance, you must light one using no more than two matches. You start with small, flammable materials- moss, pine needles, birch bark, or grass. Next, arrange tiny twigs in a teepee over your kindling. Be prepared with sticks and twigs sorted by size to add as your fire grows.

I’m sure our leaders were former Scouts who knew how to build fires, even with just two matches- they’d probably done it many times. But building a fire is hard- harder still after a weekend of rain, when all firewood and kindling are soaked.

Tonight called for something drastic. Their only chance was smoldering ash from a fire started between downpours. The Scoutmaster drew a red flask, unscrewed the black cap, and poured white gas on the coals.

A flame flickered.

This grabbed our attention. But as soon as the flame danced, it vanished.

The Scoutmaster poured more fuel onto the coals.

A blast of flames erupted from the ground.

Jeff and I exchanged a glance. “Wow!” But the rain beat down the flames.

It wasn’t working. Desperate, the Scoutmaster tried one last time, pouring a big stream of fuel on the coals.

Now THAT’s a FIRE! I immediately felt better- the flame was roaring.

Then the flame shot up the stream to the bottle. Our Scoutmaster waved it quickly, just as you might with a lit match, hoping to put the flame out. But it didn’t. Instead, the bottle sprayed flames through our campsite like a flamethrower!

After running to stomp out the flames, I was sold. If this is Scouting, I’m in!

Several years later, Jeff became the first Eagle Scout of our new troop. I followed a few years later.

And I’ve been a pyromaniac ever since.

But why is this still a problem today, nearly 250 years since the founding of a nation built on the principle that “All men are created equal?”

I’ve been thinking about this lately and have discovered several potential reasons for this enduring problem.

Subscribe now

Maybe it’s Christianity’s fault

Some people like to claim that the United States was founded as a Christian country. I first heard this a few decades ago, with the rise of the Moral Majority. More recently, I’ve heard this claim from the MAGA movement. Both quote the Founding Fathers in support of this claim.

Although that is a dubious claim historically (Jefferson isn’t the only Founding Father whose embrace of Christianity is questionable at best), it’s hard to deny the connection between the founding of the United States and the First Great Awakening.

The First Great Awakening was a movement within Christianity that encouraged personal commitment to Jesus. People like George Whitfield and John Wesley traveled throughout the 13 original colonies, inviting people to the Christian faith.

This individualistic view of Christianity led many to break from the institutional view of authority in the church (from the Church of England). This questioning of authority easily led to a questioning of the authority of the King of England. And out of this thinking came the American Revolution.

With so many people encountering (or re-encountering) Christianity, why didn’t this result in the freeing of enslaved people from Africa? Why didn’t this lead to white Christians understanding that their enslaved black neighbors were created in the image of God, as they were, and to confront their white supremacy? Why didn’t the First Great Awakening solve America’s original sin in the beginning?

If the United States was founded as a Christian nation, why didn’t slavery and racism end at that time? Was it something inherent in Christianity that perpetuated this sin?

Maybe it’s Calvin’s fault

Not long after the American Revolution, the Second Great Awakening swept the new country. This was very different than the first in that its focus was on the means to generate a revival.

Preachers in this revival believed they could create revivals by incorporating different elements into their meetings. Have you ever been to a church that had an “altar call?” That’s one of the means born out of the Second Great Awakening to encourage personal encounters with God. One of the biggest proponents of this new means of revivals was Charles Finney. He was famous for his ability to create revivals during the Second Great Awakening.

Eventually, Finney sought to become a Presbyterian pastor. If you’re not familiar with Presbyterianism, this meant he had to appear before a committee of other pastors for approval to become a pastor. One of the requirements for becoming a Presbyterian pastor was to consent to the Westminster Confession of Faith- a summary of what Presbyterians believe the Bible teaches.

The Westminster Confession of Faith is a summary of how people in the Reformed theological tradition believe the Bible teaches. His Reformed tradition originated with John Calvin. His theology was one of the prominent branches of Protestant theology shortly after the Reformation. Calvin’s theology did more than create the Protestant Work Ethic. This branch of theology eventually found its way into England. From there, it found a home in Scotland. Next, Scottish immigrants brought it to the United States as Presbyterians.

A distinctive of Reformed theology is a focus on the Doctrines of Predestination. This meant that anyone who was “saved” was previously predestined to salvation. This was in stark contrast to the theology of the Second Great Awakening, which focused on creating revivals through human effort- rather than God’s will.

So, when asked if he agreed with the beliefs in this document, Finney answered, “So far as I’ve read it.” That’s not a particularly strong commitment to these documents- or to the theology of John Calvin. Many similar revivalists more directly objected to this branch of theology. The most famous of these was Lyman Beecher.

Why did those rejecting the theological framework of John Calvin promote abolition? Is there something about Reformed Theology that perpetuated slavery, racism, and white supremacy? Is this Calvin’s fault?

Maybe it’s America’s fault

The slave trade was an international effort. Many (if not all) European nations believed in their own superiority and participated in this despicable trade. In fact, in an early draft of the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson justifies independence by blaming England for enslaving Africans.

Although many enslaved people came to the Americas thanks to British slave-traders, Americans have to come to terms with another fact of history: Britain abolished slavery 30 years before the United States.

The story of the abolition of British slavery cannot be told without telling the story of John Newton. Newton was a captain of a ship that transported enslaved Africans all over the British Empire. Eventually, he was confronted by his sin in an encounter with God and repented of his trade, becoming a pastor in the Church of England. No wonder the most famous song he ever wrote claimed God “saved a wretch, like me.”

Over many years of resisting the slave trade, he was nearing the end of his life when one of his closest friends, William Wilberforce, was able to convince the British government to abolish slavery in 1834.

Meanwhile, this nefarious institution continued in the United States for several more decades. Even after people were emancipated in the United States, racism and white supremacy continue to this day. Maybe there’s something inherently American that perpetuates these evils?

Maybe it’s the Bible’s fault

I think most people would agree that the Bible is the most influential document for English-speaking people- even if you don’t believe a word of it.

Near the middle of the 18th century, some scholars began questioning the Bible. This new line of scholarship began to investigate the Bible’s text and claims from a more objective perspective. Abandoning the “primitive” belief in a God intervening in the world (or even in God’s existence), they began to read the Bible through new, critical eyes.

This led some scholars to pivot away from the authority of the Scriptures. As these scholars taught future pastors, these ideas began to spread in churches, and the Bible lost its authority there as well.

Some tried to reconcile the Bible with universal truths, taught across all religions, such as the Golden Rule: to treat others as you would have others treat you. As churches moved in this new direction, they began to apply these principles to the incipient racism they encountered. Consequently, some joined the Civil Rights movement to fight against it in love. After all, God is love.

Meanwhile, other Christians began to defend the Bible- not only as an authority but also as inerrant (without error). Thus, the conservative/liberal debates of the 20th century were born, with Fundamentalists defending the Bible.

While defending the Bible, some Fundamentalists confused their cultural biases with the Bible. Consequently, some Fundamentalists started to protect their cultural biases, claiming support from their inerrant view of the Bible. This led some to defend white supremacy, segregation, and racism under the guise of protecting the Bible.

This was nothing new, of course. Over the centuries, Christians have used the Bible to defend and justify slavery, racism, hatred, segregation, and many sorts of evil. Maybe this is all the Bible’s fault?

Help support my effort

Maybe it’s my fault

Now, the reasons I outlined above are merely overviews. There’s a lot more to be said about each of them. If I had more time, I could build a much more complete case for each of these reasons as a cause of racism in the United States. If you identify with any of these categories, don’t let my brief overviews of these issues allow you to rationalize out any of them as a source of the problem.

Even if this case is incomplete, I have to admit something: maybe it’s my fault.

After all, I’m not only an American Christian but also an adherent of Reformed Theology who believes in the authority (and inerrancy) of the Bible.

So why do I continue to associate with these groups, who have caused so much pain? How can I continue to believe in Christianity? How can I still hold on to Reformed Theology? Why still believe the Bible? Why am I still glad to be an American?

For one, part of my beliefs (stemming from my particular flavor of Christianity) is that I can be my harshest critic. I can admit that all these descriptors have caused generational pain and evil. I can admit this because I believe that I am a sinner whose only hope is the death and resurrection of Jesus.

This faith does not allow me to use these things to justify myself or my traditions as correct. Instead, I’m not surprised that we’ve caused so much harm. That’s not an excuse. That’s just the truth.

So, as someone who still dares to describe himself in categories that have caused so much harm, I now want to make them better. The first step to finding a solution is to admit where the problem lies- with me and the people who have (or still do) believe with me. Only by confessing our sins can we even begin the equally complex process of seeking a solution.

No, I don’t have a simple solution for any of these problems. However, I want to start by admitting where I (and my people) have started it.

Share

Yes, Mister Rogers (a stage name, really) was an ordained Presbyterian minister.

Was this a side gig? Was this something he did before he started in television? Afterwards? No. His subjective calling was to minister to children over TV. He was attending seminary while working for his first children's television show (before the one we all know).

