Biblical Literalism

   

Protestant Reformer John Calvin

     The recent controversy surrounding "Duck Dynasty" star Phil Robertson underscores the deep divisions within American society – between urban and rural America, between "blue states" and "red states." In some respects Robertson represents a stereotype, the stereotype that affluent, educated Americans have of "hicks" and "rednecks."
    What role does religion play in all of this? One recent commentator, syndicated columnist Kathleen Parker, describes rural America this way: it is a place where hunters convene, fundamentalist Christians think that biblical literalism is a virtue, and there are millions of "Duck Dynasty" fans. And what are the marks of "fundamentalist Christians"? Ms. Parker mentions two: 1) they think that "biblical literalism is a virtue," and 2) they find "refuge in the toxic swamp of moral certitude."
    In all fairness to Ms. Parker, she appears to be criticizing liberal stereotypes of rural Americans as much as she does fundamentalist Christians themselves. But even so, the picture she paints of fundamentalists is hardly a flattering one.
    First of all, what exactly is a "fundamentalist"? Today just about the only people who would claim the term for themselves are a relatively small number of evangelical Christians who are noted for their extreme separatist mentality (many of them would want to distance themselves from "evangelicalism," as being too compromising). Most conservative evangelical Christians, however, would value "biblical literalism" and "find refuge" in "moral certitude." And what, we might ask, is so terrible about that?
    When we interpret the Bible literally we are simply following the historic Protestant approach to Scripture. Our aim is to ascertain the meaning of the text intended by the original human author. We look at the vocabulary and grammatical structure of the text, as well as the context – both the immediate context in the book as well as the historical context in which it was written. The technical name for this is "grammatico-historical exegesis," and it is based on the simple faith that words have meaning and sentences convey thought. Or to put it another way, I read the Bible pretty much the same way that I read Ms. Parker's editorials. I assume that she is a rational, intelligent person who is capable of saying what she means. Is my faith misplaced?
    And what is the alternative to biblical literalism? How are we supposed to interpret the text?
    Are we to suppose that the Bible is an arcane, mystical book with all kinds of hidden meanings? That we are to find our own personal meaning somewhere between the lines of the text? In actual practice what often happens is this: we begin with our own preconceived notions of what we think the text should have said (let's say, about sex, for example), and then we try by various artifices to make it say what we want it to say. We can pick and choose those passages that we think are relevant, or invent a context to make it appear that the text says something different from what it appears to say. Or we can look for a hidden, symbolic meaning. But what we wind up with is a make-believe theology wholly concocted out of our own imagination. It can hardly be called "truth."
    Whichever way we choose to do it, however, it is fundamentally dishonest. We are pretending to go to the Bible for answers when in reality we are reading our own ideas back into the text. Would it not make more sense to do what most common sense people do – to drop the pretense and discard the Bible altogether? To consign it to some dusty shelf in the library basement?
    We remember, during our youth, hearing preacher whose name we have long since forgotten, lay down this rule of interpretation: "If the plain sense makes horse sense, seek no other sense." That has been our rule ever since.
    And then what about the idea that "fundamentalism finds refuge in the toxic swamp of moral certitude"? Well, yes, apart from the "toxic swamp" part, this is true. But what makes moral certitude a "toxic swamp"?
    At this point Ms. Parker has put her finger on the central issue facing western culture today. For centuries, millennia really, Western civilization was rooted in the idea that there is a moral order to the universe. Our country's founding Fathers could go so far as to say that "We hold these truth to be self-evident: that all men are created equal" and that "they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights." This, in turn, implied that we live in a rationally ordered universe created by a single, all-powerful Intelligent Being. There is a distinct difference between right and wrong, between good and evil. And in the end divine justice will prevail. Based on this conviction our forbearers labored and fought to created "one nation, under God, with liberty and justice for all."
    It took Charles Darwin to undermine all of this. We are now supposed to believe that everything is in a state of flux, slowly evolving toward some indeterminate future state of being. It is all the result of a blind, impersonal natural process. And so now such ideas as "self-evident truths" and "unalienable rights" are deemed a "toxic swamp"!
    How then can anyone's rights survive this moral ambiguity? Ms. Parker is likely to find herself in a position in which she cannot say with any degree of certainty that anything is absolutely right or wrong. Do we say that an unborn child has a right to life? We are accused of "legislating morality." Does a woman have a right to an abortion? That is just Ms. Parker's own personal opinion. Who says that any of it is true?
    What is happening today is that we are witnessing the last gasp of a dying civilization. That it has been left to the likes of Phil Robertson to defend what is left of Western culture says something about how far we have come. We are rapidly retreating back into barbarity. That is something to be mourned rather than applauded.

