Entries Tagged 'Issues' ↓

I recently preached a message on the subject of ‘Godliness and Dignity’ based on the two terms found in 1 Tim 2.2. The more I consider the subject, the more important I think it is. The concept seems to be disappearing in the collective mind of the modern church.

What is godliness?

Godliness is a manner of life dominated by reverence for God that is displayed in a respect for other men that is visible to outside observers.

The word translated ‘godliness’ in the New Testament is eusebeia. According to Kittel, the root ‘seb-’ has the idea of ‘shrinking back’ or ‘falling back from’. With the prefix ‘eu-’ we could call it the ‘good shrinking back’. It is good because the term eusebeia speaks often of a proper attitude to the gods – piety – which is reflected in one’s conduct to men. Perjury, for example, is not godly. Caring for a dying father is godly. This conduct reflects an attitude of reverence towards deity and respect towards men.

In the New Testament, the term is occurs mostly in the pastoral epistles where its meaning is very parallel to Greek usage. It refers to conduct in relation to God, conduct that is no ascetic constraint but is positive expression of faith in the new life that now is and the life that is yet to come (1 Tim 4.7-8). This conduct is displayed by care of widowed mothers because such conduct pleases God (1 Tim 5.4). It is a life that is motivated by the Lord’s return, a life lived with ‘eternity in view’, since the things of this life are to be destroyed (2 Pt 3.10-11).

Godliness isn’t just private piety – it is visible piety. The gospel of grace teaches us that we are to live it out in this present world, before witnesses (Titus 2.11-12). It is to mark out the man of God, who, in contrast to the deceivers who trouble the church, is to pursue godliness rather than riches, content with his reward in heaven rather than profit on earth (1 Tim 6.1-12). It is that life to which God has provided the things pertaining to its essence and its conduct through the full knowledge of who called us by his own glory and excellence (2 Pt 1.3). God is excellent, the believer is called to excellence in this life.

In 1 Tim 2.2, the term is connected with the term ‘dignity’ (translated ‘honour’ in the KJV). Godliness speaks to the conduct of one’s life before God; dignity speaks to the quality of that life by virtue of a transformed inner man.

Godliness is given lip service today. For many people, if considered at all, it seems to simply mean, “having the right theology.” In the ancient world, some thought godliness merely meant keeping the rituals of religion, whether it be the Law of the Jews or the cultic practices of the Greeks. I am afraid many Christians today are quite satisfied with that kind of godliness today. “Get the form right, and I am all right.”

What we are after is a heart religion that reverences God and accordingly respects men. A heart religion that is no friend of the world, but a friend of God. Can it be that Christians who embrace the world and its ways are also friends of God? Are they godly?

It may be that godly Christians will come to differing applications on some specific matters of conduct, but the life of every godly Christian will be headed in the same direction: with fear toward God and respect towards men that outside observers can see – and will not confuse with worldliness.

Godliness is a manner of life dominated by reverence for God that is displayed in a respect for other men that is visible to outside observers.

I’d like to comment on myself this time. In my post on ‘the vision thing’, I made this comment:

Another complicating factor in making these comparisons is that the ‘competing’ ministries are represented by ministries strongly identified with a popular individual on the conservative evangelical side as opposed to more institutional or group oriented ministries/organizations on the fundamentalist side.

Others have noticed this difference also. The Conservative Evangelical brand is largely led by ministries centered around prominent individuals. The Fundamentalist brand, these days, really has no star power in its leaders and it tends to find whatever leadership it has in collective efforts, rather than in individual ministries.

That is a generalization, of course. There are, I suppose, some exceptions to the rule, but I think the generalization holds.

For example, when you think Conservative Evangelical, you think of a list of names: Dever, Piper, Mahaney, Mohler, MacArthur, etc. Some of these men represent institutions and work closely with a number of other men, but there is a sense that they are the focal point of the brand.