Now I don't remember Mister Rogers ever mentioning Jesus, let alone God, in any episode I watched as a kid. Do you?

So what was the foundation of his calling as a pastor? How did his theology empower his positive influence in the world? How can our theology empower us to have a similar impact?

The Childhood of an Expert in Childhood

Mister Rogers was not always a "mister." He was born in a small town in Pennsylvania, into an affluent family. Regular attendance at the local Presbyterian church was a normal part of his life.

On top of that, his parents were very generous in sharing with their neighbors in need- something Rogers noticed, and even participated in: sometimes bringing up the needs of his school classmates to his parents, who would then find a way to support that child's needs.

Despite a comfortable standard of living, Rogers encountered several struggles while growing up: from health problems to bullying, it's hard to say that he had a particularly happy childhood.

While in college, it seems that Rogers started to realize that, despite childhood challenges, he had incredible support from his family- and that not every child had that advantage. At this time, he started taking a strong interest in early childhood development as a field- perhaps to help others find what he was privileged to experience himself.

First Inklings of a Calling

Although Rogers' father had hoped he would join and manage the family's business, like St. Francis, he felt called into the ministry. At first, he was not sure what this might look like. Then, one day after college, he saw his first television show, and it dawned upon him- this would be his ministry.

Rogers pursued television as a career at its inception. For a while, he lived in New York City, supporting this fledgling medium. He quickly saw its power but was disappointed in the direction it was taking- especially towards Children. He knew that TV could do so much more for kids than slapstick humor and commercialism.

As I mentioned, while working at his first children's TV show, he also attended Pittsburgh Theological Seminary.

Support my work- buy me my next book

Seminary or Cemetery

The experience of seminary can be disappointing for many. What initially sounds like a time of spiritual excitement and depth can ultimately become a cemetery for many students' faith.

When Rogers was attending seminary, his school was in the throes of the liberal/conservative controversies. These fights wore upon Rogers.

Nevertheless, he found his place in seminary, under the tutelage of Dr. William Orr. Orr was considered the most exciting professor in the school and was also known for his Christlikeness. Theologically, however, Orr was not quite orthodox, placing him on the liberal side of the theological debates. Although many thought Rogers reflected Orr's humble nature, he also adopted his mentor's theological perspective.

Progressivism was something he would hold on to the rest of his life, and you can start to see it in his later television Neighborhood. During a time of Jim Crow and segregation, he invited an African American actor to sit with him and soak his feet together in a kiddie pool. Although in some public pools the two men might not be allowed to swim together, Mister Rogers showed that this should not be the case. Afterwards, Mister Rogers even took a towel and washed this man's feet (compare John 13).

While in seminary, Rogers confirmed his desire to minister to children. As a result, the school encouraged (and provided the means) for him to expand his education into early childhood by making formal connections with experts in this field.

Called? Says who?

After graduating from seminary, it was time for him to go before his Presbytery and seek ordination. If you're not familiar with Presbyterian rules for the ordination of pastors, let me give you a crash course.

The journey to becoming a minister starts with a personal calling- a sense that God is asking you to take upon his mission distinctly. Now, all Christians have callings to follow God and promote his kingdom, but the calling to become a minister is different.

Still, who is to say that just because you feel a calling into ministry, God has called you? Unlike Elwood Blues, you can't just wake up one day and say, "I'm on a mission for God." There needs to be objective confirmation of that calling- and that's where the Presbytery comes in: to confirm more objectively what you experience personally.

While Rogers felt the subjective call to minister to children over television, his Presbytery initially rejected his call.

Now, I've always said, "Pick your polity, pick your problems." By that I mean, each way of governing a church has its struggles. Do you have an episcopal polity? Then you have a Bishop, and they alone get to make decisions about you and your church. If you have a good Bishop, everything will be fine. If not, you're facing all sorts of troubles. Do you have a congregational polity? Then your particular church has all the power. If you have a healthy church, everything is good. If not, you're facing risks at every turn.

Now I'm a Presbyterian who believes this is the best of several options. However, I have to admit: our form of government comes with challenges, too. Did you know that a presbyterian form of government is the basis of the U.S. Congress? How would you like Congress ruling your church? If you're a Presbyterian, that's your struggle. It was Roger's struggle, too.

Eventually, thanks to politicking and pressure by his supporters in his Presbytery, Rogers was ordained as a Presbyterian minister.

The Gospel According to Mister Rogers

After ordination, Rev. Rogers pursued his ministry. It would be several years, however, until it came into fruition as the show we all know.

But how did Rodger's theology affect his ministry? We can see it in his Christology.

For one, Rogers believed strongly in the Humanity of Christ- including his development from boy to man. Although the canonical gospels say little about it, the glimmers we have (think: the boy Jesus interacting at the temple of Jerusalem) show Jesus was growing up. When he was an infant, he still depended upon his mother for nutrition and protection. There's even a suggestion that he learned a trade from his father (Joseph- just to be clear). Jesus grew up.

Another aspect of Roger's Christology was his understanding that Jesus expressed emotions. I'm sure you've heard the shortest verse of the Bible: "Jesus wept." This episode wasn't the only time Jesus expressed emotions. How could he not? Jesus was human. No wonder Mister Rogers spent so much time talking about feelings and emotions in the Neighborhood.

A focus on the Humanity of Christ is a familiar chorus to liberal theology. In an attempt to be objective, some liberal theologians try to get away from the "myth" of the Divinity of Christ, leaving only his Humanity. It seems that this was a significant part of Rev. Rodger's Christology, too, which is consistent with his mentor, Dr. Orr.

I’m basing these claims of Rogers’ theology based on The Good Neighbor by Maxwell King.

Is Liberal Theology Our Only Hope for Change?

I think we all agree, Rev. Rodgers' ministry was very effective. Over several decades, he has made a significant and positive impact on the lives of children everywhere through television.

Is Rev. Rogers yet another example of why theological liberals make such a positive impact in the world, while conservatives do not? Does this mean conservative theology is dead and obsolete?

I think, with a closer look at Rev. Rogers' theology, we might find this isn't the case. You don't need to be a theological liberal to make as significant an impact as Rodgers did.

Take, for instance, Rogers' theology of the development of Christ. Is that just another liberal focus on human Christology? No. The early church father, Origen, drew heavily upon this concept in his fight against the Gnostics. This idea was so essential that I'd suggest he took it too far, even suggesting that Jesus did things the Scriptures did not record. Why so radical? Because, to redeem us, Jesus had to be like us in every way (Hebrews 2:17; 4:15). If Jesus wasn't human, he couldn't redeem humans!

Sometimes the idea of Jesus progressing can make Evangelical Protestants uncomfortable. Origen might suggest that conservatives, like the Gnostics, focus more on the Divinity of Christ than his Humanity. However, as the history of the church teaches us, we need to embrace fully both the Humanity and Divinity of Christ.

What about Rogers' theology of the emotions of Jesus? Sometimes the idea of Jesus' emotions makes conservatives. Protestants (especially more emotionally reserved White protestants) are uncomfortable. Does this belittle the Divinity of Christ? Is this just another liberal reconstruction of Jesus? No. This perspective is a case where our culture might incorrectly influence our theology. This idea is not just Roger's: B.B. Warfield (and nobody could accuse the author of the phrase "Biblical inerrancy" of being a theological liberal) has a beautiful article about "The Emotional Life of Our Lord," where he goes into depth, showing the breadth of Jesus' emotions. Why is this so important? Because it shows the Humanity (without denying the Divinity) of Christ and allows him, with unsinful emotions, to redeem us even if we (sometimes) have sinful emotions.

Although liberal theologians might dismiss the Divinity of Christ, conservative and classically orthodox theologians should not overreact to this by denying the full Humanity of Christ. As the Council of Chalcedon reminds us: Christ has two natures, one divine and one human, united in one person without confusion, change, division, or separation.

In other words, Rev. Rodgers' calling and focus on early childhood development could have been developed from a theologically conservative framework as much as a liberal one. There's no theological reason a conservative would not be able to have such an impact. So why don't we hear of more conservatives making a positive impact, like he did? The reason is not theological, but that is a topic for a different article.

The good news is that now that the lines in this controversy have been so deeply drawn (with separation into completely different denominations for each side), we are seeing conservatives start to broaden their scope. For example, I know several theologically conservative professional counselors who are educated and licensed by the state. This experience isn't much different from Rogers' time in seminary, as it involved sending him to experts in the field of child development.

We can see some of this in the controversy over Rogers' ordination. It seems the conservatives rejected his ordination because it was so atypical for a Presbyterian minister. Was this because they were "unimaginative," as some of Rogers' supporters objected? No. This objection stemmed from the fact that it was not a call to be a pastor. Their rejection is not necessarily a rejection of the importance or validity of this ministry to children or its mode of ministry- it's a statement that ordination is not a necessity for that ministry to occur. Whether or not Rogers was ordained would not have changed his ministry to children over television.