Duck Dynasty, Gays and the Kingdom of God

Recently a brouhaha erupted when the A&E network announced that it was suspending "Duck Dynasty" patriarch Phil Robertson for controversial remarks he made in a magazine interview.* Robertson told GQ magazine that homosexual behavior was sinful, and quoted a passage of Scripture, I Corinthians 6:9,10, to back his assertion.
    Was Robertson right? The passage cited reads as follows (in the New International Version, which Robertson appeared to be quoting loosely): "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God." Similar passages can be found at Gal. 5:19-21 and Eph. 5:5, although neither of these other passages mention homosexuality specifically.
    The first thing to be noted about these passages is that homosexual behavior is just one of a series of vices that are condemned. It should also be noted that all of these vices involve various forms of human behavior. What is condemned is not a racial characteristic such as skin color or hair texture, but the conscious actions of human beings. In other words, God holds us accountable for the way we think and act.
    But what is wrong about homosexuality? To answer that question one must first ask what is the purpose of sex. It may strike some as odd that we would even ask the question. Who says that sex has to have a purpose other than our own sensual gratification? (Certainly not the editors of Cosmo!) But if it is true that everything was created by an Intelligent Supreme Being then everything has a purpose, a reason for which it was created. And the obvious primary purpose of sex is reproduction, which requires a heterosexual relationship. The Bible puts it this way: "God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. God blessed them and said to them, 'Be fruitful and increase in number, fill the earth and subdue it . . .'" (Gen. 1:27,28). Men are expected to marry women, love their wives, produce offspring, and raise their children. The nuclear family that thus results is the foundation stone of human society. The home should be a place where children are nurtured and socialized.
    It is for this reason that adultery is considered to be one of the worst of all sins. It is specifically condemned in the Ten Commandments, and it carried the death penalty under Old Testament law. Anything that deviates from the divinely ordained pattern and undermines the institution of marriage and the stability of the family is a perversion of what God intended. This would include prostitution, divorce and bestiality.
    Seen in this light homosexuality is an extreme form of lawlessness, a radical disregard for God's will. In the Old Testament God destroyed the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah partially because of this sin. In the New Testament it is described as a sign of advanced moral decadence. According to Romans chapter 1 the problem begins with secularism – the stubborn refusal to acknowledge God as Creator and Lord (vv. 18-23). The text then goes on to describe the next step: "Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another" (v. 24). As we advance even further into moral degradation we come to this: "Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion" (vv. 26,27). Note: the push for gay marriage is an indication of God's judgment on our society – God has "given us up" to our sinful passions and desires.
    What is assumed here is a sense of what is natural and decent. There is something unnatural and grotesque about sodomy. Homosexuals are using their sexual organs in a way for which they obviously were not intended, a bit like sticking your knife into your mouth when you eat. Even from a purely secular standpoint there is something profoundly unnatural and dysfunctional about homosexuality, which is why same-sex attraction used to be known as "Gender Identity Disorder," for indeed that is what it is.
    Which brings us back to a point that we made earlier. All of the forms of behavior condemned in I Cor. 6 involve conscious choices on the part of human beings. We are thinking, rational creatures. We can tell the difference between right and wrong. God holds us accountable for our actions. Ultimately all sin is a form of rebellion against God – a willful disregard for His commandments, which is why we are repeatedly told that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.
    Can we really expect to disobey God and not suffer the consequences?

*We understand that Robertson has since been reinstated.

Related blog posts:
The Future of Playboy America 
God's Portrait of Modern Society 
What God Thinks About Modern Society 
The Queer Scouts of America? 
Morality = Bigotry? 
God Never Changes 

 

King Jesus

The Foundation of the Temple Being Laid

"Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem: behold, they King cometh unto thee . . . "            Zech. 9:9
    The Messiah is, of course, a King, among other things. But when and how does He reign? That is a question that has vexed theologians for centuries.
What did the ancient Jews expect? Part of the answer is provided by the Old Testament prophet Zechariah. Zechariah lived in the late 6^th Century B.C. The southern kingdom of Judah had been spent seventy years in captivity in Babylon. Now some of them had been allowed to return to Jerusalem. But while they had made some progress in rebuilding their homes, work on the temple lagged behind. The prophet Haggai had prodded them into action, and finally work had begun.
But the political situation still looked unpromising. After a period of civil unrest the Persian emperor Darius the Great had consolidated his rule. A measure of peace had been restored to the Middle East. And yet for the Jews rebuilding the temple a disturbing question remained: why hadn't Judah regained its independence? Why was it still under the control of a foreign power?
In response to that question Zechariah received a series of visions and revelations from God. Israel had gone into exile because of its sin, but had suffered excessively at the hands of its foreign oppressors. The Lord reassured the nation, "Thus saith the Lord of hosts; I am jealous for Jerusalem and for Zion with a great jealousy" (Zech. 1:14). What follows is a remarkable series of prophecies in which God promises to restore Israel and punish the surrounding nations.
It is in this context that we hear about a Messianic figure who will usher in a reign of peace. Israel is told to "rejoice greatly" because "they King cometh unto thee." But what an unusual king He is! He is "lowly, and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass." This was literally fulfilled when Jesus entered Jerusalem on Palm Sunday, shortly before His arrest and execution.
The next verse tells us what will happen when the King arrives. "And I will cut off the chariot from Ephraim, and the horse from Jerusalem, and the battle bow shall be cut off." In other words, there will be an end to war, and Jerusalem will be at peace at last.
But there is a broader, more universal aspect to Messiah's reign as well. For the text goes on to say, "and he shall speak peace unto the heathen." Our King James translation here is unfortunate. The word translated here "heathen" literally means "nations" or "Gentiles," i.e., the broad mass of non-Jewish humanity. What is in view here is nothing less than the proclamation of the gospel to the entire human race. As for the extent of Messiah's kingdom, "his dominion shall be from sea even to sea, and from the river even to the ends of the earth." The first part refers to Palestine, from the Dead Sea to the Mediterranean. The river is the Euphrates. This is roughly the area originally promised to Israel (Gen. 15:18-21; Ex. 23:31; Josh. 1:4) and ruled over by King Solomon (I Kings 4:21; II Chron. 9:26). But the dominion of the Messiah would encompass even more than that; it would extend "even to the ends of the earth." Messiah's reign will be universal.
So when and how will all of this be fulfilled? In one sense the kingdom of God is already present; and in another sense it has yet to be fulfilled. In I Corinthians 15 the apostle Paul, speaking of the resurrection of the saints at Christ's Second Coming says, "Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power. For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet" (vv. 24,25). Christ is already King right now (Eph. 1:20-23; Phil. 2:9-11), and when we become Christians God "hath delivered us from the power of darkness and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son" (Col. 1:13). But after Christ returns, "Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father" (Matt. 13:37-43).
Some have supposed that the Christian church is the fulfillment of the Old Testament prophecies regarding the restoration of Israel, but those prophecies are meaningless unless the group being restored is the same group that had been sent into exile. And so far the Messiah is not reigning over a restored nation of Israel. He has yet to appear "in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory" (Matt. 24:30). The culmination of history still lies ahead.
It is also important to emphasize that there is amoral dimension to all of this. Israel went into exile because of its sin (Zech. 7:8-14), and restoration will involve a change of behavior on their part (8:16,17). The sin problem must be resolved. "In that day there shall be a fountain opened to the house of David and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem for sin and uncleanness" (13:1). Our past sins must be forgiven and we must receive a new heart that is bent on pleasing God. Only then can we "enter the kingdom of heaven."
Merry Christmas to all our friends!