On the other hand, when you think Fundamentalism, what comes to mind? Bob Jones University, the Fundamental Baptist Fellowship, Maranatha, Detroit, Central, the Wilds, etc. Of course, individuals lead these ministries and fill up their staffs, but I would suggest that even fairly well informed observers would have to think a bit to get the individual leaders of ALL of these ministries. On the CE side, if we simply named 9Marks, Desiring God, Sovereign Grace, Southern Seminary, Grace to You… most observers – regular readers of this blog – would be able to put the names to those ministries without any effort.

Isn’t that a curious difference? It wasn’t always so in Fundamentalism. And that involves both an irony and a sign of generational change.

Continue reading →

I’ve been involved in one of our interminable discussions of the state of fundamentalism on another blog. The topic of conversation shifted from the original post somewhat and one comment from a pastor in California brought up the idea of ‘vision’.

He suggests that it is easy to summarize in a few short words or a phrases the essential vision of various evangelical ministries, but questions whether that is true of fundamentalist ministries or institutions. I don’t happen to think that he is right, but he seems to think that the ‘visions’ of the evangelicals are more compelling than the lack of vision of fundamentalists.

Another complicating factor in making these comparisons is that the ‘competing’ ministries are represented by ministries strongly identified with a popular individual on the conservative evangelical side as opposed to more institutional or group oriented ministries/organizations on the fundamentalist side. In some ways we aren’t really comparing apples to apples here.

Having said that, the idea of ‘vision’ (or ‘mission statements’) leaves me cold. Too much corporate psycho-babble for me.

I wonder, however, if a few readers would like to chime in on the subject by giving us their brief ‘vision statements’ for the various ministries mentioned. Here is the list:

• 9Marks
• Ligonier
• Grace To You
• Desiring God
• BJU
• FBFI
• Sword of the Lord

I am going to post the complete post I am reacting to after the jump, so I would suggest that it would be best if you write out your vision/mission statements first, without looking at the post or other comments. Then click through to my comments section and post your reaction.

We can discuss various other aspects of this post as well, but let’s start with how well we can define these ministries without looking up their mission statements on their web-sites or doing any research about them. If you aren’t that familiar with a ministry, ‘I don’t know’ is an acceptable response.

More below…

Continue reading →

A few days ago I was incapacitated while comments on an earlier post piled up. I’d like to respond to each one individually in the order in which they were received, so I thought I would do it in a post. I’ll close the comments on the original post and all subsequent comments (if any) can be posted here.

Continue reading →

I’ve observed a phenomenon in the erstwhile fundamentalist blogosphere. It’s called the game of pin the tail on the fundamentalist. It’s played this way:

1. Everybody plays with their eyes open (the better to seem sincere and disingenuous).
2. The root philosophy of fundamentalism is described as having been taught to the player at some point in his training (whether accurately stated or no, it makes no difference).
3. An error of some fundamentalist(s) is shown to contradict the root philosophy of fundamentalism, as described.
4. Fundamentalists and fundamentalism is branded as being hypocritical and inconsistent.
5. A cacophony of ‘Amens’ and ‘Spot Ons’ follow in the blogosphere, the voices of an aggrieved multitude, citing this cause as being responsible for turning off and turning away a cast of thousands.
6. A comparison is sometimes made of evangelicals who don’t share that particular error, sung to the sound of the background chorus, ‘O, to be like thee’.
7. All thus ‘pinned’ fundamentalists are expected to hang their heads in collective shame, resolving to be henceforward more like the sainted evangelicals whose errors are few and heights of God-centeredness are sublime.

The game is on right now at a blog post near you.

Continue reading →

Consider the word ‘conservative’. What does it mean?

Let’s try Dictionary.com

Continue reading →

Peter Masters has a little booklet called Stand for Truth. It is a good presentation of the basic arguments for the separatist point of view, first published in 1983, revised in 1996 and reprinted in 2009. I think it is worth your while.

Masters argues for secondary separation (he embraces the term) with the following points:

1. Non-separators deal a terrible blow to the exclusive nature of the gospel.
2. Non-separators help the devil to achieve one of his main objectives – to cause such confusion that the world no longer sees a distinctive, biblical Christian community standing clearly apart from Catholic and liberal error.
3. Non-separators lower the guard of the people of God, exposing them to further infiltration by false believers and false doctrine.
4. Non-separators encourage false teachers in their infidelity and sin, and so strengthen them in their work.