God calls all Christians to apply their theology to the marketplace. For instance, I am a marketing consultant. I serve my clients as a theologically conservative, but that does not require ordination to serve them. The same is true for mechanics, computer programmers, or whatever your career might be. Conservative theology can (and should) make a significant and positive impact in the world. We should encourage our fellow Christians to participate in the world, and we can do this without embracing liberal theology.

Subscribe now

Share

"Yes, how can I help you?"

"This is Willie. I'm down at the Days Inn- that's between the Walmart and the Lowes."

I prepared myself to be hit up for cash.

"Are you the preacha?" he inquired again.

"Yes- what can I do for you?"

"Well, I'm looking for a preacha. I'm from Wilkes County, North Carolina. I'm stayin' in the sweet at the Days Inn. What are you doing at 12:38 tomorrow afternoon?"

The abrupt and specific request forced me to collect myself for a moment.

"I believe I am available. Is there some help you need?"

"Well, I'm down at the Days Inn and... are you the preacha?"

"Yes, sir," I reminded him, wondering if he was just having a hard time hearing me or if he was struggling with mental health.

"Well, preacha, I'm here from Wilkes County. Can you come down to the Days Inn tomorrow at 12:38 to marry me and Hannah? It's between the Walmart and the Lowes."

I had to take a moment. Was Willie asking me to perform a wedding at the Days Inn between Walmart and Lowes?

I didn't know if I could. I can read the Bible in Greek and Hebrew, explain the complexities of systematic theology, and recount tales of the saints of our past. Still, I don't recall the seminary class explaining whether or not I am allowed to perform a wedding—whether or not it's at the Days Inn between Walmart and Lowes.

As I imagined the possibilities, a terrible thought came to mind—who is Hannah? Is this some sort of child bride? I know I can't perform that wedding, so I clearly needed to get some more information.

"Well, sir, let me look into that for you. Can you give me some more information?"

We discussed the options, and I promised to call him back—at the Days Inn between Walmart and Lowes.

I first called my county seat. I asked if Mr. Willie had applied for a wedding license.

"He applied today. His license will be ready at 12:38 tomorrow."

Well, that's one question answered.

I had to ask, "What kind of verification have you done to confirm this is above the board? Is this a second (polygamous) marriage? Is the bride of legal age?" I think my imagination was getting a little worried.

"Everything is in order. He will come pick up his license tomorrow."

I thanked the clerk and called a fellow pastor.

He laughed at me.

"Be sure to ask for a good coon-dog as payment for your services. A good coon-dog is worth a lot of money!"

Setting aside the question of what on earth a "coon-dog" was, "But is this a service I can perform for them?"

"Yeah, sure. It's unusual but there aren't any rules against it."

Not long afterward, my wife casually called me to check in. As I regaled her with the tale of Willie of the Days Inn (between Walmart and Lowes), she clearly shared her perspective: under no circumstances was I to go to the Days Inn alone.

She was right, so I started to call the members of my session. Each laughed at me for getting into this and explained they could not assist.

I next thought about retired members of my congregation- and one, in particular, came to mind. I gave "Bull" a call.

"Should I come packin'?"

"Under no circumstances should this be any form of 'shotgun wedding.'" I clarified.

"Do I have to wear a suit?" We were a rural church, but our attire was casual. As I thought about it, I'd never seen him in long pants.

"I'll be wearing a suit, but you can come as you feel comfortable."

Bull agreed to come as my escort.

Subscribe now

On my way to the Days Inn between Walmart and Lowes the next day, I picked up Bull at his home. He wore a sportcoat, slacks, and loafers—but no socks. He might be an older gentleman, but he was big enough that his jacket couldn't completely contain him—something I hoped I would not need.

"The wife made me dress up," he clarified.

As we drove to the Days Inn (between Walmart and Lowes) for our 12:38 p.m. appointment, Bull caught me up to speed: Our county, York, SC, was previously known to be the fastest marriage destination on the East Coast. It was a wedding destination for people hurrying to tie the knot. Even a few celebrities have come through to get hitched. Willie must have associated York with "gettin' married," so it was the obvious location when the time came.

But why did Willie call me? Then it hit me: after applying for the marriage license, he had spent his afternoon working through the churches listed in the Yellow Pages. Every pastor in York County must have rejected him—until he came to the churches starting with "L." I answered and didn't have the heart to tell him, "No."

We passed Walmart and entered the Days Inn parking lot, which is right beside Lowes. We entered the fine facility and went to the front desk.

"I'm here to meet Willie," I started- realizing I didn't know his last name.

"Oh, welcome! We're glad you're here. We've been expecting you! He's in our suite. Right this way."

As the front desk attendant escorted us to Wllie's suite, I leaned over to remind Bull, "Under no circumstances are we going to enter the room."

The attendant knocked on the door. As it opened, she introduced us, "Willie, the preacher is here."

"Come on in, preacha," he invited. We were immediately swept into the room to meet Willie.

He sat on the end of the bed, greeting us with his warm, toothless grin. He was shirtless but wearing black slacks (thankfully). A half-eaten apple was in his hand.

"Preacha, let me introduce you to my bride, Hannah."

He motioned to his left, and across the room, we met Hannah- an elegant, older woman in a smart pantsuit. She nodded her thanks for our coming.

"And this is Bull," I reciprocated the introduction. He's come to assist me today."

He ignored Bull.

"Should we step out," I offered- remembering that we were not going to enter his room, "so you can get ready?"

"Naw. Thanks, preacha. Have a seat."

He pulled his apple up, presumably to take another bite, when he pulled out a knife with his other hand.

I saw Bull quickly reach into his jacket.

Willie took the knife and cut off the next slice of apple. Gripping the apple slice between his thumb and blade, he placed it into his mouth and chewed it with his back teeth. It must be hard to eat an apple without front teeth.

Bull, relieved, removed his empty hand from his jacket and asked Willie, "So you're from Wilkes County? Do you know Junior Johnson?"

I didn't know Mr. Johnson- or why Bull asked- but Willie did.

"Yeah- we spent some time together in jail."

I looked to Bull for my next move, but he didn't flinch. Relieved, I changed the subject.

"So how did you meet Willie, Miss Hannah?"

Willie explained: they had both lost their spouses recently. While Willie's wife was dying, Hannah, a family friend, had come to help. Months later, they fell in love. They wanted to make it official in God's eyes, so they came to York County and found a preacher.

Reassured by this touching tale (that no legal barriers prevented these two from matrimony), I inquired, "Where would you two like to hold the service? Here, in the room?"

"Naw. Let's go outside by the poo."

Willie closed his knife, put down his apple, dropped his trousers, and put on his best white shirt. When he was ready, he ordered, "Preacha, let's do this," and we adjourned to the pool.

It was a warm summer afternoon when Willie and Hannah married at the Days Inn, beside the pool, between the Walmart and the Lowes.

"Willie, do you acknowledge this Woman to be your wedded wife, and do you promise and covenant before God and these witnesses, to be her loving and faithful husband, in plenty and in want, in joy and in sorrow, in sickness and in health, as long as you both shall live?"

The frog in Willie's throat croaked as his eyes watered slightly, "I do."

"By the authority committed unto me as a Minister of the church of Christ, I declare that Willie and Hannah are now Husband and Wife, according to the ordinance of God, and the law of the State: in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen."

They kissed. We signed the marriage license. Willie threw a $100 bill at me.

"That's so Wilkes County," Bull explained.

And if you don't believe this story, here's a picture (Bull was the wedding photographer):

Support my work: buy me a book!

Two Different Worlds

There are plenty of people who criticize Evangelicals for our beliefs who don't share our core beliefs. As one person once accused me, "You're the people who hate women." No, I don't. This accuser was criticizing one aspect of the beliefs of some Evangelicals without understanding the broader context. The role of women is a debatable consequence of the beliefs of some Evangelicals- but not all. It's a family argument. Jumping in on a conclusion of that argument is missing the point entirely.

The problem with this conversation was that they came from a different worldview than the Evangelicals. These different perspectives on life have different consequences. By arguing about the consequences, you're not getting to the heart of the matter- you're starting from a completely different frame of reference.

Criticism shouldn't come from those who don't share my worldview any more than I, as a Christian, should criticize a Muslim for wearing a hijab or what "jihad" means. That's not my place. I'll let them figure that out. In the same way, I'd suggest that those who want to criticize Evangelical Christianity for the consequences of their beliefs let us figure it out.

So here I am- offering my criticism. I come as a fellow Evangelical- not an outsider.

What is an "Evangelical?"

But what makes someone an Evangelical Christian?

Of course, Jesus sums it up best:

"The Kingdom of God is near! Repent of your sins and believe the Good News!" (Mark 1:15b- NLT).

This is how Jesus' ministry begins in the Gospel of Mark: what seems like a contradiction between repenting and good news.

But it isn't a contradiction.

First, Jesus invites us to "repent." This tells us something about ourselves right away: we're sinners. We don't need a minor fix or merely to try and do better. We're wrong- and need to repent.

Not all Christians (let alone non-Christians) like the idea of sin. I get it: it's been used for centuries to manipulate people. If I can dictate right and wrong, I can control you and do what I want. Sometimes, people diminish the idea of sin because it's too strong or mean.