 
    
    

Christ the Intercessor

"Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us." -- Romans 8:34
    Christ's work as priest did not end with His death on the cross. For He also was raised from the dead, ascended into heaven, and is even now exercising a ministry of intercession with God the Father on our behalf. In this sense He is still actively fulfilling the role of a priest.
    When someone has offended someone else, there is a breach in the relationship. A third party is sometimes needed to bring the other two parties back together again. In other words, an intercessor is needed, someone who will intercede on behalf of the offending party.
    Unfortunately it is sometimes true that even committed Christians can "backslide" and fall into sin, and this will disrupt communion with God. It is at this point that Christ's work as an intercessor comes into play. Our text tells us that He is "at the right hand of God," and that He "maketh intercession for us."
    Christ is uniquely qualified to fill this role. Because He is human, He can sympathize with us, knowing firsthand the temptations we face. In Hebrews 2:17,18 we read, "Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people. For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted" ("succour" in an old-fashioned word with a British spelling that means "to go to the aid" of someone). At the same time because He is also God He is personally sinless, and therefore is in a position to intercede with God the Father on our behalf. Moreover, since He lives forever his ministry of intercession will never come to an end – it will last for as long as life continues here on this sin-cursed earth. "Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them" (Heb. 7:25).
    Christ's ministry of intercession has immense practical implications for us. First of all, it means that if we know Christ truly and are genuinely united to Him by faith we can rest securely in God's love. The apostle Paul asks an interesting rhetorical question: "If God be for us, who can be against us?" (Rom. 8:31). He then proceeds to answer his own question: "Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is at the right hand of God . . ." (v. 34). Let our fiercest enemies say what they may; let even Satan himself bring accusation against us. It doesn't matter; for our salvation ultimately rests on what Christ has done, and is continuing to do for us. He died for our sins, He paid the penalty on the cross, and now He is in heaven making intercession for us. We are forever secure in God's love.
    Moreover Christ's ministry of intercession should make us bold in prayer. Heb. 4:15 says, "For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin." What, then, is the practical implication of this? "Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy and find grace in time of need" (v. 16). We are oft beset with trials and temptations. Difficulties lie on every hand. We are weak and prone to failure. But help is available if only we ask for it. We have an open invitation from God to go to Him in prayer and ask for the help we need. And we can do this because Christ, who can sympathize with our weakness, is there in heaven making intercession for us.
    None of this means, of course, that we have a license to sin. Sin will come between us and God, and needs to be dealt with. "If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth" (I John 1:6). But "If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness" (v. 9). And this is possible because "if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous" (2:1). What more could we ask for in the way of an attorney?
            "Hark the herald angels sing,
                'Glory to the newborn King;
             Peace on earth, and mercy mild,
                 God and sinners reconciled!'"

• Charles Wesley

A Man of Sorrows

When we think of the birth of Christ we are liable to think of a charming manger scene – a young mother cradling her infant son, the Magi bringing their gifts from afar, the angels singing to the shepherds in the field. It all looks so picturesque, and indeed it is. But amid all the tinsel and trimmings it is easy to lose sight of the real reason for the incarnation. The manger was but the prelude to a brutal death on a Roman cross.
    And the amazing thing is that it was all predicted. In Isaiah chapter 53 we have one of the most stunning prophecies about the Messiah found anywhere in the Old Testament. And it portrays the Messiah as "a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief" (v. 3).
    One would have thought that Israel would have welcomed its Messiah, but that turned out not to be the case. "Why?," one might be tempted to ask. The answer is that His contemporaries failed to appreciate who He was and what He came to do. They were looking for a national deliverer – a charismatic leader who would come and rule. Instead He came across as a radical rabbi who challenged established ways of thinking. He led no armies and He provoked no revolt. He was eventually crucified by the Romans. What kind of Messiah was that? And thus the prophet foresaw that He would be "despised and rejected of men" (v. 3a).
    What His contemporaries failed to realize is that it was necessary for Him to atone for sin – for their sin. That is why He had to suffer, and bleed, and die. "But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities" (v. 5a). The problem, which neither they nor we like to admit, is that we are, at the bottom of it, guilty sinners. The prophet uses a homey illustration to make the point: "All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one into his own way" (v. 6). Somehow, if we are ever to be forgiven, an atonement must be made for our sins. And that was what Christ came to do when He was born in Bethlehem some 2,000 years ago. His path would lead to the cross, " . . . and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all" (v. 6b).
    And here was the supreme irony of the situation. When He was here among us, "he was despised, and we esteemed him not" (v. 3b). ". . . we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted" (v. 4b), and indeed He was. But it was for our sins that He suffered the pain and humiliation of the cross. It was our sin and guilt that occasioned His suffering.
    Jesus, in other words, was essentially acting as a priest offering up a sacrifice to God, except that in this case He was both the priest and the sacrifice. That sacrifice, then, becomes the basis for our peace with God. ". . . the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed" (v. 5b). The "chastisement of our peace" is a kind of corrective discipline that leads to a restoration of a relationship. In this case we were alienated from God by our sin and disobedience, and Christ's death upon the cross brings us peace with God. To achieve reconciliation we need to embrace by faith Christ's atoning work on our behalf.
Have you made your peace with God?

Other blog posts in which you might be interested:
Right with God
What Must I Do to be Saved?

Christ as Prophet

Moses and the Ten Commandments

"Christ, as our Redeemer, executeth the offices of a prophet, of a priest, and of a king . . . "
                                Westminster Shorter Catechism