Scriptures cited in this section are 2 Jn 11, 2 Th 3.6, 14-15 with 2 Chr 18.3, 2 Chr 19.2 and Rev 18.4-5 added as illustrations.

The booklet is 36 pages long and sums up the doctrine of separation quite nicely. Masters deals with ten common objections at the end of the booklet.

I recommend it to you. We have ordered a number of copies for our church people.

A recent series of articles deals with the problem of error creeping into the church. First, an overview of ancient heresies is offered. Second, a modern error by an other-wise well-respected Bible teacher, Henry Morris, is highlighted. And third, an error by M. R. DeHaan with respect to the nature of Christ’s blood is exposed, with this comment:

Sadly, DeHaan’s views have had wide circulation among fundamentalists for the past five decades. Whatever one may believe about the present location of the blood of Christ, there can be no biblical retreat from the fact that Jesus’ blood was human blood.

One might suspect that the series of articles was written so that this statement could be uttered, but that might be seen as too cynical.

In any case, it is true that it seems very easy to slip into error when it comes to the person of Christ. These errors seem to come when, in our zeal to defend one area of biblical truth, we overstate the case and make an error in another area of biblical truth. And sometimes such errors come when, in our zeal for rhetorical flourish, we indulge too much in the speculative nature of things about which the Bible is silent. It seems that we would be safest by simply affirming ONLY what the Bible affirms and leaving speculation entirely aside.

For example, consider the following statement from the articles pointing out errors. Do you see anything wrong with it? Do any aspects of it make you a little uncomfortable?

Continue reading →

Jesus said, “for the children of this world are in their generation wiser than the children of light.” (Lk 16.8)

An article by an admitted drinker demonstrates how often this is true. He asks and answers my question this way:

Why drink?

Oh, I know the stock answers as well as anyone. Because of the taste. Because of the camaraderie it encourages. Because it helps me relax. All of which are true, up to a point, and all of which bring to mind government ads of young, attractive twenty-somethings responsibly enjoying a single glass of wine over a candle-lit dinner (rather than binge-drinking, which is what they normally do).

The truth, in my experience, can be more ragged and dark. We drink because at the end of the day we feel like we have a wolverine sitting on our chests and a drink is the only thing that helps us breathe. We drink because our jobs suck. We drink because we want to be someone else. We drink to feel attractive. We drink because we sometimes feel the need to be bad. We drink because we fear the future. We drink because the world is sobering enough as it is.

Why is it that Christians who drink want to claim the fairy-tale view of the wine ads?

By the way, if you read the whole article, you will see that the author is no supporter of my views. He is arguing against further taxation of alcohol in our province, saying that increasing costs are very unlikely to have any effect on reducing problem drinking. I tend to agree with him on that conclusion, but I don’t have any problem sticking it to the drinkers.

I’m a little late to the party, but it seems to me that so far one point is missing from all the discussion of the manhattan declaration.

The fundamentalist reaction, all over the place, is to note that the declaration is a serious compromise of the gospel by its declaration that all signers are Christians. I’ll not repeat all of the analysis on this point, you can find that elsewhere.

The evangelical reaction is mixed. Some fairly conservative names have signed the document while others have notably and publicly made their opposition clear. Al Mohler is a prominent conservative signatory while John MacArthur is a prominent non-signatory.

Dave Doran comments in one of his blogs on the subject:

Thankfully, to this point Dr. Mohler has kept a theological edge that has prevented him from fully embracing the ecumenical path of men like Timothy George and Chuck Colson. I hope he never loses that edge. Well, truth be told, I really hope he slides closer to John MacArthur’s position.

This quotation contains all the elements of the one point I’d like to highlight and poses a serious question for the rising neo-fundamentalists who seem to want closer ties to the conservative camp.

Continue reading →