Others believe people engage in irregular behavior because of damage done to them individually (psychologically) or corporately (sociologically). They think that calling things sinful misses the real problem.

That's not what Jesus believes. He calls us to "repent." Sin is evil to him. It's a problem, and something has to be done about it.

What can be done about it? He invites us to "believe the good news."

What's this good news? That "the kingdom of God is near." He, our king, has come to finally rescue us from sin.

Jesus doesn't tell us to "try harder" or "do better." He doesn't blame our parents or our culture. He did something much better: he paid the penalty we deserved (by dying on the cross), and God accepted that sacrifice (by resurrecting Jesus from the dead).

This can be insulting to non-Christians. "Do you mean God just forgives you for your wrong? How convenient! That's not fair!" You're right- if it were just that simple. Christianity doesn't believe that God forgets our sins. That's unfair- where is justice? It teaches that someone was punished for our sins. In this way, justice is served by not just the death of anyone but God's own son.

To be honest, this can also be insulting to Christians. It's too good to be true, and it's tough for Christians in the United States to accept. Our society idealizes people who overcame their struggles and achieved victory through hard work. Jesus' good news stands in opposition to this idea: you were so bad you needed someone to come to rescue you, where you could not rescue yourself.

The fact that Jesus had to go to such extremes to save us tells us how evil sin is: it's so bad that the only solution was for Jesus to die for us. That's also what makes his message such good news- it's his gift to us, not because of anything we could do.

What's so good about repenting? When we repent, we admit that we are worse than we thought. When we see that truth, we can't help but also see how much Jesus has done for us. When we learn more about our sins, we see how much greater the good news is!

That's why I'm critical of other Evangelicals- unless you repent, you're missing out on the good news.

Support my research

Repent from Christian Nationalism

One of the most significant problems for Evangelicals these days is Christian Nationalism. You have prayed for "one nation, under God" for years, and believe God has answered your prayers. Perhaps you think he raised a "Cyrus" to deliver us, as God used a similar king to deliver his people in the past.

Fellow Evangelicals- if you call yourself a Christian Nationalist, I want you to repent! There is no other kingdom to which we are called but the one inaugurated by Jesus. Only Jesus can save us. Repent!

Only then will you see the depths of this sin and how much good news Jesus has for you. Once you experience this good news, I know it will express itself in love for others- even your enemies. After all, God saved us while we were his enemies (Romans 5:10).

Just Shut Up?

But am I suggesting you remain silent if you are not an Evangelical? The horrible fact is that the rise of Christian Nationalism in the United States is affecting you adversely. Am I telling you to "shut up?"

No.

Remember, you're coming from a completely different perspective or worldview. Don't get dragged down into the consequences of core beliefs. Instead, let me give you some advice from one of my favorite theologians (yes, he's a Christian, but bear with me): keep asking questions. Get to the core beliefs. Understand them and question those beliefs.

There are a couple of benefits to this approach. For one, it's very humanizing, and that can be disarming. Another advantage is that you might discover you agree about some fundamental issues (safety, security, dignity). You can find common ground to discuss what to do about them together.

In the meantime, please accept my apology to the Evangelicals who have hurt you. We have not loved you as Jesus has called us to. I have not done enough, as an Evangelical, to work against those who hurt you. That is my sin, for which I repent.

One Sunday, I had an assignment: travel to a church near Tupelo and lead the worship service. I was glad for the opportunity, so I jumped in my car early in the morning and made my way up the Natchez Trace to a small country church.

I arrived at a friendly congregation in an older but well-cared-for building. We sang hymns, read a creed, and I delivered a sermon.

After the service ended, a friendly, middle-aged woman shook my hand.

"Thank you for coming today," she greeted me, "You know, things have never been the same since the Klan came to town."

My heart skipped a beat because I couldn't tell if that was good or bad. All I knew was that I was a "Yankee" who needed to get home quickly.

You're Invited

A few years later, I was a pastor at another Mississippi church. We were hosting a regional meeting of sister churches when a few Elders from another church approached my Senior Pastor and me.

With a smile (which I later recalled was a little smirk), they gave each other the side-eye, shook the Senior Pastor's hand, and said, "These fine boys would make great additions to our little club."

"Thank you. Tell me more about your club," I started to inquire- until the Senior Pastor jabbed me in the side with his elbow.

"Ha, ha. Thanks," my Senior Pastor replied to the invitation.

I persisted in asking more about this exclusive club, only to be jabbed again (a little harder).

"What are you doing?" I questioned my Senior Pastor.

He replied with "shut up" eyes.

I had been invited to join the Klan.

A few years later, the sister church invited this "fine boy" to preach to them. Before I arrived, their pastor warned me, "Don't talk about racial stuff."

Historic Brattensville

A few years later, I escaped Mississippi, only to find myself in South Carolina. As a history buff, I heard about a local historical site, Brattonsville, so I visited it.

There wasn't much to it: old buildings, some slave quarters, and an old church. They even did a Civil War battle reenactment- even though no battles were fought there. Kinda cool, I guess.

Soon after, I had lunch with a local Real Estate expert. I mentioned that I had just visited the ghost town, and he added some context: "Do you know what's historic about 'Historic Brattonsville'?"

I hesitated, not knowing the answer.

He explained it to me.

"The Clansman" is a book based on a character who lived in Brattonsville, SC. This book became the basis for the popular 1915 movie "The Birth of a Nation."

This book and movie tell the story of the Reconstruction era in the Southern United States. It relates the abuses of Northern occupying forces and portrays formerly-enslaved men taking advantage of virginal white women. This prejudicial, revisionist history was very popular. Even Southern-born President Wilson showed it at the White House.

It directly led to not only the revival of the Sons and Daughters of the Confederacy (and their monuments throughout the South) but also the revival of the Klan- even far outside the boundaries of the Confederate South.

Support work like this

Why can't I escape the Klan?

I've heard it said: "Some of those at-work forces are the same that burn crosses."

As someone living in the South, the Klan is still part of life. It might be underground, but its ideas linger.

I recall one sultry Mississippi evening when I stood outside my church with a member. As we took in the sounds of crickets and the orange glow of a setting sun, he reminisced, "Things haven't been the same since the Democrats took over."

I'd lived in the South long enough to understand that he was not talking politics.

I had lived in the South long enough not to be shocked by his observation. Instead, I felt flattered: He trusted me enough to show me his true heart. I didn't agree- or approve- but I was still glad to be invited.

I'm afraid to add that I keep running into them because the Klan probably finds it convenient to hide amongst Evangelical Christians. After all, they share some of the same language: "traditional values," "a Christian nation," "the Bible says..." and more. The vocabulary is so similar I have to wonder: who influenced whom?

Even though I don't believe Jesus approves of the racism and white supremacy of the Klan, is this why I keep running into it (and its ideas)?

I recently volunteered to be a transcriber for the HBCE Psalms 1-50 Project. This is an effort to create a critical edition of the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament) based on the best textual evidence from various ancient manuscripts. They’ve done this for the New Testament for years (I think Erasmus was the first to do this), but not for the Old. This project aims to achieve this goal.

Why would I do this?

A while ago (20+ years), when I was in the Seminary, I loved reading the Scriptures in their original language. It not only made me feel closer to the text but also slowed me down to catch things I might otherwise overlook. And, if I’m honest, it stroked my pride to be able to do something most can’t.

I recently wanted to regain my skills, so I audited two semesters of Biblical Hebrew at my local seminary. This only made me want to do more. It even tempted me toward higher education (a PhD?)- until my professor reminded me that there are dozens of qualified candidates who are desperate for jobs already.

Back to reality, the professor then mentioned that this project was looking for volunteer transcribers. I thought this might be a way to help without needing more education. Besides, the basic skill I would need is to identify the characters of the text- I wouldn’t even need to understand what I am reading to transcribe it. In fact, it might make my transcription better if I can’t fully understand it because I might not make assumptions from the text.

I volunteered, hoping to continue to develop my Hebrew skills. However, I stupidly volunteered that I also knew Koine Greek. I did know Greek pretty well, at one point- even testing out of it in Seminary thanks to learning Attic Greek in college- but it’s been a while. Ironically, rather than put me on the Hebrew transcription team, I found myself transcribing Greek (the Septuagint).

Support my work

What I’ve learned about textual criticism

Many of the common scribal errors are very easy to make. While transcribing the manuscript I was assigned, I found myself making the following errors:

• Doubling words. On one line of text, I had convinced myself that the word appeared twice, so I added it twice to the transcription. After reviewing it again, however, it was clear that the word only appeared once. These two words were very similar (one character difference), and somehow I tricked my brain into thinking the word was repeated.

• Skipping lines. I’m working with the Psalms. Even if you read them in your native language, you will know that Hebrew Poetry likes repetition. This makes it easy to skip to the next line and skip things. I’ve done this several times.

• Confusing letters. Everyone has a unique handwriting, and my scribe is no different. Sometimes it’s hard to tell between two different letters.