 
    So far we have considered who Christ is, but what did He come to do? What was the purpose of His coming? The catechism sums up the biblical teaching on the subject by stating that Jesus came to fulfill three offices. He is a prophet, a priest, and a king. We will consider the first of these today.
    First of all, what exactly is a prophet? The phenomenon had existed long in Israel's history. From time to time God would speak through a human being especially chosen for this function. While God had spoken directly to Noah and the patriarchs Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the first great prophet, in the sense of someone communicating God's message to others, was Moses. Exodus chapters 3 and 4 describe how God met Moses at the burning bush and commissioned him to be the leader of Israel. Moses, however, demurred, objecting that he was not an eloquent person and hence not up to the job. God then explained to Moses how the process would work: "Now therefore, go, and I will be with your mouth and teach you what you shall say" (Ex. 4:12; NKJV). But Moses still demurred, and so God tells him to have his brother Aaron act as his spokesman. "And he himself shall be as a mouth for you, and you shall be to him as God" (v. 16). In other words, a prophet is someone who acts as a spokesperson for God, with God telling him what he should say. Or to put it another way, a prophet is someone who can communicate a genuine revelation from God Himself.
    Some theologians and philosophers have questioned whether God, who is transcendent, incomprehensible, and inscrutable, "wholly Other," as one of them has said, can communicate His thoughts and ideas in human language. But God Himself answered that objection when He asked Moses, "Who had made man's mouth? Or who makes the mute, the deaf, the seeing, or the blind? Have not I, the Lord?" (v. 11). Human language is something that God created – thus He can make it express what He wants it to. And while we can never fully understand what God is in His infinite being, we can understand what He wants us to know and do.
    Other prophets came and went after Moses. But as God had told Moses, "I will raise up for them a Prophet like you from among their brethren, and He shall speak to them all that I command Him" (Dt. 18:18). That Prophet was Christ, God's own Son, whom He sent into the world. As Jesus Himself put it, "For I have not spoken on My own authority; but the Father who sent Me gave Me a command, what I should say and what I should speak . . . Whatever I speak, just as the Father has told Me, so I speak" (John 12:49,50).
    What made Christ preeminent as a prophet was the fact that He was not just a human being to whom God spoke; He is God's own Son, who had lived with God the Father in heaven from all eternity. Because of that intimate connection He is in the position of knowing the mind and will of God the Father better than anyone else. That is why His words carry such weight and authority.
    Jesus once told a parable to explain His position as a prophet. The owner of a vineyard sent one of his servants out to the vineyard to tell the workers there to begin the harvest. The workers, however, beat up the servant and sent him away. The owner sent another servant, and another, and several more besides, and they were all mistreated and abused in one way or another by the workers. Finally the owner decided to sent his own son out to the vineyard, reasoning that the workers would at least respect his own son. But the vineyard workers killed him. The conclusion of the story? "Therefore what will the owner of the vineyard do? He will come and destroy the vinedressers, and give the vineyard to others" (Mark 12:9).
    The servants obviously represent the various prophets that God sent down through Israel's history, and the son was obviously God's own Son, Jesus Christ. Those who chose to ignore what the Son says will be dealt with severely. We will do well to take heed to what He said!
    The teachings of that greatest of all prophets are recorded for us in the four gospels of the New Testament. They expound on the Law of God and point to Christ Himself as the way, the truth and the life. In modern times religion has fallen out of favor, and we preoccupy ourselves with the pursuit of material gain. But life will not last forever, and eventually we will all face eternity. We cannot afford to ignore God's own Son!

A Savior, Christ the Lord

"For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord"

- Luke 2:11

    There are several things about the birth of Christ that strike the modern reader as peculiar. One is the fact that He was born in extremely humble circumstances, to a poor family, in a stable, and laid in a manger. And this for the Son of God, the Savior of the world! And then there was the announcement to the shepherds. One would have thought that for an event of this magnitude that a press conference in Jerusalem, or even in Rome, would have been in order. But instead the announcement was made to a humble band of shepherds out grazing their flocks in the open field.
    What the angel told the shepherds was this: "For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord" (Luke 2:11). What did the shepherds understand by this? Undoubtedly they would have understood it in a Jewish context. Unfortunately our translation here is a little misleading. The King James Version translates the last clause of verse 10 as "which shall be to all people," universalizing the message, making it applicable to the entire human race. The Greek, however, has a definite article, and so it should be translated "that will be for all the people" (cf. NASV, ESV, NIV), i.e., referring evidently to one specific nation or people, viz., the nation of Israel. Moreover, when we see the word "Christ," we are likely to think that it is a last name, like "Jones" or "Smith," when in reality it is a title. It is the Greek form for "Messiah" or "anointed One." Moreover, the angel mentioned "the city of David" as the place of birth. The Old Testament prophet Micah had predicted that the Messiah would come from Bethlehem, David's home town (Mic. 5:2). David, in turn, was the ancestor of Judah's royal line. Thus the angel was announcing the birth of Israel's long-awaited Messiah, Who would deliver the nation from oppression and usher in an age of peace.
    But for those of us who are not Jewish by birth or ancestry there is a broader significance here as well. The reign of the Messiah will affect the entire world. It will be a time of perfect peace and righteousness. But how will that come about? What we have today is a world full of exploitation and violence, and all of this can be traced back to a fundamental defect of human nature. Obviously something is going to have to change.
    There are two aspects to this problem. First there is the problem of our guilt before God. If God is just and holy, He must punish sin. But we are all sinners, and have already committed numerous sins in the past. If we are made to pay for those sins we are doomed. But in order for God to forgive those sins some sort of atonement must be made, and this is what Christ accomplished on the cross.
    The second aspect of the problem is primarily psychological. We sin because we are born with a human nature that is predisposed to sin. One older woman of our acquaintance put it this way: "I have been a mother and now I am a grandmother, and I have never yet had to teach a child how to steal cookies!" Stealing comes naturally, and parents have to teach their children not to steal. Unfortunately lots of other things come naturally, too – lying, cheating, fighting, gossiping, and all the rest. But somehow that must all change if we are ever to enter the Messianic kingdom.
    Salvation, then, also involves an inward change, and this is largely accomplished through the work of the third Person of the Trinity, the Holy Spirit. This work begins with the new birth, and continues through the life-long process of sanctification.
    As human beings we lead a profoundly dysfunctional existence. The birth of the Savior in Bethlehem 2,000 years ago promises to change all that. It was the first ray of hope in the dark night of sin and misery. The long war is by no means over, but the decisive victory has already been won.

The Son of God

Lorenzo di Credi, The Annunciation, ca. 1480-1485

"For to which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee?" -- Heb. 1:5

 
    As we noted in our last blog post, Jesus claimed to be the Son of God. But what exactly does that mean? In what sense can Jesus be called "the Son of God"?
    The question is not an easy one to answer, for we are talking about a relationship that is totally unique. There is nothing like it in heaven or on earth, and there is nothing else to which it can be compared. We find ourselves in the position if trying to scrutinize the nature of the infinite being of God.
    Nevertheless there are a few things that can be said. The author of the Epistle to the Hebrews in the New Testament is making the point that Jesus occupies a position of preeminence over every created thing. He is superior to both prophets and angels. To support that assertion our author quotes a verse from Psalm 2, which describes the future reign of the Messiah. In the psalm God is pictured as saying to the Messiah, "Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee" (Ps. 2:7). But what does that mean?
    First of all, it does not mean that Christ was a created being, something less than God. For just a few verses earlier the author of the epistle had just said that Jesus is "the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature" (Heb. 1:3; NASV). It is a little hard to understand exactly what this means, but the way the early church finally came to express it was that the Son was "begotten of the Father as only begotten, that is, from the essence of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten not created, of the same essence as the Father . . . " (Nicene Creed). In other words, Christ shared the same essential being as God the Father: He was indeed true God. Our text in Hebrews goes on to say that Christ is "upholding all things by the word of his power." Christ is not a part of created reality; He is a part of what created and sustains reality. He is God.
    But then what does our text mean when it says, quoting the psalm, "this day have I begotten thee"? The answer of the church fathers is that Christ is eternally generated from the essence of the Father. That may be true, but that is probably probing more deeply into the nature of God's being than we are entitled to go. The context in Hebrews, however, points to a specific event, viz., the incarnation: "And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him" (v. 6). And the angel Gabriel told Mary at the annunciation, "The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee; therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God" (Lu. 1:35). Jesus, as the unique God-man, was conceived in Mary's womb, at a specific point in time, and was born in Bethlehem. In that sense He really was "begotten."
    The babe in Bethlehem, then, truly was the Son of God. He came down to earth from the Father in heaven with Whom He had dwelled from all eternity. He came and lived among us as a human being, but He spoke with all the authority of God Himself. This is why we need to be careful heed to what He said.
        "Therefore we ought to give the more earnest heed to the things
         we have heart, lest at any time we should let them slip. For if
         the word spoken by angels was stedfast, and every transgression
         and disobedience received a just recompense of reward; How shall
         we escape, if we neglect so great salvation . . . ." ? -- Heb. 2:1-3

Born of a Virgin

"Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel." Isa. 7:14
    We are now at that time of year when our thoughts turn to the birth of Christ, the "reason for the season," as we like to say. But what exactly are we celebrating at Christmas? Who was Christ, and what does His birth mean for us today?
    Who was Christ? Even His own disciples weren't exactly sure. It was obvious that He was no ordinary human being. But who was He? Or more to the point, what was He? He claimed to be the Son of God, but what does that mean?
    During the coming month we will examine some of the these issues in order to gain a better understanding of the significance of the birth of Christ. We will look at a number of passages of Scripture that describe the Person and work of Christ. Significantly, many of these texts were employed by George Frederick Handel in his famous oratorio Messiah.
    We begin with the fact of the virgin birth itself. And here at once we encounter the chief difficulty that the modern mind has with Christianity. Modern man finds it difficult to accept the idea of the supernatural. And yet according to the accounts given to us in the gospels of Matthew and Luke Jesus was born of a virgin: He had no earthly biological father. He was born of a virgin; He performed miracles; He rose from the dead. And His miracles and resurrection, at least, were attested by eyewitnesses.
    Jesus could do all of these things because He was God incarnate. The universe is not a closed system with a uniformity of natural causes. It is the creation of an eternal, all-powerful Supreme Being Who retains ultimate control over His creation. And Jesus performed His miracles precisely to assert His deity. He is the Lord of heaven and earth, and His miracles were a vivid demonstration of His divine power.
    The virgin birth was critical to all of this. If Jesus were the natural offspring of two biological parents, then He would have been no different from the rest of us – an ordinary human being. And if that were the case He could not have been the Savior of the world. His death would have been no more significant than that of any other great man in history who was killed in a noble cause – Lincoln, Gandhi, Kennedy or King. But Jesus was no ordinary human being; He was "Immanuel," which in Hebrew means "God with us."
    Some have questioned whether Isaiah 7:14 really predicts a virgin birth. The New Revised Standard Version, for example, translates the verse, "Look, the young woman is with child and shall bear a son, and shall name him Immanuel." It is true that the Hebrew word used here ('almah) generally refers to any young marriageable woman. Hebrew has a different word (betulah) to refer specifically to a virgin.
    The immediate context calls for a child born in Isaiah's own time. The nation of Israel at that time was divided into two separate kingdoms: the northern kingdom, usually designated as "Israel" or "Samaria," and the southern kingdom which was called Judah. In 735 B.C. the northern kingdom, Israel, along with its neighboring ally Aram (Syria), invaded Judah. The prophet Isaiah approached Ahaz, the king of Judah, and told him not to fear. The Lord would give him a sign: a child would be born, and before the child would be weaned the two invading kingdoms would be destroyed. Isaiah has relations with a prophetess (Isa. 8:3) and a child was born. In 732 the Assyrians under Tiglath-pileser invaded, and Israel and Syria were effectively destroyed.
    But it is evident that there is more to the prophecy than just that. For Isaiah goes on in chapter 9 to describe another child, a child that would become a ruler, whose name "shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The Mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace" (Isa. 9:6,7). Amid all the chaos and turmoil that beset Israel, Isaiah had a vision of a coming Messiah Who would rule with perfect peace and justice.
    When Matthew, then, in the New Testament describes the birth of Christ, he declares that this was the fulfillment of the prophecy made in Isa. 7:14 (Matth. 1:22,23; the Greek uses the word parthenos, which does mean a "virgin"). What we have, then, is a double fulfillment of the prophecy. The initial fulfillment took place in Isaiah's own time, when a young woman gave birth to a baby boy. But in a much more remarkable way it was fulfilled by the birth of Christ Who was truly "Immanuel," literally "God with us." God had fulfilled His Word in a way that far exceeded even Isaiah's expectation!