• Assuming the correct transcription. Along with the previous error I’ve made, there’s always the temptation to assume what the scribe meant. I need to learn to resist this, or I might perpetuate an error that has been carried through for a long time.

Now, I’m doing this digitally. That means, if I catch my error, I can easily go back and update it. However, if I were a scribe in the 3rd century AD, it would not have been as easy to change the goat skin on which I had already written the transcription. Not only were there no erasers, but the page was cost-prohibitive to throw out and do over.

But doesn’t text criticism undermine the reliability of the Bible?

I have to admit that, for a while, I was scared of textual criticism. I experienced people using this as an argument against the reliability of the Scriptures. Namely, while attending university, the secular religious studies department had a class: Understanding the Bible. They spent the entire semester walking through form and text criticism as an argument against the Scriptures. Rumor had it that the TAs would, at the end of the semester, read and laugh over course reviews, accusing them of “destroying my faith.”

Now, however, I believe this is a valuable part of understanding the truth of the Bible. I do hold to a view of the Bible that it is, at least, infallible if not inerrant. That position is not consistent with the understanding that scribes sometimes make mistakes while transcribing it, and, over time, some of those mistakes can become accepted and canonized.

I don’t believe this is an inconsistency because of my view of apologetics. I am not an evidentialist but a presuppositionalist. In other words, “believing is seeing” rather than “seeing is believing.”

Because of that, my view of the infallibility/inerrancy is a function of my assumptions of who God is and what he’s capable of. It’s from those presuppositions that I trust the Bible.

Some might say that is a circular argument: a tautology. To that, yes- sort of. Along with this, I’d point out that many conclusions from textual criticism tell us more about the person drawing the conclusion than the “facts” of the circumstance. If they, then, use text criticism to “disprove” the Bible, they are also arguing from a tautology.

So the question becomes, which tautology is correct? Who believes in the Scriptures’ authority and infallibility, and who uses text criticism to question it? That’s the right question! In short, I’d say that the person who uses text criticism to not believe first has to assume the God of the Bible’s existence in order not to believe.

And with that tease of an incomplete argument, I’ll leave you to ponder your assumptions and how they lead you to conclusions as well.

Subscribe now

I went to my local bible college’s library to see what they had on the topic. I, honestly, didn’t want to try and tackle the work that started the whole debate- Sanders’ Paul and Palestinian Judaism- so I resorted to a smaller (and more recent) book by Sanders simply titled, Paul. There are two justifications for this choice: it is better to read Sanders summarizing his own work than someone else and being a more recent publication, I figured it would have given him more time to clarify his own ideas.

In this work Sanders argues that Paul, being a Pharisee trained under Gamaliel, there were two important concepts influencing his thought: monotheism and providence. As a monotheist, Paul only believes in one power that rules the universe. Despite this belief, Paul describes sin as a nearly divine power in the universe- which Sanders sees as a contradiction with his view of monotheism. Therefore, Paul must have gotten this view of sin from Zoroastrian dualism rather than his Jewish education.

This contradiction in Paul forms the basis for Sanders’ criticism of forensic righteousness. Sanders denies this doctrine because of the limitations of the English language. He says that since there is no verb for to be righteous in English, translators had to resort to another word group to translate the Greek: to justify. When someone translates Paul talking about justification, they have to use two different root words, which differ in the nuance of their meaning. According to Sanders “justification” carries a more forensic connotation that “righteousness” which contains shades of inclusion and belonging. So, when Paul says we have been “justified by faith” what he is really meaning is that we have been “righteoused” [sic] by faith, and therefore included in God’s people. Thus, Luther’s doctrine of an alien righteousness given to us by faith in Jesus Christ is thrown away and replaced by inclusion into God’s people.

To be fair, Sanders admits that the judicial aspect to righteousness is not entirely absent from Paul’s writings. The states this clearly throughout this book. His point is that this isn’t Paul’s primary point. Paul is more concerned with the Gentiles being included into God’s people with the Jews- judicial righteousness is an afterthought.

Isn’t this a false distinction? By Sanders’ conception of Paul’s problem, the Jews do not want to accept Gentiles because the Gentiles do not obey the Law. Paul argues that no one- Jew or Gentile is part of God’s people because they obey the Law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. This doesn’t answer the question that the Jews were really asking, however. They are asking what makes the Gentiles worthy to be part of God’s people? Another way of asking this same question is: what makes them acceptable to God? Why is this an issue? Because God is holy and perfect and we are not- if we learned anything from the Old Testament, this is it. By Sanders’ redefinition of righteousness, he has taken God’s holiness and our sin out of the picture.

Sanders says Luther’s doctrine of forensic righteousness is a result of his own neuroses and guilt. If I were to resort to ad hominin attacks, I could say the opposite about Sanders: his resistance to sin lead him to deny forensic righteousness. I will be the first to admit that the doctrine of forensic righteousness is the most offensive thing in the Christian religion. It states that we are such sinners that there is nothing we can do to make up for it. Our only hope is to accept the humiliating gift of righteousness that we did not earn. This is the only way God can find us acceptable and love us. Who wants to be a beggar whose only hope is the condensation of someone else? If I could get away from these statements about who I am, I would do just like Sanders.

The post Paul, E. P. Sanders appeared first on Zimorama.

This is not to say anything is wrong with reading the local paper. In a “real” newspaper, you might read to become better informed about the world around you and the issues currently debated in our culture. Not only will you understand the problems of the day more clearly by reading the conventional newspaper, but you will also be able to make better decisions in light of the issues discussed. There is a real benefit in reading the local paper.

I get no such benefit from reading the local alternative newspaper. This is because I first turn to the weird news stories. This is a collection of crazy incidents that have happened all over the world. They usually involve people doing stupid things that explain why our founding fathers gave us an Electoral College. The only benefit I get from reading these stories is a laugh and a sense of superiority. Yes, I read them because they justify me.

One day, I read this story about a man from Indiana who was sentenced to prison for robbing a bank. In his defense, he said that he robbed the bank because of federal corrections officials. You see, when he had been sent to prison in 1982, if the correction officials had sent him to a prison near his mother in Florida, he would have been able to turn his life around and wouldn’t have robbed the bank. The charges for this man didn’t end with a bank robbery. He was also charged with shooting at police officers as he fled the scene of the crime. For this, his defense was that they were shooting at him.

Do you now see why I like these stories (and they feed my self-righteousness)? I don’t tell you about this man to show you yet another way I build my righteousness apart from Christ. My point is our incredible capacity to rationalize.

This man came up with what is perhaps the lousiest excuse for robbing a bank and shooting at people I have ever heard of. However, there is a real logic behind his explanation. Possibly his lawyer put things more eloquently: the malevolent conditions of his incarceration led to his inevitable recidivism. They denied him the positive maternal influence that would have enabled him to rehabilitate. Either way, the bank robber (and I think it is safe not to say “alleged”) believes the crimes weren’t his fault. He had a perfect explanation in his mind.

Isn’t this just like us? We always have a good excuse for our sin, but we never see it as an excuse. Everyone around us might be able to see what we have done wrong, but we, just like the bank robber, have an excellent explanation. Our righteousness is so crucial to defend that we create elaborate, sophisticated, and logical explanations so we don’t have to admit being wrong. This is how we can live our lives on our terms and not have to rely on Christ’s righteousness.

Introductory Articles

Here are some suggested articles if you are getting started with Christ and Culture.

Why read Niebuhr?

The first place you might start is why we would still be reading Niebuhr today. In an article written for the fiftieth anniversary of Niebuhr’s Book, Marsden explains why he thinks the book is still valuable despite the criticisms against it.

One of Marsden's suggestions is that instead of saying “Christ and Culture,” we should say “Christian and Culture.” This is because there isn’t a Kantian dichotomy between Christ and culture; our culture sometimes affects our view of Christ. This cultural view of Christ becomes our form of Christianity, which we are studying in the first place.

In discussing why the categories aren’t always accurate, Marsden explains why Niebuhr was so resistant to committing to any one perspective.

One might ask then, why bother? If we all express at one time or another all of the attitudes and our attitudes are so complex, do not the categories simply leave us with a muddle? Perhaps so. But the very point is that we will be even more in a muddle without some such categories with which to talk about these complexities. The reason for the muddle is that history—like individual life—is extraordinarily complex and filled with complications and ambiguities. Such analytical categories help us to begin to sort out these complexities. They provide a workable way to think about our attitudes toward these questions amid to help evaluate what our attitudes should be. Furthermore, even though we can now see that everyone is likely to adopt all five of the attitudes. still, with respect to particular cultural questions, we can usually identify one attitude as dominant. So we really do have a clarifying set of classifications. Moreover, these classifications, or some combination of them, might be helpful in establishing rules of thumb for thinking about how we should characteristically relate to some particular types of cultural activities.