A Thanksgiving Meditation – Psalm 145

Nowadays, amid all the food and family gatherings, it is easy to lose sight of the central idea of the occasion, viz., the giving of thanks. Thanksgiving is an old American tradition that can be traced back to the Pilgrim fathers at Plymouth, MA, when they gathered together in late 1621 for the specific purpose of giving thanks to God for having given them a good harvest, and for having preserved them alive during the preceding year. The occasion served a fundamentally religious purpose.
    Today it would be well to take a few minutes to reflect on what God has done for us during the past year. And an appropriate passage for meditation might be Psalm 145. The psalm begins:
                "My God, o King, I'll thee extol:
                    & bless thy Name for aye.
                 Forever will I praise thy Name;     
                    And bless thee every day." (vv. 1,2)
    The psalmist, traditionally said to have been David, then goes on to focus on God's unsearchable greatness:
                "Great is the Lord, most worthy praise:
                    his greatness search can none." (v. 3)
    God's greatness consists in a combination of two things: His power and His grace. David goes on to mention the things that God has actually done in history:
                "Age unto age shall praise thy works:
                    & thy great acts make known." (v. 4).
    But God is not just powerful; He is also gracious.
                "The Lord is gracious, & he is
                    full of compassion:
                 Slow unto anger & full of
                    Commiseration." (v. 8).
Here David is using language very similar to that used by God Himself when He revealed Himself to Moses on Mount Sinai (Ex. 34:6).
    God's goodness expresses itself in the way He provides for His creatures:
                "The Lord is good to all: o'er all
                    his works his mercies be." (v. 9).
He cares for the downtrodden and afflicted:
                "The Lord doth hold up all that fall:
                    and all down-bowed ones raise." (v. 14)
He also (and this is especially important to remember on Thanksgiving Day!) provides us with food:
                "All eyes wait on thee & their meat
                    thou dost in season bring." (v. 15).
    It is truly a blessing to contemplate the goodness of God and all that He provides for us – family, jobs, health, and freedom, not to mention the gift of salvation in Christ Jesus. But the blessings God bestows ought not to be taken for granted. God does not promise to bless everyone indiscriminately. He wants us actively to seek Him. Notice how the psalm puts it:
                "He is near to all that call on him:
                    in truth that on him call." (v. 18).
In other words, God wants us to pray – to engage in earnest, heartfelt prayer.
    But then David goes on to say:
                "He satisfy will the desire
                    of those that do him fear. . ." (v. 19)
By "fear" he does not mean a terrified, cringing fear, but rather a kind of humble, reverential awe of God's majesty, power and holiness. To know God, even to catch a mere glimpse of His eternal glory, is to be profoundly humbled by the experience.
    But most of all, we are to love Him.
                "The Lord preserves each one of them
                    that lovers of him be . . ." (v. 20).
The question is, are we trying to find God?

 
[Note: The Scripture quotations in this blog post were taken from The Bay Psalm Book, first published in 1640 in Massachusetts Bay colony. It is the first book ever published in the English colonies of North America. This past Tuesday an original copy of The Bay Psalm Book was sold at auction for $14.2 million. It was one of two copies still owned by Old South Church in Boston. It was part of a historic collection of books that had been put together in the 18^th Century by Thomas Prince, pastor of the church at the time and a friend and colleague of such figures as Cotton Mather, Jonathan Edwards, and George Whitefield.
    The Puritans sang metrical paraphrases of the psalms, i.e., the Hebrew original was turned into English poetic meter so that it could be sung to standard tunes. The translators of The Bay Psalm Book, some of the leading ministers of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, strove for literal accuracy but the resulting verse was often awkward and ungainly, as some of the above examples demonstrate ("He satisfy will the desire of those that do him fear . . .").
    I am fortunate to have in my possession a facsimile reprint of one of Old South Church's copies of The Bay Psalm Book, possibly of the very one that was just sold at auction. The facsimile was done by the University of Chicago Press in 1956. In the blog post I took the liberty of modernizing the spelling somewhat.]

A Nation Under God?

"Abraham Lincoln" delivering the Gettysburg Address

   Yesterday I had the opportunity of travelling to Gettysburg, PA to attend ceremonies commemorating the 150^th anniversary of the Abraham Lincoln's famous "Gettysburg Address." The event was held in the Soldiers' National Cemetery on part of the battlefield not far from the spot where President Lincoln delivered his original address on November 19, 1863. Thousands were in attendance yesterday, most of us standing through the 1-1/2 hour event. A variety of politicians delivered brief remarks with major speeches by the noted historian James McPherson and U.S. Secretary of the Interior Sally Jewell. A reenactor portraying Lincoln read the Gettysburg Address. The U.S. Marine Band played an instrumental arrangement of the old psalm tune "One Hundredth" (which had been played at the original occasion in 1863), and a male vocalist gave a solo rendition of "The Battle Hymn of the Republic." Toward the end of the program U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia the oath of allegiance to sixteen immigrants seeking U.S. citizenship.
    Back in 1863 President Lincoln faced a daunting challenge. He had been asked to "formally set apart these grounds to their sacred use by a few appropriate remarks." Lincoln was to follow the principle speaker for the occasion, the renowned orator Edward Everett. Lincoln's task might seem simple enough, until the broader context is taken into consideration. For this was no ordinary dedication ceremony. The cemetery contains the bodies of thousands of union war casualties who had lost their lives in one of the most horrific bloodbaths in American history. Only 4-1/2 months earlier Union and Confederate armies had clashed over three days, leaving 51,000 men killed, wounded, or missing in action. The Union dead were still being transferred from shallow graves to their permanent resting places in the cemetery. The President was faced with the unenviable task of explaining to the grieving nation why the slaughter, for which many held him personally accountable, was necessary. (One of the casualties happened to be my great-grandmother's first husband, who was killed on the second day of the battle. They had only been married a year, and my great-grandmother was a Civil War widow at the age of 20!) Lincoln had to find a moral justification for the war, and he had to do it in just "a few appropriate remarks."
    In a statement that contained only 272 words and only took two minutes or so to deliver, (Everett had spoken for nearly two hours) the President reminded the nation of its founding principles. Echoing the Declaration of Independence he stated that we were a nation that was "conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal." The Civil War was a test of whether such a nation could survive. He mentioned the soldiers who had given "the last full measure of devotion," and then challenged the audience to dedicate themselves – to dedicate themselves to completing the unfinished task, "that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom – and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."
    Interestingly the phrase "under God" was not in Lincoln's original manuscript. He apparently decided to add it later, possibly after conferring with Secretary of State William H. Seward the night before. Seward, it will be remembered, had caused a stir with his "Higher Law" speech of 1850. Originally the stated purpose of the war was to preserve the Union. But since the Emancipation Proclamation, which had gone into effect at the beginning of the year, the war had taken on a higher purpose, the abolition of slavery. But how could one justify overturning an established institution? Lincoln returned to the Abolitionist arguments of the 1850's. But whatever the source of inspiration, the question remains, are we, as a nation, "under God"? Did Lincoln overstate the case?
    According to Lincoln, the foundational principle of American democracy was idea that "all men are created equal." But what makes us "equal"? Many white Americans at the time were not prepared to accept blacks as their equals. The way it is stated in the Declaration of Independence is that "all men are created equal," and "are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights." In other words, in the final analysis all human beings are equal because God created us that way. "So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them" (Gen. 1:27; NKJV ). "And He [i.e., God] has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth . . ." (Acts 17:26). But once we accept the idea of Darwinian evolution, the case for racial equality, and by extension American democracy, collapses. It is ludicrous to suppose that different racial strains which are evolving independently of each other are equally adapted to some imaginary universal ideal prototype. They are just plain different from each other, and some are likely less "fit" than the rest. In a word, get rid of God and you get rid of our distinctive shared humanity and any concept of universal human rights. In the law of the jungle it is the survival of the fittest. To the victor go the spoils!
    So are we a nation "under God"?