I am especially thankful for Marsden’s comments on why Niebuhr’s categories are still useful even after undergoing all the criticism and corrections. He concludes his lecture,

I should say in closing that they are introductory tools. They are useful primarily for getting people to begin thinking more clearly about these issues. Once that has happened they may want to modify the tools to suit their purposes and will likely want to keep them out of sight in their finished work. Like any typology they invite simplistic thought and too easy categorizing of other Christians. Nonetheless, if used properly, they can continue to be a rich resource for helping Christians think about their relationships to the world.

Hopkins agrees that this is an important work for us to read today.

Rather than simply “going with the flow” it is important for Christians to think critically about the culture in which we live and reflect deeply about how to engage the world in a way that honors God and furthers His ends. By doing so we will be better prepared to live out our God-given purpose for existence and find true fulfillment. This book is a great starting point for such reflection.

(Source lost; I don’t even remember who Hopkins is)

Support my book addiction

Definitions

Second, we need to define some of the key concepts used in this blog. One of the limitations in Niebuhr’s book is his ambiguous definition of “culture.” Culture is one of those terms we all know but struggle to define. Perhaps a clearer example, for our purposes, can be made through some examples of what we all agree culture is:

Art

• Music: Do Christian artists have to mention Jesus (such as Third Day), or can they be Christian without specifically mentioning God (U2)?

• Literature: Does a story have to directly reference God (C. S. Lewis) or can it be more implicit (J. R. R. Tolkien)?

Politics

• Should Christians unite to promote their cultural values in a country (The Christian Coalition) or should they stay out of politics?

• Should a church attempt to influence its members to promote its moral opinions (Roman Catholic politicians must be pro-life) or should they allow them to vote according to their own conscience?

Morality

• Should Christians impose a Judeo-Christian concept of marriage on non-Christians, or can they permit homosexual unions?

On the other hand, we can try to let the Bible define culture. My favorite living theologian, John Frame, might have a more helpful definition.

What does Niebuhr mean by “Christ” in culture? One of the chief arguments against his book is his use of Christ. I think, however, that Christ is fundamental to the entire discussion. Since we are discussing how Christians view Christ and conclude how they should address culture, we must also define what we mean by “Christian” for this discussion.

We must also define the different paradigms that Niebuhr develops to describe how different Christians address culture. The New Dictionary of Theology‘s entry on “Niebuhr, H. Richard” defines his five categories as follows:

• Christ Against Culture (Opposition) rejects the world as evil. Believers must retreat to the elect community, shunning politics, art, the military, and worldly entertainment. Revelation is preferred to ‘the whole Reason.’ Christ has given the law of the kingdom in the Sermon on the Mount, and his disciples must live as sojourners in a foreign land.

• Christ and Culture in Paradox (Polarity) proposes the world as a radically corrupt, yet not abandoned by God, who has set up social structures to stem the tide of chaos. We live in this world of necessary evils as sinners justified by grace, resulting in a predominantly private, personal Christian morality

• Christ Transforming Culture (Conversionist) sees the world as fallen, but capable of sanctification both socially and personally.

• Christ Above Culture (Synthesist) Cultural institutions are grounded in ‘natural law,’ which is limited in scope. Christ’s supernatural law is revealed to enable us to reach salvation. Nature is supplemented and fulfilled by grace, both coming from Christ.

• Christ of Culture (Agreement) makes Christ the figurehead of one’s culture, embodying the culture’s values yet providing a basis for the culture’s critique. Revelation is accommodated to reason, the line between God and the world is blurred, and Christ’s salvation is mere ‘moral influence.’

Alister McGrath defines Niebuhr’s paradigms as follows:

1. “Christ Against Culture.” This view encourages opposition, total separation, and hostility toward culture. On this view, the values of the Kingdom of God stand in contrast to those of the world. Anabaptists stressed the need to form alternative Christian communities, often in rural areas. They refused to have anything to do with secular power or authority, rejecting the use of force.

2. “Christ Of Culture.” This approach is more or less the opposite of the previous view, in that it attempts to bring culture and Christianity together, regardless of their differences. A world-affirming approach can be found in nineteenth-century German liberal protestantism, which tended to amalgamate German culture with Christian ideals. Liberal Protestantism was inspired by the vision of a humanity ascending upwards into new realms of progress and prosperity. The doctrine of evolution gave new vitality to this belief.

3. “Christ Above Culture.” This position attempts to correlate the fundamental questions of the culture with the answer of Christian revelation. The famous maxim of Thomas Aquinas can be seen as underlying this approach: “Grace does not abolish nature, but perfects it.”

4. “Christ and Culture in Paradox.” This model rests on what could be described as a “dualist” approach, which holds that the Christian belongs to “two realms (the spiritual and the temporal),” and must therefore live in the tension of fulfilling responsibilities to both. Niebuhr saw Martin Luther as an excellent representative of this understanding of the relation of Christianity and culture. According to this model, the Christian community must expect to live in a degree of tension with the world. Luther set out this tension in terms of his doctrine of the “two kingdoms” – the “kingdom of the world” and the “kingdom of God.” These two very different realms of authority coexist and overlap, resulting in Christians experiencing the tension of living in one kingdom while trying to obey the authority of another.

5. “Christ Transforming Culture.” This model includes “conversionists” who attempt to convert the values and goals of secular culture into the service of the kingdom of God. Augustine, John Calvin, John Wesley, and Jonathon Edwards take similar positions.

One of the most important things to remember when considering the different perspectives is that we are not seeking to stereotype any one person into any one category. The fact is, as Guenther points out, no one person consistently lives in any one perspective. A better way of thinking of this is that as each circumstance comes along in a Christian’s life, they might approach culture in a different way.

After you define some of these perspectives, some lines between particular perspectives become a little blurry. This is especially true about the difference between Synthesis and Agreement (part 2) and Synthesis and Conversionist- the latter of which explains the biggest confusion: when Christ Transforming Culture becomes Christ of Culture. I hope these articles can help make a more apparent distinction between each.

Which perspective is right?

This is difficult to answer, in one way, because Niebuhr refused to commit to any one perspective. I think that Gathje is correct; however, Niebuhr’s order of explaining the perspectives means that he thinks Christ Transforming Culture is the best way of answering the dilemma. For a good, long read, you might check out my series of three articles following Niebuhr’s arguments on why there is no correct answer, even though he really argues that there is a better answer.

When discussing which perspective is the “right” one, Niebuhr and I diverge sharply. I believe the Scriptures can guide us in answering this question, while Niebuhr would not. If you want a more in-depth discussion, you might be interested in asking how the Old Testament sheds light on this question.

Personally, I think that the Christ Transforming Culture perspective is the most Biblical way for a Christian to address culture. But I’d still encourage you to wrestle with these categories and see where you fit.

The obvious explanation is that there are few other public venues where pastors can meet someone other than a restaurant, and most pastors are fat enough, so if they can meet without eating, all the better. The other reason for this is more of an inside story. After years of drinking terrible, motor-oil coffee before church services or at every church social, pastors can finally fill their caffeine fix with something that tastes much better than what they are used to.

You can tell you are serving a pastor by the look in their eye- probably the same look a hungry tiger gives to the child innocently playing in the jungle. Not only do they order the more boring drinks- being afraid of ordering the “wrong” thing- but they take a while with their order as they awkwardly attempt to start a conversation. Besides all of this, they don’t tip either- but that’s true of most Christians.

Sometimes, when a pastor is a regular, they start to feel more comfortable and will attempt to prolong the already uncomfortable conversation while you try to serve other customers. If the pastor feels particularly guilty for not evangelizing throughout the rest of the week, they will more directly attempt to spiritualize the conversation. Nothing is harder than attempting to be polite to your customer when someone else is trying to tell you what you are doing wrong and what you should be doing instead.

I know all of this because I used to do this when I was a pastor.

Our coffee shop is no different. One pastor in particular embodies all of these attributes simultaneously. As if it weren’t hard enough to work while someone is lecturing you, try doing it when they demand a perfect drink—it has to be just the right temperature and sweetness.

Being a comfortable regular, this pastor openly interjects spiritual content into his conversation. One day, he quizzed the barista staff on their Bible knowledge: “What is John 3.16?” and the like. He also likes to randomly pepper his conversation with a “hallelujah” or “praise God.”

I tried to stay out of it. Not only did I not want to be associated with this fiasco, but I believe that evangelism is an opportunity you earn by loving someone. However, I couldn’t escape it because the pastor turned to me and said, “You should be teaching these people scripture every morning!”

Now, before you do like me and curse this person to justify yourself at their expense, I want you to remember that he is attempting to evangelize the barista staff. I think we should give others, especially brothers in Christ, the benefit of the doubt. In this case, this would mean that we have to assume his motives are pure and, as Paul says, at least the Gospel is being preached.

But what Gospel is being preached? Hearing this pastor attempt to evangelize the staff made me question how I have attempted to evangelize others. Was I trying to convince someone of the existence of God or just trying to prove myself, right? Had I wanted someone to see the truth or show them I knew more? So much of our evangelism is just an attempt to justify ourselves.