See also:
The Higher Law 
One Nation Under God 

The Sickness of Our Time

  

Old Bristol Congregational Meetinghouse, Bristol Center, NY

    Today the church is in a crisis. Faced with the collapse of Christian civilization in the western world, it seems powerless to do anything to prevent it. In many cases it is losing its own children from the faith.
    Interestingly, the Bible told us right at the very beginning that this was how it was going to end. In II Tim. 3:1-5 the apostle Paul gives us a vivid description of what conditions will be like "in the last days." He tells us that "perilous times will come" (NKJV), and then goes on to describe what life will be like at that time. The indictment begins with the basic characteristic of selfishness. People in the last days will be remarkably self-oriented. People who are self-centered, in turn, typically have inflated opinions of themselves and a corresponding contempt for others. They are boasters and at the same time disdainful of others. This, in turn, results in a serious of anti-social actions: they slander others, and young people in particular are disobedient to their parents.
    There then follows in verses 2 and 3 a list of eight adjectives, seven of which, in the Greek, begin with the "privative alpha," denoting the absence of some quality. It is a stunning picture of a morally bankrupt society utterly lacking in basic human qualities. The people of this society are devoid of gratitude, a sense of the sacred, natural affection, respect for others, self-control, or appreciation of the good. It is a society that has largely abandoned standards and ideals of any sort.
    Paul goes on in verse 4 to describe the members of this society as treacherous and reckless. They will evidently stop at nothing to get what they want. And the Paul sums it all up by saying that they are "haughty" and are "lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God." They were both egotistical and materialistic, as self-centered individuals invariably are.
    Does all of this sound familiar? It should, for it could very well be a description of our society, a liberal democratic and capitalistic society in an advanced state of decline, a society sunk in the mire of consumerism, irresponsible, self-indulgent, and narcissistic.
One might suspect that in a society in which people are "lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God" that there would be a general contempt for religion. But this is not necessarily so. In fact, Paul goes on to make a remarkable observation: in the last days they will in fact have "a form of godliness" (v. 5). But then he goes on to add an important qualification: "but denying its power." "Godliness" (Gk: eusebeia; Lat. pietas) might better be translated "piety" or "devotion." It is the reverence and devotion that we owe to our superiors, and especially toward God Himself. The "form" (morphosis) is the outline or semblance of a thing. In other words, it is entirely possible to maintain the outward forms of religion – its structures and rituals – in a thoroughly materialistic society. What is noticeably lacking, however, is the "power" (dunamis), the ability actually to achieve some result. The forms and structures of organized religion are present, but they do not have much of an effect on behavior.
Such is the church in our own time. On a typical Sunday morning multitudes of professing Christians will gather in church buildings all across America and will sit through church services that are marked by hymns, Scripture, and a sermon. All of the outward trappings of religion are present. But in most churches, on a typical Wednesday evening, the traditional prayer meeting night, there is hardly anyone gathered to pray. Here, then, is the supreme irony of the situation. Everywhere we see Christians who profess to believe in God, but few are bothered even to talk to Him.
Why not? The answer, we think, is probably this: in a materially prosperous society two things typically happen. The first is that people's attention is so focused on the here and now that they simply are not interested in anything else. And secondly, many people in a prosperous society do not feel any need for God – they always have what they think they want, or they think they have the means of getting it. If life is good down here, why ask for more? We go to church to feel respectable – to acquire a sense of self-worth, but that is as far as it goes. We are definitely not interested in anything that will require effort or self-sacrifice.
What most American Christians today do not realize is how far removed their concept of Christianity is from anything found in the New Testament. Real revival will come only when we wake up to the difference. May God hasten the day before it is too late!

See also: What Is the Church Supposed to Be Like?

Hymns No Longer Sung

  

D.L. Moody preaching -- notice Ira Sankey at the organ to the left of Moody

   Those of us who are older Christians still have fond memories of the old gospel songs and hymns of our youth. Back in the days before blaring guitars and pounding drums, back when there was still such a thing as melody, harmony and rhythm, we would sing old favorites in church such as "At Calvary" and "Redeemed." Looking through an old hymnbook from those days some of those songs strike us as probably not worthy of preservation. If the truth be told some of them weren't really suitable for public worship even when they were being sung. The hymnody of the late Victorian period could be overly sentimental and the message buried in florid poetry. We were astonished recently to learn that the well known hymn "In the Garden" was meant to portrait Mary Magdalene's reaction at seeing the risen Jesus in the garden, something not at all obvious in the text itself!
    But there was one class of traditional hymns that has been lost, much to our own detriment. They are not often sung today, even in churches that still use traditional hymnals. They are songs that are often grouped together in a section of the hymnbook entitled "consecration" or "commitment," and they speak to a very important but often neglected part of the Christian life.
    One such hymn is entitled "Living for Jesus." The first stanza goes like this:
        "Living for Jesus a life that is true,
            Striving to please Him in all that I do,
         Yielding allegiance, glad-hearted and free,
            This is the pathway of blessing for me."
The chorus then goes on to say,
        "O Jesus, Lord and Savior,
            I give myself to Thee,
         For Thou, in Thy atonement,
            Didst give Thyself for me;
         I own no other Master,
            My heart shall be Thy throne,
         My life I give, henceforth to live,
            O Christ, for Thee alone."
Subsequent stanzas elaborate on the theme, talking about the need to make personal sacrifice ("Willing to suffer affliction and loss, / Deeming each trial a part of my cross") and commitment to reaching the lost.
    Why is this song rarely heard today? Probably because most hymns sung in church services are selected by the pastor, often to tie in with the subject of the sermon. And pastors today are intent on extolling the benefits of Christianity, not the sacrifices. Hence they rarely pick hymns like "I Surrender All" or "Take My Life, and Let It Be." These songs have become relics of a bygone era.
    But they shouldn't be. And the fact that they are points to a serious weakness in modern Christianity. Modern preachers are eager to tell people what Christ can do for them; they are much less eager to say what Christ wants us to do for Him.