That was the case in this pastor's example. What was he showing the coffee shop staff by pointing out they didn’t know much about the Bible? He wasn’t giving them a heart for God or an interest in the Scriptures—he was only showing them they didn’t know as much as he did. This didn’t justify him enough because he had to turn to me and blame their lack of biblical knowledge on my negligence. Like all forms of self-justification, this one didn’t satisfy.

My point here is not that we can all share in how terrible of an evangelist this one pastor was. I use this as an example to consider how we all do evangelism. When we attempt to share the Gospel, are we trying to prove ourselves right?

Some of this comes from a slavery mentality that many Christians suffer from already. They are burdened down by unattainable expectations, including the duty to evangelize their neighbors, so much that this can’t help but infect the way they share the Gospel. It’s almost a, “I’ve got to be miserable, so you have to too.” Other times, especially when they see someone sinning, evangelism becomes, “I can’t have any fun doing that so that I won’t let you either.”

Let’s not forget what “Gospel” means. “Gospel” is one of those Christianized words that has, in turn, lost all its meaning. “Gospel” is an old English word that has combined two separate words: “good” and “spell.” These words mean “good story” or “good news.” This is the exact meaning of the Greek word that the Gospel translates.

And it is good news! There is no better news, is there? Well, if the Gospel has become a series of things to do and not to do—God’s attempt to spoil all our fun—but if we return to the Scriptures and learn that we can’t obey the law at all, so God has sent Jesus to die for our forgiveness and be raised for our justification, we can remember why Jesus called it “good news.”

Only when we embrace the Gospel as good news will we be freed from trying to use evangelism to prove ourselves better than someone else and begin to love them. With the Gospel, we have nothing to prove or lose. We don’t have to make people think we know more than they do, so that they will become Christians. We can admit that we struggle with that same sin and have difficulty escaping it. We can stop trying to prove the other person wrong and start to love them. Then we will see some real evangelism begin and some hearts change simultaneously.

You can read all Frame’s lectures on Christ and Culture in this PDF.

Frame argues against Christ Against Culture because, even though the Bible often says that Christians should be separate and distinct from the world, the “culture” encompasses more than what the Bible means by “world.” This is a disagreement with Niebuhr himself who says that his term for culture is identical to how the New Testament uses “world.” Nevertheless Frame concludes that we should not be Christ Against Culture.

Likewise Frame argues against Christ of Culture. While Frame acknowledges that Jesus does affirm what is right and good in culture he says that we can’t limit him to culture- like some proponents of this perspective tend to do. Besides this, as I said in a previous post about Frame’s lectures, he can’t accept their low view of sin. Eventhough he doesn’t like this perspective Frame wisely comments that we all are tempted by this and do it (even if we don’t notice it).

In my last post about Frame’s lectures I noticed that by his definition of culture there are only two perspectives he could possibly agree with: Christ Above Culture and Christ Transforming Culture. When he comes to discuss the first of these two possibilities, he dismisses it. His problem with this perspective is when we relegate God to only certain forms of culture and remove him from others by saying non-Christian culture can only get us so far, but we need Christ for the rest. Since Frame believes God is inextricably part of all creation- including the cultures we have created- he cannot hold this position.

While Frame’s definition of culture precludes him holding to a Christ and Culture in Paradox he admits that he empathizes with this perspective. At the end of the day Frame opts out of this view because of the duality in both God’s sovereignty and standards. Frame believes that God’s sovereignty and standards extend to the entire world, and does not like to relegate them to only Christians.

This leaves only one of Niebuhr’s perspectives open to Frame- not only by default by criticizing the rest but because of his definition of culture. Despite this he doesn’t feel like he has to resort to be described by Christ Transforming Culture but embraces it because he believes it is the most Biblical of all Niebuhr’s positions.

The post Frame, Christianity and Culture: Christ and Culture appeared first on Zimorama.

…one is stopped at one point or another from making the attempt to give a final answer, not only by the evident paucity of one’s historical knowledge, as compared with other historical man, and the evident weakness of one’s ability in conceptional construction, in compared with other thinkers, but by the conviction, the knowledge, that the giving of such an answer by any finite mind, to which any measure of limited and little faith has been granted, would be an act of usurpation of the Lordship of Christ which at the same time would involve doing violence to the liberty of the Christian men and to the unconcluded history of the church in culture.

Is this just a complicated way of being safe, and not making an incorrect? Does Niebuhr’s education make things so complicated that he resorts to “relativism”? Can the Bible, which Niebuhr’s liberal theology rejects, give us a clear answer to this dilemma?

I am not so sure. While I do believe that the inspired, inerrant, and authoritative Scriptures can give us a guide for our lives- even as we attempt to engage our culture as Christians- I think the world is very complicated.

Four Reasons There’s No True Answer

Niebuhr gives us four reasons why it is difficult to be conclusive on how Christians should engage culture:

They depend on the partial, incomplete, fragmentary knowledge of the individual; they are relative to the measure of his faith and his unbelief; they are related to the historical position he occupies and to the duties of his station in society; they are concerned with the relative value of things.

As for Niebuhr’s first reason, even the most learned professor of theology and Bible would have to admit that their knowledge is “partial, incomplete, [and] fragmentary.” In fact, one could say that the more you know about any subject, the more gaps in your knowledge become evident. This reflects rule #1 about theology: you are not God. How can any of us know everything completely. Another name for this is the “creature-creator distinction.” If this is true, we should (at least) be very humble as we try to solve this dilemma.

Second Niebuhr argues that different people have different strengths of faith. In fact, we have different strengths of faith in different areas in which we believe. One person might be completely trusting God in the area of their finances, tithing faithfully each week, while uncertain of their acceptance by God in Christ. While another’s complete confidence in their acceptance allows them to step out boldly to love people in radical ways, while they constantly struggle with whether God will keep his promise to provide for their wellbeing. As this relates to how we should engage culture, we will see some people being very consistent and faithful in some areas as they engage their culture, inevitably they will be inconsistent in other areas. Thus we have to be careful in picking the people who are “correctly” engaging their culture- because we might see their inconsistencies at another time or area of their life.

The third limitation is that we are all enslaved to our culture and what it allows. When we look back in history and see how people approached their culture, they might also have certain limitations of their culture that hinder them from consistently engaging it. It is very easy to look back on any historical example and see their limitations as they approached their culture- but it is likewise unfair to judge them according to what our modern culture views as possible.

Last Niebuhr cautions our commitment to any particular perspective because of the relativity of values. I think this is a consideration of walking in another man’s shoes. We might be able to criticize someone for what they did or didn’t do, as they engaged their culture for Christ, but we have to consider that we are judging them by a different standard than they were. For instance, on this side of the Civil Rights Movement we might find it easy to criticize theologians who promoted slavery using the Bible. However, would we have been any different in their day? It’s easy for us to say we would be so- but no one else was saying that then. This is not to say there is no absolute truth, merely to consider how things were different back then.

Does the Bible Answer What Niebuhr Couldn’t?

Niebuhr gave us four reasons why we should be hesitant to commit to any of the ways Christians have engaged their culture. But is he correct? Can the Bible give us an answer where Niebuhr could not?

Throughout this discussion I have tried to bring in Bible passages to challenge us. In fact, I have tried to give biblical references for each of the five perspectives discussed. As you consider each of the passages in their context, and compare what one passage says with another, some conclusions can be drawn.

For one, neither of the Radical perspectives (Christ Against Culture and Christ of Culture)tell the whole story. If we were to believe that the Scriptures contradict themselves, we would conclude that this was one of the areas in which the Bible holds a contradiction. However, this is not our belief, and this is confirmed when we finally consider the passages together. Neither of these extremes are correct- there has to be another way.

This is besides the fact that the Radical perspectives have a very incomplete view of theology. They don’t take sin or grace seriously enough and tend to focus on a human Christ. Like I’ve said before, the Radical perspectives do not necessarily deny the Scriptural teachings on sin, grace, and the Hypostatic Union of Christ, but their perspectives don’t consider the whole teachings of the Scriptures on these topics either.

Thus one of the three Centrist perspectives (Christ Above Culture, Christ and Culture in Paradox, and Christ Transforming Culture) must be correct (or at least better options).

The fact is, you could take the Scriptures that seem to defend the Christ Against Culture perspective and use them to argue for the Christ and Culture in Paradox view (along with some other passages). This is likewise true for the Christ of Culture passages and the Christ Above Culture perspective. The strength of the two moderate perspectives mentioned here is that they consider a more complete view of the Scriptures- especially regarding the doctrines of sin, grace, and Christ.

But still, although these perspectives are more complete, there is an implicit contradiction as each engages its culture. Thus we are left with one perspective that considers the entire Scriptures in its entirety- Christ Transforming Culture. This is, perhaps, the most Biblical perspective for how Christians should engage their culture, but that’s about as clear as we can get.

SIDENOTE: Although Niebuhr resists committing to any one perspective as correct, it is clear that he prefers the Conversion perspective. I say this because of the way he wrote the book, culminating with this middle perspective and his moderate preferences. Likewise, he offers less criticisms of this perspective than any of the previous perspectives. At least one of Niebuhr’s biographers, Kliever, agrees with me on this point.

Now this is an admittedly vague discussion that not only assumes each perspective can be defended by the Scriptures but also fails to discuss any Scriptures at all. But, even if you were to grant me all of my assumptions, we’d have to agree that it would be difficult to honestly conclude that the Bible promotes solely one of these perspectives. Sure there are hints, inklings, and tendencies towards some of these perspectives, but that is probably the most conclusive statement we can make.

I am not saying that there is no right or wrong or that there is no absolute truth in this world. I am merely arguing that the world is not black and white, especially as we try to engage our culture as Christians.

This becomes even more evident when we start to learn about the five ways Niebuhr describes how different Christians engage their cultures. The fact is that sometimes the lines between the perspectives aren’t always clear. Sometimes this is because people aren’t always consistent. Other times it is because one tendency can easily transform into another- clouding the difference between the two. It is hard to say which perspective is correct when it is hard to distinguish between them.

Finding Confidence in Ambiguity

If it is difficult to conclude, even using the Bible, which way Christians engage their culture is correct, what should we do now? If the point of this discussion is to see how we, as Christians, should interact with the world around us, and we can’t be certain which way is correct, where does that leave us? Are we then paralyzed from taking any action to engage our culture?

Niebuhr acknowledges this difficulty and suggests that there are three different ways people can react:

…they can become nihilists and consistent skeptics who affirm that nothing can be relied upon; or they can flee to the authority of some relative position, affirming that a church, or a philosophy, or a value, like that of life for the self, is absolute; or they can accept their relativities with faith in the infinite Absolute to whom all their relative views, values, and duties are subject. In the last case they can make their confessions and decisions both with confidence and with the humility which accepts completion and correction and even conflict from and with others who stand in the same relation with the Absolute.

Niebuhr does not want the uncertainty of a correct perspective to stop us from interacting with our culture as Christians. This uncertainty should, however, make us humble in the way we approach our culture. With what we think we know, we should act, knowing that we don’t know it all and we might be wrong. We need to be flexible enough to receive correction when we might be wrong, and not be surprised to be in the wrong at times. We need to acknowledge that we might disagree with other Christians, but go ahead anyway with engaging our culture.

Let me take things a little further than Niebuhr is able to. Niebuhr suggests that we are to do this with “confidence” but offers no basis for this confidence. I think the Scriptures does offer us a basis confidence and a humility at the same time. If Christ has really died for our sins and been raised to life for our justification we can have this confident-humility. We can be certain that God accepts us and loves us so that we can take a chance to engage the world, all the while acknowledging that we are not right because of anything we do as we engage the world (or for any other reason, for that matter) but solely on the completed work of Christ. Rather than worry about what perspective is “right,” we can confidently step out in faith knowing that any righteousness we do have has been imputed to us in Christ. Likewise we will be the first ones to admit it when we are wrong, because we know that any righteousness we have is not our own but Christs.

Because of Christ we can step out and confidently engage the world around us, understanding which way is the most right to the best of our ability, and humbling acknowledging that we probably aren’t the only ones who are right.

The post Is there a right answer to Christ and Culture? appeared first on Zimorama.

It is Niebuhr’s theological convictions that keep him away from the Scriptures, especially the Old Testament, in his discussion of Christ and Culture. This is why every example he gives in his book are only from the New Testament.

Another reason Niebuhr might shy away from the Old Testament is because it is a discussion of Christ and culture, and Christ doesn’t appear until the New Testament. If this is true, the New Testament is the only part of the Scriptures that we can consider in our discussion.

I don’t agree with Niebuhr’s view of Scripture in either case. I consider the entire Bible the inspired, inerrant, and authoritative Word of God, from which we can gleam truth and guidance for how we as God’s people can interact with our culture. On top of that I believe that not only is Jesus found in the Old Testament, but it is about him (Luke 24.13-35) and he is even inherit in it (Genesis 3.15).

If this is true, and we can gleam from the Old Testament guidance for how we as Christians can best interact with the world, then what about the Centerist positions. One of the things that distinguishes the Centrist positions from the Radical position is their higher view of Christ. The Centrist positions believe that Jesus is fully divine something which the Old Testament is, for the most part, silent. Sure, you might be able to find a couple of obscure proof-texts that seem to show that the Christ will be divine, but it is far from explicit. Does the Old Testament, therefore, relegate us to choosing one of the two Radical positions (Christ of Culture and Christ Against Culture)?

No because there are more things that distinguish the Radical from the Centrist positions than just their Christology. The Centrist positions also have stronger views of sin and grace. And this is merely what all the Centrist positions have in common. Christ and Culture in Paradox is different than Christ Against Culture because it compartmentalizes a Christian’s interaction with Culture rather than avoiding it altogether. Christ Above Culture is different than Christ of Culture because, although it accepts some parts of culture, it does so in order to promote Christ rather than culture as an end in itself.

Therefore, not only can we use the Old Testament to know how Christians can best interact with their culture (unlike Niebuhr) but any of the possible solutions could be gleaned from it. To ask what the Old Testament can teach us about how to interact with our culture seems, therefore, to be a fruitful question. I will investigate this more in this blog.

If the Old Testament can enlighten Christians on how best to interact with their culture, what does it teach us?

When I first think of how the Old Testament interacts with culture I think of Christ Against Culture. A primary focus of the Old Testament is creating a separate people who don’t worship other Gods or resemble the nations around them in any way. Isn’t this (at least) part of the purpose of the dietary restrictions- so they won’t be like the people around them?

As I keep reading the Old Testament, another position becomes available. Pretty soon God and his people are setting up an entire nation- a Yahwistic Culture. This is more characteristic of the Christ of Culture paradigm. In this view Christ (God) is the supreme example of someone in the culture. How is God viewed in this culture? Holy and separate, like his people are supposed to be.

This might seem like a contradiction- that the Old Testament promotes both Christ Against Culture and Christ of Culture but it depends on how you look at it. If you compare God’s people to the people around them, they are to be resistant to their cultural influences (Opposition). On the other hand, if you think of God’s people as a nation, they are to conform to the standards of this Divine Culture (Agreement).

Is this the end of our discussion? No. As things get more complicated in Israel’s history, so do their approaches to culture. Think about Daniel, for instance. He was a young Jewish boy exiled to Babylon. What is he to do in this pagan culture. He is picked (with a few other friends) as the best of the youth of Babylon and groomed to be one of it’s leaders. One of the first things they do is feed them- nothing strange to anyone else but these Jewish boys. They can’t eat these foods because they were offered to pagan Gods and prepared in unclean ways. They take a stand against their culture and refuse to pollute themselves.

So far this is a great example of Christ Against Culture until you read that they were being educated in this culture’s literature and knowledge. It didn’t stop there- they even excelled in these subjects (Daniel 1.17-20).

Did Daniel and his comrades sell out? Had they given into their culture? No, the compartmentalized different parts of their life, holding them in a paradox. Their religious life was one thing- they kept themselves loyal to God- but for their civic life they worked hard. They are perhaps the greatest examples of Christ and Culture in Paradox in the entire Bible.

Later we read about another young Israelite interacting with the complexities of a life in exile- but this time they approach it with a different perspective. Esther is a beautiful, young Jewish girl who gets caught up in quite a mess. The incompetent and impotent king of Persia executes his wife before he realizes that he needs a Queen. He searches his kingdom for suitable candidates, and Esther finds herself among them, placed in the harem.

I don’t need to go into graphic detail about what beautiful young women do as members of the harem, but Esther did them. Why else would she be picked as the best of the lot, and become Queen? All this happens without even a reference to her God. While Daniel took a stand against his culture and wouldn’t eat their food, Esther goes all the way and becomes the banquet! Has Esther completely sold out? Has she become the worst example of Christ of Culture?

No because she uses her position in her culture for the ultimate glory of God (like Christ Above Culture). Under the advice of her closest relative, she uses her position to save God’s people from genocide.

Is this it? Not when you read the prophets. There are a couple of themes consistent throughout them that seems to promote the Christ Transforms Culture paradigm. One of these is the universality of God. Throughout the prophets, they condemn not only God’s people but the nations around them. Both groups are equally condemned for their injustice and harsh treatment of people. It seems that God wants things to be better for people whether or not they believe in him. God wants all cultures transformed, not necessarily into Christian/Godly cultures, but fair and equitable ones.

Does considering the Old Testament’s guidance to how we should interact with culture bring us any closer to a definitive solution? It doesn’t seem so. Like I have discussed before, there is too much to consider to make a conclusive, “This is the way God wants us to act” answer. Nevertheless, some of the unique aspects of the Old Testament over the New gives us a different perspective to our question. For instance, government and cultural issues are much more explicit in the Old Testament, they are mere afterthoughts in the New. The Old Testament’s extensive use of narrative gives us many different examples of people interacting with their culture (although just because someone did something, doesn’t mean that was the right way to do it). Clearly, it is worth our time to investigate the Old Testament so we, as Christians, can learn how best to approach our culture.

The post Christ and Culture in the Old Testament appeared first on Zimorama.