    But the idea of personal consecration is very much a part of the Christian life, and is clearly taught in Scripture. Jesus plainly stated that "If anyone desires to come after Me*, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow Me" (Matt. 16:24. NKJV). And the apostle Paul could say, "Yet indeed I also count all things loss for the excellence of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them as rubbish, that I may gain Christ . . ." (Phil. 3:8). None of this is to say that we are saved by works or by human merit of any kind. But it is to say that we are saved from our former sinful lifestyles, and that the aim of salvation is to bring us into conformity with the will of God. We are saved for good works, not by them (Eph. 2:10).
    All of which is to say that a true Christian is fundamentally a servant (lit., "slave") of Jesus Christ and that Christ is his Lord and Master. We no longer live for ourselves, but for Him. Thus every Christian should be able to sing "O Jesus, Lord and Savior, / I give myself to Thee," and mean it, genuinely and sincerely.

 
*The phrase in the German is "mir . . . nachfolgen," which gave rise to the expression "die Nachfolge Christi," the following after of Christ, a term used among the early Anabaptists for discipleship.

HEART RELIGION

Jonathan Edwards

    In Matthew 22 we are told that Jesus was approached by one of the Pharisees, a lawyer, who asked Him, "Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?" (vs. 35), the type of sharply analytical question one would expect a lawyer to ask. Jesus responded by referring him to two different commandments. The first one was part of the famous "Shema," the great creedal affirmation of the Jewish Torah: "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind" (vs. 37; cf. Dt. 6:4,5). "This," said Jesus, "is the first and great commandment" (vs. 38). But then there was one other thing as well. "And the second is like it: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself" (vs. 39). This commandment was also in the Torah, in Lev. 19:18. Jesus then added the comment, "On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets" (vs. 40).
    Here it will be observed that a personal relationship between God and His people is presupposed. He is "the Lord your God." (The word "your" is singular in the Hebrew, making it especially personal; cf. "thy God" in KJV). Furthermore, in this relationship we are to love Him, and love Him, moreover, "with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind." In other words, true religion is heart religion. It must include a strong personal attachment to God that involves our entire inward being.
    Furthermore, we have a duty toward our fellow man as well. We are to "love our neighbor as ourselves." Here we have stated for us in the simplest terms possible the "Golden Rule". Whatever we desire for ourselves, we should wish for others also. We should be willing to sacrifice our personal well-being for the sake of others in greater need than ourselves. These two commandments, then, sum up our whole duty toward both God and man.
    It will be noted in this connection that mere orthodoxy, by itself, is not enough. The demons believe that there is one God, and even tremble (Jas. 2:19), and yet they are not saved. Our aim rather ought to be to "know Him and the power of His resurrection, and the fellowship of His sufferings. . ." (Phi l. 3:10). Moreover, we are to be "doers of the word, and not hearers only" (Jas. 1:22). We must not be content merely to recite doctrine, but to live it. To a great extent, then, the essence of true religion consists of experience and practice, and the great value of doctrine is found in its usefulness as a guide to the practical side of the Christian life.
    By the same token more than just a mere external observance of religious duties is required. We can be baptized, join a church, attend services regularly, and even tithe, and not be saved at all. We can even sing in the choir, teach a Sunday school class, and help out with the youth program, and yet not know Christ Himself. "And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, but have not love, it profits me nothing" (I Cor. 13:3). In a word, if doctrine does not have a practical effect on our lives, then we have missed the whole point of Christianity.
    Our forefathers in the faith used to call this "experimental religion," that is, the actual experience of God's grace in our hearts and lives, as opposed to a merely speculative theology or sectarian dogma. It was the religion of the Puritans and the Scottish Covenanters in the seventeenth century, of the "New Light" Congregationalists and the "New Side" Presbyterians of the Great Awakening, of the Separate Baptists in the late eighteenth century and of the Methodists in the early nineteenth. It was the religion of the German Pietists and of the Moravian Brethren. Under it untold millions were converted and entire nations transformed. These various groups differed from each other, often sharply, over points of doctrine and church government, but they all agreed on this one fundamental point: " . . . I count all things loss for the excellence of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them as rubbish, that I might gain Christ . . ." (Phil. 3:8).
    Today, however, this glorious heritage of ours has largely been forgotten. It has been nearly a century and a half since the United States experienced a nationwide revival, and the Modernist / Fundamentalist controversy of the 1920's and '30's left Evangelicalism orthodox but spiritually dead and powerless. "Standing for the truth" had come to take the place of practicing the truth, of actually knowing Christ in a personal way. Today we largely have "a form of godliness but deny its power" (II Tim. 3:5). Perhaps nowhere is the spiritual bankruptcy of the modern church seen more clearly than in the demise of the midweek prayer meeting. A lack of interest in prayer betrays a lack of interest in God Himself, and yet tragically this is precisely the situation today in church after church.
    Christians are concerned about trends in society today, and rightly so. Yet we will not make the impact on society we want until we first take stock of ourselves. We think we are "wealthy, and have need of nothing," yet, like the lukewarm church of Laodicea we are in fact "wretched, miserable, poor, blind, and naked. . ." (Rev. 3:17). Jesus stands (outside!) of the door of this church, and knocks. He waits for someone to hear His voice and open the door, so that He can come inside and dine with us (vs. 20). Let us open the door now, and restore our Savior to His rightful place within our hearts.
Adapted from Chapter 1 of The Road to Heaven: A Practical Guide to the Faith of Our Fathers, © 2004, by Robert W. Wheeler      

You might also want to read:
The Church Needs God